Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Darden and Mr. Fairtlough. The jury is not present. All right. And Mr. Neufeld, you have the court's permission to wear your prescription dark glasses until your--until Lenscrafters manages to fix your glasses for you. All right. Counsel, we are here to start the final arguments for both parties. We have a number of demonstrative pieces that are going to be used by the parties, and I understand there is some objections to some of these. Mr. Neufeld. Good morning, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Good morning. Your Honor, first of all, I'm not most qualified to argue some of the boards because as you may recall, I wasn't even here for the early portion of the trial when some of those matters came to the forefront. What I would suggest we do, since we were also told by the Prosecution they have a whole series of slides that were specially prepared for summation that are not in evidence already, and we have to review those as well before the summation begins, what I would ask is for the court's indulgence to give Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Cochran just five minutes to look at the--at the timeline board and the so-called abuse board, which they could do very, very quickly, and at the same time we could look at the slide.

THE COURT: That is why we started at eight o'clock.

MR. NEUFELD: We were here, your Honor. There was some technical glitches, but one of the things we were supposed to see was their slide show. We have yet to have that screened for us. And while we are doing that--

THE COURT: We are going to take up the boards first, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

THE COURT: First one, "Evidence from the Bronco."

MR. NEUFELD: The problem we have with the boards, which are referred to as "Evidence from the Bronco," "Evidence at Rockingham" and "Evidence at Bundy," allegedly connecting Mr. Simpson to those three scenes, is that the court made a very explicit ruling early on in this case that the People cannot use the term "Match" to refer to--to draw a connection or a nexus between hair and fiber evidence and individuals. In fact, you had to instruct Miss Clark repeatedly, when she violated that rule, to refrain from using the word "Match" and stick to "Consistent with."

THE COURT: So the bottom line of your objection is that you object to the wording on the board regarding the hair and the fiber?

MR. NEUFELD: That's correct. Not regarding the blood, because the court drew the distinction there, but regarding the hair and fiber.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Although they are allowed to argue, they are not allowed to misstate the facts, and you set very strong parameters as to what the facts were with regard to hair and fiber.

THE COURT: That pertains to the "Evidence from Bundy," the "Evidence at Rockingham" and the "Evidence from Bronco" boards, all three boards?

MR. NEUFELD: That's right. There was another board which was a timeline board, and just from my initial review, and again I would need the help of Mr. Cochran and Mr. Shapiro on this, is that there is a suggestion that Kato heard three knocks between 10:51 and 10:52, whereas his testimony both on direct and cross is 10:40 to 10:45, and there is no testimony of 10:51 to 10:52 in the record and they have no business asserting facts on a board which don't exist in the record. So at least as to that statement of fact in the board we would object to this and ask that it be changed. I think also you should bear in mind, your Honor, that I believe the Prosecution has little cards and has the technical ability to make substitutions and changes, depending on your rulings this morning, because they indicated that as to another time they were going to make a change and put a card on it. But again I would like my co-counsel to just have just a two-minute opportunity to quickly look at that board as well, because there are a lot of different times on it, and I will be the first to admit that I don't have that kind of expert familiarity with every time suggested on there, and we would just like to be able to check it.

THE COURT: All right. Any response to the objections regarding the boards? Miss Clark, good morning.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, if it even needs a response. I plan to argue, as the court is aware, that Mr. Deedrick can testify to what he saw through a microscope and that can only be deemed consistent, but when we consider all of the evidence in the case we know that it is his hair and this is argument. That is the reasonable inference to be drawn. At this point I should not be confined to say it is only consistent, because I'm not just talking about Mr. Deedrick's opinion or conclusion based solely on the microscopic comparison. I will make that very clear to the jury. There is not going to be any doubt in anybody's mind and I'm not going to be saying Mr. Deedrick said it was a match. Mr. Deedrick said it was consistent. That is all he can say. When we look at all of the evidence, it is his hair. That is entirely permissible; in fact, mandatory argument on this. So I don't think the court need to hear much more from me on that. With respect to the timeline--this is the problem with having lawyers argue that haven't been here on the timeline thing. Kato said that he heard the thumps and two to three minutes later he walked out of his room. Allan Park said that he was on the phone with his boss and hung up within thirty seconds of that--of seeing Kato and the Defendant out in the yard; Kato on the side yard, the Defendant in the driveway. We have his phone cell records--cell phone records that indicate that that phone call was completed at 10:55 something. It is on the board, your Honor, in any case, so I timed it by that. We have a very, very accurate way of determining when Kato went out to the side yard and when he heard the thumps based on that. Is there anything else?

THE COURT: Those were the two objections to the boards.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Any response, Mr. Neufeld?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Judge, I believe that the Prosecutor's argument is simply that that is when parks saw the two of them, but the phone records and his testimony, both on direct and cross, is that it could have been 10:40, it could have been as late as 10:42. That is the window. They just enlarged it by ten minutes. And there is absolutely no testimony to support that. It is--the phone records even--don't--don't--aren't consistent with that. And we can pull out in ten seconds, if you want, the portions of the transcript, so it is crystal clear, but that number, 10:52, just comes out of thin air and is not supported by the facts. And I think if you just give us a minute we will pull it for you.

THE COURT: No. I recollect that there is some imprecision in the times and the only times that we have are time stamps by the phone records. I agree with you there. However, I think that the Prosecution has a rational basis to make that argument and they make that argument. If it is illogical or if it doesn't make sense to the jury, they make that argument at their peril, but since they can extrapolate, so to speak, from the testimony, I think they are entitled to make that argument. All right. The other objections will be overruled with the following modification: Miss Clark, I'm concerned that the hair and fiber, to say that it is the Defendant's hair or fiber from the Bronco, when we know that the testimony is that it is consistent with, I think a labeling should be that it is consistent with.

MS. CLARK: May I be heard on that, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. CLARK: I would understand the court's concern if it was an issue of misrepresenting to the jury what the scientific testimony was. I'm sure the court can appreciate that when everything is put together and that is the argument. These boards are a summation. These boards are not just based on Mr. Deedrick's testimony. And I will not let the jury be misled in that regard for one second. The board--the purpose of these boards is to put it all together to say when you consider everything, you know this is his hair. That is the Bronco fiber. I'm going to make it clear. I'm not going to leave any doubt in anyone's mind what Mr. Deedrick said. He could only say this, but on this board I'm asking you to consider all of the evidence and this is it, and when you put it all together you know it is his hair. And that is the purpose of closing argument, is to put it all together. So I understand the court's concern, but I can assure the court a hundred percent that the jury will not be misled by my argument. They are closing argument boards. They were not going back jury in the jury room. I'm going to tell the jury that this is based on all of the evidence, not just Mr. Deedrick, and I intend to make that very clear.

MR. NEUFELD: Judge--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I don't think the court invited Mr. Neufeld to stand.

THE COURT: No. I was still having a discussion with Miss Clark, Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Sorry.

THE COURT: I see we are in fighting moods today.

MS. CLARK: It is argument. But in any case, your Honor, the purpose of the board is to collate everything. And if I have to start fragmenting it--again, I understood for testimony, and you know, I have no--I have no disagreement with the court's concern during testimony of saying exactly what the witness was saying, but now it is argument and it is time to put it together.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, any brief response?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, your Honor. There are other boards where they refer to letters and other items of evidence that are in fact statements of the actual record in this case. This is the one instance where they have it on a board that is not an accurate statement of the record in this case. It is distortion, it is misleading, and it is a board suggesting that that is in fact the evidence and that is not the evidence. And they can modify that board, they can change the wording in it to reflect the state of the evidence, just as they have on the other boards, and it is actually disingenuous to suggest that whereas there are other boards that are accurate statements of the record, but this board I will single out and I will explain to the jury that I don't mean this to be a statement of the evidence, I just mean this to be argument, that it is misleading because it sets these boards apart from all the other boards they intend to use in their closing arguments. It just isn't fair.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. The objections will be overruled subject to modification during the course of counsel's argument, if it is not accurately argued. All right. How about the other exhibits?

MR. NEUFELD: Just a clarification.

MR. COCHRAN: I couldn't understand you.

THE COURT: I just said it. You have it real time. All right. How about the other exhibits?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: May I proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. How many do you have Mr. Fairtlough?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Approximately 30 to 35.

THE COURT: Let's see them.

(Brief pause.)

(The slides were displayed to the court.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, if you are going to have any remains displayed again, would you let me know.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, for the next slide I recommend you cut the feed.

(The slides continue being displayed to the court.)

Mr. Shapiro: Your Honor, can we have this possibly slowed down? Can you go back? We didn't get a chance to finish the last one.

THE COURT: Go back one.

(The slides continue being displayed to the court.)

THE COURT: Back.

(The slides continue being displayed to the court.)

THE COURT: Next.

(The slides continue being displayed to the court.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor, the remaining slides are photograph slides? Would you like me to run through those quickly?

THE COURT: Yes.

(The slides continue being displayed to the court.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor, for the next photo I recommend you cut the feed.

(The slides continue being displayed to the court.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Same for the next photograph, your Honor.

(The slides continue being displayed to the court.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: And the next.

(The slides continue being displayed to the court.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor, at this time that is all of the slides.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a second, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, with regard to this, the first thing I would like to point out is that the court had given orders with regard to the time that these graphics were to be displayed to us and we had people here at eight o'clock this morning. We are now seeing them at about 9:20, thereafter, so they are more than an hour and twenty minutes late. I point that out because of the fact that Mr. Harris came with our--our information regarding the clips we wanted to use and he misunderstood the time. He had them in plenty time, he always gets here at 8:30 and got here somewhere apparently between 9:00 and 10:00.

THE COURT: After 10:00.

MR. COCHRAN: I thought it was before 10:00, but this is an hour and twenty minutes. We are just now seeing these. They went through very fast and the court saw them so I won't belabor this. I want to point that out at the beginning they should be precluded, if we are going to be precluded from using our clips. It is the same thing. Theirs weren't ready; ours weren't ready. It was a misunderstanding by Mr. Harris. But the point I wanted to make was, for instance, on these boards, in looking through them very quickly, and they went very quickly, this is the problem right before argument when they do this. Talk about a Bruno Magli shoeprint and they talk about the Defendant's Bruno Maglis, I believe at one point. There is no showing that Mr. Simpson purchased or bought any Bruno Maglis in this case. They have something on there, the Defendant did not go to his children. His children were brought to him. I mean, you know, this is the most misleading kind of argument. If they want to use this, many of these things they are using at their own peril, I am warning them, they are using at their own peril. But the Defendant did not to go his children. This photograph--I don't know the point of this photograph, this kind of time sequence photograph, kind of in a map or a puzzle kind of fashion of Mr. Simpson. This idea of rejection by Paula, there is no evidence of rejection by Paula. There is testimony that Paula was at the mirage being paid for by Michael Bolton. There is no rejection by Paula. Using Kato to set up an alibi. This is just specious. In this they use at one point the term "Consistent with," which is what you said they could do. That further stands up and highlights when she says it is the Defendant's hair. The jury is not going to fall for this. Riske never testified here in uniform. What they are doing, first of all, an hour and twenty minutes late beyond your order, they are misleading and we need actually more time to actually look at these to see. Just jotting down as we went through that very very quickly. And it seems to me it is totally unfair and contrary to the spirit of what you were talking about. I contrast that with the video clips. The video clips, your Honor, are exactly what happened in this courtroom.

THE COURT: I'm not listening to that argument, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Still the same thing. Well, then they get precluded from that then if you are not listening to that argument. The same thing in fairness and equal playing field. These things get precluded. They weren't here on time. And now we are faced with the situation you don't want to hear the argument regarding Mr. Harris yesterday, then it seems to me this should be precluded, clearly. You said eight o'clock. It was clear.

THE COURT: Any other objections?

MR. COCHRAN: It is really difficult, your Honor, when we saw them so fast for the first time. I need a little more time with them, quite frankly. That is all I was able to jot down as we looked for them together for the first time an hour and twenty minutes late.

THE COURT: All right. Why weren't these things here at eight o'clock?

MS. CLARK: They were. They were. Jonathan was here. He was here with all of the clips and the slide. They weren't ready. They were here and we were ready to go. That is the answer. That is the answer. They don't have an excuse for this one. We when here and we were ready; they were not. That is it. With respect to the points on the slides, however, your Honor, I have never had to preview my closing argument in any trial in my life. Those points on the slides are my argument.

Now, unless Defense counsel is going to be fair about this and give me their closing argument, I will review it and I will tell Mr. Cochran what I think is fair for him to argue, too. As he says, the jury is, quote-unquote, not going to fall for that, then he shouldn't be concerned. The jury won't fall for that. I think that the jury is not going to fall for their stuff. I think the jury is going to fall for reason and logic and that is what this is. But I don't have to make this argument now. The court is aware of these arguments. But those points up there are reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. If the jury doesn't agree, if the jury thinks they are unreasonable inferences, the jury knows what to do and they will do it.

THE COURT: What about the in the "Triggering events board" that you have there, rejection by Paula Barbieri. Where is the basis for that?

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. During the day--he will just trace it from the afternoon. Based on the Defendant's cell phone records, we have a phone call to Nicole at 2:30 in the afternoon lasting for four minutes. Immediately after that phone call we have two calls to Paula Barbieri which were unanswered. As you recall, we had testimony from Kathleen Delaney, I think is the last name, general counsel for the mirage, and she testified to the fact that Paula had checked--had made--no, checked into the mirage on June the 12th at 1:59 p.m. So at the time that the Defendant was trying to call her she was already at--in Las Vegas at the mirage a guest of Michael Bolton. We also know that earlier in the morning, or the previous day, Paula had asked to go to the recital with him and he had told her no, that he was going to keep it a family event. We have our theory about what he intended in telling Paula not to be at the recital, which we intend to argue at the appropriate time. In any case, when he showed up at the recital he was clearly, as the witnesses have testified, in a very unusual mood, glowering, spaced out, as Candace put it, simmering.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: I am reminded that whatever transpired in the phone call with Nicole at 2:30 in the afternoon clearly had something to do with that mood. In addition to the fact that when he went to the recital and the Mezzaluna date was made, he was not included and he had already told Paula not to come to the recital, so essentially--then he tries to reach Paula again later that night at 10:03, calling her twice when he was in the Bronco. Couldn't reach her at those times either. She was not home. So we know she was in Las Vegas. And I think that was the final--the last straw for him. He was abandoned by Nicole. He was abandoned by Paula and that is why we are here.

THE COURT: How about the Bruno Magli indication that this was his shoe?

MS. CLARK: Which--one--

THE COURT: One of the boards indicates the Bruno Magli shoe was the Defendant's.

MS. CLARK: Can we pull it up again so I can see, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: Let me see the next one.

MS. CLARK: Is that--that is what you meant, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MS. CLARK: Next one.

THE COURT: I think the one that has--

MR. COCHRAN: Bruno Magli shoeprint and the Bronco.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you know which one?

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: That one.

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. It says "Bloody Bruno Magli shoeprint on driver's side carpet."

MS. CLARK: Yes. Mr. Bodziak testified that there were characteristics in the print on the carpet that were consistent with the Bruno Magli shoeprint. Would you like me to pull up the testimony?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Judge just as a statement of fact.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Cochran is arguing this, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: The only reason, he wasn't here earlier this morning and I thought I could give the court a--

THE COURT: Counsel, that was an indication to sit down.

MS. CLARK: We are typing up the request right now, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, what time did you have this laser disk here?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I had the laser disk here at eight o'clock. I did a bar code check to make sure everything was correct. Two or three of my bar codes were off so I went back up to reprint so I could show them in the correct order. At that point I came down I believe about--it was a little bit around nine o'clock.

THE COURT: When was that thing actually prepared?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I finished it up last night, your Honor, at about four o'clock in the morning. I was still dropping slides to laser at three o'clock last night and I was in the office bar coding until about four o'clock.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond, your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm waiting for the testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: Oh.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, it is going to take a few minutes. Is there anything else you would like me to respond to?

THE COURT: That is the only two issues I've heard raised.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Wooden, are we close to finding this?

MR. WOODEN: We don't have a response yet, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, it is going to take a few minutes to get this. Is there anything else we can handle? Or I won't get to that part of my argument for a while, so we can start and then I can make sure I get that to the court before we get to that point. It is going to be about ten minutes.

THE COURT: Why is that?

MS. CLARK: Because--

MR. WOODEN: They have to pull the testimony off the system up there and then bring it down to the court.

MR. COCHRAN: We can tell you what he said. We have it. That is why they are never going to find it. They will be ten minutes and ten hours. They will not find it.

MS. CLARK: If they have it, let's see it.

THE COURT: Do you have it?

MR. COCHRAN: We will pull it up in just a minute. We know what he said. He did not say they were Bruno Maglis.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. COCHRAN: Can we read this to your Honor?

THE COURT: Please.

MS. CLARK: May I watch?

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, I think that it was 32751 and I will just try to read this--32751--50. Okay. "I could get--I could get any of the features in this enhanced impression to correspond to the Silga sole such as I had with the other comparisons that I made and I was not able to take an overlay and actually reconstruct the exact position of that shoe to the point where I could say it was absolutely the Silga design and even go further and say it was the same. There just wasn't enough detail. And of course it is not representing the normal design of the case, but it is just wherever there happens to be some blood up in the grooves and wherever the carpet had to go up just randomly whip down the--so this would be in the negative area--in the negative areas of the shoes or the areas in the grooves so to speak."

MS. CLARK: Your Honor--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, they would never find it and it took ten seconds and they can't say that and they are still playing games, your Honor, talking about they couldn't find it. We found it right away. May I respond further to you, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. Miss Clark was in the process of telling me what the transcript says.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. What the court needs to do is see the entire testimony. Counsel has only read, of course, a small snippet from an entire section of testimony. And my recollection, and I'm certain that I'm right about this, is that they--they had--he testified, as I indicated to you previously, that there were features consistent with Bruno Magli shoeprint.

MR. COCHRAN: That is not what it says.

MS. CLARK: That is what I said before, and it is in here, and I need time to find it.

MR. COCHRAN: Shoeprint, your Honor. Bruno Magli shoeprint.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor, may I have permission to place a patch on the board?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Let me just give the court an indication. Counsel left off at the portion where he read, "Or the areas in the grooves so to speak," and then the testimony was: "Yeah, I did notice that there was this area here which could possibly have been a border of a shoe and there also is some little what I call squiggles or little `s' shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear number or reliable enough to make any kind of a positive determination."

And then: "Can you point out the areas? Now, the upshot--there is no more testimony on this, but the upshot of the testimony was--okay. He is referring to the actual carpet and he said: "Okay. This area here was the area that I referred to that might be the border of the shoe and this area down here where it changes direction kind of like an `s" is an example of that possible--the negative area of the shoe." And then: "Can you take the rubber shoe," and that was the exemplar that he had, your Honor, "And describe for us how it is that that is possibly consistent with the sole of the Silga?

"Yes. Well, the--I don't know how well this can be seen with the light, but the--if you follow the grooves between the design element, they change direction, so there is gentle curves between those design elements and that would be the area that would be--still might be some blood in it at that point back down the driveway that far from the actual crime scene, and these little changes of directions that you can see down here, as well as this border and you really can't see any of them clear enough to make an overlay, but you can see something that suggests that, but there is just not enough detail to absolutely say that that is representative of the Silga sole.

"Okay. Were you going to point out a couple of other of these design elements that were consistent with these--this sole? "No, I think that these--these in here probably show it as well as any, and actually there is--there isn't enough clarity throughout this whole thing to really point to it and say positive that is what it represents, but rather you are seeing a change in direction and that is what you would expect if there was some blood here and the carpet tufted up."

THE COURT: Miss Clark, when do you anticipate--

MS. CLARK: But there is also--

THE COURT: When do you anticipate getting to this exhibit or this demonstration slide?

MS. CLARK: Let me see.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Not for a while, your Honor. That is why--you know, we can--I mean, I think the testimony does clearly indicate he is saying it is consistent. He is not making a positive determination because there is not enough clarity for him to absolutely positively say it is a Bruno Magli. We are making inferences, your Honor, because we have Bruno Magli shoeprints going down the walkway and a bloody shoeprint with features like it on the driver's side of the carpet. I think it is only a reasonable inference that it is the Bruno Magli shoe. It is not only a reasonable inference, it is an obvious inference, so what he said was it was consistent with but he would not make a positive determination.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond now, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Two issues, Mr. Cochran: Specifically responding to the two objections that you made, the triggering events issue and the Bruno Magli issue that we just finished discussing, and the second issue being an opportunity to see all of these.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Let me take the second issue first. The court asked Miss Clark when we she would get to this in her argument. She will never get to this in her argument. The exact same thing. This court has prided itself on being fair to both sides, trying to be fair to both sides. Yesterday you precluded us from something that everybody knows about because it is something that happened during the courtroom and we were only to give actually the--the text passages, the quotes, not even--not even view and show and tell, which we are prepared to do, which we worked all night to do. And in this instance what Mr. Neufeld was trying to tell your Honor is that at ten minutes to 9:00 he spoke to you and told you they had not shown him this show and tell at that point. Mr. Fairtlough was not back down here. It didn't work at that point. There was a glitch. So as we said, an hour and twenty minutes after your order, so under that--under that reasoning, I mean, this is a real easy one, they are precluded from doing this. If we take those kind of positions, it has to be for both sides, not just for the Defense.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Cochran, on the 22nd, late in the day, Miss Chapman asked for an extension.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: I said yes until 9:00 A.m.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. 9:00 a.m. Came and went. Nobody showed up. At which point at 9:30 I issued that order.

MR. COCHRAN: May I be heard on that?

THE COURT: So there were two chances, two opportunities.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor--it is something that is important. We asked for the--let's make clear what we are talking about here. What you had asked us to do was to provide by nine o'clock yesterday with a list of the items we wanted to use, not even the item because that takes an awful lot of work. Mr. Harris understood. Mr. Harris is always here by 8:30. Certainly Mr. Harris didn't do that intentionally, he would never do that. He is always here everyday. He has been here from Florida for a year and a half and certainly he would be here on time.

But the point is this, your Honor, if I might just say this, if you will allow me. Mr. Harris not getting here or being half hour, an hour late on just the actual quotes, that should not inure to the detriment of O.J. Simpson. That is unfair. And so what should happen--if you want to sanction Mr. Harris or sanction us, then do that, but not Mr. Simpson. Now, let's put it in perspective here. The reason--this is far different. This is actual text that we need to see so the jury, the fourteen people back there, don't have to spend this time. You said eight o'clock. We had people here at eight o'clock. They weren't ready at eight o'clock. Miss Clark has been caught. They weren't ready at eight o'clock. At 9:20 they were ready just like she makes this statement here about the bloody Bruno Magli shoeprint. You know, sometimes we have to have some credibility in this courtroom. So those are the facts, your Honor, so I know you said you didn't want to hear this, but you are a wise man and you have been fair in the past. If you look at this, how can we look at O.J. Simpson and say because Howard Harris didn't get a text down here that everybody knows what these clips are, it is actually the trial testimony, that O.J. Simpson should suffer from that? Mr. Harris is very sorry about that. If he got a chance to talk to you about it, that is--that is just not fair, your Honor, under the circumstances. Now we have a situation here where they come down, they don't come at eight o'clock. Neufeld tells you at ten of 9:00 we haven't seen it. At nine o'clock when he comes back we still don't see it. We have to ask to see it. And it is 9:20, and you can now see why we don't get a chance to see it, because it has all these things on it. That moves to the other point you asked me to discuss, the bloody Bruno Magli shoeprint on driver's side carpet. Judge, she can argue all she wants. The evidence does not show that. That is a lie. That is--the evidence doesn't show that. She can talk about reasonable inferences, what she would like to hope, but this just shows the desperation of the Prosecution at this eleventh hour, they would try these tricks. And they are tricks, Judge. These are nothing but tricks. It is not going to work. But I don't think we can even be part of this at this eleventh hour, so to be fair, this has to be precluded. This has to be kept out because they didn't have it here at nine o'clock. We didn't get a chance to see it. We are prejudiced by this. Even as we are arguing now there are other things that went by so fast--I'm not totally clear on all the things that were there. I happened to pick up bloody Bruno Magli shoeprint because I knew that wasn't true. But the other thing that I think you allowed me to talk about was the whole issue of Paula Barbieri. I mean, that is the rankest kind of speculation. Paula Barbieri stands by this man's side to this day. There was no indication there was ever any rejection. In fact, quite the contrary. They had made plans for later that week and there is evidence that is totally supportive and the testimony I think of the young lady, Carol Connor, on the Saturday night, June 11, when O.J. Simpson takes the pictures with the elderly women at the $25,000 plate dinner. They were absolutely lovey-dovey on Friday until Paula went to a prayer meeting. It is all to the contrary. You know, this is their fantasy, their whole case. We should have known when the Shipp thing came up. This is all about their dreams. It is not going to work, Judge, so we can't be part of that. This is unfair.

So it seems to me they are precluded. We are not saying--I would ask your Honor to consider--but under your ruling yesterday they are precluded, quite simply. It wasn't shown. And this is far more different than just telling us generally what we expected to show in clips, things that you've already seen during the course of this trial. May I have a second, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: And I am reminded by my colleague there is a far difference. Yesterday what we were going to give you was the page and line number and things we wanted to show and you also made it very clear and that is why you see Mr. John Whitney here, we could not show the face of, say, the Defendant or the lawyer asking the questions, so in going through all this we had to back all that out and that took a lot of work. There was no prejudice to them, and I trust not to your Honor, because it is a question of what had happened in this courtroom. We are talking about a search for truth. This is a lawyer's interpretation of what they would have hoped the evidence would be. There is much more prejudice to us an hour and twenty minutes later when she is about to stand up and argue for them to show us this in this rapid fire manner. We are talking about prejudice and it is prejudice to Mr. O.J. Simpson, your Honor, and so that I would say to your Honor two things: These should be precluded.

THE COURT: All right. What is the People's position on the videotape issue?

MS. CLARK: May I add another page to the Bruno Magli issue, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. I'm not interested.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: I've heard enough on that.

MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a second on that?

MS. CLARK: There is a final conclusion that he makes on that.

THE COURT: I recollect, counsel. I have my notes.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. On the videos, I thought the court ruled.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran is arguing a sophisticated version of tit for tat.

MS. CLARK: That we be precluded from my argument?

THE COURT: Yup.

MS. CLARK: I don't see that that is tit for tat, your Honor. They wanted to use--the court made a very specific ruling. The court did not say counsel is required to submit their closing argument to the opposing counsel for editing ahead of time. The court ruled that if we wanted to use video clips they had to be--I thought it was just the Defense, but that if video clips were to be used by the Defense, they had to be submitted by the court by a time certain, and if they weren't, they wouldn't be allowed. That is a little different than what I'm allowed to argue to the jury. And we are talking substance here, because although there are the words that I intend to argue, we are not talking about a slide, you know involving a picture of something. We are not talking about videotape. Because the use of videotapes in argument is a very novel thing. So understandably the court was concerned that it be allowed to preview what counsel wanted to use, because it is an avant-garde kind of thing to do. I don't know if it has ever been done before. And the court needed to assure itself that what was done was appropriate ahead of time. But arguing reasonable inferences from the record is something that has been done for hundreds of years, your Honor. I'm doing nothing different. That is all, I'm doing is making it easier for the jury to see, just like we did in the old days and we have an easel and we get up there and write all the reasons why the Defendant was guilty. Now we have this whiz-bang stuff and I can do it on screen. That is the only difference. I have a witness that says it is consistent with this but I can't positively say. I draw reasonable inferences based on all the evidence and tell the jury, but we know it is. Is that something different and possible or something he does? I'm not doing anything different. I'm just using a screen instead of an easel to do what we have been doing for a hundred years. This is not tit for tat, your Honor. Counsel is so scared he is saying don't let her argue. Don't let her draw reasonable inferences. Don't let her put before the jury. I'm drawing inferences from the evidence and I am arguing the evidence. He wanted to use something novel that the court wanted to safeguard. I understand that. Mr. Fairtlough was down here at eight o'clock. Cheri Lewis was down here at eight o'clock. They weren't ready. They were looking at the boards. Peter Neufeld had broken his glasses. They weren't ready to see anything. We were here.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, that is contrary to what Mr. Fairtlough has just said, your Honor, and Miss Clark--

MS. CLARK: He went back upstairs to fix a few bar codes, but if they had been ready to sit here and watch it at eight o'clock, we would have shown them.

MR. COCHRAN: These are officers the court.

MS. CLARK: Let me finish.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Argument is over. I've heard enough. Thank you very much. It has been entertaining as usual. All right. The Defense is entitled to see these, since they are going to be used during the course of argument, prior to their use. We will take a 20-minute recess to allow that to happen.

Mr. Fairtlough was in fact here this morning at 8:05, because I did come down and see him seated back there and he was playing with bar codes. We did look at the charts that were physically here and I did use members of my staff to go down and get crazy glue for Mr. Neufeld to fix his glasses and that was what was occupying us for the most part. Previous ruling stands regarding videotapes. The court finds that as far as the argument is concerned, there are inferences. What a Prosecutor is allowed to do is to discuss the evidence and then draw reasonable or plausible inferences from that. I agree that perhaps some of these may not be logical, but it is argument.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that is videotape on both sides, your Honor?

THE COURT: Videotapes on both sides is precluded.

MR. COCHRAN: May I say one last thing in that regard?

THE COURT: No. That is the end of that argument. All right. We will take twenty minutes. Show them the exhibits.

MR. COCHRAN: If we have objections, do we bring those to your Honor's attention?

THE COURT: Counsel, it is argument. I have seen them all. Show them. All right. Twenty minutes.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Have you had an opportunity to preview?

MR. COCHRAN: We are still doing it, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, could I just have you take a look at this one?

THE COURT: Have you finished looking at them? That is my question.

MR. COCHRAN: No, I have not. I have not.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Zip through that one, Mr. Harris.

(The slides were displayed to court and counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, any specific objections?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, your Honor, in view of the court's earlier ruling about argument, from just looking at them, I would just like to make a general objection if I might. These slides are totally misleading. We have--there is a whole list of things. I won't even bother the court's time. They are totally misleading. And to allow this jury to hear this just shows the Prosecution's desperation, but we could point out chapter and verse, but it is not going to do any good, so I thought that I would just register a general objection because I think it is totally outrageous. The other thing I would like to point out to the court is that we have some graphics which are not precluded and of course we have evidence that--items that are evidence which we can still show during the course of the trial. Because of the fact that they weren't ready this morning, they have not seen ours, so I'm going to ask to do that before we start our case, plus we will obviously now be responding to these lies on the board and tell this jury some measure of truth. Am I correct that we can do that?

THE COURT: As I noted, one uses these things at one's peril.

MR. COCHRAN: You did say that, your Honor, and I would like before counsel--before we begin our case to--if the court wants us to preview it or not, but we are ready. If they want to deal with this now--you have noted my objection. Let's get it on.

THE COURT: Noted.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: If I could just indicate that they have shown us one board, the thermometer involving reasonable doubt, that standard. I just want to lodge that objection now. We can argue that before the Defense gets to argument.

THE COURT: We will get there. All right. Deputy Trower, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may we approach just for a second? May we approach on one thing?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Darden.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: My apologies to you for the late start, but we had some matters to get out of the way before we actually started the argument with the attorneys; however, we are now ready to commence. We are at that stage where the attorneys will have the opportunity to argue to you. And I should let you know that previously I had contemplated placing a time limit on the lawyers in their arguments. Some of the factors that I considered in whether or not I should place a time limit on them was the quantity of the evidence that was produced, the conflicts in the testimony, and the complexity of the issues that you will have to resolve. And after considering the length of the case and the nature of the evidence, I have decided not to place a time limit on the argument of the attorneys. However, I have placed upon each side a limit of no more than two attorneys may argue to you for this part of the trial. Now, the purpose of the argument by the attorneys is to discuss with you the facts and the evidence that have been presented to you, to discuss the law that I instructed you on earlier. And the attorneys may advance theories based upon the evidence and they may urge conclusions that are fairly drawn from that evidence. However, during the course of their arguments please remember my previous admonition to you, that the comments and argument made to you by the attorneys are not evidence. All right. Having said that, Miss Clark, on behalf of the People, are the Prosecution prepared to proceed with their opening argument?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, we are.

THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you very much.

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MS. CLARK: Finally. I feel like it is has been forever since I talked to you. It kind of has. It is very weird being in the courtroom sitting next to you everyday not getting a chance to talk to you. It is very unnatural. I have to tell you as long as I've been doing this, as many years as I've been doing this, at this moment in the trial I always feel the same. I feel like I want to sit down with you say, "And what do you want to talk about?"

THE COURT: Excuse me, Miss Clark. Juror 165 needs a pen.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. I want to sit down and talk to you and tell you, "What do you want to know? What do you want to talk about?" Because that way I don't have to talk about stuff you don't want to hear, stuff that you don't want explained, stuff that you are not interested in, and I can't, and I always have a sense of frustration. So I'm sorry if I say things that you don't need to hear or I explain things that are already clear to you. Please bear with me because I am not a mind reader and I don't know. First I want to take the opportunity to thank you and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have been through so much. You have made a tremendous sacrifice. You haven't seen your children enough, you haven't seen your family enough, you haven't seen your loved ones enough, and all of this in the name of justice and the service of justice. Your dedication and your selflessness are truly beyond the pale. No one can say that any jury has sacrificed more for the cause of justice than you have, and I want you to know sincerely from my heart I appreciate it. I speak on behalf, I know, of the--of the People of the state of California. This was a tremendous sacrifice. Your selflessness and your devotion will long be remembered by many, and thank you. I think no one can understand how great their sacrifice has been, how terrible the pressure has been, how awful it must be for you to have your lives kind of out of control this way at the mercy of us taking longer than we should have and you having to put your lives aside for longer than you should have had to. I'm sorry for that. I apologize for that. There is only one bright side. Two bright sides. One, it is almost over. No. 2, you have the assurance of knowing that no stone has been left unturned. The Defendant has explored every nook and cranny of the case. We have exhaustively tried to give you every piece of information that could possibly be relevant to answer the question we are here to answer. And in doing so in the exhaustive examination and cross-examination of all of the witnesses in this case and the exhaustive investigation and work that has been done, one thing is clear: This Defendant has received the ultimate in a fair trial. And at least you know that. You have that assurance. Now, in the course of presenting all of this evidence in this trial, just like every trial, some evidence has been presented to you that really is not relevant to answer the core question of who murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. And it is up to you, the jury, to weed out the distractions, weed out the side shows and determine what evidence is it that really helps me answer this question. And it is kind of like the artist, the sculptor. Somebody went to him and said how do you make an angel? Well, I take a piece of marble and I remove everything that is not an angel. That is what you have to do. It is not easy. It is going to require a lot focus and a lot of determination on your part. Because the side shows may be very interesting, they present very important issues, very serious issues, but issues that really do not relate to who committed these murders. And they should be dealt with outside this courtroom, because here now in this courtroom we are here to decide who murdered Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown. Now, you as jurors sit as judges of the evidence. You are called the trier of fact. And as such your job is to be neutral and to be impartial as you examine the testimony presented. And in this regard you are guided, just like any Judge, by the law. And the jury instructions that were read to you on Friday is the law that you will apply to the evidence to determine the answers to the question that is posed here, who murdered Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown.

The instructions discuss a wide range of topics. They talk about guidelines for the determination of credibility of witnesses, both expert and lay witnesses, and they talk about what the People are required to prove to establish the Defendant's guilt, but they go beyond that and they also tell you the frame of mind that you should adopt when you look at all the evidence. And one of the first instructions that was read to you by the Judge on Friday, if you will recall, concerned your duties as a jury and it stated in part: "You must not be influenced by pity for a Defendant or by prejudice against him, you must not be biased against the Defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial." Of course that makes sense. It is logical. And that means that we have to present proof to you. We just don't come in and say it is so. I have to prove it to you with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so that makes sense. Now, the instruction goes on to read: "You must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. Both the People and the Defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences." In the course of this trial you have heard some testimony of a very emotional nature. I expect that during the course of argument you are going to be hearing very impassioned speeches,

Firey speeches that may stir up feelings of anger or pity. Although your feelings may be aroused, as may be natural and understandable for all of us, as the instruction tells you as the trier of fact, you, the judges, are to remain neutral and impartial and not be influenced by such passion or sentiment, no matter how sorely tempted you may be to do so. And this applies to both sides, both sides. Although the brutal and callous way in which Ron and Nicole were murdered may understandably make you feel sorry, pity, even anger, it would be wrong to find the Defendant guilty just because you felt sorry for them. On the other hand, although it would be completely understandable if you were to feel angry and disgusted with Mark Fuhrman, as we all are, still it would be wrong to find the Defendant guilty--not guilty just because of that anger and disgust. So as you listen to the arguments of counsel, please remember when you weigh the evidence and you consider all of the evidence, remember that appeal to passion and emotion is an invitation to ignore your responsibility as a juror. To be fair we must examine all of the evidence in a calm and a rational and a logical way. Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worse LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes. But the fact that Mark Fuhrman is a racist and lied about it on the witness stand does not mean that we haven't proven the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And it would be a tragedy if with such overwhelming evidence, ladies and gentlemen, as we have presented to you, you found the Defendant not guilty in spite of all that, because of the racist attitudes of one police officer. It is your duty and it would be your challenge to stay focused on the question you were brought here to answer, and the only question that you were brought here to answer, did the Defendant commit these murders? In seeking the answer to this question you look to all of the evidence presented to you by both sides now, by both the People and by the Defense, and you determine what evidence really answers that question. Because the Defense has thrown out many, many other questions. They have thrown out questions about whether LAPD has some bad police officers, does the scientific division have some sloppy criminalists, did the Coroner's office have some sloppy Coroners? And the answer to all these questions is sure, yes, they do. That is not news to you. I'm sure it wasn't a big surprise to you. But those are not--they are important issues. You know, we should look into the quality control, things should be done better, things could always be done better in every case at every time. There is no question about that. We are not here to vote on that today. The question is what the evidence that was presented to you that relates to who killed Ron and Nicole, what does that tell you? Does that convince you beyond a reasonable doubt? No matter how much more qualified or how much better they could have done their job, still and all, did they present enough evidence to you, did the evidence come to you in sufficient quantity and convincing force to convince you that the Defendant committed these murders beyond a reasonable doubt? Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that we have more than met our burden in this case. Now, the Defense has thrown out a lot of possibilities to you, the merest of possibilities, and a lot of them were just there to scare you. You heard Dr. Gerdes talk about it could be this, it could have been that. I see the validation studies, you know, kind of like reminds me of a doctor, when you have to go in for an operation, they give you all this list of things that could possibly happen to you, could possibly happen to you. Nevertheless, they have to give you that warning, right? They got to tell you that because otherwise you cannot give an informed consent and say, yes, knowing the risk, I'm going to go and do this. Now, if you really believed that all these horrible things were going to happen, no one would have an operation. You wouldn't take the risk. But you know, they have got to tell me everything no matter how remote the possibility, and indeed you go and have the operation and you are fine and none of that stuff happens. Well, in this case it is actually they have raised all the possibilities of things that could happen in an effort to scare you away from the evidence, but we have done better than you could ever do in an operation, because we have proven to you that nothing in this case did happen. We have proven to you that it was not contaminated. We have even proven to you that it was not planted, for lack of a better term. And I'm going to go through the evidence and demonstrate how we have proven that to you.

So why were these issues raised? Why were these questions raised? Well, they are all questions and issues that were raised as a distraction. They were roads raised, roads created by the Defendant to lead you away from the core truth and the issue that we are searching for the answer to, which is who murdered Ron and Nicole? But these roads, ladies and gentlemen, these are false roads. They are false roads because they lead to a dead-end. The false roads were paved with inflammatory distractions. But even after all their tireless efforts, the evidence stands strong and powerful to prove to you the Defendant's guilt. Now, I would like to show you a jury instruction that is very important. I think that both the Prosecution and the Defense will agree.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may I approach for a moment?

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Reasonable doubt. Okay. This is an instruction that we will talk to you about, they are going to talk to you about. This is a real important instruction. It is at the real heart of a case, every case, every criminal case. Because it is the burden of proof that the People have. We don't guess anybody guilty. We prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what we've done in this case. Now, to tell you about reasonable doubt, it is kind of a funny definition because it talks to you about reasonable doubt in very negative terms. It says: "That state of the evidence which, after the entire comparison, you cannot say that you have an abiding conviction."

It is very weirdly worded and it is going to take you a while to go through this, so I'm going to go through it pieces at a time to try and give you a little hand here. First of all, let me point out the first paragraph talks about the fact that it is our burden of proof. I think that one is fine. That is pretty easy. Now, it talks about how reasonable doubt is defined. This is real important. "It is not a mere possible doubt," okay, "Because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt." That is very important. It is a doubt founded in reason. I'm going to amplify more on that with examples when we talk about the actual evidence in this case, but bear that in mind, a possible doubt. I have a possible doubt that the sun will come up tomorrow. Do I have a reasonable doubt about it? No. I have no doubt founded in reason that that is going to happen, just for a very basic example, so think about that, too. We are not talking about what possible doubt is. It is reasonable doubt. Now, the other part of it: "It is that state of the case which after the entire comparison, the entire comparison and consideration of all of the evidence." Now, what that means, ladies and gentlemen, is you consider the Defense case and you consider the Prosecution case. You consider all of it. You will probably hear from the Defense, multiple times, "We don't have to prove anything." That is right. They don't. In every criminal case when the People complete their presentation, the Defense can say no witnesses, we rest, because they can sit and make the state prove their case without ever calling a witness. That's right. That's correct. But when they do, when they do, then you must consider the quality and the nature of the evidence that they have presented. That goes into the mix. That is part of your consideration. What kind of evidence did they present to demonstrate something to you? To prove something to you?

If they try to prove something to you, their witnesses, their evidence gets evaluated by the same rules ours do. The same jury instruction applies. You will see a jury instruction in your packet back there that talks about how to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, both expert and lay witnesses. There is no distinction made in that jury instruction for Defense witnesses or for People's witnesses. It is all the same. You determine their credibility and the relative convincing force of the proof in--by the same rules, okay? So that is the first thing to remember. When you look at everything, you look at all of the evidence. What have they shown you? What have we shown you? We have the burden of proof. But you look at what they have shown you when you want to consider what was proven to you. We have pieces of boards and exhibits everywhere in this courtroom. All right. Now, all I'm telling you, ladies and gentlemen, is it is a reasonable doubt and it is not possible doubt and we will come back to it again.

But at the conclusion of all of our arguments, when you open up the windows and let the cool air blow out the smokescreen that has been created by the Defense with the cool wind of reason, you will see that the Defendant has been proven guilty easily beyond a reasonable doubt. Or to put it another way: The evidence has conclusively proven that when Detective Mark Fuhrman said he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years, he lied, but it is also conclusively proven that the Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I would like to start with the evidence in this case with the timing, okay? I think that is the easiest place to start, the timing on June the 12th. Let's begin with a very brief review of the movements of Ron and Nicole, and we are going to start with the recital in the late afternoon. I'm sure you recall that recital for Sydney at Paul Revere high school. Nicole left the recital and went to the Mezzaluna near her home, along with her parents and friends and her children, Sydney and Justin, and she arrived at the Mezzaluna approximately 6:30 p.m. Ron Goldman, who was an acquaintance of hers, a waiter at the Mezzaluna, was working that night but did not wait on her table. And when Nicole and her family left between 8:30 and 9:00, they didn't know that the simple act of dropping a pair of glasses would have the tragic consequences that we all know now that it did. Now, you recall at the end of the People's case there was a stipulation that we entered into and you recall that the Judge has told that you a stipulation is to be accepted by you as an undisputed fact. And the stipulation told you the following: After leaving the Mezzaluna that night Nicole's mother called the Mezzaluna to ask about her glasses. That was at 9:37. Karen Crawford, the bartender and Sunday night manager of the Mezzaluna, took the call and went out to look for the glasses. She found them outside near where Nicole had pulled up in front of the restaurant, and at Mrs. Brown's request she put the glasses into an envelope on which she wrote--I believe she wrote "Nicole Simpson will pick up Monday." That call lasted two minutes. It was also stipulated that at 9:40 p.m. Mrs. Brown called her daughter, Nicole, and they spoke for two minutes, and in that last conversation before her death Nicole promised her mother that she would arrange to pick up the glasses.

Now, those two conversations with Nicole's mother were a matter of stipulation. That is an undisputed fact. Karen Crawford testified that at about five minutes after speaking to Nicole's mother she got a call from Nicole. That would mean Nicole called her at about 9:43. Nicole asked to speak to Ron. He took the phone, and after they--Ron spoke to her, he asked Karen for the glasses and she gave him that envelope containing the glasses. At about 9:50, ten of 10:00 that night, Ronald Goldman left the Mezzaluna restaurant. When he left he was wearing the white shirt and dark pants that were part of his waiter's uniform and that uniform was later found by his sister, Kim Goldman, in his apartment draped over the bedroom door. That uniform is here in evidence. So we know that Ron went home and changed clothes after he left the Mezzaluna at about 9:50. The other waitress in the restaurant, Tia Gavin, testified that it takes about a minute to walk from the Mezzaluna to his apartment. So even being a little generous, he got home by about 9:52, say. He changed, he freshened up, because we know he wasn't wearing that waiter's uniform when he was found, and so it would be reasonable to infer that he got to Nicole's house with the envelope sometime shortly after 10:00. And when I say sometime shortly after 10:00, we don't know exactly what time, and I'm not saying that we do, but 10:10 or so would seem a reasonable amount of time to get freshened up, changed, get over there, based on what we do know. Now, that brings me to something else that I want to point out. In the case, as in every case, there is certain evidence that is introduced that is directly proving a fact. For example, in this case, Ron Goldman left Mezzaluna at approximately 9:50. That is approximate time. It could have been a few minutes later. So we know that sometime before 10:00 he left. We know he changed clothes, okay? But the direct thing we know is that sometime shortly before 10:00 he left. We know he changed clothes because he was wearing something different when he was found. We know how long it takes for him to get home, because we have a witness telling us that, but what we don't know is exactly what time he left his house. We know he left his house in time to be murdered, and we will talk about that shortly, and in time for him to be there with the dogs barking.

We have to make inferences, okay? We have to make an inference from the evidence that we know about as to when he got to Bundy. Now, you can draw an inference that is reasonable or you can draw an inference that is unreasonable. What we are required to do here and what I must do is draw inferences, excuse me, that are reasonable. Based on what we know, when he left the Mezzaluna, changing clothes, freshening up, and I think Stewart Tanner testified that he was--they had plans to meet at the Baja Cantina, he was going to get cleaned up to go somewhere. It is reasonable then to infer that he took ten minutes or so to do that, change clothes, freshen up and then go over to Bundy. Now, the dogs--excuse me--the witnesses that testified to the dogs. As you may recall, we heard from a number of them and they were neighbors of Nicole. Now, as for the people that the Prosecution presented on this issue, all of these people were people who lived very close by. All of them were people who were home on that night and all of these were people who were not distracted by anything else going on at the time. And all of these were people who did not seek out involvement in this case. All of these were people who were found by the police during normal police procedures as they went knocking around the neighborhood doors to find out if anybody heard or saw anything. And some of these people were disturbed by the police at 2:30 in the morning, at 5:00 in the morning, and these people just were--were summoned by the police to tell what they heard, what they saw. They didn't go out looking for their 15 minutes of fame. They didn't go calling the police and running after the detectives to try and tell them they knew something important so they could be on TV and become the latest sensation. These people were called upon by the police because they were--they were there, they were near her, they were close to the condominium, they were within range where they might have seen or heard something, and so they were contacted. And so they were subpoenaed. They didn't ask to be involved. And that is a big distinction between our witnesses and the witnesses called by the Defense on this issue. Now, the significance of the barking dog is obviously that it tells us roughly when the murders occurred. Not exactly, but it is reasonable to infer again, reasonable inference, that the murders occurred either shortly before or during the time when the dog was barking. Now, the neighbors who testified to this said that they had not heard a dog barking so insistently like that before. It really drew their attention. That is why they remembered it. That is why it woke them up or disturbed them or made them concerned, made them look out their windows to see what was going on, because it was unusual. Which means that Nicole was not in the habit of letting her dog run around like that, which means that if that dog is barking like this and she is not tending to it, she is already dead. Now, what did they say? The witnesses that we presented were very consistent in this regard. I'm going to show you--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Escobar, would you just briefly display that to Defense counsel so they know which one it is we are looking at.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Timeline board. All right. Proceed. Thank you, Mr. Escobar.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And we may have a problem with the court reporter. I just had them show it to you, counsel.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Can we have a copy so we can follow?

THE COURT: Do you have a small copy of this?

MS. CLARK: I think we do.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor. We are bringing down small copies. Can counsel--

THE COURT: Why don't you proceed with your arguments at this point.

MR. SCHECK: Can we sit and watch until she gets them?

THE COURT: Let's compromise. Move it over here so we can all see it.

MS. CLARK: Move it over there.

THE COURT: Mr. Escobar, Mr. Wooden, would you move this back over to the side.

MS. CLARK: For those of you who aren't going to be able see it so well for now, we will move it back down in just a little bit.

THE COURT: All right. 1386, can you see that?

JUROR 1386: Yeah.

THE COURT: 165, can you see that?

JUROR 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. Miss Clark.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, I'm going to direct your attention down here, (Indicating), okay? The first witness that we called was named Pablo Fenjves. You may recall that he testified he was in his apartment on that night and at approximately 10:15 to 10:20 he heard the insistent barking of a dog. He called it a plaintive wail. And the nature and sound of the barking that he heard make it sound to him like it was a dog in trouble. Like something traumatic had occurred and it drew his attention, made him think about what was happening and he noticed it. He noticed it and he noticed the time because he had been watching the news, so he tied the time to that event and he testified it was between 10:15 and 10:20, approximately, that he heard that. You recall also, and you see he is right here on the timeline, Mark Storfer testified as well. Let me back up. I'm sorry. Pablo Fenjves was the one who lived behind the condominium, diagonally behind Nicole Brown, across the alley if you will recall. His windows--that he had windows that faced the alley. And at one point I think he pointed out where he was able to see and he indicated that the barking seemed to come from the location of Nicole's condo, so he lived right behind her. The other witness who testified was Mark Storfer. Mark Storfer lived down on Dorothy. That would have been just south of Nicole's condominium. Mr. Fairtlough, do we have the dog board that we had showed with the witnesses where they lived? Is that down here? I will get it. That's fine. That's fine.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: I'm going to get that board out. We used it during the presentation of the testimony. I think it really makes it a lot easier to remember the locations and figure out where people are in relation to each other, if you can see that board, and then I won't have do explain so much.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, this is People's exhibit--

MS. CLARK: People's exhibit 26, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. All right. Here, the red house here that I'm pointing to is Nicole Brown's house. This purple house right here south on Dorothy, that is Mark Storfer's house. And he testified, if you may recall, that he was just putting his little son to bed when he heard the dog barking and he was concerned and it drew his attention because he was worried that the dog was going to wake up his son, you know. I think a lot of us know what that is like. You finally get the baby to bed and then something wakes it up horrible. That is what happened to. So he was very cognizant, very aware of the fact that dog was barking and it was disturbing him. He went upstairs, and he said approximately two to three minutes after he heard the dog start to bark, went up and looked at his clock because he was concerned how late the hour was and why the barking was so loud at that late hour. He looked and he looked at his clock and it said 10:28. Now, he said they always keep their clocks five minutes fast, so his clock--this gets complicated--really said 10:23 since he heard the dog start barking two to three minutes before he looked at the clock. It was approximately 10:20 to 10:21. Now, he also lived very close. And what is important for you to know and recall about his testimony is that when the dog started barking he indicated that he looked--let's see. He indicated that he looked out his window at 10:23. A few minutes after the dog started barking he went to see what was going on and the source of the noise seemed to come from north of--of him on Bundy, which is of course the direction of Nicole's house. And when he looked out the window at 10:23 he saw no one walking down the street. That is real important. I would like to ask you to try and remember that fact. Mr. Darden will discuss how significant that is when he speaks to you later. We also heard from Eva Stein and Louis Karpf. They were the next door neighbors of Nicole Brown. This is the blue house here. They lived right next door. Now, on that night Eva Stein had gone to bed shortly before ten o'clock and at some point she indicated shortly after she fell asleep she was awakened by the loud insistent barking of a dog or she thought it might have been even more than one dog because it was so loud. She indicated that shortly after that, approximately half hour later, after she started to hear the barking dog, her boyfriend, Louis Karpf, came up and she could tell that he came home because she heard the bell, so an hour after she heard the dog barking he came home. And Louis Karpf told you he came home at 10:45, 10:50 at the latest, which means she heard the dog barking also at 10:15 to 10:20. And just to remind you, Pablo Fenjves' house is the yellow one indicated here on the board, so just across the alley behind Miss Brown's condo.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, Louis Karpf also told you something else. He told you that when he came home he went into his garage and then he went out in front to get the mail. And when he went out in front to get the mail, he saw a dog in the street and this was the time he indicated that he got home. When he got outside he saw a dog running around in the street barking insistently, a dog that he identified for you as Kato, Nicole's dog. The dog was--was prancing around in the street and acting in a very weird manner. And Mr. Karpf was a little afraid of him and went back inside. Now, Mr. Karpf also told you that he saw a man walking a dog. Steve Schwab told you that at about 10:30 he left his home and went out and took his dog for a walk. If you recall, he said that he waited to see the end of the Dick van Dyke show and then went out to walk his dog, that it was about a little after 10:00.

He told you of the route that he took walking around the neighborhood and he told you that at approximately 10:55 he saw Kato, Nicole's dog, at the corner of Dorothy and Bundy. And he told you that the dog was acting very strangely, so he went over to look at the dog, and when he did, he noticed that the dog had blood on his back paw and the blood appeared to be moist. He crossed over to the east side of Bundy where he said the lighting was better. In other words, saying to you that the side of the street that Nicole lived on was poorly lit. Now, he noticed that the dog's paws had blood on it, but he did not testify that he saw any paw prints on the sidewalk. Does that mean that they weren't there? No. It means he didn't notice them. Obviously if the dog had blood on its paw and it was--it had gone out of Nicole's home and it had walked down the sidewalk, there were paw prints there to be seen. The fact that someone doesn't see something doesn't mean it isn't there; it means they didn't see it. That is what I mean by reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Now, when he crossed over to the east side of Bundy where they had more light, the dog stayed with Steve, stayed, and they continued to walk, but as they walked, at each house that they--that there was a pathway, the dog stopped and barked looking up the pathway. This dog was acting very strangely. Obviously it had seen a very traumatic event. Whether it simply--whether it actually witnessed the murders or simply came up on the bloody aftermath, it is clear the dog saw something. Now, when Steve got home he took the dog into his courtyard and he was able to see that there was blood on the underside of the belly and there was blood on all four paws, but the dog was not injured. Now, Steve's friend, Sukru Boztepe, if you recall, he was the one found who found the bodies. Sukru agreed to take the dog from Steve for the record the night. And you recall that when he took him to his apartment the dog was acting so agitated and so nervous that he had to take it out for a walk and he decided to let it lead him, perhaps let it lead him to where he lived. And the dog did lead him. The dog pulled, the dog pulled and they went south on Bundy. The dog pulled harder and harder and they walked south on Bundy towards Nicole's home. When it got to the pathway that led up to Nicole's house, the dog stopped and it looked up the pathway and Sukru told you that had the dog not done that, he would not have looked up the pathway and he would not have seen what he saw. But as it was, he did, and because he followed that dog's gaze, he saw a sight, probably the most horrifying one ever seen in one's life or ever will see. Now, Sukru told you that when he saw Nicole Brown lying on the ground it was midnight, so we know that the murders occurred after 10:00 and before midnight. That is the window that we know we have, just based on what people observed and what people saw. Now, I would like to turn to the Defendant's activity for that night and I'm going to show you how during the time period preceding the barking, during the barking and for half an hour after the barking, the Defendant's whereabouts are unaccounted for. Let's start with Kato. Kato was a necessary witness for to us call, but he was by no means a witness who was happy to testify for the Prosecution, as you could tell. This was the Defendant's houseguest, someone who started out as Nicole's friend and border who found a better deal, certainly a cheaper deal, at the Defendant's estate.

You will recall that he met Nicole after her divorce back in 1992 in aspen and when he went to a party at her house on Gretna Green in--during 1993 or the end of 1992, he asked if could he rent the guest house on that property and she agreed. And they made an arrangement that he would pay monthly rent and reduce that monthly rent to some extent by performing baby-sitting activity for her two children. Now, he lived there with her on Gretna Green for almost a year filling in as baby-sitter for the children, a friend to her and the children as well. But when Nicole moved in January of 1994 to Bundy, there was no separate home for him to live in, no separate guest house, and the Defendant asked him not to go and move in with her and he persuaded Kato to go and live with him at Rockingham for free. That was a very good deal for Kato, and as you may recall, I even asked him how much money did that save you, you know, to stay? A place like the Defendant offered him, with the availability of the pool and the Jacuzzi, tennis court, living on that estate in kind of like a studio apartment, probably would have cost him 600 a month. What did he say? I think we wound up estimating that the total amount of money he saved staying there for free was about $6,000. He was very indebted to the Defendant. And the aspiring, but none to successful at that point, actor, Kato saw also a career-wise move that was very good for him because in the Defendant could he have a connection. Get the picture here? Logically speaking, this man is indebted to Mr. Simpson. And he was not a happy camper to be a Prosecution witness. He certainly didn't want to come in here and give testimony that might prove damaging to him. And you could tell from his demeanor, I'm sure, that he was not about to volunteer anything he didn't absolutely have to tell us, until he was cornered. I don't know whether you remember it now, it has really been a very long time, but during his testimony I brought out the fact that at the grand jury proceedings back in June of `94, I asked him whether he had ever witnessed any fights between the Defendant and Nicole, and when he was asked in front of the grand jury whether he ever remembered seeing them fight, he answered that he remembered only one. And I asked him do you remember anything about the nature of that fight? And he said no, only that it was one. Only that it was one. And then when he came into court here, ladies and gentlemen, when I asked him why he didn't bring--we asked him what he meant by that one fight that he had witnessed? That was the 1993 call to Gretna Green that you heard on tape when Nicole Brown called 911 and the Defendant was standing outside screaming, yelling obscenities at her and broke the door down and she was afraid for her life. That was the fight he was talking about when he answered to me in the grand jury, I remember one fight and I only remember that it was one. Now, when he gave that vague almost meaningless answer, no one at that time knew about the 911 tapes and so he could get away with it until that became a matter of public record and we all found out. And I couldn't confront with him that because I didn't know about it, and that is how he slid around and would have continued had it not been brought to our attention by other means. But you see, so at that time he was safe. But when he got called on it--and you realize how only that it was one and he is talking about that event--that gives you a sense of how much he wants to help Mr. Simpson. Now, although on June the 20th when he was directly asked under oath about the past relationship of violence between the Defendant and Nicole, he said almost nothing, as I have indicated to you. And when he was interviewed by Mr.--now, when he was interviewed by Mr. Shapiro six days before that, he was a lot more forthcoming. When he was interviewed by Mr. Shapiro, as I pointed out during his testimony, he brought out the 1993 Gretna Green incident, he brought out the fight at the Jenner's Christmas party in 1993. But when I asked him one week later when he was under oath in front of the grand jury, I remember only one fight, only that it was one. Very different demeanor between the time that he spoke to me in front of the grand jury and the time that he spoke to Mr. Shapiro one week earlier. And doesn't that alone tell you how reluctant a witness he was for the Prosecution and how much he identified himself and wanted to identify himself with the Defendant's side? Now, after he spoke to the police, though, this is the position he finds himself in, so you know, so you understand why he had to come here and give the testimony he did. At the time he spoke to the police in the early morning hours of June the 13th, he didn't know that what he was giving was damaging evidence against the Defendant. He only knew he heard thumps on his wall, that is all he knew, and the events that transpired that night. He knew they went out to McDonald's. He knew that that he had done all the things that I will point out later for you, but they went to McDonald's, they had a burger, they came back. He went to his guest house, Mr. Simpson stayed outside. He later heard thumps on the wall during a phone call. At that point he didn't know the significance of what he was saying and he would surely never have told the police any of those things had he known what they meant. And so the problem was that once he told the police what had happened that night, he was stuck. He couldn't go back on his word. He had given them a detailed statement. It wasn't like he had given something vague that he could slide around with. He gave a very lengthy detailed statement to the police because he was telling the truth. He didn't know any better than to tell the truth. And so when he was called back before the grand jury, at the preliminary hearing and at this trial, he had to recount that same truth and he had to tell you, he had to tell you. Now, back to the timing. Kato told us that he was on the phone with a friend when the Defendant came out to the pool area near his door. And he was able to pinpoint that phone--that time with the phone call bill that he had, because the phone call was a long distance call. Now, the call was placed at 9:03 and it lasted for seven minutes, and when he saw the Defendant come out to talk to him, he hung up the phone, so it was about ten after 9:00. I think we do. At sometime after 9:00, approximately, and just so we have 9:10 here, maybe it was 9:09, the Defendant came out to talk to Kato. This is a very, very significant conversation that they have. I'm going to come back to this a couple of times, so here is the first time. The Defendant told Kato that he had only hundred dollar bills on him and he asked Kato if he had any fives for the skycap. You may recall that. Asked him if he had fives. Kato went to look and he realized he only had twenty dollar bills, so he gave the Defendant a twenty dollar bill which the Defendant took. Then the Defendant told Kato he was going out to get something to eat. He didn't invite Kato. Kato invited himself. Now, I remember when I heard that, I thought, what is wrong with this picture? This doesn't fit. If you are going out to eat and you only have hundreds, you need change, you are going to break that hundred when you go out to eat. Why do you have to ask Kato for fives? You have only got hundreds, wherever you go, you can break it if you are going out already anyhow, so what is the point? Now, keep that thought in mind because I'm going to come back to that. That is very significant. All right. That was at about 9:10. They left immediately and they drove to McDonald's in the Defendant's Bentley. Did it strike you as odd that he would take a Bentley to a drive-through to McDonald's when he has got a Bronco? It is not like there is no other car. Now, you have seen the picture of the Defendant taken at the recital for his daughter, Sydney, earlier that night, and in this photograph he is wearing black dress slacks and like a white polo type shirt and a black--looks like a shirt to me because you can see the seams in the sleeve and a collar to it with the sleeves rolled up. But Kato told you that at the time he saw the Defendant, at approximately ten after 9:00, the Defendant was wearing a dark blue or black cotton sweat outfit that had long sleeves. So after the recital, the Defendant changed clothes. And that is important, too. I will come back to that. Kato had several occasions to notice the Defendant's hand during the drive to McDonald's and during the time that they paid and during the time they got change, and he noticed that there were no cuts on the Defendant's hands or he didn't notice any cuts on the Defendant's hands, to be more accurate, and that is actually an important distinction. You will notice, too, though, when you look at the photograph of the Defendant in the recital, you can see his left hand and you can see that as of the time of the recital when he is posing with Sydney, there is no cut on the back of the middle finger of the left hand. And that is important. Now, what is probably even more significant than Kato's lack of observation of any cuts on the Defendant's hand when they are there at the--at the drive-through lane is this: Kato wound up paying for the food with his own money. Paid for both of them. He handed the Defendant the money, the Defendant paid, the Defendant got change back and gave it to Kato. Gave it to Kato? Wasn't the whole point of talking to Kato to get change for the skycap, get fives for the skycap? Okay. Now you have another inconsistency here. First of all, he asked Kato to give him change when he is going out already. He can get it himself. Secondly, he has the opportunity to get change right there at the drive-through window, either take Kato or break the twenty that Kato gave him, and he doesn't take that opportunity. That is important, too. I will come back to it. They return to Rockingham and Kato proceeded--I wanted to indicate when they returned, during the ride home, the Defendant wolfed his food down while he was driving. Kato saved his. And I will--all of these facts are going to be tied in at the end of this presentation, so I ask for your patience. Bear with me. I want to stick with the timing right now so I don't get distracted. When they got back to Rockingham, Kato got out and he walked toward the house expecting the Defendant to follow him, but when he got to the front door, he turned and he realized, he is not here, and he saw the Defendant still standing by the Bentley watching him and he had not moved. So as Kato told you, he took the hint, turned and went to his room. Now, why didn't the Defendant just walk in the house? Or if he intended to go somewhere, why didn't he just get back in the car and go either in the Bentley or in the Bronco? Why wait for Kato to be out of sight? I will come back to that. I just want--let's think about it for a minute. Now, as soon as Kato got back to his room he called friend and fortunately the friend lived far enough away that it was a long distance call, so we have his phone bill that indicates what time it was. And he indicated that he made that call as soon as he got back to his room, so--the call was made at 9:37, so he left the Defendant's presence at 9:36, and you can see here at 9:36 the Defendant was last seen standing in the driveway. From 9:36 until 10:54 the Defendant's whereabouts were unaccounted for. So we have the beginning of our window of opportunity at 9:36. Okay. Now, I would like to remind you of some testimony you heard about the Bronco. Back up for just a minute and talk about the car. Kato said the Defendant almost always parked the Bronco on Ashford. And when I asked him when during the six months that he lived there he could remember ever seeing it parked on Rockingham, he said that he couldn't come up with any answer.

I did ask him if he had seen the Bronco either when they left the house to go to McDonald's or came back, and he indicated that he didn't notice either way, he wasn't looking for the Bronco. But there was a witness who was out on Rockingham that night. He was out walking his dog between 9:30 and 9:45. That witness was Charles Cale. He was a neighbor of the Defendant's. And when he was walking his dog--he was a neighbor of the Defendant's. He knew where the Defendant lived and I think he indicated that he had been on Mr. Simpson's property at some point. So he was walking his dog that night between 9:30 and 9:45, and as he did so, he walked down Rockingham. And he looked and he could see, I think he indicated it was sixty yards away, but he could see that from 180 feet that there was no Bronco parked on Rockingham between--when he was walking his dog approximately between 9:30 and 9:45. Now, there are two inferences we can draw from this. Either one is reasonable. Either the Bronco was on Ashford, which is why he didn't see it on Rockingham, or Mr. Simpson had already left in the Bronco by the time he walked his dog. Now, he--Mr. Cale also indicated that when he left his home on June the 13th at 7:00 A.m., when he drove down Rockingham, he did see the Bronco and he noticed it was parked at kind of a funny angle to the curb. Now, what that tells us then, let's adopt--well, we have two reasonable inferences and I'm going to talk to you about this a little bit later. We have a jury instruction on direct and circumstantial evidence. And that jury instruction tells you that when you have two inferences, both of which are equally reasonable, one of which points to guilt, one of which points to innocence, you are to adopt the interpretation that points to innocence. That is, if both of them are equally reasonable. Now, in this case at the point that Charles Cale is walking down Rockingham and is walking his dog and sees no Bronco on Rockingham, since he didn't look down Ashford, it is equally reasonable that the Bronco could have been on Ashford as it is that the Defendant had already left in the Bronco. The inference is that--that points to the Defendant's--that is less inculpatory, that is less incriminating, that is, the Bronco was on Ashford. Let's take that one. Okay. So let's infer from his testimony that when Mr. Cale was walking his dog the Bronco was on Ashford. What does that tell you? It wound up on Rockingham. That is where it was found in the early morning hours of June the 13th. No one is disputing that. The Bronco was moved. And the inference to be drawn from that is that the Defendant was out in the Bronco and he moved it, but you don't have to rely on just that inference. We have more. And what we have--we have two things: As you may recall, Dr. Baden was the Defense witness pathologist. He testified that the Defendant told him that he had gotten cut when he went out the night of June the 12th. As he was preparing to get into the limo, he went to get the cell phone from the Bronco. That tells you the cell phone was in the Bronco. I'm going to talk about how he got that cut a little later, but the cell phone was in the Bronco. That is where he had to go and get it from when he was getting ready to get into the limo. If the cell phone was in the Bronco and he is using the cell phone that night, he was out in the Bronco. And we have the proof for you in the form of the Defendant's phone bill--this is really small.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, just briefly turn it this way.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, this is People's 403.

THE COURT: All right. All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: This is a little bit smaller. I'm going to hold it closer so you can see it. This you will have back in the jury room. Let me tell you now the exhibit that I use that I don't say a "People's" for you, you are not going to get those back in the jury room, so if you want to take notes or if anything will help trigger your memory from those, go ahead and do it, because you won't have it again. Here is the exhibit that we marked during the trial. You will have this one back there with you. It indicates that the Defendant made two phone calls on the night of June the 12th from his cell phone that we know now was in his Bronco at 10:03. Now, in terms of timeline and on that night, what this tells you is that the Defendant was outside--was out in his car at 10:03. Now, at that time he made phone calls to Paula Barbieri, you may recall we heard the testimony of the--I think it was Luellen Robertson of Airtouch--and she told you--she interpreted the records for you and what it meant and she told you that the calls were not completed, but we didn't need her to tell you that. The calls to Paula Barbieri were not answered because Paula Barbieri was in Las Vegas. She was not at home either in Florida or in Los Angeles. She was in Las Vegas at the mirage. You recall we had a witness testify to that. She checked into the mirage at 2:00 p.m. On June the 12th, so she was not available to take those calls. Now, I think we have further corroboration for the fact that the cell phone was in the Bronco in the fact that Allan Park, the limousine driver, testified that he saw--as they were loading up the limo, he saw the Defendant go out towards Rockingham, out to where we know the Bronco was parked, once or maybe even twice, so there is further corroboration for the fact that he went and got the cell phone out of the Bronco just before they left. Now, that--those phone calls are very significant in terms of their timing, because you realize that at 10:03, when he is out in the Bronco and he has made those calls, that the murders occurred about ten to fifteen minutes after that, so we will talk more about the state of mind that he was in at that time. We will do it a little later. Now, Kato--let's go back to Kato. He indicated that at about 10:15 or 10:20, and he is very approximate on these times, he is not looking at his clock, I think he readily admitted that to you, he made a phone call to his friend Rachel Ferrara and that was a local call, so unfortunately we don't have a phone record to establish exactly when it occurred. This is an estimate on his part. Now, he testified, and I'm sure you recall it, that during the phone call, and he thought it was about a half an hour after he made the call, he heard those thumping noises on his wall, very loud, so loud and so strong that the wall he was leaning on shook and a picture moved and he said it was right in the area of the air conditioner, the air conditioner that hangs over that narrow dark south pathway. Those noises got him so upset he suspected that it was an earthquake. He also told you he had suspicious that it might have been a prowler and so he decided that he would go and see what might have caused them.

And he told Rachel he was scared and worried enough that he told Rachel that if she didn't hear from him in the next ten to fifteen minutes to call the police. Now, he may have said it half jokingly, but it is pretty clear he was worried. He was shook up. He was very shook up by those sounds that he heard, which is why he kept coming back to the issue and he kept trying to talk to the Defendant about it, and Allan Park, the limo driver. Now, let's talk about Allan Park for a minute. You remember he was the young man who had never been to Brentwood before, so he decided to make sure that he wouldn't be late, and although he was not supposed to be there until 10:45 for this pick-up to lax, he left at 9:45 to be on the safe side. And you may remember that this was a witness who was absolutely neutral, absolutely neutral. He was not going to strain to avoidance. He was not going to make any effort to embellish anything. This was a witness who was going to tell it straight and tell it honest all the way through no matter who was asking the questions, myself or the Defense. And he stood up there and he took the grilling for a very long time, and went back and I counted, the cross-examination and recross-examination by Mr. Cochran took up 175 pages of transcript in these proceedings. Now, he told you that on that night he was driving down Sunset he made a right at Rockingham and drove up Rockingham at 10:22. Now, he looked at his clock and his watch many times that night and the reason he did is very obvious. He is a driver. It is important that he be on time. It is important to him, it is important to his job and this was an important job. I mean, he is going to drive for Mr. Simpson, you know, it is not just me, somebody like that, or somebody that--ordinary average folk. He is important. He has to do well. And he certainly doesn't want to be late, make Mr. Simpson miss his flight, so he is checking that clock and at 10:22 he drives up Rockingham and he is looking at the curbs to see the addresses because he has never been there before and he wants to see 360 Rockingham. This is logical. I mean, what do you do when you are looking for an address? You look at the curbs and you try to see where it is and that is what he did. And when he did that, when he did that, he saw no Bronco parked on Rockingham and he was looking right there at the curb. Do we have the picture? This is People's 62-A, your Honor. Kind of looks faded on the--you can see it, right? See that curb area? You can see there is a 360 there. Now, as he was driving up, he said I could see--I could see the 360 on the curb. Now, if he could see the 360 on the curb and you can see where the Bronco is right there, that big white car, he is not going to miss it, he is going to see it. If he is driving slowly enough to see the number on the curb and realize that he has hit the Defendant's address, then he is obviously paying enough attention to see a big `ol white car there. And he didn't see it. So we know that at 10:22 the Bronco was not on Rockingham, but we know more, because we know at this point when Allan Park turned the corner onto Ashford, he told you he did not see any Bronco on Ashford either. So as of 10:22 that Bronco is gone and the Defendant is gone. That is further corroboration for what we told you with the phone calls in the Bronco. He was out in that Bronco on that night. So he indicated that he turned right onto Ashford, he made a U-turn and he parked across the street from the Defendant's home from the Ashford gate side. He got out of his car. Remember, he sat--he went and sat on the curb behind the car and had a cigarette, waiting for it to be time to start buzzing for the Defendant. And when he the back in his car he looked at the clock and he saw that it was 10:39. Now, at 10:39 he decided to check out the other gate, the Rockingham gate, and see if that would be easier to pull into than the Ashford gate, because remember he told you that he had a stretch limo, kind of hard to maneuver, so you know what gate he went in and where he was. This was an important consideration for him. Logistics were not this easy with that car. When he drove down to the Rockingham gate, he told you that he pulled the driver's side window parallel with the driveway so that he could look into the driveway and see whether it would be easier for him to get the stretch limo up that side of the driveway because of the way it curved. And you guys remember, you were there, you saw, it is a curving driveway. When he did that, the area where the Bronco was found on the curb just north of the Rockingham gate, was well within his field of vision, but he didn't see it. Again, further corroboration the Bronco was not there. Now, he backed up Rockingham and he backed all the way up past Ashford and then made a left pack onto Ashford, and at that point he actually pulled up into the Ashford gate, so that he is--the headlights would be almost up against the Ashford gate I think he indicated. And he told you that he saw a 300ZX, a black one, parked to his left on Ashford Street just to the left or east of the gate. And Kato told you that's right, that was my car. That was there. And you even see it in some of the photographs that we have shown you during the course of this trial. Now, when he pulled up facing the Ashford gate, Mr. Park told you that it was 10:40 and he looked at his clock. At that point he turned off his headlights and left the parking lights on and he got out to push the buzzer at the Ashford gate. He wanted to let the Defendant know that he was there. He pushed the buzzer he told you a good two or three times and he heard the buzzing and the ringing noise as did he that, but he got no answer. He was concerned, because the pick-up was supposed to be, he told you, for 10:45, starting to get up there now, so he called his boss and he wanted to ask him what he should do. Do we have it here?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: I have a board that shows Allan Park cell phone records and that was a very important cell phone record because that helps us link a lot of events that were testified to that were approximately, and with the help of his cell phone record, we have much more definite times, much more precise.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Escobar, if you would just briefly show Defense counsel. All right. This is People's exhibit--

MS. CLARK: Sorry, your Honor. People's exhibit no. 149.

THE COURT: Thank you very much.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Can we hold it here, David? Hold it up close to you so you can see it. Can you all see it? Okay. All right. He made the call to his boss at 10:43. You can see. We show you when the call begins and when the call ends. Dale St. John was his boss and he called his pager. After he placed that call, he told you that he got to ring the intercom a few more times, so now he rang the intercom at 10:40, no answer. 10:04, no answer. And he said he rang it a few times. On each occasion, no answer. He noticed that there were no lights on downstairs and there was one light on upstairs. He got back in the car and he called his mother and he got his boss' home phone number and called him again at 10:49. You see that call--we have a lot more calls in here, but at 10:49 he called his boss again, and he left a message because he got no answer. Now, when he left that message at 10:49 for his boss after he hung up, he got out and tried the buzzer again. Now, this is the third time he has tried to get someone to answer that buzzer at the gate. The third time that he rang two or three times, and this third time again he got no answer. Now, he also testified throughout all these events, getting in and out of the car and buzzing--you guys can sit. I will come back to it in a minute. I don't want to wear you out.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Thank you. He told you also, if you recall, that during this time that he was out by the Ashford gate he was paying attention to who was there. He was trying to reach the Defendant, but he was very focused on whether he could get somebody to answer the buzzer, or whether he could get Dale St. John to call him back. I mean, these were the things that were occupying his mind. And he was carefully concerned about this because he had to get to the airport. But he was not listening for traffic. He was not listening to hear if a Bronco pulled up. And he told you it would not have been significant to him if he had heard a car pull up or a car door slam. So what he is thinking is I've got to get somebody to the airport. He is not thinking what cars are driving by, who is here, who is not here. He just wants to get going, he is late and he is worried about that. So although it would have been nice if he could have told us that he heard the Bronco pull up on Rockingham when it did, he just wasn't paying attention to that and so he can't give us any information on when the Bronco did pull up. We know it did because it got there. We know it wasn't there as of 10:49 when he drove down Rockingham and it was there later that night. All right. Back to Park. Now, after he tried the buzzer at ten--after calling his boss at 10:49, he got out--it was when he was actually buzzing at that point--let me back up for a second. He called his boss at 10:49 at home. He got no answer. He went out to the gate and he rang the buzzer again two or three times and got no answer. While he was at the gate that third time he heard his car phone ringing and he went back into the car. It was his boss calling him. That call came in--that last call came in at 10:52 and he indicated--now, he told you about the fact that his boss called him and he told his boss that no one had been home and he had been ringing for awhile and he was very concerned because he was running late. Now, at that time I asked him, were you seated in your car when you were speaking to your boss? He said yes. Where were you looking? I was looking through the gate right into the driveway. What is the driveway lighting like? What is it like in there? Well, it is not really very well-lit. The one in front. I'm going to pull out a diagram of Rockingham in a minute and show you exactly what I mean. It was dark, though, very little light. There was a light over the garage and it gave very little illumination and it did not light up the south pathway area at all. So he sat in his car talking to his boss looking straight through the gate and at the driveway.

MS. CLARK: 56-D, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. This is just to get you oriented in case you forgot. It has been awhile since we went out and did the walk-through at Rockingham, so you see the area that says "Play yard" there and Park indicated that area was very dark. He indicated also, as he was seated in his car at the Ashford gate, that he could not see the Rockingham gate from where he was seated. He indicated to you--you see where that line is drawn at the garage? He saw nothing below that line. His field of view was limited to what was in front of that line and that is because of the lighting that was at the driveway. Now, when he told his boss about no one being home and it was running late, his boss said, well, he does run late. Mr. Simpson does run late. Why don't you check--look at the lighting in the--I believe he said the pantry area, because he usually watches TV there. Well, Park checked the area, he looked, and he couldn't see any lighting coming from that are and he told that to his boss. During this conversational Allan told you that he saw Kato come out on the side yard where the arrow is pointing, roughly in that area, I think it was a little bit farther back toward the tree, the other tree. That one, (Indicating). And he was holding a flashlight. You recall he told you that? And at the same time he said almost simultaneously he saw a person approximately six feet tall, 200 pounds, African American wearing all dark clothing, walking at a good pace up the driveway and he told you that he hung up.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, your Honor, may we approach just a moment, please?

THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar.

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to ask to approach because I don't want to object to Miss Clark's argument, but there is a misstatement. What he said was he was walking in the area right toward the doorway. That is when he first saw him. That is the only time she saw him. If she looks at the transcript--I'm trying to object, but when there is a statement that I know in the transcript I can show, how shall I handle it? I don't want them objecting in my argument.

MS. CLARK: I haven't tried to indicate exactly where he was yet.

MR. COCHRAN: But Marcia, the arrow--

THE COURT: All right, all right.

MR. COCHRAN: The arrows going like it was coming up the driveway.

THE COURT: At this point in time you weren't watching.

MS. CLARK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, so that is the reason I asked because I don't want to object, Marcia, but the arrow was like coming from where the Bronco was and that wasn't the testimony.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: Would you admonish Mr. Fairtlough regarding that.

MS. CLARK: I will just tell him to wait for me.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Thanks, Judge.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Miss Clark, you may proceed.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to ask Mr. Fairtlough to hold off. I wasn't watching his arrow. I want to be as precise as I can about where Mr. Park said he first saw this man. Go ahead and use this arrow. You could turn it around. All right. I believe--now, let me say this, because I know I'm going to forget if I don't say it now. If you have any questions about what was said, either by either myself or the Defense, as to what is accurate, you can ask to have it read back. Court reporters hate me for mentioning that, but in a trial of this length you are probably going to have something read back. If your memory conflicts, if your notes conflict with what we are saying, you have got to have that resolved. If you need to have the record read back to have that resolved, then do it. If you think that something I have said has been a misstatement, believe, me I am not trying to, I am trying to be very, very accurate here. Everybody makes mistakes. In case I make a mistake, everybody makes a mistake, have the record read back. I believe the testimony indicated that he saw this person in approximately where the arrow is and he saw him walk up the driveway and into the entrance. Now, he hung up within thirty seconds of seeing that, which means that according to the cell phone bill--I will do it--according to the cell phone bill, the call ended at 10:55 and twelve seconds. Approximately thirty seconds before that is when he saw the man walk into the house and immediately--immediately as soon as the man walked into the house the lights started to go on and they went on down. Now, Allan waited in his car thinking that someone would let him in, but no one did. Now, if you recall, Kato said that he went out--had gone out to the side yard to investigate the thumping noises and when he saw the limo driver he figured that the limo driver was already taken care of and that--the Defendant would buzz him in, so he didn't worry about it. He kept on about his business and he went down to that south pathway, if you recall, to start looking to see what was going on back there. So Allan got out of his car and buzzed again and this was now within a minute of seeing the man walk into the house, the lights go on. Within a minute of that Allan buzzed again. This is the fourth time. This time he got an answer immediately and the answer that was given to him was by the Defendant. The Defendant answered and told him he had overslept and he had just gotten out of the shower and he would be down in a minute. Now, Allan told you that the man who he saw entered the house appeared to be the same size as the Defendant and about the same height and weight. He would not stretch even one iota to draw the obvious conclusion that the man he saw walking up the driveway was the Defendant. Of course it was. There was no one else there that night. It was the Defendant. Who else could walk in the door, immediately turn on the lights and then answer the intercom? I mean, this is an easy reasonable inference to draw. Easy. But what is significant here is that he lied. Why did the Defendant lie? Why when he was just out in the driveway walking into the house dressed in all dark clothing, why when he answered the intercom for Allan Park, did he lie and say I have overslept, just getting out of the shower? We know it is not true. We know it is not true. Why was it important for him to make Allan Park believe that he had been at home? And I think we all know the answer to that question. Because he hadn't been at home. Because he had just come back from Nicole's. Now, let go back to Kato for a moment. Let's--concerning those thumps and when they happened. Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. Allan told you he saw Kato and the Defendant at--I'm saying he is the Defendant. He said the man that looked like the Defendant. You understand I'm talking about what we know based on all of the evidence, that it was him. 10:54 he saw Kato approximately, because it was at the same time he saw the Defendant. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52. So what we have, about two minutes after the thumping, the Defendant was walking up--was walking into his house from the driveway and Kato out in the side yard. In other words, we have the thumping, and Kato walking out and the Defendant walking around at the same time and the thumping happened very shortly, what is it, within half an hour of the murders. And the Defense would have you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the Defendant's appearance on the driveway just two minutes after the thumping on Kato's wall is a coincidence and the Defense would have you believe that the thumping and the appearance of that glove, the Defendant's glove, were unrelated events. And the thumps themselves, just think about that. Regardless of where or how they happened, just the fact that they happened shortly after the murders at the Defendant's house and just before the Defendant walked up his driveway in dark clothing, like the dark blue or black sweat outfit that Kato described, you just put those facts together and you realize what has happened.

The Defendant came back from Bundy in a hurry. Ron Goldman upset his plans and things took a little longer than anticipated. He ran back behind the house, that dark narrow south pathway--you all saw it. You were there in daytime. But imagine how dark it is at night--that dark, narrow south pathway thinking he could get rid of the glove, the knife, in that dirt area in the back. You recall back behind the guest houses there is a dirt area, just all dirt, not very well tended, but he was in a hurry. He was moving quickly down a dark narrow pathway overhung with trees, strewn with leaves, and in his haste he ran right into that air conditioner that was hanging over that south pathway and running into that air conditioner caused him to fall against the wall, making the wall of Kato's room shake. You recall that air conditioner. It was hanging low. You had to stoop to get down under it. And if you are in a hurry and you are not looking where you are going in that dark, narrow pathway, you can see how it can easily happen how someone in a hurry can do that. And it was just as simple as that. Simple common sense tells you that the thumping, the glove and the Defendant's appearance on the driveway almost immediately thereafter are all part of one set of events, all connected in time and space. You don't need science to tell you that; you just need reason and logic.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been actually submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:30. All right.

(At 11:59 a.m. The noon recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. Of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 1:35 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Trower, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Could we approach one quick second?

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, are you prepared to proceed?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: You may resume.

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: All right. When we left off, I was talking about the occurrence of the thumping, the gloves dropping on the south pathway and the Defendant's appearance on the driveway within a couple of minutes of each other. Now, while Allan Park was speaking to the Defendant on the intercom at that time, Kato who realized that--who wasn't worried about Allan being left outside, went over to the south pathway and looked down the gate. Can we get section 6-D back? I'm going to put up that diagram again so you can orient yourself because it's hard talking about this in the abstract. Okay. Can we back out just a little bit more? A little bit more. There we go. And the south pathway if you'll recall is at the bottom most edge below where the area marked "Garage" is you might recall. And he said that he went over to that area, looked down there, went through the first gate, went as far as the second gate, but that flashlight was very dim and he was worried and he was scared and he didn't want to go any farther. So he looked down there, but it was dark and he didn't want to go any farther. He said that he could not see the portion of the pathway that was right outside the wall of his room where he had heard the thumping. It was too dark, and he came back out without going actually any farther on the pathway. When he came back out, he realized that Allan Park was still waiting outside the gate. Now, this is after Allan had spoken to the Defendant on the intercom. And when he realized that the Defendant had not yet buzzed Allan in, he went and he let him in.

Now, let me ask you this. Why didn't the Defendant let Allan Park drive into the driveway? Why leave him sitting out there at the gate? Why make him wait outside? Because the Defendant was frazzled, ladies and gentlemen, he was hurried and he needed to buy some time, time to wash himself up, wash off the blood, change the clothes and to compose himself to appear normal, to appear calm, business as usual. So he bought himself that time and he did not let Allan in. And when he came down--when the Defendant came downstairs, he had changed clothes, no longer the dark clothing that Kato described him in earlier that evening. He was wearing stone-washed denim jeans, denim shirt and carrying a garment bag. You remember that Luis Vuitton garment bag that's here in evidence. Allan estimated that the Defendant came downstairs dressed like that carrying the garment bag about five or six minutes after he had spoken to him on the intercom. I think Allan Park's words were "A good five minutes." It could have been longer. This was an estimate by him. But before the Defendant actually came down, Kato went to let Allan Park in the gate. He let him in and he immediately told Allan about the thumping noises he had heard. He asked him, "Did you feel an earthquake," the same thing he asked Rachel Ferrera if you recall. She told him she hadn't. Allan said the same thing, "I didn't feel an earthquake." Now, Kato was clearly upset, clearly distracted and upset by that thumping noise he had heard. In fact, as you recall, he went to check that south pathway twice, once before he let Allan in and then the second time after he let Allan in because he had the conversation with Allan Park, asked him about the earthquake, if he had felt it, told him about the thumping noises. I think he said he told him he thought or he was thinking anyway that it might have been a prowler, and after he let Allan in, he felt safer, and he went back to check the south pathway again with--again with that dim flashlight and didn't get any farther than he did the last time and still wasn't able to see as far as the area of where his room was and it was still very dark back there and he gave up. But so Kato was concerned enough to check that south pathway twice, talked to his girlfriend Rachel about it, saying, "Call the police if you don't hear from me." He talked to Allan Park about it and he talked to the Defendant about it.

The Defendant came downstairs and he started talking to him. "Did you hear that--did you feel an earthquake? I'm really worried. I thought I heard this thumping on my wall. I'm really concerned about this." He's really worried about it. And what does the Defendant do? The Defendant never went out to the south pathway to check what might have gone on back there, to check for the sound of the source of the thumping. The Defendant never called Westec Security nor did he ever tell Kato to call Westec security. The Defendant never called the police nor did he tell Kato to call the police. In fact, he left without even setting the alarm and had to call Kato from the airport to tell him to set the alarm, something he had never done before. Now, having heard about the thumping noises from Kato, hearing Kato's concern about it, how Kato was trying to figure out why that happened or what was the source of it and being very worried about it, knowing that he was going out of town, his daughter Arnelle staying on the property and would be there alone with Kato, he did nothing to check on the source of the thumping. He did none of the things you'd expect someone to do under those circumstances, that is someone who didn't already know what caused the thumping. But you see, he did. He knew. So, of course, he was unconcerned. He knew it was no prowler. Certainly he knew it's no earthquake because he knew the thumps were caused by him bumping into the wall, and so he didn't have to be worried that Arnelle was going to be in danger or even Kato in danger or his home in danger because it was not a question for him. It was something he knew about and he acted like someone who already knew what the source of those sounds were; unconcerned. Now, back to loading up the car. Allan and Kato described how they loaded up all the bags, all except one. You may recall that there was testimony about a small dark bag that was on the edge of the driveway by the Bentley. And Kato, as they were loading up the bags, offered to go and get that bag for him. "I'll go get that for you." The Defendant said, "No, no, no, no, no. I'll get it." And the testimony was that all of the bags were loaded by either Kato or Allan Park except for that one. And after the Defendant walked towards it, after saying, "No, I'll get it," after he walked towards it, no one ever saw that little black, dark bag again. Nor have we ever found the knife the Defendant used nor have we ever found the clothes that he wore during the murder nor have we ever found the shoes that he wore during the murder. And it's so typical. It's so common. They get rid of the murder weapon, they think that's it, can't get me, home free. But you see, as you've seen, it's not that easy. Evidence was left behind. So we don't need the murder weapon because we have much, much more proof than that. Now, while they were loading the bags, Allan, as I told you before, saw the Defendant go out to the Rockingham gate where he saw--where we saw that the Bronco was parked. Now, I referred to this earlier, that the Defendant told Dr. Baden that he had cut his hand while getting the cell phone out of the Bronco. I'm going to show you why that does not explain all of his blood in that car and I'm going to show you that he did not receive that cut on his finger from the cell phone. Now, the Defendant stood in the foyer talking to Kato for a few moments. Could we get a photograph of that? And that's when he dripped blood. You see the little marker in that photograph? But after he came downstairs, the testimony was he never went upstairs. Kato stood with him. Kato was talking to him. Kato went inside the foyer with him, went towards the kitchen at one point looking for a flashlight, you may recall, because Kato was asking the Defendant for a better flashlight to go look down that south pathway. Kato was standing by him, but the Defendant was moving around the cars getting things loaded up, but no one ever testified that he went back upstairs. And I think that it was Kato's testimony--I think Kato only testified to going into the house with the Defendant once, and that was to get the flashlight. And they had also a conversation at that time about setting the alarm when Kato said, "I don't want to set the alarm. I don't want the responsibility. I don't know the code," and the Defendant said at that time, "Okay, I'll set it." And then he forgot and called him from the airport. Now, Allan Park indicated I think that he saw the Defendant go in and out of the house a couple of times, but he never brought any more bags out. He only brought one bag out with him, and that was the garment bag as he came downstairs the first time. That was the only time he saw him bring a bag out. But Allan Park was busy loading the limo and he was not watching the Defendant carefully. Kato was hanging by the Defendant. Kato was asking him, talking to him about the thumping and he was trying to get his attention about something that he was very concerned about because he was going to be left on that property alone with whatever caused that thumping noise. Kato didn't know. So he was talking to the Defendant. He was asking for the flashlight and he talking to him about setting the alarm. And so Kato was the one who was more carefully tracking where the Defendant was going and Kato talked to them--talked to him about what I told you, the flashlight and the alarm. Now, the Defendant left. And when he left, as you know, he didn't set the alarm. While he was in the limousine, he asked the limousine driver to turn on the air conditioning. He complained repeatedly of being very hot. He rolled the windows down, "Boy, it's hot. Boy, it's hot." You have the weather report and it will indicate to you it was a cool night. The Defendant was--kept complaining about being hot, "Man, I'm hot. Roll down the windows, turn on the air conditioning." I asked Allan Park, "Were you hot that night?" "No." I asked Kato, "Were you hot that night?" "No." It was a cool night. Now, I said I'd show you that the Defendant did not get that big cut on his middle finger from that cell phone when he went to get it from the Bronco. Let me show you something. You recall the testimony that blood was collected from the bathroom upstairs that's just off the Defendant's bedroom, and the blood is found very--it's found basically in-between the sink and the shower in the Defendant's bathroom. The Defendant was bleeding in his bathroom when he was cleaning and changing his clothes obviously. That was before he went down to the limo, ladies and gentlemen, before he ever went to the Bronco. He already had that cut by the time he got downstairs. He got it long before he went out to that Bronco to get that cell phone. So since we know he was bleeding upstairs in his own bathroom and before he went down to the limo, how come there weren't any bloodstains on the staircase? Obviously, he didn't fly. And just as obviously, he also bled downstairs. I show you that foyer picture. You've seen that quite a number of times, with the blood spots on the floor. So he left blood downstairs as well. There are two possible reasons we didn't see photographs of blood spots on the staircase. No. 1, they were there and they were missed. It seems doubtful because it's a light carpet, light colored carpet. Blood should show. It's possible. Or, two, the cut temporarily stopped bleeding.

As you may remember, Dr. Huizenga testified that a cut will bleed, clot up, rebleed, and I'm sure that wasn't news to you. I mean, that's life experience. It's common to all of us. You cut yourself, bleed for a while and then maybe your hand will be still and then you'll rebleed if you exercise it or you rub it against something, you irritate it somehow. But in any case, by the time the Defendant got downstairs with the garment bag and started loading up the limo, the cut was temporarily sealed. Now, here's the interesting thing about the blood trail on his driveway and the blood in the foyer. When you take into account the blood in the bathroom, doesn't it make sense that he actually reopened the cut while he was moving around getting ready to go? You know, you have the blood in the bathroom before he gets down to the limo. So he was already bleeding. You know that you don't have blood spots in-between the bathroom and the foyer. So at some point, the bleeding stopped before he left his bedroom. But you do know that you have more blood downstairs. You have blood leading out to the Bronco.

Now, Allan Park told you that he saw the Defendant go out towards the Rockingham gate as they were preparing to leave and you know the Defendant told Dr. Baden that he went out to the Bronco to get his cell phone from the car. Now, although we don't know for a fact based on photographs that he certainly did not receive that cut on some razor sharp cell phone, it certainly does make sense that when he went out to get the phone, he opened the door to the Bronco and his knuckle grazed the well of the door handle, reopening the cut. May I have the Bronco door? You see where that--where the spot is that Dennis Fung is holding up, the number 1, you see that little speck there? Picture yourself at the door--at the car, okay, and you're up to the driver's door. What hand do you use to open the door? Your left, especially one like that where you have to push the button in to open the door, using his left hand in which case, this middle knuckle is going to graze that door, in which case a cut that has just temporarily sealed seconds or maybe minutes earlier is going to get irritated and rebleed. Now, this is just common sense. But when you open the car door, obviously you need to use the handle. When you close a car door, you don't. How do you close a car door? Slam. Very simple.

So by the time he opened the door, before he reached in and got the cell phone, that cut was bleeding again. You have him bleeding before he comes down to the limo up in his bathroom, you have him going down to the Bronco and opening the door. But either way you look at it, he's already bleeding before he gets the cell phone. And that's shown to you by photographs. Now, consider this possibility. He opened the car door, grazing his knuckle on that door, reopening the cut. And after getting the cell phone out, walks back up the driveway dripping blood, walks into the foyer, talks to Kato about getting a flashlight that's better or stronger than the one he's got, talks to him about setting the alarm, and while he's talking to him, he's standing in the foyer. Can I have that photograph? All right. He's standing in that foyer--can we get the close-up? All right. Now, you see those two drops down to the left of the number 12? It's kind of faint on this picture. You are going to have the pictures back in the jury room and I think they will be better and clearer for you than this is.

Those are big drops. Those are big blood drops, folks, not the kind you see from that little slice that Dr. Baden showed you on the Defendant's finger. Now, we've all been living in this world for a while and you know that when you get big drops of blood, that's from a big cut. You are not going to cut yourself on a little--okay, a little slice like--almost looking like a small slice on the inside of that finger and drip blood like that. It just makes--this is common sense stuff. It's just very logical those drops came from a big cut, and we're talking about this cut on the middle finger (Indicating). Now, did the Defendant notice at that point that he was bleeding? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he did, put something small on it, get ready to go, let's go. But in the rush of getting ready to leave, Kato, who's worried about a burglar back there, Allan Park, who's worried about getting to the airport on time, no one is paying attention to Mr. Simpson's hands. The fingers--his finger is not the foremost thing that they're worried about here. Now, about the blood on the outside of the car door, I want to make one thing clear. I'm not saying that the blood could only have gotten on the well of that door handle at Rockingham--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Forgive me for interrupting you. Let me see counsel at sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. Counsel, I was just watching the television coverage on the monitor I have underneath my bench. You know, I can watch TV. The television camera just came down to a close-up of the notes that Mr. Simpson has in front of him that he's writing--

MR. COCHRAN: Did it?

THE COURT: --which I find to be a flagrant violation.

MR. COCHRAN: That's pretty bad. I'll tell him.

MR. SCHECK: Can we tell him about--

THE COURT: I'm about to tell them I'm going to terminate the television coverage.

MR. DARDEN: I can't believe they did that. What are they thinking?

THE COURT: I have no idea what they're thinking.

MR. COCHRAN: The only problem with terminating the coverage--we'd like to have half of our argument shown too. We have the same problem before. They're only doing her argument. How about if you let us give half of our argument and then cut ours. Then it's fair. That's the only problem.

MR. DARDEN: Fine them some money.

MR. COCHRAN: Maybe you should fine them. That might--it wouldn't be fair to us, you know what I'm saying? Let me talk to my client a minute. While we are up here--you know, I thought you were calling us up for another reason. That blood's never been tested. That's not blood on that door. I mean, I don't know what reasonable inference she can make. You don't know.

MS. CLARK: This is argument.

THE COURT: I'm not worried about that right now.

MR. SCHECK: We're objecting to that.

THE COURT: Talk to your client.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I talk to my client?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Can you let the jury know it's not me, you called me over? Please, Judge.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

THE COURT: What does your guy got to say?

MR. COCHRAN: First of all, he's going to cover it up, and he said--he agreed with us, that I think you should make note, fine them, fine them for it. But he's okay. He's writing notes to himself. He is going to cover it up.

THE COURT: What about counsel's notes? If I can see them--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, we're watching our notes too. Tell them stay off our notes. You may have done it already.

THE COURT: I didn't think I had to tell people that.

MR. COCHRAN: No. I thank you. How would we ever know this? Fine them or threaten them, whatever.

THE COURT: All right.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you to step back into the jury room for just a moment.

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

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Counsel, as I mentioned to you at sidebar, the reason that I interrupted Miss Clark--and, Miss Clark, forgive me for the interruption, but while I was taking my notes here on your argument, I noticed that the television camera panned along the Defense counsel table and, Mr. Cochran, did a close-up of your client taking notes. And it's not appropriate for the television camera to be going along sidebar close enough that one can see what people are writing in their notes, and that's not appropriate and I thought it would not be necessary to tell the television coverage that that's not appropriate. But apparently it's necessary to tell them that it's not appropriate and it's a very flagrant violation and intrusion into the attorney/client privilege, and I'm inclined to terminate the coverage at this time. All right. So, Mr. Bancroft, I'm going to direct you to turn the camera off to the seal, and the television coverage is terminated. All right. Let's have the jurors.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Could you tell the jury it wasn't--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: May we have a second?

MS. MCFADDEN: Your Honor, would you hear argument on the issue?

THE COURT: Sit down.

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, my apologies to you for the interruption of Miss Clark's opening argument to you. Something transpired that had nothing to do with the argument itself that I needed to take care of before we resumed. Miss Clark, you may resume. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, we'll take a break at 3:15.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So we were talking about the blood on the outside of the door. It could have gotten there at Rockingham when he went out and opened the door, getting ready to leave to the airport or it also could have happened obviously at Bundy. With the blood drops and the bloody shoeprints leading out to the driveway, a very reasonable and very logical inference is that his hand was still bleeding when he went to reach for the door to open it at Bundy.

The point here to make is that it doesn't matter at which point you think that blood was placed on the outside of the door because the important point to get is that he was already cut, he was already bleeding when he went to his Bronco. Whether it was after the murders at Bundy or whether it was at Rockingham to go and get the cell phone out, that finger was already cut. That's the point. So why did he tell Dr. Baden that he got the cut getting the cell phone out of the Bronco? When you look at the blood at Rockingham, that's an obvious lie. Why did he do that unless he knew that he had to come up with an explanation for something that was very, very incriminating. You got blood in the bathroom, you got blood down in the foyer. But the most important point is that you have the blood on the outside of that door. No matter whether you think it happened at Bundy or Rockingham, it sure didn't happen as a result of getting that cell phone out of the Bronco. I never heard of a cell phone that sharp either, but that's another point. See what I'm getting at? In any case, so what we've demonstrated with this time line is this. We have gone all the way through the time line. We have shown you between 9:36 and 10:54, when Allan Park saw the Defendant go into his house, the Defendant's whereabouts are unaccounted for. You also saw that during that time that his whereabouts were unaccounted for, all of these things were occurring. We're talking about the barking dogs when Steve Schwab and Allan Park who comes and looks at the Rockingham gate not once, but twice and sees no Bronco that is by the Ashford gate and sees no Bronco until ultimately he sees the Defendant come in the house and talks to him on the intercom. So during all that period of time, you have the Defendant out in the Bronco. That, ladies and gentlemen, is one piece of evidence that proves the Defendant's guilt, opportunity, one piece of the puzzle. I don't know if--I don't think I've given you the example I would like to give of a jig-saw puzzle. It helps to talk about reasonable doubt in this frame. When you think about reasonable doubt, you think about not only a doubt found in reason opposed to mere possibility as I talked to you about before, but you talk about something that's missing that you need to believe that the Defendant is guilty. And in that sense, I compare it to a jig-saw puzzle. In order to get the picture, to know what a jig-saw puzzle is depicting, if you're missing a couple pieces of the sky, you still have the picture. You know, for example, it shows a house and--you know, and a dog and a kid in the yard and that sort of thing, you can see the picture. You miss a couple pieces of the sky sometimes, you do lose those pieces, no big deal. You've got the picture. You've got it clear. You've got it certain and, you know, you got all the necessary pieces of the puzzle. So I kind of compare a jury trial to that because it often happens that there are things that are not shown to you, things that are not proven to you, and that's why the law requires that we prove certain things. There are other things we are not required to prove. I am going to get into that later. But those are like the pieces of the sky, you don't need them. It would be nice, but you don't need them. All right. So we've talked about opportunity. Now, we know he had the opportunity, the time to commit the murders. We know that things were happening at Bundy during that time. Now, let's talk about the cuts on the Defendant's left hand because this is very significant. It's significant because of when they appear and it's significant because the Defense doesn't deny it.

The Defendant cut his hand on the night of June the 12th. That is conceded. That is not in dispute. The blood found on the blood trail at Rockingham is in fact the Defendant's and that is conceded. There is no dispute. Even Kato saw the blood in the foyer. If you recall when he was testifying, as he left that morning about 7:30, he saw the blood drops on the floor of the foyer and that was before the Defendant ever came back from Chicago. Now, it's also clear that the Defendant cut himself on the night of the 12th after the recital. As I told you, you have that picture showing his left hand. No cuts. So it was on the night of the recital--I mean, it was on the night of June the 12th on the night of the murders his left hand got cut after the recital. Now, add to that the fact that the cut is on the left hand, but he's right-handed. And the killer lost his left glove at Bundy. Now, we know that the killer cut his left hand because we have the blood drops to the left side of the bloody shoe prints. So now we have the Defendant getting his hand cut on the night of his wife's stabbing, cut on his left hand, which just happens to be the hand that the murderer cut that same night. That's an alarming coincidence. And there's more. We know that on June the 15th, the Defendant went to see Dr. Huizenga, not his own doctor. No, this was not even a doctor he had ever seen before. This is the partner of a doctor that treats his lawyer. And he's not an arthritis specialist. He's an internist. And this doctor describes four cuts, four cuts and seven abrasions on the Defendant's left hand and on the right hand, a little paper cut on the pinkie, four cuts and seven abrasions, and the murderer was cut on the left hand when he lost the left glove. You know, I can see getting one cut, maybe two on your hand. But four cuts and seven abrasions? And we're supposed to believe that that's unrelated to a murder in which the killer's left hand was cut and bleeding as he left the crime scene. But there's more. When the Defendant got the call in Chicago from Detective Phillips, he tells him of Nicole's murder, he realized he had to come up with an explanation for the cut on the middle finger, and that's why we got to hear from the Chicago Detective, Berris. He recovered the broken glass in the sink. If you recall, there was a picture shown to you of that hotel room where the Defendant checked in on the morning of June the 13th. Now, the story that they wanted to sell you is that the Defendant got that big cut on the middle finger when he broke the glass after hearing of Nicole's murder. But there's a couple problems with that story. First of all, how do you cut yourself on the back of your finger by slamming a glass down? I mean, I have a real hard time picturing how that could possibly happen.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: For the record, your Honor, I'm showing 581-A and B. I'm just going to show the picture of that so I can refresh your memory, you can see what that looks like. That's the sink and that's 581-B. All right. Now, let's show the actual glass in the sink. All right. And there is the glass as it was found by Detective Berris in Chicago. Now, Dr. Baden theorized when asked how would you get a cut on the back of your finger by slamming a glass down, he theorized without any basis, without any evidence, he theorized, well, if you swipe the glass into the sink. I don't know why you would do that with the back of your hand like that. I mean, that one's hard for me other by--but if you did, assume you did, you would get cuts on the back of your hand, not just one on the back of your left finger, middle finger. You'll get it on the side, you'll get it maybe here (Indicating), maybe here on the palm. There were none. There were none. You saw the photographs of Defendant's hands that were taken. You heard the descriptions of his hand by Dr. Huizenga. You heard the description of his hands I think also by Dr. Baden. There was no description of any cuts on the left side of the palm or of the hand. You'd see that. Not just one cut on the back of the finger. Again, this is common sense. Now, and if it's true he cut his hand on the glass, where's the blood? See any blood? I don't see any blood there. There's no blood on the glass. There's no blood on the sink. And how come there's no blood on the paper cover of the glass? If that's where he had cut his hand, you should see the blood on the glass, you should see the blood in the sink, you should see blood on the paper cover. You see nothing. I'm not saying he didn't bleed in the room. I'm saying he did not get that cut for the first time in the room. That cut was already there. That cut got reopened, but that cut did not get had in that room.

Now, if they want to claim you don't see any blood because he ran water over it, I'm not sure why he would do that, but assume he did. Then how come the paper is not wet? Shouldn't this paper be wet if he ran water over the glass to wash down the blood, wash the blood out of the sink? It's not wet. You can see it. The significance though of this glass breaking act is really that it shows his effort to conceal a wound that he knows will be highly incriminating. This act shows consciousness of guilt, ladies and gentlemen. He knew the wound had importance because he knew how he got it. So he had to provide an alibi for the cause of that cut. And when he came back to Rockingham, he wore that bandage around his finger like a neon sign saying, see, I just got cut, it just happened because he surely wasn't wearing that big bandage when he left. So he had to make a big deal about the bandage he was wearing that morning so that he could claim that he just got cut that morning, not last night. Now, the only problem with that was that when he tried this little cover-up in the Chicago hotel room, he didn't know that the police had already found his blood at Rockingham in the Bronco. So by that time, the Bronco door, they were able to see inside the Bronco although they couldn't get inside because it was locked. And they certainly saw the blood in the bathroom and they saw the blood in the foyer, and they saw all that before he got back from Chicago. He didn't know that though. He didn't know that. So while he was in Chicago, he thought they'd see that, that he had better cover it up. And that's what's significant about the story that he told to Dr. Baden, because when he got back to Rockingham, after he knew that they had already seen his blood and they weren't going to buy the story about cutting it in Chicago, "We got your blood here before you ever got back"--so that Chicago story isn't going to wash. Now he's got to come up with another story. So he comes up with a story he gives to Dr. Baden, which is, "I went into the Bronco and cut myself on that razor sharp cell phone." It's an attempt to explain away incriminating evidence, explaining it away with a lie, and that shows consciousness of guilt. And there's one other thing. It's kind of a simple common sense thing and something that it is your job as jurors to do. You use your common sense. You use your life experience. That's very important because that's part of evaluating the facts as a Judge and that's what you're here to do.

Using your life experience, stop and think about the blood at Rockingham just for a moment. Sure people get their fingers cut. May not happen every day, but it happens. It's happened to me. I'm sure it's happened to you. And I don't know whether anybody's ever gotten their finger cut on a cell phone. That might be a little bit more of a rare occurrence, but the thing is, when we do--when we cut ourselves and we drip blood, what do we do? We clean it up. You drip blood around the bathroom, you drip blood in your kitchen, you drip blood in the foyer, you get a napkin, you clean it up. It's just a natural--it's something that you wouldn't even think about doing, but you would do it. Now, in all the months that you've been sequestered, how many blood trails have you left in your rooms from the bathroom to the hallway? How many times in your life have you left a trail of blood around your house or your apartment and not cleaned it up? And we had evidence from the Defendant's maid that he is a very neat and tidy and clean person. And he leaves blood on his bathroom floor and he leaves blood on his foyer? So the cuts in this case, cuts to the Defendant's hand and the blood that he leaves around that doesn't get cleaned up, these are very important points. And I am going to summarize for you. The hand injuries occurred at the time of the murder on the left hand, a left-hand glove was lost at Bundy, a left hand. There's what's called the DNA evidence. There's the Defendant's blood trail at Bundy to the left side of the bloody shoeprints. Defendant leaves the blood trail at Rockingham, but he does that, he doesn't clean up and the Defendant makes the statement to Dr. Baden admitting bleeding, bleeding in the murder vehicle shortly after the murders. These are all very significant points that demonstrate conduct by the Defendant, actions as well as words that show you consciousness of guilt. And we have another piece of the puzzle. Now, we're talking about conduct. Let's talk about post-homicidal conduct. How would you expect someone to act after they committed the murder? Do you think you know what a murderer looks like? It's been a long time, but you might remember, I asked you some of these questions during voir dire. I asked you, "Do you think you know what a murderer looks like?" You all said no and rightfully so.

The scariest homicides are always the ones where the bad guy is handsome, charming, someone who doesn't look like a murderer. That threatens our sense of security. We want to believe that bad people look like what they are because we can steer clear of them. Strictly as a matter of our personal security, we want to know. We want to know. And when we can't know, then we are deceived by the appearance of a pretty face. Then our sense of security is threatened by that. Our life experience tells us that we cannot predict what a killer looks like. We cannot say this one does or that one doesn't. We know it's a command of common sense. You can sit next to a killer in the movies and you can stand behind them in line, stand in line for the bus with a rapist and you wouldn't know it. Well, the same is true for post-homicidal conduct. No different. What exactly do you expect someone to do after he's committed murder? If he wants to get away with it, he's going to do everything in his power that he can, and that's just common sense. So whatever his image is of someone who is not guilty is the image he will try to project. And to the extent he is accurate in determining what that is to the extent that he has an image that comports with our own of what an innocent person would do, we will be deceived. Now, Mr. Simpson is not the first killer to commit murder and drive a car, to commit murder and fly in an airplane. They don't wear any neon sign saying, "I just committed murder." I know that's common sense. But there are certain things that he can do, things that tell you that it most certainly was not business as usual on the night of June the 12th after he murdered Ron and Nicole, and some of them I've already discussed. So I'll just briefly list them. Forgetting to set the alarm after Kato told him about the thumping, lying to Allan Park about having overslept and after speaking to Allan, not letting him in the gate, leaving blood in the bathroom and in the foyer, leaving his socks on the floor, normally a very neat and tidy person, complaining of being hot and sweaty, a cool night, the broken glass in Chicago which was to be his excuse for the cut on his finger until he found out the blood trail was discovered before he got home at Rockingham. And there's a couple more. Although he got up early for an early morning golf game as he told Kato--you recall that testimony I'm sure. When he got on the red eye flight to Chicago, left at 11:45, that unlike the rest of the passengers, he didn't sleep. He stared out the window. He read, but he didn't sleep. After being up since 6:00 that morning, by 11:45 at night, you'd think he'd fall asleep on that flight. You think he'd hit that seat and go right out. But he didn't, and he can't because he had a lot on his mind. And something else you may have noticed. The passenger on the plane who apparently spent the whole flight watching him, Steve Valerie, said, "I saw him staring out the window, I saw him reading, but not sleeping." This was a witness called by the Defense. He also observed that Mr. Simpson at that time wore no socks, and that's because he left them on his bedroom floor. There's one more thing. Detective Phillips--remember that Detective Phillips testified that he called the Defendant in Chicago at 6:05 in the morning. You recall when he testified, he went into the house with Arnelle and with the other detectives. They made an effort to locate the Defendant at that time and Arnelle called the Defendant's secretary, Cathy Randa, and then they got the information from her as to where he was located and they called him. As you recall, I showed the phone bill that indicated they called at 6:05.

Now, Detective Phillips testified that he told the Defendant Nicole had been killed. And what did the Defendant do? Did he ask how? No. Did he ask who? No. Did he ask where? No. Did he ask when? No. Did he ask whether it was a car accident? No. Now, think about the reasonable response. Someone is informed that the mother of their children has been killed and a detective calls and says, "I'm sorry to tell you this, but the mother of your children has been killed." What do you do? Wouldn't you think that the first reaction--I can understand shock. Wouldn't you think that the first reaction would be one of disbelief? No. First response, deny it, no, that can't be because you don't believe--you know, you don't believe someone close to you can be met with violence. Even if it's a car accident, you have a sense of disbelief about can't be, you know, someone I know doesn't die that way. Can't be. And so in your effort to make it where it might be real or to test the truth of the statement, you ask questions. How did it happen? When? Who do you think did it? Where did it happen? What was the cause of death? How could this be? Not one of those questions, not one.

And I think probably the first thing that you normally ask is, "Was it a car accident," one of the first things that pops in your mind. But he said none of those things, ladies and gentlemen. He asked none of the questions that an innocent man would ask. So now you have another piece of the puzzle. You have opportunity, you have the cuts on the hand and you have post-homicidal conduct showing you consciousness of guilt all over the place.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, we're going to break at 2:30.

MS. CLARK: I'll do a quick wrap-up of this section and--

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. So this piece of puzzle, post-homicidal conduct. Now, we've spoken of a whole list of things, and I added to it forgetting to set the alarm, leaving blood all over, not cleaning it up, complaining of being hot and sweaty, the broken glass in Chicago, the behavior on the airplane, not sleeping on the red eye flight after being up since early morning and the behavior after the notification by Detective Phillips, not asking any of the questions an innocent man would ask. I am going to move into another section. Do you want me to stop here?

THE COURT: Let's take a break. Ladies and gentlemen, remember all of my admonitions to you. Let me ask you to step in the back.

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

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, as soon as Miss Sager joins us, I'm going to invite Mr. Cochran, Mr. Shapiro, Miss Clark and Mr. Darden to join me in chambers with Miss Sager because I have the videotape. I want to show it.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. We have with us Miss Sager. Miss Sager, you've had the opportunity to meet with counsel for both sides and the court.

MS. SAGER: Yes, your Honor, I have.

THE COURT: I've decided to let you be heard.

MS. SAGER: I appreciate that.

THE COURT: I must tell you, I am immensely annoyed.

MS. SAGER: I can understand why the court's concerned having seen the shot, but I would hope that it would also be obvious what the intent was of the shot and had nothing to do with--

THE COURT: I understand it's a benign intent, but the result is pretty obvious; wouldn't you say?

MS. SAGER: Well, your Honor, perhaps your eyes are better than mine, but I could not make out anything on the legal pad, and I understand from everyone else's view of the tape, they weren't able to make out any of the writing. It's clear that he was writing on the legal pad and--

THE COURT: Wrong argument to be making, counsel.

MS. SAGER: In hindsight, it was an error in judgment and certainly--

THE COURT: Anybody up there on the kill swatch today?

MS. SAGER: There was, your Honor. And my understanding is, having seen the shot go in, they were attempting to focus on the hand as Miss Clark was arguing about Mr. Simpson's hand and they couldn't read any of the writing. And if the shot had proceeded--

THE COURT: It doesn't matter. Nobody should be having that kind of a close-up on anything that's on counsel table.

MS. SAGER: I understand the court's concern and we would certainly--

THE COURT: I think this is pretty obvious, don't you?

MS. SAGER: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "Obvious."

THE COURT: They shouldn't be cruising up and down Defense counsel table with their notes and computers there.

MS. SAGER: I appreciate that concern, your Honor, and I certainly think that it would not be appropriate for them to reveal anything that would be attorney-client privilege communication in this instance whether by fortuity or whether they were trying to be careful and succeeded. I don't think any communications were in fact revealed. But we certainly can instruct the camera people that kind of shot should not be repeated during any of the proceedings in this case. And to the extent they want to have a shot of Mr. Simpson's expression or counsel's expression, to keep it on that and not get on anything that's on counsel table. But as your Honor indicated, it's clear the purpose of the shot was to coincide with something Miss Clark was saying and not to reveal any communications. But I am certain that they can and will abide by an instruction by this court not to focus on anything on the tables even if it relates to something that's being said by counsel and to focus only on faces and on counsel speaking and exhibits and not anything closer to the tables.

THE COURT: You recollect the static shot we had during opening statements?

MS. SAGER: I do, your Honor. And while that is certainly an option that the court could employ because of--

THE COURT: I mean, I've had to interrupt Miss Clark and it's a great detriment to her because of this.

MS. SAGER: I understand, your Honor. And I know that the camera people and everyone that's involved is deeply apologetic for any harm that's been caused to either side as a result of this. I know that it should be I hope relevant to the court that neither side is asking for the camera to be turned off, and I think it would be doing a grave injustice to the public as well as to the parties to not allow this portion, a very critical portion of the trial to be seen publicly when everything that has led up to this point has indicated to be of enormous public interest and what's happening, and this is a crucial part of the trial and may well affect how the jury ultimately decides.

THE COURT: And it's all the more reason those involved should be discreet and use good judgment in what they're doing; wouldn't you agree?

MS. SAGER: I agree, your Honor. As I said, to the extent there was an error in judgment, I can assure you they have said it will not be repeated. But there was--I hate to use a basketball analogy here, but there was no foul committed, no attempt to commit a foul because there wasn't anything--

THE COURT: You mean no harm, no foul.

MS. SAGER: That's the phrase. But there was nothing actually shown and they were trying to be very careful not to get in close enough to show any actual writing, just to focus on the hand. And if your Honor noted on the tape, at the point where they could have either gone in closer or push back the camera, the operator actually did pull back from the shot so that the point was made with the showing of the hand, which was the only point trying to be made, and then they pulled back so that they wouldn't inadvertently disclose something they have been ordered by the could not to disclose. And I know I have been here before, your Honor, asking for the court's leniency and apologizing, but I think in this very crucial part of the trial, it is appropriate not to turn off the cameras and to continue the electronic coverage of the proceedings. And I think both sides would not argue against having the electronic coverage continue for a crucial part of the trial. But as I said, we are happy to live with the instruction that no--nothing on the table would be shown and no more hand shots or elbow shots or shots of the table or anything else, but just to have any reaction shots on faces and the counsel that's speaking.

THE COURT: How about a static shot?

MS. SAGER: Well, your Honor, the only problem with that, counsel is not static. I've been watching some of the proceedings this morning as well, and I think it would do them injustice in terms of their presentation if the camera could only capture the podium and they are actually moving around, pointing to exhibits and showing the jury evidence. And in order to adequately present their presentation to the jury, I think it would be doing these lawyers an injustice to restrict them in that way. I think the same purpose can be achieved by simply not having any shots that might cover anything on the table and restricting it to the faces of participants and the counsel who's speaking.

THE COURT: What do you think the appropriate fine should be? I was thinking about 10,000.

MS. SAGER: Well, your Honor, I think that seems very excessive in light of the fact that there was no bad intent and no actual harm committed and the fact Mr. Cochran mentioned to me that they already had to pay for the cost of missing part of Miss Clark's presentation and the cost of having a lawyer come down to again implore the court on their behalf.

THE COURT: How much are you charging them to do this?

MS. SAGER: I'm happy to double my rate if that would make the court more agreeable. I feel they have been punished more--

THE COURT: Miss Sager, you're not helping me a lot here.

MS. SAGER: Well, your Honor, to the extent that there has been any misconduct, if the court wants to punish anyone, I would suggest the court look to the fines that it has imposed on the lawyers on the instances when it has found misconduct by one of the lawyers. And in those instances, the same interest of justice may be affected and may be even to a much greater extent more. Yet, the court has been I think in every instance very reasonable in the amount of fine imposed on each counsel in instances where it felt that sanctions was appropriate, and I would ask the court to be guided by that and punish no more an entity that is performing a public service just as counsel are in this case and to employ the same structure of fines to another entity that may have committed a wrongdoing as it would to any counsel member or counsel table who has committed an act that the court felt was sanctionable. And those instances, I think the fines have been somewhere in the range of $50 to $250. One instance, I believe a lawyer may have been sanctioned $500 by Judge Bascue. To my knowledge, that's the highest fine that has been imposed.

THE COURT: 950 is the highest fine so far.

MS. SAGER: 950?

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas and Mr. Cochran.

MS. SAGER: That's 475 apiece.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MS. SAGER: Your Honor, I would simply ask the court be guided by what it would deem to be appropriate sanctions on other matters where somebody either deliberately or inadvertently committed some act, that the court set the same sanction if it feels sanctions are appropriate and not to punish the viewing public who is interested in this by restricting electronic coverage.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, what's the People's position?

MR. DARDEN: Well, it seems to me that the networks have already made millions and millions of dollars off the--really the backs of the lawyers and the Defendant in this case. I think a sanction, monetary sanction is appropriate. As far as keeping the television camera on or not, we leave that to the discretion of the court. We only ask that if it's going to stay off, that it remain off, if it's going to be on, it remains on. We think you should just fine them--fine them, and we like the idea of a static shot if the court's inclined to keep the camera.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, will submit it too, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. SAGER: My only response would be, your Honor, I think it's not only erroneous, but inappropriate for the court to consider whether or not any of the media made money on the coverage of this trial. It is not an accurate statement that members of the media covering this trial made millions and millions of dollars and, in fact, many of them have lost money covering the trial. I don't think it's appropriate to take that into account any more than appropriate to consider how much money relative members of even the Defense or Prosecution is making in assessing a fine for misconduct.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. MIRELL: Your Honor, may I be heard?

THE COURT: Mr. Mirell, do you think you really need to?

MR. MIRELL: I hope not, your Honor. But to the extent that the court is considering terminating coverage or restricting coverage, I would like to be heard still.

THE COURT: Well, no. I think we've wasted enough time for this particular issue, but I appreciate your interest as always.

MR. MIRELL: All right.

THE COURT: You know, I was hoping to finish this segment without any further problem. All right. I agree that the transgression here was benign in its intent. However, its impact by cruising along Defense counsel table--and I think you can read what's there in careful evaluation of what's there. Mr. Bancroft, I'm going to instruct you shoulders and above.

MR. BANCROFT: Yes, your Honor. I apologize for any inconvenience to the court.

THE COURT: You've done a heck of a job so far, but this is a transgression that I could not ignore.

MR. BANCROFT: I understand.

THE COURT: All right. Fine to RTNA, $1500, the maximum, imposed. If it could be more, it would be. By the end of business today. All right.

MS. SAGER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, the option is yours. I have to change court reporters at 3:15. You want to take a break now or do you want to go on for a half hour?

MS. CLARK: I would sure like to try and finish today if I can.

THE COURT: Then we will. Can we change--we will take a recess at this point, and we will resume at 3:00 o'clock. And may I see Miss McFadden in chambers then.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Mr. Bancroft, stay off the counsel table.

MR. BANCROFT: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Trower, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, my apologies to you for those interruptions. My apologies to Miss Clark for having interrupted her train of thought. There were a couple of things happened that I needed to deal with immediately and I apologize to you for the disruption in the thought process. We will go through at this point until five o'clock and then we will take our mid-afternoon recess, and however, I realize that since we are having extended hours one or two of you may have a need for a comfort break, so if you do, just raise your hand and get the bailiff's attention and we will take a quick five or ten-minute break, if you need to, during the longer hours. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So now we've talked about conduct, we've talked about opportunity and timing. Let's talk about the physical evidence. I'm not going to do it in the detail you have already heard it, heaven forbid, but although you have already seen with the opportunity evidence, with the conduct evidence, we already have evidence to show you that the Defendant did commit these murders, without even really getting into the physical evidence, and once you see the vast array of physical evidence, you can see that there is virtually an ocean of evidence to prove that this Defendant committed these murders. What all of this does, all of this evidence, it links the Defendant to the victims and the crime scene at Bundy. Now, the Defense has gone to great lengths to try and show that they could discredit this evidence and the lengths that they have included have been some of the most bizarre and farfetched notions I think I have ever heard. They hint that the blood was planted. They have tried to create the impression that multiple other bloodstains were contaminated and that somehow all the contamination only occurred where it would consistently prove the Defendant was guilty. So now the little amplicons, those little DNA, they are co-conspirators, too, because they know they have got to rush to only the places where you can attribute the blood to the murderer. When you think about that, just think about that one point logically, okay? Obviously it is common sense, if contamination is going on you are going to see it going on all over the place. As a matter of fact, if what they are saying is true with this aerosol effect, flying DNA all over the place, then Mr. Simpson's blood type ought to be showing up in other cases somewhere. You know, somewhere out or down in another department in a rape case Mr. Simpson's type should be showing up because it is everywhere. Or even let's confine to it this case. Talk about that. That how come if the argument is that his blood is flying all over the place, DNA is flying all over the place, why didn't we find his blood type showing up where obviously it shouldn't be? What I mean is this: They took samples from the pool of blood by Nicole's body. They took samples of blood that was near Ron Goldman's body. Obviously the blood came from them because they were lying there.

And then of course you know you have the blood drops leading away from the crime scene that had to be left by the killer. There is no question about that. That was left by the killer because they are next to the bloody shoeprints. So you know, why is it that the samples of blood they took from her pool of blood didn't come up with the Defendant's blood type if the Defendant's blood type DNA is flying all over the place? If it is flying all over the place, then it ought to be all over the place. Why isn't it in the pool of blood sample that was taken from Nicole Brown? Why isn't it in the pool of the blood sample that was taken from near Ron Goldman's body? Logic, common sense, it ought to be. The DNA, those amplicons, these little things, they don't know where to go. They don't--they are not guided. Contamination is a random thing. The happens willy-nilly. And what you have here is they are trying to get you to believe that only the killer's blood was contaminated and it was consistently contaminated with only the Defendant's blood typing. Does this make any sense to you? What you ought to have, if you have contamination, if you've got a problem here, is that some of the blood drops come back to the Defendant and some don't; they come back to the real killer. That is what you ought to get, because it can't be this consistent. If you had one blood drop in this case, ladies and gentlemen, you know, you might be concerned with all of these possibilities they have raised, but you have so many, you have so many. You've got five blood drops leading away from the bodies the victim out to the driveway and you've got the blood on the rear gate. And you know, that is the other part of their--of their scenario that makes no sense, no sense. You have all these police officers that were there on June the 13th, Officer Riske saying his partner, young rookie names Officer Terrazas, shined his light on the rear gate to show him the blood on the rear gate. You have Officer Riske seeing the blood on the rear gate. You have Officer Rossi seeing the blood on the rear gate. You have Detective Phillips seeing the blood on the rear gate, all of it early on. Dennis Fung, whom you can see is not the model of efficiency, forgot to collect it, and from this we get a theory that they seem to imply that the blood was planted. Why do they say that? Now, first of all, I want to hear Mr. Cochran actually stand up in front of you and tell you he believes the blood was planted. I want to hear that. Because that is incredible. That is absolutely incredible. When you think about that, think what evidence have you been given to show you how that blood was planted, to show you when that blood was planted, to show you who planted that blood? Now, the reason that they have to come up with this story about contamination and planting, and I want to hear if they really, really do that, say that to you, is because they can't get around the result. You recall Dr. Gerdes testified for the Defense and he said that the DNA testing that was allowed--that allowed for RFLP, the most powerful of the techniques of DNA, was--was successful on the rear gate because that blood had higher molecular weight DNA. From the fact that you have higher molecular weight DNA on blood collected later, July 3rd, they want you to infer that somehow it was planted. But they are inconsistent, because if you remember, now if you plant the blood, aren't you going to plant it close to the time you collect? What are you going to do, plant it and hope somebody finds it later? You plant it when you expect someone to find it, right? When they have the EDTA going on, you have all these cross-examination questions about EDTA breaking down due to sunlight exposure. No proof that that happens, by the way, and as could you tell, they did no test to prove that that happens, by the way. It would be nice, if they want to prove that, doctors a little testing. You have got the expert right there. Why didn't he do any tests, by the way? He didn't do any. Okay. So they are asking about EDTA breaking down in the sunlight trying to infer that it was there for three weeks, that the blood was there--if it is there for three weeks, it wasn't planted, folks, it was there on the night of the murder. This is what I mean by inconsistent, illogical. This makes no sense. If you are going to say that the blood was planted, then you are going to say that was planted at or near the time of collection, in which case the EDTA would not break down, in which case the EDTA should be intact, in which case you should see the kind of high smooth arc that the graphs showed you from the reference tubes, instead of the jagged noise that you actually saw. And they brought in Dr. Rieders to try and tell you that that jagged noise looks just like that high arc which is ridiculous, which is insulting to your intelligence. But the reason that they have to say this, defying logic, defying common sense, is because, ladies and gentlemen, his blood on the rear gate with that match that makes him one in 57 billion people that could have left that blood, I mean there is what, five million people on the planet, that means you would have to go through 57 billion people to find the DNA profile that matches Mr. Simpson's. There is only five billion people on the planet. Ladies and gentlemen, that is an identification, okay, that proves it is his blood. Nobody else's on the planet; no one. Now, they know that. Now, the blood on the socks, Nicole's blood on the socks. Again RFLP match, very powerful. Showed from cellmark that was a five-probe match and I believe found to be one in 6.8 billion people. Again, more than--there are people on the planet. Identification. And 11-probe match by DOJ showed that it was one in 7.7 billion people. Again, her blood and only hers on this planet could be on that sock. Now, how do you get around that? It wasn't wrong and they couldn't find an expert who would say it was contaminated because there is too much DNA. That is the blood. That type is the type. It is her blood. How do you get around that? And if you know that that is true, if you know it is her blood on his socks that they find on the morning of June the 13th, that alone with the rear gate stain convicts him. You can't believe otherwise. You have so much proof now how do they get around that? They have to find a theory to get around that. And what do they do? This is what they come up with. So if it is low volume DNA, it is contaminated. If it is high volume DNA, it is planted, and it is also very convenient and ridiculous. Now, their experts had access to all of the evidence in this case. Their experts could have come in and shown you how the evidence got contaminated. Got contaminated, not possibly--remember, I talked to you about mere possibility. No, did, did get contaminated, and they could have come here and told you and pointed out the evidence that showed why only the blood drops left by the murderer got contaminated and shown you why they consistently only got contaminated in a way that showed the Defendant's DNA type, not that they possibly could have. Yes, possibly we are all sitting on mars right now, you know, and I'm from Venus and I'm talking. Anything is possible. Let's talk about what did happen. Let's talk about what we've got. They could have shown you proof that the Bundy blood drops were contaminated, not the mere possibility. No, I'm talking about evidence that gives you a reason to conclude that that happened, and that they never could do. And they could have done it if it were true, but they didn't. And not one expert they brought in on the DNA did even one test on the blood evidence, the evidence that we have that proves to you that the Defendant committed these murders; not one, with all those experts you saw. And the reason for that, ladies and gentlemen, is that it isn't true. The blood on the Bundy trail comes back to the Defendant because it is his blood. The blood on the rear gate comes back to the Defendant because it is blood he left there on the night of the murders. So they took you through all this tortured and twisted road one moment saying that the police are all a bunch of bumbling idiots. The next moment they are clever conspirators. And now ask yourself did they ever prove who planted, when, how? And it is a fact that the Defense doesn't have to prove anything, that is a fact, but once they do decide to put on a case, once they decide and proof something, their witnesses are subject to the same scrutiny as the People's witnesses are. Your jury instruction, as I've told you, makes no distinction. It is up to them to do the best job that they can to make their point and I think a good example of how they failed to do that miserably in this case is the EDTA, that preservative that you find in the purple-topped tube. They have got to make you believe that blood was planted. It is the cornerstone of their Defense, it really is, because as I've pointed out, if you know that is his blood left on the rear gate, if you know that is her blood on those socks, what are you left to conclude? Now, what do they do to show you, to prove to you the cornerstone of their Defense? What do they do? They take our tests, our tests, and they have some other expert, who neither did the test himself nor could come in and try and interpret those graphs for you. Not only that, but he does it inconsistently. He writes a report. If you recall, he wrote a report in which he said he found one parent ion and one daughter ion, not the full daughter spectrum that would permit identification of EDTA, but the same finding of one parent ion, one daughter ion that Mr. Martz said he found in his own blood, in his own unpreserved blood, which tends to prove--no, which does prove--that the blood on the rear gate, the blood on the socks are just like Agent Martz' unpreserved blood, natural blood, not from a preservative tube. So what do they do with that? Here is what happened. Dr. Rieders wrote that report and he said the blood on the sock, the blood on the gate, one parent ion, one daughter ion. Wrote that report I believe on July 17th. A few days after he wrote the report he found out that Agent Martz had just done the test on his own blood and come up with the same result he got on the sock and the gate. Very, very low noise readings and only two of the three ions he should have found, which leads you to understand that it was unpreserved blood. Well, now he has got to do something about that. He has to answer that contradiction because now what we've got is he can't address this. We have proven conclusively it was not EDTA blood. He has got to do something to make his testimony weave its way around. So he gets up on the stand. For the very first time on this witness stand he makes a new conclusion and now he says I find a peak that shows the second daughter ion on the sock. Dr. Rieders, what happened between the time of your report and your testimony? Did you do some tests? No. Did do you some experiments? No. Well, are there some new graphs? Yes, Agent Martz' blood. Not new graphs on the sock; acts Martz' blood. He had to change his testimony to encompass evidence that refuted his conclusion completely. But what they gave you is somebody who did not one test. With access to all the evidence, he tested nothing. They have the experts to do the tests. They did nothing. They had the experts to do experiments to prove things they want to prove about it. Nothing. That is the cornerstone of their defense, ladies and gentlemen. They did nothing. And what does that tell you? What that tells you is they know this is not EDTA blood. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Having a lawyer stand up in front of you and say something, no matter how often it is said, doesn't mean it is true.

I include myself in this. You know, I only argue what the facts show, what I believe the facts have shown, and any reasonable inferences that you can draw from them. That is all. I cannot stand before you and tell you something that is false, that is untrue. You need to go with what is true, with the evidence, with what we have and the reasonable common sense deductions that you make from that evidence. I don't ask you to take my word for anything. That is why we present evidence. That is why we call witnesses. If it isn't in the record or it doesn't make sense to you as a logical inference from what you've heard, reject it. I don't care who says it. Reject it. But do the same for the Defense. Hold me to that standard. Hold them to that standard. When you hear them try to tell you that all this evidence was either contaminated or planted, ask yourself does this really makes sense? Was--what evidence was I given to prove that? Is there any evidence that really shows that? Or is it smoke and mirrors? Is it all just smoke to cloud everything, cloud all the issues, distract you? Take a little piece here, take a little piece there. Kind of reminds me of that story about all these guys that are blindfolded and each one goes to a different end of an elephant. One grabs the tail and he says feels like--feels like a rope, and another guy grabs the trunk and he says feels like a fire hose, and another guy grabs the leg and says feels like a tree, okay? Not one of them got it right, did they? Take off the blindfold, it is an elephant. You put all the pieces together. You put the whole picture together and you can see the truth. But what they have done systematically is fragmented the case. This is not new, you know. They did a very good job of it. They are fine lawyers and they challenged the People's case as they should and that is good. You put the state to their proof. That is what we have to do. We have to deliver. That is our job. And we have been aware of what is happening, hearing their fragmenting. They take little pieces out of context and focus on only that little piece and take a little piece of a picture focus on only this little piece of a picture. And forget about all the rest that puts it all in context. Give Henry Lee second generation photographs that he can't see anything on instead of the good stuff, the original photographs that would show him what is going on on Bundy walk there. Now, back to DNA. I'm sorry, I digressed. Even when it is analyzed using the PCR method, it is not quite so easily contaminated as the Defense would have you believe. As you have heard, it is used every day to save lives and you always use it, you have learned, in very non-sterile conditions. What does that mean? War dead, soldiers who die in jungles and in deserts, those are not sterile environments, ladies and gentlemen. Those are very dirty environments, but they use the PCR test to go identify those soldiers. And why do they do that? So they can notify next of kin. That is a very serious responsibility. You better be right. You better be right. Now, if it is good enough to go and notify next of kin that their son, their daughter, their husband, their father, has been murdered or killed, excuse me, on a battlefield, then it better be good and reliable stuff. So if it is good enough for that, on body parts being recovered from jungles and deserts, it is pretty hearty, pretty durable. Now, Dr. Lee, the Defense expert they gave the DNA evidence to examine, who is a forensic expert, approves of DNA testing in criminal cases. Notice they didn't ask him to look at the evidence here. Notice they didn't ask him to tell what he thought of the results in this case. A forensic expert, a criminal expert, they didn't ask him. Who did they bring in? Dr. Gerdes. Dr. Gerdes, who has admittedly no experience in forensic cases, came in to tell you about validation studies and dot blots, but what did he do in this case? What forensic criminal experience does he have? Zip, none. Why do you even use a guy like that in a criminal case when you've got Dr. Lee? And don't forget Dr. Blake. Dr. Blake who is renown as a scientist who is one of the foremost experts and leading ones in the forensic use of PCR technology whom they had watching the testing at DOJ, examined the evidence in this case, took cuttings of the evidence in this case at cellmark, never sat in that blue chair for the Defense. Why not? Where was he? If you have evidence to prove that there is something that--that there is contamination in these samples, you have an expert who is there watching the testing who is an expert in the field of PCR, does it in criminal cases all the time, he is renown.

You never call him. What sense does that make? What does that tell you about what you've been given here in the nature of the defense? Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen. And by the way, when DNA degrades, as you've been told, it doesn't turn into someone else's type; you get no result. And you may remember--no result, I mean degrades, nothing. You may remember that Dr. Cotton testified--she was asked well, how--how would a swatch in which DNA is all degraded get contaminated with another person's type? How could that happen? She says really they have got to be touching. The swatches would have to come in contact. A swatch of somebody else's type would have to come into physical contact with a swatch where the DNA had completely degraded. She could not envision flying DNA, as they have tried to sell you in the defense, because DNA just doesn't jump or fly. And don't forget, in case you had, we even did prove that their contamination theory was untrue. If you remember, we had a lot of testimony about what we call substrate controls. Now, all the substrate controls are really--you know, I think you will remember it is very simple. You go and you collect a bloodstain from here, (Indicating), and then in order to make sure that the blood type you are going to pick up there isn't the result of something underneath that was already there before the blood came down, you take a little swatch right next to it to show that the ground underneath didn't have any DNA. And we did that. That was done at Bundy next to every bloodstain, systematically done. Now, how do you--how do they help you? When you to go test the swatches, the blood-stained swatches and the controls are tested the same way. And if you have contamination, the controls should come up showing DNA. And the controls on the Bundy walk did not. And there you go. Oh, I wanted to go over an instruction with you. This is a long instruction that has particular relevance to this case.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: It is called--this is the instruction about circumstantial and direct evidence. There are a lot of words in this instruction, I must also say. Let me first say something to you about direct and circumstantial evidence. This--this instruction explains them both. I don't know how well. You know, I'm not a big fan of the way they are written. I think they could be a lot clearer, frankly. But they talk about direct and circumstantial evidence. This one is just circumstantial evidence. You have another instruction that distinguishes between the two. You are told in these instructions that: "Direct and circumstantial evidence are of equal weight. Neither one is better than the other." Now, an example of direct evidence would be an eyewitness, someone who would say, "I saw him, I saw that." We have an eyewitness in Allan Park, okay? His testimony, seeing the man we know to be the Defendant walking into to the house at Rockingham. Allan Park testified to his observations. That is direct evidence, okay? Circumstantial evidence is evidence that leads you to infer, okay? For example, in this case, the blood, the blood at Bundy dripped by the killer next to the bloody shoeprints. It is not direct. Somebody didn't see the murder being committed, didn't see the murderer leaving the crime, but you have the blood of the murderer left behind. Kind of like, well, you have the blood on the rear gate that actually identifies Mr. Simpson. That is kind of like a fingerprint. Okay? That is circumstantial evidence, as opposed to seeing it. Now, in terms of quality, there is no difference, the law has no favorites, but when you think about it, you think about it logically, circumstantial evidence has a lot of benefits that direct evidence doesn't. What is that? It gives you a lot of quality assurance. It gives you independent corroborating bases on which to believe that the Defendant is guilty. Instead of relying on one person's observation, one person who might be mistaken, who might be tired, who might not have observed very well, you know what happens because you saw it happen in this case. What happens with an eyewitness? They start out saying, for example, you know, a robbery, okay? I was standing on the street corner and I saw the Defendant go over to the woman and grab her purse. Okay? Purse snatch. Okay.

Cross-examination. How far away were from you that woman? Where were you standing? Were they standing in shadow? Do you wear glasses? How much of the Defendant's face did you see? Half, three quarters? Only a quarter? What kind of hair did he have? What kind of shirt did he wear? What kind of pants did he wear? What color eyes did he have. Did he have a goatee? Did he have a mustache? Did he have a beard? And so on and so forth. And the witness starts to get torn down, and if that is all you've got, that is all you've got, that is, this person's observation, makes you a little unsteady about whether or not you really have enough proof to give you that certainty that you need. Now, contrast that with the following: You have the Defendant committing a purse snatch and what you have is someone who hears the woman scream, sees the back of a man running and then a few minutes later the Defendant is caught three blocks away holding her purse. Assume for a moment that she cannot really identify her attacker. You got him with her purse just a few minutes later. A lot of things can be said about how it got to him, but that is circumstantial evidence, but even that circumstantial evidence is not nearly as good, it doesn't come close to what we have in this case. In this case you have circumstantial evidence of the blood. You have hair and fiber. And you have some of the conduct evidence and the opportunity evidence. You have a wealth of evidence in this case all pointing to one person: The Defendant. Now, this instruction. Usually when I see lawyers argue this they take out one paragraph and they only talk about that one. I want to talk about the whole instruction here. Okay. Begins in the very first paragraph with: "A finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the Defendant is guilty of the crime, but two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion." You will see the words reasonable, rational throughout these jury instructions, because that is what it is all about; reason, common sense, logical, rational. All right. I'm going to jump around between this and I'm going to come back and forth to this instruction because there is a lot here, but in the third paragraph, this is what I told you about a little bit earlier. "If you have two reasonable interpretations"--remember I talked to you about--I gave you the example of the Bronco that could have been on Ashford or could have been gone completely at the time that Charles Cale was walking his dog. You had two reasonable interpretations from that evidence when he said he couldn't see the Bronco on Rockingham. At the point in time he testified based on his testimony you had two reasonable conclusions to draw; either that it was not there at all or that it was on Ashford and he didn't see it. "When you have two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to guilt and the other to innocence, you adopt the interpretation that points to the innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt." That is when they're equally susceptible of two reasonable interpretations.

"If, on the other hand, one interpretation of the evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable." Reasonable, rational. The Defense will argue to you many things; inferences that could be drawn, just like the possibilities I talked to you about. Ask yourself are they reasonable? Because if they are not, if those inferences are not reasonable, then you are to reject them and accept the reasonable. And that is why I keep referring to common sense; rational, logical. All right. I would like to start with hair and fiber. If you remember Mr. Deedrick testified about the microscopic comparisons of hair and fiber in this case, and when he did so--well, first, let me point something out. His testimony was uncontradicted by any other expert. His testimony is not disputed. His conclusions are not disputed.

And you know that the hair and fiber evidence was examined by at least two other experts for the Defense. Now, when Mr. Deedrick testified he told you what his conclusions were based solely on what he could see through the microscope. That is all he can tell you about. He did not take into account the results of the DNA testing. He didn't take into account the testimony of Kato or of Allan Park; none of that. He looked through a microscope. So all he can tell you is that the Defendant's hair shares the same microscopic characteristics as, for example, the hair and the knit cap found at Bundy or the hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt. He can only say it is consistent, shares the same microscopic characteristics. But when you take into account all of the evidence, including the DNA, including the testimony of Kato and Park, including the Defendant's opportunity to commit the murders, including his post homicidal conduct, you know it is his hair. You know it is that fiber. So now we are going to put it all together, so when I talk to you now about that is the Defendant's hair in the cap, I'm talking about not just Doug Deedrick's testimony. I'm talking about his testimony along with everything else, all the reasonable inferences that you can draw, all the logical conclusions that you come to knowing all that you know in this case. Now, I'm not going to talk about every conclusion that Mr. Deedrick testified to. Some of them were only testified to to give you more information, more background, more knowledge about what you expect to find in this testimony. So let's start--what I would like to do is start with the bodies at Bundy and move away from them, as the Defendant moved away from them after the murders, and analyze all the evidence that was left behind from that perspective. And just so you know, I will show you a couple of photographs from the crime scene, but I'm not going to put up any Coroner's pictures. I have seen enough of that for a while. So when I describe the wounds from the Coroner and that sort of thing, I'm just going to describe them. You are not going to see pictures from me. You can see them back in the jury room if you like. All right. Let's start with the knit cap. Can we get the Bundy board?

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, when I--with the knit cap, I think we have to cut the feed. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft, this has remains on it.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. Again this is an argument board. You are not going to get it back in the jury room. This is just for me to talk to you and show you stuff with.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. 230 can you see it now?

(Juror no. 230 nods affirmatively.)

MS. CLARK: All right. The knit cap. You can barely see it under the plant here. This was the position in which it was found. Now you see how the Defendant could miss it in the dark. It is underneath that plant I'm pointing to right here, that patch of blue here, (Indicating). On that knit cap you recall that the--well, it is the Defendant's hairs. Now, let me refer specifically to Mr. Deedrick's testimony in this regard because what he told us is this: He said there were hair--the hairs that he said were consistent with the Defendant's, he found nine inside the cap. It is clear--extrapolating from his testimony, it is clear that nine--there were nine I think naturally shed hairs is what he said, not fragments, but naturally shed hairs, that he wore the cap from that. Now, what is interesting also is that he talked about fragments that were found inside the cap, hairs of black origin that were not consistent with Mr. Simpson's, and so I asked him, you know, what about those hairs? He said they were treated, chemically treated.

How long were they in the cap? Can't tell. They could have been there for years, because you can--you know, life experience, if you ever had anything knit like that kind of a loose weave, you will have it in evidence, you can check it out, it is going to get hairs in it and those hairs could stay there for a very long time if it is not washed and it is not laundered. So that is why I asked the Defendant's hairdresser, what about the Defendant's former wife Marguerite, did she treat her hair? What about Arnelle, did she treat her hair? These are other people, people that could have worn the cap whose hair--the fragments, old fragments could be from, but the nine naturally shed hairs inside the cap that were consistent with the Defendant's were different in quality than those, because they were not fragments and therefore unlikely to be old. All right. And taking into account everything that we know, those were his hairs in the cap. He wore the cap. He also found on that cap fiber. He said it was consistent with the Defendant's--the carpet from the Defendant's Bronco. And he talked to you about the unusual nature of the--the trilobal cross-section of that fiber, and he showed you photographs of it through the--that were taken from the scanning electron microscope. You will have that back in the jury room if you want to see it, it is very interesting stuff, but what we know from all we know, that was a fiber from the Defendant's Bronco on that cap. Now, that is very important because that actually--with that cap we have tied the Defendant and his car to the crime scene at Bundy and now you see, to summarize, on the knit cap we have the Defendant's hair and the Bronco fiber from the carpet in his Bronco. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, let's go to Ron's shirt. Now, on Mr. Goldman's shirt we have the Defendant's hair and we have the blue black cotton fiber. Now, of course the Defendant's hair is of obvious significance. Mr. Deedrick was asked whether or not that hair appeared to be--the hair that he said was consistent with the Defendant's, whether it appeared soiled. He said no. That was very important and that was very important for this reason: If we had simply found hairs of the Defendant in the soil of that area at Bundy where Ron Goldman was lying, we probably would not think that was a big deal. Why? He visited the place. He was there. Pick up the children, leave the children, and that there might be stray hairs lying around in the soil, you know, falling from whatever reason. This would not be very significant. I wouldn't be standing here talking to you about it right now. But you have an unsoiled hair on the victim's shirt. That is important. And that makes the distinction. Because if it had been something that he picked up from the soil, then you should have seen dirt in it. The fact that it was unsoiled means it was the result of contact between the Defendant and Ronald Goldman that night during the murders. We certainly have no reason at all to believe there was any contact between the Defendant and Ronald Goldman before the murder is committed. We have something else on Ron's shirt. We have the blue black cotton fibers. All right. So what is the big deal about that? Well, you recall that Mr. Deedrick found blue black cotton fibers in two other places and the blue black cotton fibers that he found that shared the same microscopic characteristics as those he found on Ron Goldman's shirt were found on the Rockingham glove and on the Defendant's socks. So what could that be? Well, clearly those are fibers from what the Defendant was wearing this night. You recall what Kato described. He was wearing the dark blue to black cotton sweatsuit with long sleeves. Now, a sweatsuit has banded ankles and is going to be in contact with your socks. Obviously, too, a sweatsuit, you know, if you have those--if you have an elastic ankle, exertion, you are going to pull the pants up, it is going to rub, there is going to be some friction there. And it is natural, it is also common sense, that you will find fiber from one piece of clothing transferred to another, which is why if you recall when he was testifying, I asked him did you find any of Ron Goldman's shirt fibers on his jeans? Yeah, I did. Not a surprising thing. Very common. Same thing happened with the Defendant. And when he had contact with Ronald Goldman, when he attacked Ronald Goldman, he left fibers from what he was wearing on Ron Goldman's shirt. And when he went to take--and in wearing that sweatsuit over those socks, he left fibers on those socks. And in having maybe the Rockingham glove in his pocket, when he was running down the south pathway picking up fibers from it, from his clothing, when the glove fell out, it still had the fiber from his clothing and that is why you have those fibers sharing the same microscopic characteristics with all the tests he performed on them, there were quit a few, in these three places, going to the crime scene, the south pathway and the Defendant's bedroom. So with this piece of evidence we have again tied the Defendant to the murders and this link carries us from Bundy clear into the Defendant's bedroom in Rockingham.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor, for this next slide would you cut the feed.

MS. CLARK: And here is a summary of what we have just discussed, the Defendant's hair on Ron Goldman's shirt and blue black cotton fibers.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: And another piece of the puzzle. All right. Now, let's move away from Ron and start up the walkway. Now, for this I'm going to direct your attention to the board, the bloody shoeprints. Now, the bloody shoeprints actually start down here--I will just hold it up for a minute. On this very first photograph on the bottom you can see the shoeprints right next to the blue knit cap. It starts between--okay. And those bloody shoeprints go all the way down the walkway until you get to about halfway when they fade out. This is another important piece of evidence that proves the Defendant's guilt. The shoeprints are all size 12. The shoeprints were all--and by the way, size 12, less than ten percent of the male population wears that size and the men who wear that size tend to fall within the height range of 5-11 to 6-4. The Defendant is 6-2. And these are not just any size 12's. They are expensive shoes, casual shoes that cost 160 bucks; not dress shoes, shoes that would be worn by a rich man, the kind of man who would wear cashmere lined gloves. And what is more important is that those shoes were only sold in forty stores in this country. Out of how many thousands, maybe millions of stores in this country, these shoes are only sold in forty of them, and one of those stores was Bloomingdales, the store the Defendant shopped in regularly where he would buy shoes, both dress and casual, as you've heard the testimony. They stopped selling those shoes back in 1992, but during the time that they sold them, the Defendant was shopping at Bloomingdales. Now, as we move down the walkway we see that there is only one set of bloody shoe prints and Mr. Bodziak I think made that very clear, especially on his last visit, only one set were bloody shoeprints and all of them were consistently Bruno Magli size 12. And there is the summary. The Defendant's shoe size is 12, less than ten percent of the population expensive men's, rare shoes sold at very few stores. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, we look to the left of the bloody shoeprints and we see the blood drops on the walkway. These are the blood drops left by the murderer. I've already talked to you about that and it is clear because they go all the way alongside to the left of the bloody shoeprints down that walkway. Five blood drops, all of which match the Defendant. Now, of the four inside the gate, four on the walkway that is inside the gate, all four were done with PCR. One was also done with conventional serology. You recall there was testimony about that from Greg Matheson. But all of them match the Defendant. As we get to the rear gate, we see that there is more blood and this blood also matches the Defendant. Now, on the rear gate I think I have already talked to you about that, the blood that matches the Defendant was type 1 in 57 billion. In other words that is his identity, that is his blood. Then we go out to the driveway and you recall blood drop no. 52 and that drop was also done with RFLP and in that blood drop out on the driveway you have the typing I think determined with RFLP was one in 170 million. The reason for the lower number is because there are fewer probes, it was a weaker sample. The reason for that--let's talk about that for a minute. You have a different environment--and I think it is important to note on the walkway--we don't have a beginning picture of it here--there are other pictures that you have in evidence that will show this. The walkway is very dirty and it is concrete, it is porous, it absorbs. On the other hand, on the gate you have a smooth surface. It is up off the ground and it is not as much in contact with dirt and with the elements and it is not going to be absorbed in the gate because the paint on the gate prevents it from doing that, which is why you have higher molecular weight DNA.

The more that DNA is subjected to bacteria, to dirt, that degrades it, the more it is going to degrade, the less DNA you are going to have. The dirtier the environment, the less the DNA, the cleaner--less hostile environment, the more DNA, very simple, so you have more than DNA on the gate than you do on the dirty walkway. The gate is not the cleanest thing in the world, I guarantee, but you do have--it is up off the ground, you do have a non-absorbent surface, so that is part of the reason for the higher weight DNA. The other part of the reason is that the rear gate, by inference from all of the testimony, that stain was collected and taken down right away instead of sitting in plastic bags in a hot truck. All right. So you have all of the blood on the walkway match the Defendant. You have RFLP results on the rear gate that identifies the Defendant. You have a--a drop on the driveway, one in 170 million. That is a virtual identification of the Defendant under all of these circumstances as well. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, let's talk about the Bronco.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Escobar, would you just show that briefly to counsel, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. First of all, just consider the fact that there is blood in the Bronco at all. I mean, ladies and gentlemen, do you have blood on the interior driver's door of your car, on the dashboard, on the console? I mean, think about that. And all at the same time. As for the amount of blood in the car, how much would you expect to see? When you think about it, the Defendant inflicted the wounds that bled out on these victims, the ones that really bled out from behind them, the throat cut that was demonstrated to you by Dr. Lakshmanan. So if he is standing behind them, they are bleeding out this way, how much blood is he going to get on him? Not very much. And he certainly wouldn't be getting any on his back which is where he is going to be in contact with his seat, the back and the back of his legs. If any blood at all on his hands from touching.

So the blood that you see in the Bronco is actually, logically speaking, where you would expect to see it from a cut hand or from a bloody glove that is dropped down next to the console. It is the amount you would expect to see, it is where you would expect to see it, given the circumstances of this case. Now, let's talk about the cut finger. Look at where we found blood on the door. You found blood inside the well of the driver's door handle and you found some closer to the driver's window. This blood in here, in the well of the driver's door handle inside the car, how do you get that blood there? Think about where you would have to put your hand? How about where you would have to be sitting when you put your hand there? When you get out of the car, if you are seated in the car, in the driver's seat, and you need to open the door to get out, that is what you do, you put your hand in the door handle to open it in a seated position. So that blood got on there after he--when he drove back from Bundy with the bloody finger to get out of his car. That is the only position you could be in to get the blood in the well of that door handle like that, because to get it there you are opening the door, and to be opening the door from inside the car you would be seated in the car. So now we know yet another fact that shows that he was bleeding in that car long before he went out to get his cell phone from the Bronco to leave for the record the airport. Now, the Defendant is not claiming that the Defendant's blood in the Bronco was either planted or contaminated. They concede that one right up front. And that is because they can come up with an explanation for that one. Remember the razor sharp cell phone? But remember it is only the evidence that they can't otherwise explain that they resort to the desperation theories of contamination and planting. But it is not only the Defendant's blood in this car, there is also the blood of Ron and Nicole in that Bronco. And there are other people who saw that there was blood in that car at Rockingham in the early morning hours of June the 13th. Do you recall another witness called by the Defense, Officer Don Thompson, who was guarding the car and kind of taking care of business at Rockingham? He saw the blood in the Bronco as well. Now, you may remember that the blood on the console was initially collected--by the console I mean the area here marked by the no. 31, this number tag that is in between the seats. Testimony was that Dennis Fung collected blood from that console on June the 14th at the print shed. That was before it went to Viertel's, that tow yard where it seems that everybody and his brother went to look at that car. Before it went there Dennis Fung collected that blood. Now, the results of the blood collected by Dennis Fung on the morning of June 14th indicated with PCR testing the presence of blood from the Defendant and from Ronald Goldman. And it indicated that the response--it was mostly the Defendant's blood in that mixture. Now, you heard all the testimony about the insecure conditions at Viertel's and how the car was kept unlocked because they didn't have a key for it and you may remember that the Defendant had to

Be--that the Bronco had to be towed from Rockingham because early in the morning when the police had contacted the Defendant, if you may recall, Kato testified that the detectives asked him for a key to the Bronco because it was locked, they couldn't get inside it, and he couldn't find a key. And you may also recall that there was testimony indicating that the car had to be towed because it couldn't be unlocked, they didn't unlock it until the 14th when they had to do that with a slimjim. Basically had to break into it.

Well, after the Bronco left Viertel's, I think it was about a month later, it went to a more secure location, and at the request of the Defense an examination of the Bronco was conducted in their presence. And Michele Kestler told you how she saw that Dennis Fung had not collected all of the blood off the console and she said, let's collect the rest of it. So they took the console out and Greg Matheson actually swatched the remaining blood off the console in the presence of the Defense experts, and that was on I believe August 26th, either August 26th or September 1st. Now, that blood that he swatched on either August 26th or September 1st in the presence of the Defense did not go through LAPD testing at all. That blood went straight up to the Department of Justice for testing. And it came back with an RFLP match that you heard late in the trial. RFLP meaning we had more DNA in it and we were able to say--we were able to match the blood again to the Defendant and Ron Goldman. That is very important for two reasons: No. 1, it shows you that it is not so easy to contaminate DNA. It is not so easy to contaminate blood. Even though that console sat there in the Bronco at Viertel's where everybody had to go and check this Bronco out, the results that were obtained on the morning of the 14th, before it went to Viertel's, are the same as the results that were obtained about two months later, two and a half months later. So it tells you also that PCR testing is accurate. But of course even more importantly, it tells you that Ron Goldman's blood is in that Bronco. And there is no reason for his blood to be in that Bronco, an RFLP match, unless the Defendant committed the murders and had the blood of Ron Goldman on him to swipe on that Bronco. Now, there is something else about that Bronco that I wanted to point out to you. Can we put the photo up? For this I think it is better to show you the picture up on the screen.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this?

MS. CLARK: This--which one is this, John. ?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: This is a photo of the Bronco driver's side floorboard.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Item 33.

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me. What number, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, proceed, and we will have Mr. Fairtlough tell us which one this is.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: We are trying to try and help the resolution here a little bit. I showed you a photograph during the trial that I think it was a lot clearer than what you are seeing now. This one is very faded.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. We are going to get a clearer picture for you. What I'm going to point out to you, though, ladies and gentlemen, is the bloody imprint that was on the driver's side of that carpet. On the driver's side of the floor mat where a driver would put his foot we find a bloody--a bloody imprint that Mr. Bodziak told you had characteristics consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe of that pattern that he talked about and the bloody imprint that was tested and matched to the blood of Nicole Brown. That carpet piece was cut out of the Bronco by Dennis Fung on June the 14th at the print shed. Now, think about this one for a minute, because just the fact of having blood in that location tells you something. How in the world do you get blood on the floor mat in a position where a driver puts his foot unless you have stepped in blood and then sat in the car and put your foot on that spot? How else? How else? How many times have you stepped in blood and how many times have you tracked it into your car? I don't know how many. But you can see just logically somebody who is walking around with bloody shoes gets in to drive his car and the carpet comes up--there you go--and this is People's--

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: People's 172.

MS. CLARK: People's 172. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Do we have the laser light?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: I'm going to ask Jonathan to point it out to you. You can probably see it, though.

THE COURT: Do you want to use the laser?

MS. CLARK: Oh, great. This is easier. Look. See right here, (Indicating), and that is what we had testimony about with respect to the blood testing and with respect to Mr. Bodziak. But when I sat and I listened to that, I thought, gee, I don't know how--how much clearer it could be. I really don't. You have the bloody shoeprints going down the walkway. Understandably on concrete, a hard surface they fade out. And then you put that same bloody shoe that obviously got blood up in the grooves of the patterns of the shoe on to a soft surface like a carpet that picks up that blood, whatever is remaining. How else did it get there? And those bloody shoeprints that lead away from the bodies of Ron and Nicole reach right into the Defendant's Bronco. All right. We have--you can already see we have such a wealth of evidence that we could probably stop right here, but, frankly, I would like to, but I have to finish going through all of the evidence, and the Bronco went back to Rockingham, so let's go back to Rockingham as we trace the steps. And I will quickly review the evidence for you at Rockingham.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Escobar.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. So he gets in the Bronco and he drives back to Rockingham, parking it on Rockingham just north of the Rockingham gate where we see it in all of the photographs. Now, as I have described earlier, the Defendant runs down the south pathway, and you are thinking to yourself, you know, why? Why would he do that? And I talked to you about disposing of the knife. Really common. Murderers want to get rid of the murder weapon, they think that is the one thing that can nail them. He is running back to that rear lot. He never gets there because he crashes into the air conditioner dropping the glove. Why would he need to put the knife on his own property? You are thinking why not drop it in a dumpster on the way home? Doesn't that make sense? Why would you want to do it, leave that on your own property or bury it on your own property? He can't. He can't because he is famous. If someone sees him hanging around near a dumpster on that night of all nights at that time of all times, dropping something into a dumpster, they are going to recognize him and he is going to have a witness, a witness who is going to put him very close to the scene of the crime, at the very wrongest time he could be there, right after the murders. He can't dispose of evidence in public. Every move he makes is noticed. So he has got to find a private place and that is the one that makes the most sense and he doesn't have a whole lot of time to get real creative here. So what do we find on the Rockingham glove, the one he drops? We find everything. Everything. We find fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt. We find the hair of Ron. We find the hair of Nicole. We find the blood of Ron Goldman. We find the blood of Nicole Brown. And we find the blood of the Defendant. And we find Bronco fiber from the Defendant's Bronco. We find blue black cotton fibers just like those found on the shirt of Ron Goldman and on the socks of the Defendant in his bedroom. And on this glove he is tied to every aspect of the murder; to Ron Goldman, to Nicole Brown, to the car, and of course that is why the Defense has to say that the glove is planted, because if they don't, everything about this glove convicts the Defendant, where it is found, what is found on it, what is found in it, even a black limb hair found inside the glove. Everything about it convicts him. Even though the planting theory is ridiculous, when you think about it, you give it a little rational thought and you realize it is absurd. Whatever you think of Mark Fuhrman, nobody thinks much of him, he couldn't have done this. Why couldn't we have done this? It is not just the fact that all the other officers who were there before him saw only one glove. Think about what he knew at the time he went out to the south pathway? He didn't know whether or not there were eyewitnesses to the crime that would say somebody else did it. He didn't know if there was going to be someone who said I heard voices. They weren't his. They weren't Mr. Simpson's. He didn't know if the Defendant had an airtight alibi and had maybe left on the nine o'clock flight to Chicago. He didn't know any of that. He could have--what he could have done, by planting evidence, is been wrong and completely fouled up the solution of the case, because he is doing something like that without knowing anything about the case, subjecting him--himself. Think about his own self-preservation, so incredible and in--an incredible felony. He is in big trouble, in big trouble. And all that has to happen is that an alibi is disproven or an eyewitness comes forward, neither one of which he knows anything about. They can be out there for all he knows. Probably thinks they are. So think about that when you consider this theory of the Defense. You know, I mean, it is like dismissing logic and reality and reason all at once, throw them out the window, because nothing makes sense about that theory, nothing from even Mark Fuhrman's point of view. But I think if you look clearly at the evidence, if you look straight to it and you use your common sense, you are going to see this. You are going to know this. You will. But the bottom line is, and I think that you will reach the same conclusion, no one planted that glove. You know why? Because they are his gloves. They are his gloves. Think about all the evidence you heard now. Remember that he is a size extra large. The gloves are a size extra large. The glove at Rockingham is a mate to the glove at Bundy. They are a pair. A pair that are the same exact type purchased by Nicole on December 18th, 1990, one of only 200 pair sold that year. Gloves that are cashmere lined, gloves that cost $55.00, rich man's gloves, gloves that were exclusive to Bloomingdales, gloves that were not sold west of Chicago, gloves that the Defendant was wearing at football games from January of 1991, just a few weeks after she bought them, until the last football season before the murders.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Now, you will recall that there was a photograph that was shown to you. First of all, the receipt. There was a receipt that was shown to you that showed that when she bought the gloves she bought two pair of gloves and a muffler on December 18th of 1990 and there was a photograph shown to you during one of the football games that I'm trying to remember the date of, I think it was `92, I think it was `92, in which he is wearing a brown jacket, a brown muffler and the brown gloves. Doesn't it make sense that when she bought the muffler, she bought it to match at least one of the pair of the gloves, and there he is wearing it? And you see him wearing those gloves in the photographs that we showed you right up until the last football season before the murders. And the gloves you saw him wearing in all of those pictures that we showed you at all those football games are the gloves that you have right here in evidence in this courtroom. And you recall--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: May I have a moment, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Excuse me. We are trying to pull up that picture for you.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. You have testimony that was taken on the--on this photograph, you see the muffler, the jacket, the glove.

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, what exhibit is this?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: We believe it is 614, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Okay. I think it was January of `92. If you need to have that reviewed for you, it is in the testimony. Okay. Now, I know that you recall the glove demonstration when the Defendant put the gloves on, the crime scene gloves on. Now, he mugged for you and he tried to act like it was real difficult, it was real hard for him and almost impossible to get it on. Well, I'm sure it wasn't as easy as usual, he didn't have to ever wear them before every latex gloves. As Mr. Rubin told you, that makes it a great deal more difficult to put gloves on and being sold gloves, the blood that is soaked into them, soaked in and made them that much less stretchable because really the issue is stretchability, not so much size. If he had had the chance to put them on, wear them for awhile, they would have stretched back out, they would have been a better fit than they were, so it might have taken a little effort and a little time, but you ultimately would have seen that of course they do fit. And it is no different than an experience that we all have in our lives you have leather gloves, they get damp a little bit, you leave them to dry, you don't wear them for a while, they are tight. You have got to drag them on, pull them on. You wear them for a little bit, they sketch back out. And again, that is common sense, that is something we have all had in our life's experience, but if you really try you can do it. But have you ever tried to put shoes on a child that doesn't want shoes puts on them or jacket on a child that doesn't want the jacket to be put on? You know, they can't do it. They are going to kick, they are going to scream, they are going to avoid you, they are going to struggle and they are going to squiggle and it is not going to happen. That is the same thing we have here. He doesn't want to show the gloves fit. But did you see how quickly he snapped them off? If they were so hard to get on, how come they came off like that? And they did. And I will tell you something else that really struck me. If I were asked to put on the gloves, the bloody gloves that were used to murder the father of my children, I would not be laughing. I would not be mugging. I would not be playing games. I wouldn't think it was funny at all. Is that the attitude you expect, the laughing and the mugging, putting on the bloody gloves that were used to murder the mother of your children?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. I object. Improper.

THE COURT: Sustained. Move on.

MS. CLARK: The point here is that the person who wore those gloves wore size extra large.

THE COURT: In fact, let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Miss Clark, I don't know that it is appropriate to comment upon conduct of the Defendant in the courtroom who doesn't testify.

MR. COCHRAN: Right.

THE COURT: So stay away from that.

MS. CLARK: Okay, I will, but I checked this out legally and I think I have authority for you.

THE COURT: We are close. I think you are close.

MS. CLARK: I'm done anyway. I'm not going back to it. I already researched this.

THE COURT: I understand.

MS. CLARK: I feel solid.

THE COURT: Move on.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, you may resume.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. The point here is that the person who wore those gloves wore size extra large. If they shrunk before that night, he wouldn't have worn them. What do you do with gloves that don't fit? You throw them away, right? That is why he was able to wear them. He would have bought gloves that did fit. That is what he would have done. Now, the testimony has told us that the gloves in evidence are smaller now than when they were new, so the issue with all that has been done to them blood soaked, frozen, unfrozen, who knows what, the issue is how they fit at 10:00 p.m. Just before the murders on the night of June the 12th. The issue is how stretchable they were then before the murders at 10:00 p.m. On June the 12th. And we know that those gloves fit him on the night of June the 12th because he wore them, the size extra large, the size you know fits him, because he put on a new pair of extra large in this room, as Mr. Rubin said, they fit him beautifully, and he did that, of course, without the benefit of latex--I say "Benefit" sarcastically--latex to catch on them. So you have in these gloves all of the points that I have described and as shown on the slide. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, let's move back down the walkway, the south pathway that is, that dark narrow south pathway, and when he ran back down there the Defendant undoubtedly saw that the limousine was already there because it was pulled up facing into the driveway at the Ashford gate. It would be hard for him to miss. And he knew that he should already have been home. He was running late. And don't forget, you know he is pretty shook up at this point. He is running into the air conditioner and banged into the wall. He is worried, got to be worried about the fact that Kato is going to come out and worry--and try to investigate the source of the noises. And he has got to get out of that south pathway because if Kato sees him back there how is he going to explain that? How is that going to look on the night of the murders of the wife and Ron Goldman, if Kato comes outside and sees him in that dark south pathway? What is he doing there? So he has got to get back in that house and he has got to get back in a hurry, which is why there was no time to hide the knife behind the guest house. He had to get out of there, which is also why there was no time to realize that he had dropped a glove. All right. So he goes into the house, which is at the point that Allan Park sees him go in, which is a couple minutes after the thumps are heard by Kato. The Defendant went upstairs quickly, he answered the intercom when Allen buzzed him this fourth time, I think, and he needed to collect himself, he needed to buy time. He left Allan sitting and waiting at the gate while he got ready to go, but he took off his socks, he reopened the cut on his finger, and that is why you have blood on the bathroom floor, and under pressure to get out of there, get changed and get going, because the limo driver is downstairs waiting. He left the socks on his bedroom floor. And in that one simple careless act gave--gave us the most--possibly single most devastating proof of guilt in the case, because on that sock, on that sock we found blood that matched Nicole Brown, blood that matched the Defendant and the blue black cotton fiber.

Now, I've already talked to you about the significance of the blue black cotton fiber, fibers from the clothes he wore, clothes that we never found, with the fibers that share the same microscopic characteristic as found on the shirt of Ron Goldman doing on his socks and on the Rockingham glove. Those are fibers picked up from the clothes he wore that night. And we never found them. He got rid of them. Now, the Defendant's blood on that sock gave an RFLP match, once again putting him within one in 57 billion people. You would have to go through 57 billion people to found blood type as the Defendant's as we found on that sock. That is his blood on the sock. That is an identification. But that is not all. We found Nicole's blood as well. Now, on this, on sock B, we have actually two stains for Nicole. Sock a we have one stain. Now, there is something interesting about these sock stains that perhaps was not made clear during the testimony. I want to bring it out now because it is very important to this notion of planting. Gary Sims testified, and when he did, he told you about the fine spatter that he found above--on sock a that he found above the Nicole Brown stain on sock A. Little dots. I think he said there were like ten of them above the Nicole Brown stain. And on sock b he found little tiny spatter between the stains, two Nicole Brown stains on sock B. Little fine spatter. Kind of like the little spatters you would get when you stepped in a puddle or a pool of blood. Mr. MacDonnel didn't want to talk to me about those little spatters. You know why? Because that little spatter proves to you that nothing was planted here. That blood got on his sock because he was wearing it at the crime scene when he was committing the murders stepping in pools of blood. That is how that blood got there and that is why you have that fine spatter. And as I've told you now, there was a smaller stain, I think there were two smaller stains of Nicole Brown that were only good enough for PCR testing and there was one large stain that was good enough for RFLP testing. And the testimony gave us the fact that you would have to look through 6.8 billion people to find the blood type of Nicole that was found on that sock. And of course once again that is identity. We have proven it is hers and only hers on this planet that was on that sock. All right. So with all of this blood evidence, what we have done, and fiber and hair, look at all we have traced, look at all we have proven, we have linked the Defendant to the crime scene, we have linked the Defendant to the victims, we have linked the Defendant and the victims to his car and that link has reached from Bundy into his bedroom at Rockingham. They are all interwoven by time, by space, by occurrence, by science; all linked. Now, let's turn to the murders themselves, and in this section I would like to talk to you about the manner of killing.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. In this section I'm going to talk to you--I'm not going to start this way, but ultimately I'm going to talk to you about the law of homicide, what the People are required to prove in terms of proving that a murder occurred, what is a first degree and what is a second degree murder. Before I do that, I'm going to address some preliminary questions that--these are not questions the law requires us to answer, frankly. These are just kind of questions that you have, the things that you might want to debate in the jury room. I would like to give you some ideas about these questions and ponder them with you for a little bit, but let me--let me preface my remarks by saying that this has nothing to do with the elements of the crime that we are required to prove. In terms of our requirements of proof as to who did it and what they did, this has nothing to do with those, just so you know, because this is a matter of, as I told you in the jigsaw puzzle, this is the piece of sky, but it is interesting and it might be something that you are interested in, so in that light I'm going to talk a little bit about it. First of all, how could one person do this without the victim's being able to scream or escape? How long did this take to accomplish? What about these murders leads us to believe that it was committed by only one person? I will start with the last question first. First of all, if someone else was involved, that certainly does not mean that the Defendant didn't do it; it just means that he got somebody else to help him. That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it, though. I'm not saying that he did. I'm not saying that there was a second person there. I'm just saying that that alone doesn't mean anything. But secondly--first of all, if someone else was involved, on a purely basic level of observation, look at the nature of the wounds inflicted to each victim, and I don't mean look physically, because I'm not going to show them to you, but I mean you can probably remember. The nature of these wounds--you know, as I watched the testimony, I thought only one person could have done this because they killed the same way. The stab wound to the back of the head, the coup de grace slash to the neck, the targeting of the neck that way, the style of killing is the same. That is just a lay person's observation, but it is kind of a practical common sense thing. The murders look the same. You also heard a great deal of testimony concerning the murder weapon, weather it was single or double-edge and whether all of the wounds could have been inflicted by a single-edge knife. This goes to the determination whether or not it was one or two killers, although I must say two killers could have single-edged knives, although there was no testimony indicating whether you could match a particular knife to a knife wound. Dr. Lakshmanan testified in this regard that all of the major wounds were inflicted by a single-edged knife. He indicated to you also that there were certain other wounds, lesser wounds, in which he couldn't tell whether it was made by a single or a double-edged knife. But it would seem to make sense that if all of the major wounds are made with a single-edged knife, why would you come in there then with a double-edge knife to do the little ones? It kind of makes sense that a single-edged knife was used. But beyond that, scientifically I think we had Doug Deedrick testify that he examined the damage in Ron Goldman's shirt and he determined that--and a shirt of course is less elastic and less messy, if you will, than flesh, and he was able to see the damage in the shirt and see that it was the knife--that the cuts in the shirt were made with a single-edged very sharp knife, which tends to support and corroborate what Dr. Lakshmanan said. So the upshot of all that testimony is that to the extent that anything can be said based on what the wounds permit and a description of the murder weapon, it would appear to me a single-edged knife. Another indication that the murders were committed by one person comes from the blood evidence, and this is one of the few areas where there was really no dispute to the accuracy or the reliability of the result. And here is a result we haven't yet talked about. Cut feed, please. Sorry, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. This is People's--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: People's 100. All right. You see that blood drop on the bottom of the boot, ladies and gentlemen, (Indicating). It was--that is the sole of Ron Goldman's boot. That is a photograph taken at the scene at Bundy after the Coroner arrived, because you can see he is lying on that sheet. All right. Now, that blood drop was tested and it was a high amount of DNA and it was a high amount of DNA because as you can see it was dripped on a part of the boot that doesn't look that dirty and it obviously dried on that boot.

So the DNA did not degrade as badly as it did on the concrete. Again that is a non-absorbent surface, plastic, so it was preserved better. Now, what the result of that drop was, was a mixture of the blood of Ron and Nicole. Now, what does that blood drop mean? First of all, obviously that blood drop, and I think Henry Lee even testified to this, was dripped on the sole and Ron Goldman was already down when it was dripped on the sole. How could it have dripped on the sole of the boot in that manner? Well, it had to have come from the murder weapon, from a knife. Those drops are dripped on, cast off drops from the murder weapon, from the knife. And that means that Ron had already been cut badly enough to leave a quantity of blood on that knife and it also means that Nicole had also been cut badly enough to leave a quantity of blood on that same knife, because unless one knife has the mixture of blood of both victims on it, how can you get one blood drop from both victims? You see what I mean? The blood of Ron and Nicole mixed on the knife, it dripped onto the boot, and that is why you get a blood drop with the mixture of their blood. And that shows you one murder weapon.

Now, in addition to all of that, add the fact that you have virtually no evidence of the presence of a second killer. I mean, there should be something left, but there was really virtually nothing. Now, Dr. Lee tried to tell us about a second set of shoeprints, as you recall, but I think Mr. Bodziak made it very clear what this was all about. The only shoeprints that did not match the Bruno Magli was the one shoeprint he found on June 25th after police officers had walked through the crime scene. You recall those photographs two weeks after the crime, after cameramen had been on the walkway. I mean, what does that one shoeprint mean? It means nothing. And it certainly has nothing to do with the murders. Now, what about the hair and fiber? Does that tell us anything in terms of whether or not it was one or two people that committed the murder? Now, as I've already mentioned, with respect to the hair and fiber, Mr. Deedrick testified to hairs--transacting amounts of treated hairs that were not consistent with the Defendant's inside the knit cap or on the knit cap. He also testified, though, that he did not know how long those hairs had been on the knit cap, they could be there for a very long time, but other than that, there was really no hair and fiber evidence that could be directly connected to the murders that was associated with anyone but the Defendant, and by that I mean hair or fiber on the victims or on the objects found at the crime scene that were directly and obviously involved in the murders, such as the glove or the knit cap. Dr. Lee testified to stray fibers and hairs that were in the dirt or that were on the envelope that was lying in the dirt. But stuff lying around in dirt could have been there for weeks, could have been there for months. And as I told you before, if we had found hair consistent with the Defendant's in the dirt there I wouldn't be standing here and talking to you about that stuff, because so what? Show me something that is directly connected to the murders and there was nothing. Nothing. And you know that if there was somebody else there they had to leave something of themselves there. There was a struggle. Things happened there. Fur was flying there, as you can see.

Now, while I'm talking about hair and fiber, there is one other piece of that evidence that tells you that the Defendant acted alone. And that is this: You recall that Mr. Deedrick testified that he found Nicole--well, Mr. Deedrick said he found hairs consistent with Nicole Brown's on the shirt of Ron Goldman and we know from all of the evidence that that is Nicole's hair on his shirt. Think about how that happens? If the killer kills Nicole or attacks Nicole in the initial attack, and I will get back to that later, and he touches her hair, touches his head, he gets her hairs on him, goes over to attack Ron, those hairs will be transferred. And Mr. Deedrick talked to you about how transfers occur. Logically her hairs would get on Ron's shirt if the person who attacked Nicole then went over to Ron. There would be no reason for the transfer to Ron's shirt of Nicole's hair if two people were involved in these murders. Logically speaking, two people are involved, one takes on Ron, one takes on Nicole, but you don't have one person attaching Nicole and moving over to attack Ron if two people are there. No one wants to take their time committing murder. As a matter of common sense you are going to get in and you are going to get out and if you have got two people available to do it, one is going to take one and one is going to take the other and you are not going to have that kind of movement of hair from Nicole to Ron. So it is very clear, the crime scene really makes it very clear, that there is evidence of only one killer and all of that evidence establishes that that is the Defendant. Next question. How long could it have taken? On this subject there really is some agreement. There is agreement that all of these wounds could have been inflicted very, very quickly. Even Dr. Baden didn't disagree with Dr. Lakshmanan, said it could have been just a few minutes. Now, when you realize--you look at this crime scene, look at what you have, look at where you have it. It is apparent from the evidence at the crime scene that Ronald Goldman was taken by surprise, and I will get to Nicole in a minute because there is evidence with respect to her, too, but first let's take Ronald Goldman because that is the one who struggled. You see--do we have that picture--can we cut the feed, please, your Honor? Thank you.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. This is 43-E, your Honor. All right. You see the envelope and it is just--just inside the gate. You remember, because you were there, how small that area is in--that caged area in he--at Bundy, very, very, very tight and that envelope is virtually with one step in the gate, it is dropped, and we have blood drippings on the envelope that indicate that it was dropped and then Ron bled, dripping onto that envelope. That indicates surprise. Do we have the keys?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show new a moment where the keys were found as well. He drops his keys also. Now, I know a lot of suggestions were made here about how you can use keys as a weapon. I don't see how that really make any sense, frankly.

How do you use keys against a six-inch sharp knife? And how do you see any evidence there that he even had them in his hand long enough to think about that? Those keys were dropped and they were dropped right inside the gate and I will show you the photograph of where they were found.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: People's 56-C. You see the keys right by the gate? Now, those are a little bit--if this is the gate, right here, (Indicating), if you step inside, it is a little bit down to my right as I'm gesturing, but again, they are right inside the gate. They are right inside. Dropped. Ron is taken by surprise. Now, Dr. Lee tried to say that the struggle with Ron was not a short struggle. What does that mean? What does that mean? More than a minute? More than five? The fact that Ron struggled is clear. But what is also obvious is someone who gets stabbed and is flailing about can get blood all over the place as he is struggling to back away from his attacker. That happens very quickly. You can imagine in your mind's eye somebody flailing, flailing about trying to get away from their attacker, a big person with a knife in a very, very dark area, in a very, very confined space. He hasn't very far to go, ladies and gentlemen. He has only got a few feet to move and he is backed into a corner like that. Where is he going to go? He flails backwards trying to avoid his attacker. The number of the contacts that you see, the bloody contacts on the fence were made at once as he is flailing, and that is what you see on that fence. You see a young man bleeding, backing and falling, vainly trying to get away from the Defendant who has him cornered in a cage and is coming at him with a very long knife. Now, I'm going to talk in a little more detail about how one person could do it, how. Dr. Lakshmanan spoke of the fact that Nicole suffered only two--I think again two defensive wounds, one to the back of her left hand and I think it was one to the right of her palm. She struggled very little. As Dr. Lakshmanan told you, there were--there was--she was rapidly, I think that is what he said, rapidly incapacitated. She was disabled very quickly. There were stab wounds to the back of her head that indicated movement, perhaps as she tried to run, stabbing her in the back of the head. An abrasion to the right eyebrow indicates that she was pushed or fell into a hard surface such as the wall or the stairs. She was stabbed in the left side of the neck four times. There was some movement shown on her part with respect to at least one of those stab wounds in the left side of her neck which indicates there was still some effort at resistance. And now, most importantly, Dr. Lakshmanan found evidence of a scalp and brain contusion caused by a blow to the head done by either a fist or the base of a knife, a contusion that was likely to cause unconsciousness, which in fact we know it did, because when the Defendant cut Nicole's throat for the last time, there was no indication of any movement on her part. It was a clean cut. That final coup de grace had smooth margins that indicated no resistance on her part. And there is a little bit more evidence of that that I will talk about later, but what is very important about these early wounds to the head and neck is that Dr. Lakshmanan told you there was evidence of bleeding in that brain contusion that showed that she lived after the infliction of those wounds for at least a minute and maybe more, likely in an unconscious state, certainly disabled, at least a minute, maybe more, before the final blunt throat cut was delivered. Please cut the feed, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: 45-B. Now look at the upper step, ladies and gentlemen. You can see that she bled out on that step above her for awhile before she came to the final spot at the foot of the stairs. And Dr. Lakshmanan testified that Nicole was unconscious when the final throat cut was administered and she was put down at the base of those stairs. If she lived for at least a minute, if not more, after she was hit on the head and struck unconscious, before her throat was slashed for the last time and she was up on that upper step where you see the first pool of blood, what was the Defendant doing during that minute or more as she was laying unconscious or incapacitated on that upper step bleeding? What was he doing before he came back to administer the final coup de grace? With Nicole disabled the Defendant had ample opportunity to deal with an unsuspecting, unarmed Ronald Goldman who had just come to do a favor for a friend. And I remind you of the testimony--I remind you of the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan in which he described the very narrow and confined space, the cage in which the Defendant cornered him, a cage that left Ron nowhere to run and nowhere to hide literally. The Defendant had all the advantage. No matter what Dr. Huisenga says, he talks about Tarzan's grandfather, he is built like Tarzan, he is built powerfully, and even Dr. Huisenga said, admitted that whatever the--whatever the Defendant's disabilities may be, they did not prevent him from performing the actions necessary to commit these murders. And the Defendant had the advantage. He had the advantage of size. Ron Goldman was only five foot five, 175 pounds. Nicole Brown, 5-5, 125. The Defendant, 6-2, 210 pounds. He also had the advantage of the knife. He was the only one armed in this combat. He was the only one, and he had the advantage of surprise.

He knew what he was going to do, but they didn't. And don't forget, too, the adrenaline factor. That is real important, that is important, and Dr. Huisenga talked about that because adrenaline pumps you up, and even Dr. Huisenga talked about how much football players get pumped up, and you know, they have to. They have got to go running though these huge men. I have never see men that size on the football field. You have got to be able to knock them, run, run through them, and you have got to get pumped. You have got to have a killer instinct to do that and that is what the Defendant did. And that is what did he that night. And the Defense can talk all they want about this new rare form of arthritis the Defendant supposedly has that allows to him swing a golf club, lift a heavy-set of golf clubs in that heavy golf bag. You will have it back there in the jury room. You will see what I mean. Lifted it not once, but a few times that night. And carry heavy suitcases. That curious form of arthritis that somehow prevents him only from doing the movement required to stab and murder these people. But that is not what Dr. Huisenga, his witness said. He could do it. He could do it.

Now, let's talk about the attack of Ron. Ron was attacked with the Defendant behind him, that much is clear. The wound inflicted to the neck, those control wounds--and I will talk a little bit more about that and some of the other stab wounds--and Ron struggles. Unlike Nicole, he is not so easily put down. He struggles and he grabs the Defendant who is holding him from around the neck with his left hand and holding the knife in his right. Ron is struggling and he is grabbing at anything he can and he is grabbing at the hand that is holding him and that is how the glove comes off. And by the way, that is why the right glove doesn't come off, because the right glove, the right hand is holding the knife, holding the glove in place. But from the point forward--from that point forward after the Defendant first attacked him, Ron's death was not a matter of if, it was just a matter of when, and Ron was totally on the defensive from the start trying to ward off the knife and to back away and in the process hitting the fence, the trees and everything around him in a desperate effort to survive. And all of this had to have happened very quickly, and I say this as a matter of common sense.

It didn't take Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown more than a few minutes to be overcome and slashed to death. And that is not really surprising. Think about it. A boxing match, each round is what, three minutes, and this is with men that are both prepared ready to do battle and--in good condition who are not taken by surprise, who are prepared to do battle. And we know knockouts occur in the very first round. They certainly happen within a minute, and that is with trained professionals. Same thing with martial arts matches, very quick. All right. Next question. Why did he leave the cap, glove? This one is probably very easy. It was late, he had to catch a flight, this took longer than expected. Ron Goldman was not expected at this scene. He was not supposed to be there. But it is only because of him, because of the struggle that he put up that we have the cap, we have the glove and we have all this evidence, Ron's shirt, the blood. Because of the struggle with Ron we have all of this evidence. But it is not--I'm not saying that the Defendant was not aware, as he was leaving the scene, that he knew he had lost evidence, because he was. There was evidence given to you by Mr. Bodziak who testified that he saw hesitation shoeprints down the Bundy walk, that he saw evidence that the Defendant walked down the walkway, stepped back against the north--north wall, and stepped out as though to look back at the crime scene. And what that shows you is evidence that I lost my cap, I've lost a glove, but he is thinking about going back, but doesn't dare. Time is running out. He might be seen by someone. The longer he remains, the more likely to be detected. And probably the dog is howling already. And so he has to leave. Don't forget, too, that the glove and the cap are in complete darkness underneath that plant in that very dark, dark area in the front of Nicole's condominium. Now, I know that I have not explained every move that was made by the Defendant, which blow came first, which one came last and which one came in the middle. The law doesn't require us to do so. And of course there is a simple reason for that, because short of a videotape, we very rarely know exactly how any crime occurred. People who commit murder obviously try not to do that in public and where everyone can see them. Their victims can't talk and they can't tell us what happened. We have to look to the physical evidence and we have to use our common sense and our reason to make reasonable inferences to determine what happened to the best of our ability. And even if we had a videotape, ladies and gentlemen, it wouldn't show you everything, what happens before the tape starts, what happens after the tape ends, and what if--of course a camera only picks up what is in its lens. So if you saw, for example, a videotape of this case that had Nicole, that was able to focus on Nicole but not pick up Ron, and you saw the Defendant killing Nicole and slashing her throat and then he stepped out of range to attack Ron, would you thereby conclude that he didn't kill Ron? No, of course not. Of course not. So the law does not require that we prove how a murder was committed, simply because in that case we would have on--we'd have very, very few convictions for murder. The law requires that we prove that a murder was committed, who committed it and what degree of murder it was. So the order of wounds makes very little difference. It doesn't answer any of those questions that we are required to answer, and that is what we are here to determine, is those questions that the law asks us to prove. But there is one aspect of the nature of these murders that is a very telling point when you think about who did it. When you look at these pictures, ladies and gentlemen, you see rage, you see fury, you see overkill. These--this is not the mark of a professional killer. These are not efficient murders. These are murders that are really slaughters, that are personal. And in that respect they reveal a great deal about who did them. No stranger, no Colombian drug dealer; a man who was involved with his intended victim, one who wanted to control her and failed, and in failing found the one way to keep her under control where she could never slip out of it again, and that man is this Defendant. I have one more to go, so--

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to make our mid or late afternoon recess at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we will stand in recess until six o'clock. All right. Thank you.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Deputy Trower, let's have the jurors please.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good evening.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good evening.

MS. CLARK: We're really hanging out together today, aren't we? I hope you all had a real good dinner. I am going to conclude my remarks for you at this point in about--I don't want to say exactly what time. Lawyers are always wrong, but I really think about a half hour, and I am going to talk about the law of premeditation, and that means first and second degree murder. Let me tell you briefly what I forgot to tell you in the very beginning.

In all criminal cases, because the People have the burden of proof, I argue to you first and Mr. Darden will then argue to you. That's the Prosecution. Then the Defense will argue. Then because we have the burden of proof, we get to argue again. We get the last word so to speak, but it's fair because it's our burden, okay. So you are going to hear from me again. I'm making now to you the bulk of my remarks. I hope and pray not to be taking as much of your time when I stand up to speak to you again at the conclusion of the case. I just wanted to let you know that's the order of things. That's the way it goes in criminal trials. All right. So let's talk about the degree of murder, is it first or is it second degree because you will be asked to determine this question also. And you will have the law of first and second degree murder back there, and if I can give you a hand in stepping through the law to understand how it applies to the facts, I would like to try to do that now and be of some help to you. The Defendant is charged with two counts of murder, and you're going to decide whether they are first degree or second degree. And in order to do that, what you do is, you apply the law to the facts. That's what a Judge does. And it's actually much simpler than it sounds. And let me start with the basic law of murder. Legally speaking, what is murder? Could we have--

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: You are going to have written forms in the jury room. You can talk about them. You can go over them again. All right. "Every person who unlawfully kills a human being with malice aforethought is guilty of the crime of murder in violation of section 187 of the penal code." Okay. "In order to prove such crime, each of the following elements must be proved: "No. 1, a human being was killed." Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown obviously human beings. Elements satisfied. "2. The killing was unlawful."

And what they mean by that is, there's no legal excuse for the killing. That's not even an issue here. "3. The killing was done with malice aforethought." Okay. That's the issue. Let's talk about that. Malice can be either express or implied. In this case, the only issue we have is express malice. What is express malice? Express malice aforethought means that a person had an intent to kill where there was no lawful reason to do so, and malice does not require any hatred or ill will of the victim. So, for example, regardless of whether the Defendant liked or disliked Ron Goldman or never even knew him, malice is shown if the evidence shows that he intended to kill him. With the kind--now, how do you determine if there was an intent to kill? We're not talking about premeditation. We are talking about an intent to kill. How do we prove that? Look at the pictures. This one is proven easily when you look at the nature of the injuries that were suffered by the victims in this case. The unlawful intent to kill is very obvious. These victims were virtually hacked to death.

So you have malice shown in the nature of the injuries, the nature of the wounds that were inflicted upon them. So malice--express malice is shown. Just look at the pictures. Aforethought--malice aforethought, what does that mean? That just means that the intent to kill was formed before the actual killing occurred. It's not an afterthought. That doesn't mean premeditation or deliberation, and we'll talk about that in a minute. And again, with the nature and the number of the wounds that were suffered by these victims, it's very obvious that the killer went to great lengths to disable and kill them with the throat slashing wounds alone. The preformed intent to kill is very clear. In fact, malice aforethought in this case again, it's proven so clearly just with the Coroner's photographs and the pictures of the victims at the crime scene where they were found. So you look at those photographs, you can see that there was a preformed, even if it was just a second before, intent to kill these victims and a great effort made to kill the victims with the nature of the wounds. And there you go. We've applied the law to the facts just like you'll do back in the jury room to determine what was done.

Let me give you an example aside from--let me give you an example. This is a case I remember from a while back, a very simple example of second degree murder. In this example, a young man was standing on a street corner with his girlfriend. Another young man came and drove up to him on a--rode up to him on a bike. He asked the young man on the corner, "Hey, where are you from?" The young man on the corner responded, "I'm not from around here." The young man on the bike pulled out a gun, shot him to death. Second degree murder. In that example, you have a preformed intent to kill although no evidence that the young man planned to kill when he first rode up on the bike, but it was preformed in the second that the young man on the corner said, "I'm not from around here." (Snapped fingers), second degree. Because when he pulled out the gun, he clearly meant to kill even though it was what you'd call a rash impulse. That's second degree murder. And the bare minimum in this case, at the very, very, very, very least in this case, we know we have second degree murder. That's the very least that we have. But now we ask, do we have more? Is there more? Do we have evidence that the murders were of the first degree, that is premeditated and deliberate? In asking this question, what we're really asking is whether there's evidence that the Defendant weighed and considered the question of killing and the reasons for and against the choice because that's what we're talking about in terms of premeditation. The answer to this question, just like all the others, comes from the evidence. We look to all the evidence in the case and we ask, is there evidence of planning, is there evidence of premeditation in the manner of killing, is there evidence of preparation for the act of killing? I'll address all these questions right now in the course of the argument, but I can tell you that the answer to these questions is yes. I'll briefly discuss the law with you and then I'm going to show you how the evidence can be applied to the law to answer all of the questions. But yes, we do have premeditated and deliberate murder. First of all, premeditated. Let me see. I think we have a jury instruction for this.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: I don't think we have it right now. That's okay. I'll just tell you. Premeditated is what it sounds like. It does mean considered beforehand. And it's important to remember here that there is no time requirement. The jury instruction states that the law does not undertake to measure in units of time how long the thoughts of killing were considered before they ripen into something that we call premeditation and deliberation. And the reason for that is very simple and the law and the jury instruction you have will tell you so. Circumstances vary in each case. Each case is unique, has a unique set of facts, and each Defendant is unique and has a unique thought process. And so you cannot say, well, three minutes is not enough and five minutes is plenty. You can't do that. So it's not the consideration in terms of how much time because you can premeditate within just a few minutes, even seconds.

THE COURT: This is 3.20.

MS. CLARK: Here's the jury instruction. Here's what I was saying. You'll have this in smaller form and it won't be highlighted, but you'll have it back in the jury room. This is the area I was directing your attention to. "The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length of time during which the thought must be pondered before it can ripen into an intent to kill which is truly deliberate and premeditated. The time will vary with different individuals and under varying circumstances." And that's common sense. I mean you'd think that, wouldn't you? "So the true test is not the duration of time, but rather the extent of the reflection." So even if you want to say, for example, that premeditation and deliberation happened in a mere few minutes or seconds, you're going to have to show that during that time, there was deliberation. Deliberation is really the issue. What do we mean by that? Under the law, "Deliberation" means that after giving careful thought and consideration, weighing the considerations for and against, the killer decides to and does kill. And that's really what the crux of the matter is in a premeditated and deliberate murder; can you show that kind of weighing and considering of the consequences. And this is to be contrasted with a second degree murder because in second degree murder, you have what is known as just a rash impulse and--do we have that?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Here's second degree murder. I just wanted to give you a chance to contrast it. "Murder of the second degree, the unlawful killing of a human being with malice and aforethought." We talked about that. That's intent to kill. "When there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill--" there's an intent to kill, "--but the evidence is insufficient to establish deliberation and premeditation." Okay. So you have basic murder, murder of the second degree. And then, if you have more, if you have premeditation and deliberation, you have murder of the first degree.

To give you an example of first degree murder, let's add to the example I gave you previously of the young man on the bike, he goes up and he shoots the young man standing on the corner. To make this a first degree murder, this time assume the following: Assume that the shooter knows who his intended victim is. Assume further that the shooter is a member of a gang and that the intended victim is a member of a rival gang, okay? The young man standing on the corner, his gang recently killed somebody in the kid's on the bicycle gang. The kid on the bike knows this. He sees the victim on the corner, recognizes him as a rival gang member, a member of a gang that just killed a member of his gang, and he decides pay back time, we are going to get this guy, we are going to show him and it's my time to do it. And now knowing who the victim is, knowing what his motivation is, knowing that he's going to pay him back, he rides up to the young man on the corner, goes up to him, pulls out his gun, shoots him at point blank range. There's first degree murder. He's got a premeditated and deliberate idea of what he is going to do and why he's going to do it, and then he goes to and does do it.

Now, in this example, we see the evidence of planning and we can see the cold calculated decision to kill that is all accomplished very rapidly when he sees and recognizes the victim as a member of a rival gang. Here's a noncriminal example of premeditation and deliberation. That is something that to show you we make decisions that are premeditated and deliberate every day. Let's say that you come downtown with some of your friends. You come downtown to have dinner one night, go into the restaurant, have a good time. The hour gets late, and by the time you step out of the restaurant, it's already--the streets are almost deserted, very, very little traffic on the streets. You and your friends walk to the corner, and when you walk to the corner, you see that the "Don't walk" sign is flashing. But it's late, you're tired, you don't want to wait. The "Don't walk" sign is flashing, you step out, you look this way, you look that way, you don't see any traffic, you cross the street. As you stepped off the curb, that was a premeditated and deliberate decision. It didn't take very long, but you weighed the consequences pro and con, you said, "Well, I could get in trouble. There might be an officer around. I might get busted for jaywalking, but then again, doesn't look like anybody's there and it's probably okay," and you cross the street. Premeditated and deliberate decision. So you can see why it doesn't take long. It's not the length of time. It's the quality of the time spent. Okay. So that's first degree and second degree murder. Second degree, a rash impulse, intent to kill with no premeditation and deliberation. First degree murder, premeditated and deliberate, a weighing of the consequences pro and con and a clear and deliberate decision to act and then the murder. Now, the question is, do we have evidence of the premeditated and deliberate type in the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown? As I've told you, the answer to that question is yes. Now, I would like to break down this evidence into three categories. For me, this is the easiest way to analyze a case to see if there was premeditation and deliberation, and I hope it works for you too. Here's the first category; is motive. Do we have motive? Now, under this category would fall the subject matter that Mr. Darden is going to address. So I'm not going to discuss it with you other than to mention that the past episodes of domestic violence between the Defendant and Nicole, that evidence is evidence of motive. I'm not going to say anything more about that because Mr. Darden will address it. The next category is planning activity, what did the Defendant do that shows us that he was planning to commit murder. Okay. Now, I'm going to come back to those questions I asked you to bear in mind earlier in the argument. Remember I asked you to think about this? Why did he go out--why did the Defendant go out and ask Kato for five's, for the skycap to break the hundreds that he had if he was already going to go out and eat? Remember I asked you that in the beginning of my argument? The significance of that, of asking Kato for the five's, asking him for change when he already knew he was going to go out and get something to eat and could obviously get the change at that point--he obviously didn't need Kato to give him those five's. So what was the point? And even when he went out with Kato and he got the change back, he didn't keep it. So getting change from Kato was not the point. And none of his conduct is consistent with what he's telling Kato. None of it makes sense unless you look behind the words.

What was he doing? What he was doing was, he was setting up an alibi with Kato. He's going out to see Kato so that Kato can say that he saw him. He can--then Kato can later say, "I saw the Defendant. I saw him at 9:00, 10 after 9:00. He told me where he was going. He said he was going to get something to eat." So if it's discovered that his whereabouts are unknown during the time of the murder, he at least has someone to say, "Well, wait a minute. He told me." He has a noncriminal explanation for where he was. So he comes up with a pretext of needing change for the skycap, and it's a good way to remind Kato that he's going to be out of town too. He'll have Kato remember that alibi also. "I need change for the skycap." Unfortunately, Kato stepped in his way. Kato invited himself along, and the Defendant would have been hard-pressed to refuse because think about that. If Kato is going to be his alibi to tell anybody who later asks that, "I saw the Defendant at such and such a time, and he said he was just going to go out and get something to eat," and then he says, "But I tried to invite myself along, but he wouldn't let me go with him," then you have further evidence of consciousness of guilt. Then it's going to look suspicious. Why wouldn't he let him go with him? What's the big deal? He lets him live there. So the Defendant agrees, takes Kato with him. This unexpected development, however, eats up time for him, time that he could have had out thinking about what to do, something that he was getting ready to do, getting ready to commit the murders. So instead of going to a real restaurant, which he had the time to do at 10 after 9:00--the limo isn't going to get there until 10:45. Even if you assume there was some packing to be done for a one-day trip, how long does that take? They could have gone to a restaurant. But no, they didn't. They went to McDonald's and they went to a drive-through, the quickest way you could possibly think of to get some food, and he went there in the Bentley. Now, think about that. Why take the Bentley? Why not take the Bronco if all you are going to do is go to McDonald's, unless there's something in the Bronco you don't want Kato to see. The knit cap, the knife, the gloves? If Kato sees those on the night that he intends to commit those murders before he has committed them and the police get to him and say, "What did you see, where were you, I mean, what did happen, what happened in this case," he's going to say, "Ah, that knit cap, I know where I saw that." These things have to pass through his mind. Now he's got these things in the Bronco, he doesn't want Kato sitting in that Bronco with him. So they took the Bentley. Now, once they got their food at McDonald's, the Defendant eats his in the car all the way home. Why do that? You've got plenty of time to take it home, eat it in your house, relax, live a little. It doesn't have to be rushed like that. But he eats it quickly. Why? Because now, his time has been eaten up by Kato coming along, time that he doesn't have. Kato saves his. And it was interesting because he complained about being tired. It was about--was it 20 after 9:00, 25 after 9:00? They were in the car on the way back I think it was, and he complained about being tired, and Kato said, "Well, why don't you take a nap? He said, "Well, I got no time." When I heard that, "Got no time," the lime--it's 9:25. The limo doesn't come until 10:45. You've got time to lay down unless you're planning on doing something else. But what was really telling was, after they got back when they both got out of the car and Kato walks straight for the house and the Defendant stood there by the Bentley not moving, watching Kato. Why do that? Why do you stand there and wait? Why not go in the house? Why not get back in your Bentley or get in the Bronco? Why do you wait for Kato to get out of sight unless you don't want him to see where you're going, unless you have it in mind that you're not going to go back in the house. You don't want to take the time to do that and you don't want him to see you going to the Bronco. Now, there's much more evidence of planning, planning that you see at the crime scene itself. And in that, I mean, the Defendant wore dark clothing. The dark blue, black cotton sweat suit that Kato described, perfect in the nighttime if you don't want to be seen. The dark blue, black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman, the socks, the Rockingham glove, the fibers of the clothing he wore, the watch cap and the gloves. It was June the 12th. It's a summer night. Why do you need these cashmere-lined gloves and a watch cap on a summer night unless you're going to commit a crime, unless you're planning, unless you're preparing to commit a crime? Gloves are easy. Why wear the gloves? Fingerprints. You don't want to leave fingerprints. And he didn't. You heard from the print people. He didn't. Watch cap. A partial disguise. If he has to walk around the house, if he's going to be standing at the front gate, he doesn't want someone glancing to make the immediate connection. He doesn't want someone to see exactly who it is right away. Now, he doesn't intend to be there but a minute. But a watch cap over that head is going to make sure that doesn't look like something that he would wear and it throws someone off. Now, those items alone show clear evidence of planning, planning activity, planning for a murder preparation. But there's more. There's also timing. And by that, I mean, we know that the children were asleep at the time these murders were committed. We know that from the evidence. But who else would know when the children were going to be in bed? Who else would know when they would be safely out of the way? Who else would know when Nicole would be home alone with the children? Who else would know the perfect time to attack and get Nicole without the children being in the way? The Defendant. And that not only shows premeditation, it also shows identity, who did it. Now, there's one more thing that shows evidence of premeditation and deliberation, and that's the knife. In the inventory tape that you have in evidence, the Defendant's closet is shown and it's shown that he had in that closet a gun. He had a gun, but he chose a knife. And this choice is evidence of planning. A gun makes noise. A knife doesn't, particularly if your intended victim is half your size. A gun is registered. It can be traced and bullets can be matched to guns. And even if you get rid of the gun, the type of bullet can be determined. It can be determined to have come from the type of gun you used to have, so that if you get rid of the gun, it's looking even worse almost than if they catch you in possession of it. Suddenly you don't have the gun after your wife was shot to death and a bullet that could have come from that gun. But not a knife. A knife can't be identified to the exclusion of all other knives in making this wound or that wound. You can't match a knife to a murder. A knife isn't registered. All of these things make a knife a better weapon of choice than a gun. But maybe more than all of that, a knife is up close and personal. And that's the kind of murders these are, ladies and gentlemen. These murders are up close and personal. If your desire is to vent your rage on someone, a gun is far too sterile. It's far too removed. But a knife, it's lethal, but it affords the opportunity for the expression of violence, power and control at very close range. The choice of a knife is evidence of planning and it too is also evidence that the Defendant is the murderer. Now, there's more evidence of premeditation and deliberation in the nature of the wounds themselves. Let's start with Nicole. As I previously discussed, Nicole was incapacitated very quickly. She had little, if anything, in the way of defensive wounds to her hands and she had no opportunity to defend herself. Likewise, the four wounds in close proximity on the left side of her neck very close to one another, they indicated very little resistance and they suggested that she was controlled or otherwise incapable of moving away to avoid being stabbed. And the gaping neck wound, the final coup de grace that nearly decapitated her, that is classic evidence of a cold, calculated, premeditated murder. Now, recall that this was a wound that was three and a half inches deep, severed both carotid arteries and both jugular veins. This wound was so deep that the tip of the knife took a quarter-inch gouge out of her vertebrae. As you recall, and I've discussed it before, when this wound was inflicted, Nicole was incapacitated and helpless. There was no resistance indicated in the wound. The edges of the wound were smooth. And I told you there was something else that indicated she was unconscious, and that is this. The evidence of her knuckles unbloodied in an area where blood had already pooled around her showed that she was incapable of raising her hand to protect herself, incapable of raising her hand to try and ward off the knife or the hand that held the knife. No. The knuckles stayed in contact with the pavement and didn't get the blood on them that they would have gotten had she been able to raise a hand to do something to protect herself, and it's further evidence of her unconsciousness at the time that that final slash was inflicted. Now, you remember, as I indicated to you earlier, the testimony indicated that the bleeding into the contusion in her brain showed that she lived for a minute or more before that final throat wound was administered to her. Now, that final gaping wound in her neck was inflicted upon an unconscious victim or very least, incapacitated, is clear evidence of a cold and calculated decision to kill, when a victim is already incapacitated and the Defendant goes back to her, pulling back her head. She's lying there basically unconscious, he pulls back her head and he slashes the throat to such a degree that she's nearly decapitated, that was a cold and calculated decision to kill, to make sure she was dead, and it allows for no other reasonable inference. Now, Ronald Goldman. Now, once again, a very significant point with respect to Ronald Goldman. As with Nicole, the neck is the target once again, and we know that from the neck wounds on Ron described by Dr. Lakshmanan. Why the neck? Why is the neck the target? Because it's a short kill. It's something we've all heard about; go for the jugular. You go for the jugular because you cut it, you slice that neck, that person's dead. That is a sure bet. That's a sure thing. And the fact that the neck is the target for both victims indicates to you also a cold and calculated decision to kill. That is the epitome of a premeditated murder. Now, let me point out, with respect to Ron, you have those two wounds. You recall those two lines across the neck almost parallel to each other with very little bleeding in them that Dr. Lakshmanan indicated were inflicted early on in the struggle? They're evidence--and the reason they're important is that they're evidence that the Defendant controlled Ronald Goldman, controlled him to the point that he could hold him and draw the knife across the neck in lines that were nearly parallel to each other, holding Ron from behind him, left arm around him with the right hand drawing the knife. And Ron struggled to break free of that control, and because he struggled and because he put off the fight, it took the Defendant a little longer to incapacitate him than it did Nicole. And you heard the cross-examination, you've heard the Defense attempt to say that Ron Goldman fought with his attacker. Ron struggled, but it was not a struggle with the Defendant. It was a struggle to save his own life. It was a struggle to escape. The Defense wants you to believe that Ron fought, that he punched the Defendant. This was not a fight, and the reason we know this was not a fight was that Ron's palms were cut. For your palms to get cut, your hands have to be open. If your hands are in a fist, you're not going to get your palms cut. It's just as simple as that. And Ron's palms were cut because his hands were up as he was trying to ward off the knife trying to defend himself. And those abrasions on the back of his hands that were made so much of, they are fully consistent with Ron flailing back, hitting the trees, hitting the sapling, hitting the fence. There were so many areas for him to hit and get those abrasions, abrasions that are not at all consistent with a fist hitting a face or a body part. And if you look clearly at those photographs, you'll see what I mean. A fist is a fist, and you're going to get more than one little scratch in one little area. You're going to get much more than that. You don't have it here, and the reason you don't have it here is that you have evidence on the back of the hand that shows Ron Goldman falling backward as you know he did by the blood on the fence behind him. There's no question about that. And you have his blood on the stump that he's around. You have a lot of evidence to show you what happened here, and it wasn't a fight. This was not a fight. To call this a fight is to call drowning swimming. The sheer number of wounds suffered by Ron as he struggled to pull away to escape, the sheer number of these wounds is consistent with only one thought. Ron Goldman must die. But beyond that, there is evidence in the wounding that the murder of Ron Goldman is of the first degree. The wound to his left abdomen, if you recall that one, the one that severed the aorta, a wound that ordinarily would have bled profusely into the abdominal cavity--and you expect to find all of that bleeding in the abdominal cavity if the blood pressure is normal. If the person is breathing, that blood pressure will force the blood into the cavity as a result of the wound to the abdomen. But there was very little blood to the abdominal cavity. And like Nicole's final wound, there was no evidence of movement on Ron's part. The margins of the wound were clean, which indicated that there was no resistance offered by Ron and this wound was inflicted when Ron was very near death already. It was an unnecessary wound. It was a wound inflicted to make sure that Ron was dead, and it shows that the Defendant took great pains to go back and deliver the final coup de grace to Ronald Goldman. But no matter when each wound was inflicted, in what order, the bottom line is very clear. The Defendant could not leave a witness alive, alive to tell what he saw. He had to deliver the fatal blows and make sure that they were fatal. The Defendant surely didn't anticipate that Ron would be there that night. He came to murder Nicole. But once Ron showed up, he could not allow him to walk away with the knowledge of what he had seen. Ron was a witness who had seen what no one was supposed to see. Ron was the ultimate threat, so Ron had to die. And the intent to eliminate a witness, ladies and gentlemen, is a premeditated and deliberate decision. It is a cold and a calculated decision and it is not a decision that takes very long. As I pointed out before, the jury instruction tells you the law does not undertake to measure in units of time the degree of thought that goes into the thinking called premeditation and deliberation. And now you can see this is a perfect example of how such a decision can be made in mere moments. The Defendant has Nicole Brown down, Ron Goldman comes walking up with the envelope, a witness, and the decision is made, (Snapped fingers). That's all it takes. "I can't let him live. I can't let him stay alive." Ladies and gentlemen, this is strong and it's compelling evidence that proves that the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown were premeditated and deliberate murders of the first degree. Now, okay, let's address the special circumstances charged in this case because with all of this evidence of premeditation and deliberation, it is after you determine the degree of the murders that you go on to determine whether the special circumstances are true. Now, if you find that the evidence establishes murder in the first degree as to either Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown, then you have to determine whether the special circumstances are true or not. Now, in this case, the decision is very easy because the only special circumstances that we have charged is multiple murder. And for this special circumstance to be found true, the Defendant must be found guilty of both murders first of all obviously, and then secondly, at least one of the murders has to be determined to be murder in the first degree. So if you find murder in the first degree as to one victim and murder in the second degree as to the other, the special circumstance is true. If you find murder in the first degree as to both victims, the special circumstance is true. However, if you find murder in the second degree as to both victims, then you must find the special circumstance not true. Now, the Defendant is also charged with having used a knife, a deadly weapon or dangerous weapon in the commission of these murders. And if you do find him guilty of the murders, of course, that decision is very simple. Obviously a knife was used to commit these murders. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we've proven with all this evidence that I've reviewed with you easily beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the premeditated and deliberate murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown.

And I spoke to you before a little bit about direct and circumstantial evidence. This is what they call--well, this is a physical evidence case obviously and they call it circumstantial evidence. Now that I've reviewed all of the evidence, you can see what I'm talking about when I say a circumstantial evidence case gives you much more assurance of the guilt of the Defendant. And that is because of this. In a direct evidence case, you may have one eyewitness to tell you, "I saw it." That means you have one thing to rely on. But in a circumstantial evidence case, especially this one, you have many things to rely on. You have the blood at Bundy. You have the blood of Nicole on his socks. You have his blood on the rear gate at Bundy. You have Ronald Goldman's blood in his car. You have his hair on Ron Goldman's shirt. You have the fiber from his clothing on Ron Goldman's shirt, on his socks, on the Rockingham glove. You have the Bronco carpet fiber on the Rockingham glove. You have the Bronco carpet fiber on the knit ski cap. The wealth of evidence in this case is simply overwhelming. If we only had the Bundy blood trail that matched the Defendant, it would be enough proof to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we only had Nicole Brown's blood on his socks, that would be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we only had Ron Goldman's blood in his Bronco, that would be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But we have all that and much more. And now, let me summarize for you what we have proven. One piece of the puzzle. We've proven the opportunity to kill. We've given the time window in which he was able to kill because his whereabouts were unaccounted for during the time that we know the murders were occurring. We have the hand injuries that were suffered on the night of his wife's murder to the left hand, as we know the killer was injured on his left hand. We have the post-homicidal conduct that I told you about, lying to Allan Park, making Allan Park wait outside, not letting Kato pick up that little dark bag, his reaction to Detective Phillips when he made notification, when Detective Phillips said to him, "Nicole has been killed." Instead of asking about a car accident, the Defendant asked no questions. We have the manner of killings, killings that indicate that it was a rage killing, that it was a fury killing, that it was not a professional hit, the manner of killing that indicates one person committed these murders, one person with the same style of killing. We have the knit cap at Bundy. We have the evidence on Ron Goldman's shirt of the blue black cotton fibers, the Defendant's hair. We have the Bruno Magli shoeprint, size 12, all of them size 12, his size shoe, all of them consistent going down the Bundy walk. We have the Bundy blood trail, his blood to the left of the bloody shoeprints. We have the blood in the Bronco, his and Ron Goldman's. We have the Rockingham blood trail up the driveway, in his bathroom, in the foyer. We have the Rockingham glove with all of the evidence on it, Ron Goldman's fibers from his shirt, Ron Goldman's hair, Nicole's hair, the Defendant's blood, Ron Goldman's blood, Nicole's blood and the Bronco fiber and the blue black cotton fibers. We have the socks and we have the blue black cotton fibers on the socks and we have Nicole Brown's blood on the socks. There he is. I haven't even spoken--you haven't even heard yet about the motive. You haven't even heard the why of it, the why he did it. And you know he did it. Now, these murders did not occur in a vacuum, and it's very important evidence that you've heard in the beginning of this case. They occurred in the context of a stormy relationship, a relationship that was scarred by violence and abuse. And this important evidence completes the picture of the Defendant's guilt as it explains the motive for these murders and shows you what led this Defendant to be sitting here in this courtroom today. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Miss Clark. Mr. Darden, are you ready to proceed?

MR. DARDEN: Well, there's no better time than right now, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: May I?

THE COURT: I just wanted to know if you wanted some exhibits brought up. But if you're ready to go--

MR. DARDEN: I'm ready to go.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Proceed.

(Opening argument by Mr. Darden)

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good evening.

MR. DARDEN: You know, they asked me to do the summation Marcia Clark just did for you, but I told them, no, it's too long. I'm not the kind of person who likes to talk that long and Marcia isn't either, but she had to. And I think that one of the things that you probably gathered from hearing her today is that this case really is a simple case in this essence. When you get down to the bottom line, this case really is a simple case. All you have to do is use the tools God gave you, the tools he gave you to use or utilize whenever you're confronted with a problem or an issue. All you have to do is use your common sense. And the Defense would have you believe that this is a complex series of facts and evidence and law and science and all of that. Not really. Not really. You have to question or wonder how it is a lawyer can summarize a case in eight hours when presenting the case took eight months. It's a simple case, but there's been a lot of smoke, a lot of smoke screens, a lot of diversions, a lot of detractions, a lot of distractions, and in some respect, there's been an attempt to get you to lose focus of what the real issues are in this case. And that takes time. If I could give you any advice as jurors, any advice at all, I would say to you, use your common sense. When you get all of this evidence and go into the jury room and after you pick a Foreperson, take that common sense that God gave you, take the evidence that the Prosecution gave you and the Defense evidence, go into that jury room, sit down, spread it out. And using that common sense, ask yourself a question; what does the evidence show. What does the evidence show? And when you look at it in the simplest terms, what you are going to see is the blood in the Bronco, blood trail from Bundy, blood in his bathroom, blood on his socks. Simple evidence. You can look at a chart and see what the DNA results are. It really, really won't be that difficult and when you use your common sense and get down to the bottom line, put aside all of the distractions and all of the smoke that's been blown throughout this courtroom and in your direction. Now, it's been a long time since I've had an opportunity to speak to you. And unfortunately, I wasn't here during jury selection. So I didn't get a chance to talk to you and introduce myself to you during voir dire, and so you were sort of given the Darden shock treatment I guess. You saw me literally the first day you came into the courtroom the first day we began taking evidence literally, and I got involved in the case and we didn't get to talk a lot. Well, let me say this to you in the limited time that I have. You are an amazing group of people. You've been sequestered now longer than any jury in the state of California. I think Judge Ito alluded to that before. You spent months in sequestration. I guess you've been able to watch your 50 television programs or football. Maybe you missed the NBA season. I don't know. But as you sat there in sequestration, the rest of us, these people, we all got on with our lives. We went home every night, saw our family and our friends. We continued the personal relationships that we had, and you haven't had a chance to do that for eight months. And all I can say about that is that you are an amazing group of people, and I thank you for that because you have paid a very, very significant price. You have made a commitment to justice. You have made a commitment to see to it that this case is resolved fairly and correctly and you made a commitment to see to it that the law is followed, that the police followed procedure and the law and that there is no conviction in this case unless the evidence is proven to you, unless his guilt is proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt. And I thank you for that, because that's what you should do. That's what the community should do. A trial is supposed to be a search for the truth, and sometimes the truth is uncovered or revealed at the end of a long road, at the end of a long journey. And this has been a long journey. Well, let me say this to you; that today--tonight, the whole world is watching us tonight or watching me, and they have listened to the evidence and they have watched the witnesses testify here on television and they want to know what you're going to do and we want to know what you're going to do. There are some people I suppose who think that justice in this case would be just to ignore the evidence and say he's not guilty. Some people think that justice in this case would be just to jump to some conclusion, some silly conclusion, some conclusion not based on the law and forget about the evidence. Some people think that because the Defendant in this case is a celebrity, that perhaps he is someone above the law, that there ought to be special rules for him or that somehow he should be treated differently than any other Defendant. But that's not justice. And there are some people that think because Fuhrman is a racist, that we ought to chuck the law out of the window, throw it out of the window, perhaps it shouldn't be applied in this case. Well, that's wrong and that's not why we're here, because we don't ignore the law just because of the status of a Defendant, because of who he is or because of who he knows. That isn't justice. You're here to ensure justice, I'm here to ensure justice and we all know the rules. And the rules say and the law says that he should not kill, that he should not have killed these two people, and the law says that if you believe that he killed these two people and if you believe that it has been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, that you should find him guilty. You heard Marcia Clark and you've heard the evidence and you've seen the evidence, and you're reasonable people. And, you know, we know. I mean, if we're honest with ourselves, we know, if we are. And it's unfortunate what we know. But we know the truth, and the truth that we know is that he killed these two people.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. I object to the form of that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Now, this man, this Defendant, O.J. Simpson, we believe that, given the state and the quality of the evidence, is guilty. And there's nothing wrong with voting guilty in this case given the state of the evidence and the quality of the evidence. A vote of guilt in this case isn't a vote for any independent group in particular or any independent group at all. It isn't a vote for the Prosecution, for Marcia and I. It certainly isn't a vote for the LAPD, and it's not a vote against anyone. It's not a vote against the Defendant. It's not a vote for the victims or the victims' family. When you go into that jury room open-minded and fairly and conscientiously consider this evidence and then cast a ballot, a vote for guilt or innocence based only on the evidence that you've seen in this case and only on the law given to you by Judge Ito, when you cast a vote on that basis, then you're voting for justice, you're voting for fairness, you're doing the right thing under the law. And that's what we're going to ask you to do. They say justice is supposed to be blind and all of that good stuff. I know you've heard all of that before. But we just have to believe, Marcia Clark and I, that justice isn't blind in this case.

There have been lots of issues, lots of issues that came up in this trial. This trial has been an amazing experience. I'm sure you would agree. But even though there are a lot of small issues, a lot of other issues, a lot of little distractions here and there, you're here to address a single issue. This is a single case, one issue; did the Defendant kill these two people. One Defendant, O.J. Simpson. You heard from the Defense in this case and they presented testimony about slurs, epithets as they call them, a bunch of nasty, hateful, low-down language used by Mark Fuhrman. And I'm not even going to call him Detective Fuhrman if I can help it because he doesn't deserve that title. He doesn't warrant that kind of respect, not from me. But this isn't the case of Mark Fuhrman. This is the case of O.J. Simpson. And let me say this to you, if you will allow me to. And I don't mean to offend you or demean you, and I hope that you don't feel that I am. But this is the case of O.J. Simpson, not Mark Fuhrman. The case of Mark Fuhrman, if there's to be a case, that's a case for another forum, not necessarily a case for another day, because today may be the day. But it is a case for another forum, another jury perhaps. This case is about this Defendant, O.J. Simpson, and the "M" word, murder; not about Mark Fuhrman and the "N" word. And you know what that is. I am going to ask you to consider the fact of his misstatements or lies or untruths, however you want to term it, because you have to consider that. That's the law. You have to consider everything Fuhrman said on the witness stand because that's evidence in this case. And I want you to consider it. I want you to consider all the evidence. So don't think that I'm saying, hey, just overlook it, just overlook what he said, just overlook the fact that he lied about having used that slur in the past 10 years. But I am asking you to put it in the proper perspective. You decide what it's worth. You decide what it means. If it helps you in assessing his credibility--and it should, or his lack of credibility, I don't know--then you use it. But please just remember, Fuhrman isn't the only issue in this case and his use of that word is not the only issue in this case. And you have to be concerned about that. I have to be concerned about it as a lawyer for the Prosecution in this case because it apparently was a very, very significant event for the Defense.

I mean, you saw all those people that came up to testify about Fuhrman's use of this word and then at one point, you heard a tape of Fuhrman. And that was Fuhrman by the way, okay, no doubt about that, using those slurs. And you heard a tape of him using those slurs, and it had to make you angry to hear him say that. Made us angry. But that wasn't enough. Not only did you get to hear the words, you were given--the transcript was scrolled across the elmo. Remember? So you could hear it and you could see it. But that wasn't enough. You had to have a transcript for some reason of the words as well. A lot of emphasis on that. I don't know why. I know you do. This evidence, just like all the other evidence in the case, attach whatever value you think is appropriate. I would say use it to assess his credibility, and other use you want to put to it, look to the law, look to the instructions that the Judge gives you. Miss Clark mentioned to you that I was going to talk to you about domestic violence, and I'd like to do that right now if I can. And I did that I suppose when I began speaking with you back on January the 24th. Was it the 24th? That's a long time ago. You're probably like me. You didn't think it would ever go on this long. Well, you're almost there. It's almost over. We believe that this evidence of domestic violence is very important. It's important that you understand the nature of this man's relationship with one of the victims in this case. It's important because when you consider it, it may help explain to you or it may suggest to you his motive for killing Nicole Brown and perhaps his motive for killing Ron Goldman as well, and the law allows you to use this evidence as you attempt to determine whether or not there was a motive to kill. Caljic 2.51?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: As we search for the motive jury instruction, let me say to you, you can use it for other reasons, for other purposes. This evidence is being given to you with certain limitations I suppose, and the Judge will explain to you what those limitations are. But you can use this evidence to determine whether there's a motive to kill. You can use this evidence to help in the sense of your deciding whether or not the killing was premeditated. And if you find that it helps in terms of identification, the identification of this Defendant as the person who killed these two people, you can use it. But when you look at this jury instruction entitled "Evidence of other crimes," you see here at the bottom where it says, "A motive for the commission of crime charged," you see that you can use this evidence for that purpose, evidence of other crimes. The 1989 spousal battery incident, you can use that to look to see if there's evidence of a motive. There's also something called Caljic 2.51 and it's entitled "Motive" and it reads as follows: Let me read to you. First of all, it says: "Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown." And that's important. Miss Clark talked to you about premeditation and malice aforethought and whether or not the killing was willful and deliberate and all of that. We don't have to prove to you that the Defendant had a motive to kill. We don't have to prove that at all. It just so happens that in this case, we have that kind of evidence. The motive is not an element of the offense charged.

And 2.51 also says that: "The presence of motive may tend to establish guilt." If you find that we have presented sufficient evidence of motive, then you should use that evidence as you attempt to determine whether or not the Defendant is guilty. But you can use this domestic violence evidence for a number of reasons and in a number of ways. And when I spoke to you back in January, I told you--I promised you I think that I would expose to you the other side of this man, of this Defendant. I promised you that I would expose to you the private side of him, that part of him, the side of him that was capable of extreme rage, jealously and violence, and I said to you back then, I said to you and I asked that you consider the nature of their relationship, with Nicole, because to understand what happened at Bundy, you need to know what happened between them during the 17-year period that they were together off and on, because when you look at that, you see a motive for killing. I'm sure the Defense is going to get up here at some point and say, uh, that domestic violence evidence, it's irrelevant, and they may say to you that just because this Defendant had some marital discord or violence in his marriage to Nicole Brown, that it doesn't mean anything. Well, this isn't a "Just because" issue. This is a "Because" issue. It is because he hit her in the past and because he slapped her and threw her out of the house and kicked her and punched her and grabbed her around the neck, it's because he did these things to her in the past that you ought to know about it and consider it, and it's because he used a baseball bat to break the windshield of her Mercedes back in 1985 and it's because he kicked her door down in 1993. You remember the Gretna Green incident. Remember the 911 call. It's because of a letter he wrote him--he wrote to Nicole rather around June the 6th talking about the IRS. It's because he stalked her, because he looked through her windows one night in April of 1992. They may say the Defendant is just looking through a window late at night. We say that's stalking. It's because of all those things and because all of these things alongside the physical evidence at the scene, the bloody shoeprints in his size, the blood drops at Bundy, the blood on his sock, the blood trail at Rockingham, it's because when you look at all of that, it all points to him.

I'm not afraid to point to him. Nobody pointed him out and said he did it. I'll point to him. Why not? The evidence all points to him. And it's also because when you look at the bloody ruthlessness--my mouth is getting dry--of these murders and when you see, as Miss Clark pointed out, that these killings were rage killings, rage--I mean, you have to say to yourself, well, who in the past has ever raised a hand to this woman? Who during the days and the hours leading to her death was upset with her? And as Miss Clark alluded to earlier--you're too kind.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: And as Miss Clark alluded to earlier, the killing was personal, the way it was done. The way it was done, this is personal. Somebody had a score to settle. Who had a score to settle with Nicole? When you look at all of that, you look at the domestic violence, the manner of the killing, the physical evidence, the history of abuse and their relationship, the intimidation, the stalking, you look at it, it all points to him. It all points to him. Now, they may not think this evidence is important. But it was important to Nicole Brown. You heard Detective Mark Fuhrman testify about the 1985 incident. Let me say Fuhrman, Fuhrman, Fuhrman, Fuhrman. All right. I've said Fuhrman about 50 times. Let me let you know this. We're not hiding Fuhrman. He's too big, especially now, to hide. So hey, Fuhrman testified. Fuhrman described for you a 1985 domestic violence, domestic abuse incident or incident of violence or incident of abuse or disturbing--what do you call it--disturbing the peace incident, whatever you want to call it. But in 1985, Detective Fuhrman was not a detective. I just called him Detective, geez. Fuhrman was a patrol officer. He went to 360 north Rockingham in response to a call. And you recall the testimony. He saw Nicole sitting on the--on a Mercedes as I recall. The window was bashed out, the fenders were dented, there was a baseball bat nearby. The Defendant was walking along the driveway. Fuhrman had a conversation with the Defendant. Nicole was crying, her face was covered with her hair, she was holding her hands to her face. You remember that testimony. That was 10 years ago. 10 years ago, Fuhrman went to 360 north Rockingham in response to that call. That's 1985. 1994, Nicole's dead. When you look at the relationship between these two and you reflect back on the testimony from Christian Reichardt and you think about the 911 calls and Officer Edwards and you think about the day of the recital, you think about Denise Brown and what she had to say about the Defendant--remember that time at the red onion when he grabbed her by the crotch in front of a bar full of strangers and said, "This is where my babies come from. This is mine." Remember that testimony? This relationship between this man and Nicole, you know, it is like the time bomb ticking away. Just a matter of time, just a matter of time before something really bad happened. You know, you meet people in life and there are people with short fuses. You know, they just go off. And there are others with longer fuses, you know, takes them a little while longer to go off. And relationships are the same way sometimes, you know, especially a violent abusive relationship like this one. This thing was like a fuse, a bomb with a long fuse. And there were incidents along the way, and along the way as each incident occurred, that fuse got shorter. If nothing else, that fuse was lit in 1985 that night when he took that baseball bat to her car. And we don't know the reasoning behind his decision to do that. We only know that he did. When you stop and you look at it and you consider the conduct, breaks the windshield, dents the car up, use of a baseball bat--that's a pretty novel approach. The wife is seated on top of the car crying, face covered, hair over her face. If nothing else, look at it this way. What message does that send to Nicole? What are we going to do with this evidence? How do we evaluate this, when a man takes a baseball bat to his wife's car and just beats the "F" out of her? If nothing else, it sends a message to her. It instills fear; wouldn't you agree? And would you agree that it suggests to her that this can happen to you, that maybe you'll be next? That fuse is burning. It's burning in 1985, it's burning in 1985, and 1985 was the year of their marriage. The fuse is lit. It's burning, but it's a slow burn. We next go to 1989. You heard from Denise Brown. You know, she testified about 1989. Detective Edwards testified about 1989. I said before, you've got to go back--we have to go back and look at their relationship. We have to go back in the past to see how we got to where we are today because when you do, you see a pattern developing here.

You see that fuse is lit in 1989. It was new years, new year's night. It was about 4:00 o'clock in the morning. And as I recall, we called to the witness stand a 911 operator. Her name was Sharon Gilbert. And that night--that morning, she received a call. The caller never identified herself. The line was left open. The call came in, the line was left open. The 911 operator stayed on the line and listened in. And as she testified here at the trial, if you stay on long enough, being a 911 operator, you get a fix on the origin, the address from where the call is coming. She stayed on the line. She determined that the call was coming from 360 north Rockingham and she listened in for a few moments. You recall that tape. Can I play that for you? It only takes a couple seconds. Do you have that tape? Is that People's 1? This is People's 1. This is the first exhibit I marked for you in this case eight months ago.

(At 7:23 P.m., People's exhibit 1, a videotape, was played.)

(At 7:24 P.m., the tape was concluded.)

MR. DARDEN: I stood before you back in January. I said to you if you listen carefully to that tape--and you'll have the tape in the jury room. You put it in a tape recorder. When you listen to it, listen carefully because you can hear in the background the sound of someone being struck or slapped. And that's what the 911 operator heard and she told you on the witness stand that she heard that. She heard the sound, the noise of someone being beaten and she put that out on the radio. You recall that? She put it out on the radio that there was a woman being beaten at 360 north Rockingham. They may say that this isn't important evidence. I say they're wrong. There's physical abuse here, wife beating here, spousal abuse, spousal battery going on and this is an emergency situation. And Sharon Gilbert, the 911 operator, puts this call out code 2, high, get somebody to 360 north Rockingham fast. And they do. And they do. About 4:00 o'clock in the morning, Officer Edwards arrived at 360 north Rockingham. You recall Officer Edwards. He and his partner, they drove up Rockingham--I'm sorry--they drove up Ashford to pass the Ashford gate. They stopped at Rockingham where they saw the call box. He got out of his patrol car and he pushed the button at the call box, and a voice responded on the other side. It was the voice of the maid at that time, Michelle Aboudram. Officer Edwards identified himself, told Michelle that he was there in response to a 911 call and that he needed to speak to the person that made the call. Michelle said, "Hey, there's no problem here. Don't worry about it. Go on about your way." But Officer Edwards was persistent and he said, "No, no, no. I'm not leaving until I speak to the person that made that call." And as he spoke to Michelle Aboudram, someone ran out of the bushes in the dark. Do you recall that testimony? You heard it. It was here. Someone ran from the bushes in the dark. It was a woman, a woman with blond hair. She was wearing a bra. She was wearing a bra and pajamas or sweatpants. And that woman came running from the bushes in the darkness toward the gate where the call box was and she was yelling something. She was shouting something. Do you remember what she was shouting? Remember what the testimony was in this case? She was shouting, "He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," and she shouted this four or five times as she arrived at that button and began pushing that button to get out of that gate, to get off that property, to get out of his house.

And as Officer Edwards stood there on the street side, on the Rockingham side of that gate, looking at her on the opposite side of the gate, what did he see? He saw that she was covered with mud. She was panicked. As Officer Edwards put it, she was hysterical. And she's hitting that button, hitting that button trying to open that gate to get out of there and she's yelling to him, "He's going to kill me." And what did Officer Edwards say? What did he say? "Who? Who is going to kill you?" He didn't see anybody running behind her. "Who? Who is going to kill you?" And what does she say? "O.J. O.J. O.J. Simpson." The gate finally opened, and she ran through the gate, she ran to Officer Edwards and she fell in his arms and collapsed and she said, "He is going to kill me," and she just kept repeating it. Well, at that point, Officer Edwards shined his flashlight on her face. Remember the testimony? When he shined that flashlight on her face, he saw that her eye was starting to blacken. The right side of her forehead was swollen. There was an imprint, some sort of a swollen mark on her right cheek--cheek did I say?

And he also said that she had a hand print--he saw a hand print, a hand print on the left side of her neck, on the left side of her throat. A hand print. Someone had grabbed this woman, his wife by the neck hard enough to leave an imprint around her neck, an imprint in the shape of his hand. Let me say this to you. We submit to you that the hand that left that imprint five years ago is the same hand that cut that same throat, that same neck on June 12th, 1994. It was the Defendant. It was the Defendant then, it's the Defendant now. And at that point, Nicole Brown made a--she said a series of things to Officer Edwards. Remember, keep in mind that she was hysterical, she was upset and she was panicked, and I'm sure that she was in fear because she must have been in fear because she was running through the night covered with mud in a bra and in her pajamas. And she said to Officer Edwards--she said something very important to Officer Edwards. She said, "You never do anything about him. You come out here, you've been out here eight times and you never do anything about him." That's what she told Officer Edwards that day. She said, "You've been out here eight times."

They want to tell you that the police conspired against O.J. Simpson. Nicole says they had been out there eight times before and never did anything to him. I don't know. Well, let me ask you this. How many times does it take? If they'd been out there eight times before that night, then that night was the ninth time. No one had ever done anything to him before. I don't know why that is. But what do you think? Do you think it's time to think that perhaps this time, we ought to do something? Eight is enough. If eight isn't enough, nine--nine is certainly enough. Nicole said it with her own mouth back then, "He is going to kill me, he is going to kill me." And sure enough, he has, long after she makes these spontaneous statements to Officer Edwards, after she complains they have been out there eight times before and they've never done anything to him, this man, the Defendant, see. And we're seeing the Defendant at home at this point, you know. We're seeing the private side of him, the private side I told you I'd show you. He comes out of his house and he's wearing a bathrobe 4:00 o'clock in the morning. Nothing wrong with that. And he speaks to Officer Edwards.

Now, when he speaks to Officer Edwards, does he ask him, "How's my wife"? No. Does he say, "I hope I didn't hurt her too badly"? No. What does he say? What does he do? He humiliates her. Remember what he said. He said, "I don't want that woman in my bed anymore. I got two other women. I don't want that woman in my bed anymore." That was his response. And this was Nicole, his wife. She had been his wife four years. You recall Officer Edwards' testimony, that this Defendant, he was angry, he was mad, he was fit to be tied. And he was yelling at Officer Edwards. And the Defendant was on one side of the gate. He was on the Rockingham side on his own property. Officer Edwards was on the other side of the gate. And there they are speaking to each other on the opposite side of the gate, and the Defendant is yelling these things to Officer Edwards about his wife, saying these kinds of things about his wife to Officer Edwards who is a stranger. And Officer Edwards said to the Defendant, "Your wife has been battered. She is injured. I'm going to have to arrest you." Well, that just set the Defendant off again, just set him off.

Let me tell you something. The fuse is burning. The fuse is burning, folks. The fuse is burning. And at some point, this fuse is going to run out and it is going to play out. It is going to get so short and so close to the bomb that at some point, this bomb is going to explode. And what does the Defendant say when Officer Edwards says to him, "I'm going to have to arrest you, I'm going to have to take you to jail"? What does the Defendant say? He says the same thing Nicole said in a sense. He says to Officer Edwards--this is what the Defendant said. You recall this testimony. Officer Edwards heard the Defendant say, "You've been up here eight times before, and now you're going to arrest me for this?" Now, let's just think about that for a moment. If nothing else, we now have the confirmation that we need. That is the confirmation of the fact that the police had been there eight times before. But what is this part about, "And now you're going to arrest me for this"? What does that mean? What does that mean? "Now, you are going to arrest me for this, but you've been up here eight times before."

And I don't know. This is the evidence in the case. You're going to have to decide what that means. You can interpret what he says. You don't have to just take it literally. You decide what that means. It could mean a couple things. And after he said that and after he complained to Officer Edwards about the fact he was going to be arrested for beating his wife, he says to Officer Edwards, "This is a family matter. It is a family matter and nothing more." Well, wife beating is not just a family matter, is it? I mean, is this something we ought to take seriously? That's one thing about spousal abuse. You know, it happens and it always happens behind closed doors. And you know what they say; nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. And we don't know everything that went on behind the gates of this man's estate at Rockingham, but we do know this; that whatever it was, whatever went on there had gone on eight times prior to this time, right? We know that. But he says it's a family matter. He minimizes what has happened. He doesn't care about this woman. He doesn't care about what he did to her.

Well, Officer Edwards gives him the star treatment. He tells him, "Hey, I'm going to take you to jail. Go back in the house and get dressed." Officer Edwards did not insist on arresting him right then and there. He let him go in the house alone to get dressed. Apparently that's what the Defendant did, because a few minutes later, he came back out yelling and complaining and moaning, complaining about being arrested, saying more derogatory things about his wife in front of this stranger. Well, in the meantime, Officer Edwards had sent for a second car, second police vehicle, a transport vehicle because he was going to transport Nicole to the station in one car and they were going to arrest this man and take him to the station in another car. And as that second police car arrived and as Officer Edwards turned his attention toward that second police car, that meant that he turned his attention away from the Defendant. And what did the Defendant do? Remember the testimony, remember what happened? I know it's been a long time. What did he do? Jumped in the car and he ran. Remember that? He went out the other gate in the Bentley. He ran. He drove away. He got away. He didn't get arrested. He avoided responsibility that day for having done what he did to Nicole. "Responsibility" is an important word, one of the words we teach our--I know I teach my kids about responsibility. You know, you have to tell them--you have to let your kids know, hey, you do an act, you've got to accept responsibility, okay. You've got to accept the consequences. Well, he didn't accept the consequences that day. He didn't accept responsibility. He jumped in that Bentley, he drove away, he snuck off. He avoided responsibility. He got away from the police. They tried to catch him. They couldn't. Well, we caught him this time. Well, after the Defendant got away, Edwards asked Nicole to go down to Parker Center, to come from Rockingham all the way downtown to Parker Center so he could have some professional photographs taken of her injuries, but she refused. Remember what she said? She said, "No. I just want my children. I want to stay here with my children. I don't want to leave my children." And she was beaten and she was bruised and she was hurt. She still wanted to stay with her kids. She wanted to be with her kids. And Edwards said, "Well, will you do this for us? Will you just go down to West L.A. Station and let us photograph your injuries? It only takes a few minutes."

It seems as if she was more concerned about her kids than she was doing anything to the Defendant. She didn't--she didn't care about documenting her own injuries at that time. She just wanted to be with her kids. But Edwards took her to West L.A. Station and he took some Polaroid photographs of her. Remember those photographs? Back in February I think it was, I think I marked those People's 4 and 5. I want you to go back for a moment with me eight months ago. Take a look at these injuries. Keep in mind, these are Polaroids and they're eight years old. Look at these injuries. Just look at what you can see, which isn't much at this point.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: See the small cut to the right side from where we are on the right side of her upper lip? Look at the swollen left cheek. Look at the scar, the scratch, the bruise on the right side of her forehead. You see that? You've seen other pictures of her. You saw a picture of her when she was alive and smiling. Remember that picture? I have to find it for you tomorrow.

Look at that picture, the one you're looking at now. When you look at the one of her smiling, you look at those two pictures, you think it helps you discern just how badly bruised she was. At some point, he took her back home to be with her kids. The Defendant, well, they didn't catch him that night. And the next day, Nicole spoke to Ron Shipp and the next day as well, the Defendant spoke to Detective Farrell. Remember Detective Farrell, the detective investigating this case? He called Detective Farrell on the phone and apologized for the incident and expressed to Detective Farrell his dismay at the extent of her injuries. You remember that. He called Farrell and told him he didn't realize she had been injured that much. You didn't realize the full extent of her injuries at the time? I don't know. You tell me. That's a Polaroid. This is People's 29. She doesn't quite look like that in any other photograph you've seen in this case, does she?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: The fuse was burning, ladies and gentlemen. He had injured her, he had harmed her and he had beaten her, and he did not fully realize the extent of his own anger, the extent of his own rage at that point. He had hurt her in ways that he apparently himself didn't fully, fully comprehend at the time. And later on, he wrote her some letters. He was trying to get back on her good side. Now, you may see these as letters of apology. We say these are letters of manipulation. What is he really attempting to accomplish here? You'll have the original letters in the jury room. In the beginning, he expresses to her how sorry he is. Actually, I don't know. Does he say he's sorry? Does he say he was wrong? He says he was wrong for hurting her and that there's no excuse for what he did, and then he goes on to write something that I think is very, very important here. He's thinking and trying to realize how he got so crazy. He had such emotional feelings towards her that was high as any he ever felt, and it must be because of those feelings that he reacted so emotionally. With all of that emotion running in him, he says he didn't react too well. It's just as I said a moment before. He doesn't fully realize or he didn't in 1989 just how crazy he got, he could get, how emotional he could get, how passionate he could get. Now, what set this whole thing off? What happened in 1989 that caused him to get to the point that he beat this woman up? Well, Ron Shipp testified about his conversation with Nicole. Now, if you reflect back for a moment on the Defendant's statement to Edwards, that he had two women, right, what does Shipp tell you about his conversation with Nicole? She found out about the other two women. She didn't want to have sex with him. She didn't want to be with him. That's what led to this whole thing in 1989, his passion, his emotion. And when that passion and that emotion gets out of control--and he was out of control in 1989--and when that fuse starts burning, ladies and gentlemen, and it starts getting shorter and shorter, sets him off. He was set off that day in 1989. Look at this letter. You'll have this letter in the jury room, and you'll see that he can't always control the passion and anger and emotion himself. Something about this woman, this woman, she does something to this man that causes him to lose control. And he lost control. He lost control of her because in 1992, she moved out of his house, in January of 1992 as I recall. And the next month, I think it's February--I don't know. Maybe I should pull out that time line board, John, because in 1992, in February, if I'm not mistaken, she filed for divorce. Well, you know when a woman moves out of the house and files for divorce, I have learned it means she doesn't want you anymore. It means that there's something wrong in the relationship and it means I think that perhaps if you are the other party to that marriage, that perhaps you should be seeking--

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: --companionship elsewhere. Now, that's what they did in this case. She left. She filed for divorce, and he couldn't take it. You heard from Kathryn Bowe and her husband, Mr. Colby. Remember Mr. Colby? They lived at the corner on Gretna Green. In 1992, and I believe it was April 28th around 11:00 p.m. That night--it's here on the chart--they looked out the window and they saw a figure, a man, a man in the dark. In the darkness, they saw a man, and the man was out on the sidewalk and he was looking around and he was pacing a little bit up and down the sidewalk. He was pacing, walking up and down on the sidewalk. Know what it means when people pace. I do it a lot. But I don't know what this person was doing pacing out there on the sidewalk, but they thought this was unusual at 11:00 o'clock at night. Was it a Sunday night? I think it was a Sunday night.

And they watched this person and they watched this person, this man--by the way, this man was about six feet, six foot two, 200 pounds, African American. They watched this man in the dark in the night pacing up and down the sidewalk, and then they saw that man walk down the sidewalk, up the driveway and peer through the window of Nicole Brown's house on Gretna Green. Remember that testimony? He didn't handle that divorce--the filing of that divorce too well now, did he? Now, they may say, oh, well, he--you know, he looked through a window. Big deal. This is more than just looking through a window. This is stalking. When people come up to your window at 11:00 o'clock at night and they peek through it and they look through it and they watch you, there's something wrong here. There is something wrong here. This is obsessive conduct, ladies and gentlemen. This is obsessive conduct. This is stalking. And the Colby's saw this man, they saw him do that, they saw him walk back on the sidewalk, and they became so concerned about him that they telephoned the police. They called the police. And after they called the police, they continued to watch through this window to watch this man. They couldn't tell who the man was at that point in time, but after a few moments, they could. Who was that man? Him. It was the Defendant, O.J. Simpson, stalking Nicole. It's already April, April of 1992. Let me tell you something. By April of 1992, this woman knew she was going to die. She told Edwards that he was going to kill her. She told him that back in 1989, and apparently she believed that. You heard testimony from a D.A. Investigator in this case, my investigator from my office, Mike Stevens, and Mr. Stevens testified that in December of 1994 and with the permission of a Judge, he said that he went to a bank and he drilled a hole in a safe deposit box. You recall that testimony? And it was in that safe deposit box that he found a letter that we showed you a moment ago. Remember that, the letter where the Defendant says he doesn't know how he got so crazy? They found that letter and they found two other letters from the Defendant, from O.J. Simpson, to Nicole, attempting to get back with her, attempting to convince her to take him back, attempting to convince her that things would be better the next time. They found those letters in that safe deposit box and they found something else. They found a will. They found a will, this woman's will. It had been executed during 1990, which means she must have been about 30 years old. You know many people at the age of 30 who execute wills? But they find her will, his letters and something else. Do you have that?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: There was some photographs, some photographs from back in 1989, because after he beat her in 1989, she called her sister, Denise, and Denise came over and she showed Denise the injuries this man inflicted on her and she asked Denise to take pictures of those injuries, and she put those pictures in that safe deposit box along with her will, along with her letters. Okay. She put those things there for a reason. I mean, they're just letters and they're just pictures. But if you are going to have a safe deposit box, you'd think that the things you put in that box are the things that you think are important. Now, I don't know how you want to interpret that conduct. You can interpret it any way you want. But let me suggest to you that you should interpret it this way. She is leaving you a road map to let you know who it is who will eventually kill her. She knew in 1989. She knew it and she wants you to know it. She knew who was going to do it to her, but she didn't know when. But whenever that event actually came, she wanted you to know who did it. Think about that. Just think about that. A will, photographs of her being beaten. Okay. You tell me.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: This is one of the photographs here that Denise took of her sister. Wait. This is one of the photographs that Denise took of her sister in 1989, People's 11.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: And this photograph was taken, as I recall, on the 3rd or the 4th I believe of January, three or four days after the beating. And you can still see the injuries. This wasn't some little bruise that healed overnight or that went away the next morning. She left these for you. This is a road map. This is a sign. She wanted you to know who killed her when the time came. This is 1992. And in 1992, he's already beating up her Mercedes and her car. He's already beaten her up. Show the next one.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: And he is peeping through her window. Look at the picture up on the elmo, People's 29. That fuse is getting shorter, folks. It's burning, and at some point, he is going to explode. But in April of `92, as he peeps through the window and stalks her, he is jealous. He is jealous. He is consumed with jealousy. He has become obsessive and he's consumed with jealousy because we know back in 1989, after he did this to her, he spoke to Ron Shipp. Remember that? You remember Ron Shipp. You remember what they did to Ron Shipp on the witness stand? Ron Shipp testified that back in `89, he was a member of the LAPD and a friend to Nicole and to the Defendant and that after he beat her in 1989, she called him. She asked him to come and see her, and he did. You recall his testimony, when he walked through the door, he saw Nicole and he saw these injuries and these bruises, and he was shocked and he wanted to know who did this to her and she told him, he did it. And she talked to Ron Shipp about the Defendant's conduct and their relationship. And as you recall, Ron Shipp at the time was teaching at the police academy. He was teaching a course--a course on spousal abuse. And he showed Nicole a document, and this document listed some of the characteristics that are indicative of a man who beats women and are indicative of a woman who allows a man to beat her. And he showed it to Nicole and he spoke with her, and she asked him to do her a favor; and that is to speak to O.J. Simpson, her husband at the time, the Defendant, to speak to him about his conduct, to speak to him about what he did to her. And Ron Shipp did that and he showed--and he showed this document to O.J. Simpson, the Defendant. The document I believe was called a profile, a batterer's profile. It listed all these characteristics or characteristics consistent with a person who beats his wife. And he showed them to O.J. Simpson and they had a discussion. And at first, this Defendant tried to minimize what he had done to Nicole and he tried to suggest that, hey, he wasn't a batterer. Ron said, "Man, look at your wife. Look at the injuries. Of course, you're a batterer." The Defendant tried to minimize his conduct, and he showed those characteristics, that profile to O.J. Simpson, and O.J. Simpson pointed one out. I mean, Shipp said, "Hey, do any of these fit you in your mind? Do any of these fit you?"

There is one category entitled "The pathologically jealous." Remember? And O.J. Simpson said, "Well, maybe you know, maybe a little bit. Maybe I'm a little bit jealous, a little bit pathologically jealous." That is one of these things where you can't just be a little bit of. Either you are or you aren't. You know what I mean? You can't be somewhat jealous or partially jealous. Either you're jealous or you're not jealous. And this Defendant, he was jealous and he was out of control and he was consumed with passion for Nicole and he was obsessive because in April of 1992, he is peeking through windows. He has already beaten her. He has already beaten up her car. And he does some other things. In 1988 and 1989, I told you already that the testimony from Denise Brown was that he humiliated Nicole in public by grabbing her crotch in front of a bar full of strangers. And what else had he done? What else had he done? He's thrown Nicole and Denise out of his home one night. Remember that night, that night Denise said to him, "O.J., you take Nicole for granted," and he blew up. Remember, he blew up and he said, "Hey, I do everything for her."

And he became enraged back then. He picked Nicole up, he threw her against the wall, he threw her out of the house. He threw Denise out of the house and he threw all the clothes downstairs and out of the house too. Remember that testimony? This is the private side of him. This is the other side. This is the side of this man that you don't see in the commercial. He is out of control. He cannot handle it and the fuse is burning.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our--Mr. Wooden, would you take that down for me, please? Thank you, sir. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the evening. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock, and we'll resume with Mr. Darden's argument tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. Have a pleasant evening, what's left of it. We'll see you tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. All right. We'll stand in recess.

(At 8:00 P.m., an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, September 27, 1995, 9:00 A.m.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Tuesday, September 26, 1995 volume 230

Pages 47172 through 47287, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 230 pages 47172 - 47287

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Tuesday September 26, 1995 A.m. 47172 230

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

Closing argument by ms. Clark 47220 230

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Tuesday, September 26, 1995 volume 230A

Pages 47288 through 47500, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

ALSO PRESENT: Kelli Sager, Esquire Doug Mirell, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 230A pages 47288 - 47500

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Tuesday September 26, 1995 P.m. 47288 230A

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS

Closing argument by ms. Clark (Resumed) 47289 230A

Closing argument by Mr. Darden 47459 230A