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. Cochran, Mr. Blasier. The people are represented by Mr. Darden and Miss Clark. The jury is not present. The record should reflect that this morning I had a chambers conference with counsel to discuss a questionnaire that will go to the jurors this afternoon inquiring of them if they are desirous of extending the hours of deliberation into a later session during the evening hours and whether or not they are desirous or willing to deliberate on Saturdays, with the understanding that any deliberations must be conducted here at the courthouse and in the jury deliberation room. We also discussed--and excuse me. Counsel had no objection to the questionnaire proposed by the court. Also, the record should reflect that the court has directed counsel to be available on a one-hour's call for the purposes of responding to questions by the jury and also requests for read back. And the court has indicated also that a longer time period to be available for the purposes of rendering a verdict will probably be in place, but we will discuss that when the time comes. All right. Anything else we need to discuss before--put on the record before we conclude with Mr. Darden's argument?

MR. NEUFELD: Your honor, may I just go around?

THE COURT: Sure. All right. Deputy Trower.

MR. SCHECK: Your honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, good morning.

MR. SCHECK: Good morning. I just wanted to register for the record certain objections, one in particular to Miss Clark's argument, and get some determination from the court on this issue. At one point in her argument she began making references to the defendant's not performing tests on evidence and started making comments about experts for the defense who never appeared in court or testified and what they did or didn't do. In particular, the comment that concerned me the most was in reference to EDTA testing. It is one thing to say that dr. Rieders didn't perform a test using the ms/ms machine, because that certainly came out and was impeachment in the testimony, but what concerned me was a reference, well, the defense had other experts and they didn't come in and give you test results, or anything to that effect, and that seems to me improper, because, first of all, it is commenting on a privileged area, I think that is 913. And secondly, I think we've already had some litigation on this issue where the court actually made a finding that the conduct of the prosecution in terms of trying to find out what, if anything, defense experts were doing in this area was, in the court's words reprehensible, so it seems to me that a comment on what other experts could have done with respect to their testing or did do or anything like that would be improper, although I have no objection to her making comments about dr. Rieders. I thought that--and I would like some kind of guidance from the court on that issue.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I don't know what to say, judge. I pointed out to the jury what is in the record. I pointed out the truth. And I think I was very specific about the people they called and they didn't call. What I pointed out in--to the best of my recollection, is that they called dr. Rieders to testify about someone else's tests. He performed none. He could have. I talked about dr. Gerdes and I talked about dr. Lee and I talked about dr. Blake. This is all in the record. I don't recall--I did not refer to other experts that were unnamed or that did not come into the record. I talked about the ones that were in the record, and that is why they didn't perform any tests. So I don't know what the complaint is.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, do you want to--I mean, are there any case citations? Because primarily during the course of argument the prosecution counsel are entitled to comment upon the state of the evidence and the failure to call logical and material witnesses, and that is people versus miller, 50 cal.3D, 954, the court's comments at 996.

MR. SCHECK: No, no. It sounds like from her comments I heard something different, and if Miss Clark doesn't believe she said that or certainly isn't going to make that argument on rebuttal, then I guess we don't have a quarrel.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: It seems to me, though, just to make the point very, very clear, it is one thing to comment on dr. Rieders on what tests he did or did not perform under the circumstances. I distinctly heard her say the defense has other experts that could have done that test and that I think is beyond the miller case and beyond proper comment on the record. And it appears that Miss Clark agrees.

THE COURT: Something based in the record, correct.

MR. SCHECK: Right, so it appears as though there is no disagreement here, but I am very concerned because--

THE COURT: All right. Let's do this: Let's have our computer maven, Mr. Blasier, see if he can find the appropriate comment and at the next recess we will take it up, if you feel it is something that is appropriate.

MS. CLARK: Your honor, I will tell you what--

THE COURT: No, no. We have just settled it.

MS. CLARK: No, because in case--I don't know--we can't all remember what we say over the period of hours, but I will say this: Any reference to other experts would have been they could have brought someone in, not they had someone available.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Assuming that is the case--don't do it? Wait?

THE COURT: The discussion is over.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 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 now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: And Mr. Darden, are you prepared to continue on with your argument, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, I am, your honor. Thank you. Good morning, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED) BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. DARDEN: I hope everybody--I'm sorry. Mr. Fairtlough, would you just briefly show that to counsel, if you can. I hope everybody had a good sleep last night. It was a long day yesterday, and I thank you. Let me thank you in advance for hearing me again this morning. I don't expect to take up the entire morning. In fact, with any luck, I won't take up more than half of it, but we will have to see. Well, you will recall where we left off yesterday. I was telling you about this defendant's relationship, this man's relationship with Nicole Brown, and I told you that it was a simmering relationship. You know, it was--it was a slow burn. It was a slow burn. And I described for you and discussed with you some of the testimony that you heard in this case, testimony you heard from witnesses about their relationship, and we talked about the 1985 incident involving the baseball bat and the Mercedes Benz. We talked about the--the 1989 incident and the fact that the police had been there eight times before. Both the defendant here and Nicole Brown both--both admitted that, so I guess it is true, right? We talked about the incident at the red onion when the defendant grabbed Nicole by the crotch in front of a bar full of strangers and humiliated her. We talked about that. We talked about his admission to Shipp about his jealousy after the 1985 incident. We never talked about the testimony we heard from Denise Brown. You remember the testimony from Denise Brown when she talked about some of the--the really, really nasty things he would say to Nicole? As you may recall, Denise, Denise Brown, Nicole's sister, testified that during the time that she was pregnant the defendant would call her names. Do you recall that testimony? He would caller a fat pig and he would call her a fat pig in front of other people. I don't know what you should--you should extract from that. I mean, have you ever heard of such a thing? I don't know. I would suggest, however, that that is some indication of how he really felt about her. You know, sometimes you get in a relationship, people get in a relationship, and you have one--one half of the relationship who is dominant and you have another half who is somewhat passive, and the dominant half dominates the other half and what--what effect do you spouse this would have on Nicole, that is, being called a fat pig by her husband while she is pregnant? What affect would that have on herself esteem. Because you are probably wondering, well, hey, if he did all of these things to her, if he said all of these things to her, why did she stay? Well, there is old song and the words used to go that--oh, I think it was the dramatics, I can't really recall, but there was a couple of lines in the song where they said the strong give up and move on and the weak give up and stay. You know, if you badger a person long enough, if you beat them down long enough, if you wear them down long enough, pretty soon you strip them of their dignity their self esteem, and they are weak and they are submissive and they can't go; they can't stay. You know how that is. Everybody knows how that is. We've all been in bad relationships before. You have friend, you see them in these bad relationships. Why? Why do they say? Why do they stay? Usually they feel they don't have a choice. They don't know that they have a choice. They forgot that they had a choice. And in their minds they have no choice. She is a fat pig. But we talked about that yesterday and we talked about justice and we talked about what the real issue in this case was about and I pointed the defendant out to you and I told you he killed her and you've heard the evidence in this case. He killed Ron Goldman. O.J. Simpson is a murderer. That is what the evidence indicates. That is what the evidence indicates. That is what the evidence shows. It shows that he is not just a murderer, but he is a double murderer, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that I have to stand here and tell you this because I would rather be somewhere else. I'm sure would you rather be somewhere else. Who wants to really have to confront and deal with these issues? But we have to because we have a duty. Marcia and I have a duty and you have a duty as well. Your duty is to look at all the evidence, to be fair, be conscientious, be objective. And your duty is to look at all the evidence, the totality of the circumstances, everything.

We don't want you to just look at one piece. Don't just look at the prosecution's case. Look at the entire case. Look at everything. Because when you do, when you do, what can you say except he did it and we have proven it and we have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. And we talked about the safe-deposit box yesterday and we talked about the fact that Nicole knew that she was going to die and we know that she knew that because she told the police that in 1989 and we know that she knew that because of what she saved for us, the roadmap she left for you in that safe-deposit box; the letters, the photographs, the will. You recall that testimony. And as we went through the progression here, through the history of his abuse of Nicole--and by the way, not every incident here on this chart is an incident necessarily of abuse, but we wanted to lay out the history of their relationship as well, and so that is why you see things like divorce and et cetera, so we are not trying to mislead you. But we thought it was important that you know how the relationship developed over the years. And this is an unusual relationship, you have to agree. There is something wrong here. Henry lee said there was something wrong. There is something very wrong here. This is a slow burning, simmering relationship, and it is just like I told you yesterday, the fuse is burning. The fuse is burning, folks, and it is getting shorter and it is getting shorter and it is just getting shorter. But this morning, you know, I want to take things a step further, if I may, if you will allow me to. Let's just cut right to the chase. Imagine the defendant in his bronco. He is full of anger and he is full of rage and it is nighttime and he is driving that bronco and he is full of jealousy and the fuse continues to burn and the focus of his anger is Nicole. For some reason in his mind she has done something that he can't ignore, something that has set him off. He is jealous, he is raging, he is raging, he is out of control. And he is in that bronco and he is driving as fast as he can toward Nicole's house and it is about ten o'clock. He is out of control, folks, he is completely out of control. And when he gets to Nicole's place he quickly parks the bronco and he gets out. It is ten o'clock. He is in his bronco. He is at Nicole's house. It is nighttime. But we are not even talking about June 12th. We are not talking about June 12th, 1994. We are talking about October 25th, 1993. All along I have asked you to be open-minded, to be open-minded about this man and who he is, and we have suggested to you, and I think we have proven to you, that he is not the person that you see on those TV commercials and at half-time in those football games. That is his public persona. We all have one. We all have one. We behave a certain way when we are in public and we behave another way when we are at home. You know what they say. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. And the fact that you--we may see you and you may see us doesn't really mean that you know us or that you know me or you know Miss Clark or Mr. Cochran. You see us here in public. But what are we? What are we really? What are we really inside? What are we really at home? Well, we have a very, very nice example. Well, "Nice" is a bad choice of words. We have a very, very important example of who this man is, of who he is at home, of who he is in his private life. It is the private side, the other side of him. And I want you to listen to a tape, a tape of an emergency call, and you recall that I played that tape a long time ago, months ago, and you probably forgot about it up until yesterday, I hope, but I'm going to ask you to listen to that tape in just a moment. Now, you know some people say, well, how could--how could O.J. Simpson actually kill this woman and Ron Goldman when her kids are in the house? You know what I mean? They say, well, who would do something like that? Well, he would. Keep this in mind, if you will, if you think it is important. In 1989 when he beat her you will recall that when the police came and wanted to take her to Parker Center to have photographs of her injuries taken, you will remember that she said, "I don't want to go. I just want my kids. Just take me back home. Take me back home to my kids. My kids are at home. I want to be with my kids." The night he beat her his kids were in the house. And when you listen to this tape from October 25, 1993, after the first couple of minutes you will hear the defendant in the background yelling and screaming and raging. You will hear that rage and you will hear Nicole on the telephone say, "The kids are upstairs." The fact that the kids are in the house means nothing to this man. Mr. Fairtlough, Mr. Wooden.

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this, Mr. Darden?

MR. DARDEN: Which exhibit is this, Mr. Fairtlough?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 21.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(At 9:35 A.M., people's exhibit 21, a videotape, was played.)

(At 9:44 A.M. the playing of the tape concluded.)

MR. DARDEN: I think we have heard enough of that. You will have this tape in the jury room. I am just a messenger and I think you get the message and you get the message straight out of his mouth. You hear this man in the background raging. He is raging about a picture, a picture of a man he saw at Nicole's house, a picture of a man she had apparently dated how many months before? How many months did Nicole say? About 18 months or something like that. It is on the tape. And Nicole said on that tape as well that "It always comes up." This man, that issue always comes up. Apparently this man and that issue is of great concern to the defendant, of so much concern that he apparently just can't get it out of his system, he can't put it behind him, he can't forget it. He can't forget it. And you hear him back there yelling and screaming at Nicole. You hear the language and you hear the things that he is saying about her and you hear him in the background saying, "I don't give a shit any more." That is what he said, a old relationship, a past boyfriend, a boyfriend she apparently had at a time after she moved away from his home and after she filed for divorce. A year and a half and he still hadn't gotten over it. And it is October 25 of 1993, and Nicole doesn't know it at the time, she knows he is going to kill her at some point, but she doesn't know at the time that she only has eight months to live. Now, we offer this tape to you, as I said before, so that you would know who you are dealing with and because you have a right to see him, the private side of him. When you listen to that 911 call, as you take it back into the jury room, listen to the part where she tries to calm him, where she is on the phone and it sounds as though he is getting closer to you because you can hear his voice more clearly and his voice is raised even higher than before. And as she tries to calm him, she tries to calm him by using a calm voice of her own. You get what I'm saying? I mean she says, "O.J., O.J." About three minutes before she was in tears on the phone calling the 911 operator, but he comes near, he is enraged, she is trying to calm him down with a calm voice. What does that mean? Is that helpful to you at all? Let me suggest to you that what that means is that she has been there before. She apparently feels as if she has a way, some tack, some approach that might help calm him down. It is Nicole's approach to her problem when the defendant becomes enraged, a calm voice, and she is scared and you know she is scared. You can hear the fear, you can hear the terror in her voice when she calls the 911 operator, but he gets close and she gets to the point where she has to calm him down. She is the calm one. She is the one who is in jeopardy, but she is the one with the calm voice. 1993 was the same year that the defendant talked to Kato Kaelin. Remember Kato Kaelin was living at Gretna Green with Nicole. He was living in the back in the guest house. And he talked to Kato just before Nicole moved to Bundy. You remember that conversation? You recall that testimony?

This is an example of this man's control, of the control he had over Nicole, the control he exercised over her. Kato was living with her. Kato is going to be paying rent to her, to Nicole. This is money, this is income, okay? She is divorced from this man. She is not his wife. She is not his wife. She has not been his wife since 1992, okay? Kato lives there. She has no relationship, no intimate relationship with Kato. She has a right to have him live there in the guest house if she wants, and as she moves to Bundy, if she wants Kato to rent a room, she has that right. This is 1993. He has no right to interfere with that, but he wants to exercise control over her. This is about control. He is about control. This is all about control, ladies and gentlemen. It is all about control; the beating, the humiliation, all of that. That is how you control people. You beat them down, they lose their self esteem, you humiliate them and pretty soon they are like puppies. He talked to Kato and he said to Kato that it wouldn't e a good idea if he moved to Bundy, it wouldn't be right. You remember? Well, you know, you meet people and you get involved in relationships and he continued his relationship with Nicole and you have to take people at face value and take it how it comes to you, you know what I'm saying? If he wanted to be with Nicole, then he should would be Nicole the way she is, and if the way she is is that she needs a tenant to pay rent to make it or whatever, that is her thing. He should just accept that, but he doesn't. He talks to Kato and what does he do? He bribes him. He bribes him away from her. Kato was going to pay 450 to $500.00 a month rent at a Bundy. He bribes Kato and how does he do that? Kato, come live with me at Rockingham. We got the Jacuzzi, the estate, the tennis court. You got your own room. And what is it going to cost you? What is it going to cost Kato? Nothing, zero, zilch, scratch. It is free. He has bribed Kato away from her. And she is upset about it. You heard the testimony. Nicole talked to Kato and she begged him not to do as the defendant asked. She told Kato that he was being manipulated. This is control. But Kato told you from the witness stand that the deal was too sweet. It was a freebie, free stuff, free rent and board, free room and board. How could he turn it down? He turned his back on Nicole and Nicole was angry about that. Nicole named her dog Kato. Think about that. Nicole named her dog Kato.

I'm not suggesting to you that--that this man was angry and depressed and consumed with jealousy each and every moment of the day or each day that he was with Nicole. I'm not saying that. I'm sure that there were periods of calm. I'm sure that there were periods when they had a good time. I'm sure there were times and periods when things worked out great for both of them. But always beneath the surface looms this jealousy and this anger and this passion and that rage, the rage you just heard on that tape. And you know, if you are in Nicole's position and you know all about this and you know that, hey, there are certain things that can set him off, that can set that fuse to burning, that can make that fuse shorter and shorter, then you are going to tread lightly, right? You are going to try and do everything you can not to upset him. And that is control. They went back and forth in their relationship. They make up, then they would breakup. They would try to get together. They had kids. That sound natural, right? I mean, you know, there is nothing wrong with that, per se. And as I understand the testimony, as I recall, that they were together again in the spring of 1994.

Despite all of that, despite everything that had happened, that happened up until this point, 1994, she moves in January to Bundy and in the spring she begins dating the Defendant again. And Kato Kaelin told you from the witness stand that they had some kind of commitment, either to each other or she to him, I'm not sure of all the details, but you heard the testimony, and if my memory fails me, then, you know, rely on the testimony in case I'm incorrect. But they had some kind of agreement or commitment that she would date only him or wouldn't date anybody else before he left to go to New York for football season. She was supposed to date only him until August, and Kato said that that was a commitment, that they had that commitment. Well, somebody broke the commitment apparently. May 19, as I recall, is Nicole's birthday and for her birthday he gave her an expensive bracelet and on her birthday, as well as I recall, she was sick with pneumonia. That was the testimony, that she was sick, and I think someone said--and it may have been Miss Arnelle Simpson--that the Defendant had brought her soup, taken soup over to her on her birthday because she was sick, or maybe the day after her birthday, but sometime around that time period. But for some reason Nicole broke--broke off their relationship. She broke off the relationship. For some reason on may 22nd or thereabouts Nicole got the courage, the strength to break this relationship off. Now, you have to assume that when someone moves out of your house, that that is n attempt to break off a relationship, and you would think that he would get the point. And when she filed for divorce you would think that he would get the point. Then when the divorce is final you would think that he would get the point. But they go back and forth for whatever reason--and I'm not saying it is all his fault. I'm sure it is Nicole's fault also, if we can fault anybody for you, but she returns that bracelet on or about may 22nd, 1994. She couldn't be bought, she couldn't controlled any more. She had had enough. And I--and when you look at the things that transpire after may 22nd, 1994, you get the sense, don't you, that he finally got the message? It is over. It is over. She can't be bought. You can give me this expensive gift if you want to, that is fine, but I'm not staying in this relationship, take it back, and she gave it back to him.

And the Defense would like you to think that--that this was a--but there is no dig deal to this break-up, that Nicole Brown was upset, that he wasn't upset about it, but was he? Christian Reichardt testified from the witness stand for the Defense and he told you that the Defendant had been depressed during the weeks leading up to the murder also. He had been depressed because of his failing relationship with Nicole. He was depressed because she couldn't make up her mind as to whether or not she wanted to stay in the relationship. You recall that testimony? He was depressed about that. But it seems to me that perhaps his depression turned to anger. Do you have the IRS letter? In the days that followed--and we don't know everything that happened between them in the days that followed, but we know that at some point there was a letter that he wrote to her. We assume that he wrote it because his signature is on the back. And this letter has been marked as evidence and Mr. Fairtlough will get the exhibit number. The actual letter has been marked as evidence, and the letter is dated June 6th, and it is signed O.J., O.J. Simpson, and in the letter--now remember this is--there are no hard feelings here if you believe the Defense case. And this letter begins: "On the advice of legal counsel and because of the change in our circumstances I'm compelled to put you on written notice that do you not have my permission to use my address at Rockingham as your residence or mailing address for any purpose, including but not limited to information and tax returns filed with any taxing entity." Well what is this? What does this letter mean? How is this letter helpful to you? How many times do we break up with someone and then send them a letter a few days later or two weeks later in legalese? And what are the changes in their circumstances that he is referring to? The change in their circumstances is that she has decided that she does not want to deal with him any more and now he is out to hurt her, he is going to hurt her. This letter is People's 25, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: Did Nicole have some kind of tax problem? Looks like it. In the last paragraph he says: "I cannot take part in any course of action by you that might be misleading to the IRS or the franchise tax board." What is he suggesting to her? How should she receive this letter? And look at the carbon copy. Mr. Cochran asked someone on the witness stand if they knew that Marvin Goodfriend was his accountant, as I recall. We've heard that Leroy Taft is his lawyer. A carbon copy to his lawyer and his accountant. What is going on here? This is supposed to be an amenable break-up? No hard feelings? This is control. This is a subtle threat. And if you disagree with me, fine. The Defense disagrees with me, that is fine as well. But let me tell you something. When the Defense began the Defense case--well, not the Defense case, but when Mr. Cochran did his opening statement, he told you about a witness he intended to call, and this witness seemed to be a pretty important witness and would seem to be, given the evidence that you've heard in this case.

He told you about a woman named Dr. Lenore Walker and he said to you at page 11783 that: "There is an expert in the U.S. whose name is Dr. Lenore Walker and that she is by all accounts the no. 1 expert in America on the field of domestic violence." And he said that: "She has been called by some the mother of the battered women's syndrome."

He went on to tell you that she was a psychologist and she had interviewed and tested the Defendant. The things that I am saying to you and discussing with you today, the testimony that you heard from the witness stand about the domestic violence, the beating, the abuse, the intimidation, the threats, the stalking, did they call one witness to rebut any of that testimony in the People's case? They called 58 witnesses in the Defense case. How many came to address the 1989 incident or the October 23, 1993, incidents that you heard on the tape? Why didn't they call Dr. Walker who could have put this all in perspective for you if what the witnesses said in this case aren't true? I mean, it wasn't true. Dr. Walker could have interpreted this letter for you, but they didn't call Dr. Walker. They wouldn't call Dr. Walker. They better not have called Dr. Walker. And Dr. Walker never stepped foot into this courtroom while you were here in the jury box. They are a group of very, very fine lawyers. They called some of the most expensive experts money could buy. But we didn't see Dr. Walker. We didn't she her explain to you why this letter is insignificant, if that is the Defense position, or why this cycle of violence that led up to Nicole's murder doesn't help to establish motive from a practical sense. And there is something that he said to you on page 11793, and I want to take a moment and shown it to Mr. Cochran before I read it, if I can.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: When he finishes I want to read to you something Mr. Cochran told you he would present to you in this case.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DARDEN: And at page 11793 he said to you: "I'm going to tell you about the facts," he says, "So you will hear from Dr. Walker and you will hear about the battery of tests and I think you will find that she will say that in looking at Simpson, that in looking at O.J. Simpson, she tested him--and interviewing him and looking at him, at this point she finds no evidence of antisocial personality disorder, and I think you will find that becomes very important in this case." So where is Dr. Walker to come here to testify, to take--to take the witness stand, to sit in the blue chair and tell you that none of this is important, that everything I've told you for the last three hours is insignificant and unimportant? Where is she to tell you that he does not suffer from some antisocial personality disorder? She ain't here. And had she come here and expressed an opinion that this was unimportant, we would have cross-examined her, but they can't touch this. They can't touch this. This is important evidence. You have to consider it when you consider motive, when you consider the issue of identity, the identity of this man as the killer of these two people. You have to consider this on the issue of premeditation. This is important evidence. As the days proceeded on we know that he hired an interior decorator. As I recall the testimony, Paula Barbieri, his new girlfriend, you know, the one that he was so happy with--it is odd, but on the one hand they say he was happy with Paula Barbieri, and on the other hand Kato said that he told him, the Defendant told Kato that he, the Defendant, didn't know if Paula was the one. I don't know. But let me tell you something about this letter just to go back and this whole interior decorator situation. The fuse is burning and it is getting short, okay? It is getting short. He is trying to erase her presence, for instance, from his home, okay? This is how short the fuse is getting. He is trying to erase her presence from his home. He has hired an interior decorator to redecorate the bedroom, the master bedroom was it, and the bathroom. They are going to rip out the plumbing. The places she had been, they are going to change. They are going to erase her presence from the house. He is going to erase her presence from the house, or at least he is going to try. He is angry and he is upset. He has been rejected and he doesn't like that rejection and he is trying to get over her, he is trying to get beyond this. And so what does he do?

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

MR. DARDEN: And what does he do? And what does he do? They do work awfully hard so I can't get upset at them.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: Page 19.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm not sure, what is the exhibit number on this? I'm not sure.

THE COURT: I believe it is--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I'm just about to look that up, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me know. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Oh, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. So what does he do? He gets rid of her wedding photo, their wedding picture, puts it underneath the bed. He is trying to get beyond this, but he can't get beyond this because the fuse is burning, because he is upset and angry that the relationship was terminated by her. I mean, you look at this picture, you look at them, after you are divorced and after you break up with someone, you don't usually keep the pictures out, right? I mean you don't, but do you throw them underneath the bed? You put them in a box or you get rid of them altogether. That is what you do. But in this case, in his case, he is trying to get over her, but he can't. He can't get over her. He can't get beyond this. On the one hand he throws this picture underneath the bed and on the one hand she is out of sight and he hopes out of mind, but on the other hand, she is just beneath the bed or where has access to it, where he can grab it and where he can look at it. He is beginning to obsess with her, he is becoming obsessive with her and he is trying to replace her at the same time with Paula. His relationship with Paula supposedly blooms again all of a sudden at about this time right after she breaks up with him. If she broke up with him on May 22nd and by June the 6th or whatever he and Paula are back together and now they are ripping the plumbing out of the house, people need space, you need time when you end a relationship, especially one that lasted 17 years. He is trying to replace Nicole with Paula and he is trying to find some sense of control. But the fuse is burning. And I just wish Dr. Walker had been here to help explain this to you. I'm sure she could have done a better job of it than me--than I have so far. And so we move on. The days pass--and that photo was People's 536, the wedding photo. And the days pass and we begin to approach June 12th, the day of the recital. You recall that the Defendant had conversations with Kato Kaelin that day and he talked about Nicole, he talked about her dress, he talked about how short it was, he talked about the relationship being over, you know. It didn't appear--you tell me, maybe you disagree--that he and Kato Kaelin had that kind of relationship, the kind of relationship where he would vent his frustration, his frustrations regarding Nicole to Kato. I don't know. You saw Kato and I don't know why anybody would want to express their personal problems with Kato Kaelin, but he did and he talked about Nicole a couple of times that day to Kato Kaelin. And Marcia cross-examined Kato Kaelin and directly examined Kato Kaelin and they talked about those conversations, and as Marcia mentioned yesterday, you know, Kato had a bias and he was biased in favor of the Defendant. You know, he minimized things. That is not to say that he just outright lied about things, but he minimized things. I think he minimized the tone of the Defendant's voice when he talked about Nicole. I think he minimized how upset the Defendant was when he talked about Nicole, but hey, whatever, the Defendant is supposedly seeing Paula. And it is the day of the recital and what happened that day? Well, the fuse got shorter. I will tell you why. Paula, his new girlfriend, wanted to go to the recital, the recital where Sydney was going to be performing over at the school, and they had an argument about that, for lack of a better term. They had a disagreement about that. She wanted to go. He didn't want her to go. He wanted to go alone. He told Kato that, that they had a disagreement about that and she was upset. Well, why is that important? It is important because she left.

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

MR. DARDEN: It is important because Paula left, she left Rockingham, she left Los Angeles, but apparently he didn't know that. Apparently they had their disagreement about the recital. Paula got mad, Paula left town. It is pretty apparent that he didn't know that. I can't tell you how bad that disagreement was or if there were raised voices or whatever, we don't have any of that in the testimony or in the evidence in this case, but we do know that Paula left and that he didn't know where Paula had gone. And the fuse is getting shorter, because what happened that day is this: Paula, as a woman, I guess you know she is asserting her womanhood, she is supposed to be his woman, now she wants to go to the recital. Why not? He won't let her. Why won't he let her? Because he still has hope for Nicole. He still has some hope. He still has some hope. He doesn't want Paula to go to the recital. He won't let Paula go to the recital and Paula realizes why and she packs up and she leaves. That afternoon the Defendant called Nicole. And we will get the right photo board up.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: That afternoon he called Nicole's house. He still has got hope. I mean, she has always come back, right? Each and every time that they have--they have gone back and forth many, many times. They have always gotten back together. She has always come back, but she isn't coming back this time but he still has hope. He is put in a catch 22 situation of sorts that day when he and Paula talk about her going to the recital. He has to make a choice that day. He is either going to go to the recital where Nicole is alone, you know, hope in hand, or he is going to choose Paula. It is either Nicole or Paula. If he takes Paula to the recital, takes her out in public, takes her around Nicole, takes her around the Brown family, he has made a choice now. Okay. It is public. Everybody knows he has made a choice. He is now with Paula. Because he couldn't make that choice because he still had hope and he still had hope for Nicole. So he called Nicole on June 12th. He called her and talked together at 2:18 in the afternoon. It was a four-minute phone call. And something happened during that phone call. Well, let me tell you what else. After he finished that four-minute phone call with Nicole, he tried to call Paula. As soon as he hung up with Nicole, he tried to call Paula in the 305 area code, Florida, right here, (Indicating). The phone call lasted--it began at 2:18, it lasted four minutes. At 2:22 he is calling Florida. Something happened. I don't know what happened. Something happened. Whatever happened during that phone call, he had a need to talk to Paula thereafter or immediately thereafter, but he is calling Florida looking for Paula. But we know from the testimony and the evidence in this case already that Paula is in Las Vegas in a hotel room being paid for by Michael Bolton. He doesn't know where she is. Sounds like she got upset, stormed off and went about her business, but he can't find Paula. He is having a problem with Nicole. He is about to lose all the women, both the women in his life, and the fuse is getting shorter, folks. It is getting shorter. And the frustration is building, okay, and the anger is building. And something has triggered his anger because in all of this--you know, this is a tension--this entire relationship over a ten-year period is filled with tension because of the doors being kicked in and the punches and the slaps and the intimidation and the control and all of this. This is a very, very tense relationship and things about are to explode because he has that conversation with her, he has that conversation with her, he can't find Paula. And by the time he gets to that recital that afternoon around five o'clock he is fit to be tied. He is angry. You heard the testimony of Candace Garvey, Steve Garvey's wife. She was also at the recital. She knows the Defendant. She had known him for a long time. He came into the recital. She and Steve spoke to him. They said hello, how are you, how you doing? What was her testimony? What was her response? There was no response immediately. If you recall her testimony, he had a blank stare on his face. He was distracted. She told you that it was as if he looked right through her, as if he didn't recognize that she was there. She told you that his demeanor that afternoon in the recital frightened her and she told you that he was angry. And Denise Brown testified as well about that recital and they told you that he was angry and he didn't look to be or act like the O.J. Simpson they had come to know. Candace Garvey said that he was distant, that his anger was simmering, that he had this look of simmering anger. He was in a slow burn and the fuse was getting shorter. Something set him off. And perhaps what set him off was this four-minute phone call at 2:00 in the afternoon. Perhaps his inability to find Paula that afternoon set him off. Okay. Now, the fuse is really burning now, the fuse is getting shorter, and there is going to be an explosion, folks. There is going to be an explosion. He arrives at the recital, he sees Candace Garvey, literally ignores her. He is angry. He takes a seat in the auditorium. He sees the Brown family seated in the auditorium, Juditha Brown, Lou Brown, Nicole's parents and her sisters. Nicole is seated with them or near them. He goes over to the Brown family and he greets everybody in the family, every one of them. He greets everybody but Nicole. He doesn't address Nicole. This is a family event, right? His daughter, Nicole's daughter, at the recital dancing, but he doesn't address that because he is angry, he is consumed with anger and the fuse is getting shorter. He doesn't appear to be like the O.J. that they knew, the man that they knew. Candace Garvey is frightened by his demeanor. What does he do? He takes a seat behind the Brown family. No seats near the Brown family. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with the fact that he sits in a seat behind the Brown family, but as Denise Brown told you on the witness stand, after a few minutes he just abruptly got up and moved. He got up, took a chair, and in the dark in this dark auditorium, because the program was going on, he takes that chair and he moves into the corner and he sits in the corner of the auditorium. Denise Brown told you that she could not understand, she did not understand why he did that. She told you on the witness stand that she didn't say anything to offend him. Nobody said anything to offend him. Why is he so angry? Who is he angry at? Well, common sense will tell us that he is angry at Nicole. Why? Because he didn't address her. But for another reason as well. As he sits there in the corner in the dark, he is isn't watching the program on the stage. He is watching Nicole. Candace Garvey told you this, Denise told you that as well, that whenever they looked over at the Defendant that he was not looking at the stage or the program on the stage or the kids dancing up on the stage. They told you that every time they looked over in that dark corner at the Defendant he was staring at Nicole. He was staring at Nicole. And that simmering anger that he had, folks, he was about to lose control. There was a--the fuse is getting shorter, the fuse is getting shorter, and there is about to be an explosion, he is about to lose control, and he is about to lose control like he did on those earlier occasions. And sure he didn't kill her on those earlier occasions in October of `93 or in 1989. But that was then and back then the fuse was a lot longer. But now the fuse is way short and it is awfully short. And when the program was over, when the program was over, clearly he knew that the relationship was over. In the past he had done things to Nicole and she had come back, but not only that, the Brown family, he still had the Brown family, but when you consider the evidence in this case, you see that after the recital, Nicole and the kids and the Brown family went to the Mezzaluna for dinner. They didn't invite him to go. He has been rejected, completely rejected. He has been rejected in public and this is how these things work. This is how these things work. You may sit here and think, oh, well, you know, this isn't such a big deal. Why, sure, perhaps in your lives and in your relationship this wouldn't be such a big deal, but you have to put it in the context of the relationship that they have had. This is a big deal. It is a big deal to him and he is rejected in public. They go off to dinner. He is left to go off to dinner with Kato Kaelin. You know, he isn't used to rejection, by the way. He is a celebrity. We talked about that earlier. Celebrities get the best tables, you know. You always get everything you want. You get what you want. There are no rules for celebrities. But on June 12th he isn't getting what he wants and so he goes home.

And the fuse is getting shorter and it is getting shorter and he talks to Kato Kaelin and he complains about the dress she wore and the fuse is getting shorter. Christian Reichardt was called by the Defense and he testified that he spoke to the Defendant at nine o'clock that night and that when he spoke to the Defendant that the Defendant was jovial, happier than he had been in weeks. He went from simmering anger at the recital to jovial at 9:00 P.M. that night. Well, what happened? Why is that? It is because the Defendant has developed a plan, he has come up with a plan to rid himself of the problem that has plagued him for 17 years. And he talks to Reichardt. He called Reichardt, as a matter of fact, if you believe that testimony. So many weird things going on that evening, he wants $5.00 for the skycap, Kato gives him a twenty, he is driving the Bentley to McDonald's, he is calling Christian Reichardt at nine o'clock and he tells Reichardt that he is packing. Right then at nine o'clock he is packing to go to the airport. That was the testimony from Reichardt. But then you have these other witnesses come in, Miss Arnelle Simpson and Gigi, the maid, they come in and they tell you that he always packs at the very, very last minute and rushes around the house and now everybody knows that, that he does that. What is going on here? Why is he packing now? Why is he doing these things with Kato Kaelin? Why is he jovial all of a sudden if you believe Christian Reichardt? Because he has a plan and he knows what he is going to do. He has had enough. The public rejection that day is enough, folks. Let me tell you, the fuse is so short at this point that he is about to explode. The next thing we know he is in that Bronco. He is in the Bronco at ten o'clock or earlier. We don't know when exactly he got into that Bronco, but we know that at ten o'clock he is into that Bronco and he is driving in that Bronco. And why wouldn't he be? How do we know that? We know that, as Miss Clark said, because he keeps the phone in the Bronco and he is panicked and he is out of control and he needs someone or something to help calm him. And so what does he do? He calls Paula. But he calls Paula in two places. He calls Paula at a 310 area code in L.A. and she isn't there. Then he turns around and he calls Paula at a 305 area code and she ain't there either.

Paula Barbieri probably could have stopped this whole thing that night if she had been there to receive his phone call, but now Paula is gone, Nicole is gone, and whose fault is all of this? It isn't his fault, it isn't the Defendant's fault. It is Nicole's fault, it is Nicole's fault, and that is--even in 1989 when he beat her, when he came out of the house he blamed her. Remember when he spoke to Edwards? He didn't want her in the house any more. He had two other women. Then we come to find out that she found out that he had been to two women and she was upset about that and wouldn't sleep with him, but he took it out on her. When you listen to the October 25, 1993, 911 tape, he is blaming her because she had a relationship with a man a year and a half before she had moved out, after she had filed for divorce when she was literally a single woman out there on her own. He always blamed her. Everything was her fault. And his break-up, his problems with Paula, the fact that he lost Paula was her fault. It was her fault because she went back and forth in terms of their relationship. And the fuse was short and the fuse was about to explode. Are you going to take a 10:30 break, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the bomb will explode when we come back.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will stand in recess for fifteen minutes.

(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. 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 now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And Mr. Darden, you may continue with your argument.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor. We are getting there. I've talked much longer than I had ever expected, and I don't apologize for that, because I think it is necessary that we have this discussion.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden, if you would keep your voice up just a little so I can hear you. Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: So I apologize in a sense I guess, but I have a duty and you have a duty and I'm not going to have much of an opportunity later I think to talk to you, and so I wanted to share these things with you, because I think they are important and because I think they may help guide you in your deliberations.

But when we left off we were talking about the fuse, how short the fuse was getting and how the Defendant was on his way to Bundy in that white Bronco, the same Bronco he drove that night in October in 1993. And so he is on his way and he is panicked and he is out of control and he is calling Paula and he can't find Paula. He calls her in L.A., he calls her in Florida. She is no where to be found. He can't find her. He has lost her. And he has lost Nicole. And whose fault is this? It is Nicole's fault. He made a choice that day. He chose Nicole over Paula and he lost them both. And so he arrives at Bundy, and Miss Clark discussed with you yesterday the details of the murder, of both murders, and I don't want to, you know, repeat all that she said, but one of the things that she said that I just want to elaborate on a little bit is his choice, his weapon choice, the use of a knife. This is a rage killing and it is up front and it is personal and that is why you see all the brutality that you see. Common sense tells us that. I mean, we know that just from life experience and from living in L.A., we know what kind of killing this is. This is a rage killing. And he is using a knife because he is there to settle a personal score, a personal vendetta that he has. He stabs this woman in the neck. He is right there. I mean, it is one-on-one. And the rage that he has, the anger, the hate that he has for her that night at that time, it is like it flows out of him and into the knife and from the knife into her, into her. And he kills Goldman and he kills her in this rage. And let me make it clear to you, he is in rage, but he has made a conscious decision, a premeditated decision, a deliberate decision to go there and do what he is about to do with this woman, otherwise why would he take a big knife with him, right? He killed her that way because he wanted to make a statement, he wanted to teach her a lesson, he wanted to let her know, he wanted her to be there face-to-face, to know just who it was who was doing this to her. With each thrust of that knife into her body and into Ron's body, there is a release, you though, a small release, like a tiny time capsule, like contact, there is a release, a gradual release of that anger and that rage and he stabs and he cuts and he slices until that rage is gone and until these people are dead. And after that rage is gone he is better. One of the most remarkable things about this case that is after this man, him, (Indicating), after he did this to these two people, he didn't run away, he didn't jog away, apparently he didn't limp away. You heard agent Bodziak's testimony. He just walked away. He had released all of that rage and that anger during this homicidal fit he was having as he killed these two people. Now, I'm just a messenger. I hate to be the one to stand here and tell you about these things, but this is a murder case. This is what he did. All these things we talked about, these are the things that he did. This is how he lived. This is his life, okay? And so I think we have come full circle at this point. We have shown you that he had the opportunity to kill. We have shown you that he had the motive, that he had a motive to kill. We have shown you in this trial that he was physically capable of killing. We have shown you that he had a reason to kill. We have shown you that he would have killed, could have killed and did kill these two people. He is a murderer. He was also one hell of a great football player, but he is still a murderer. And so we have come full circle. There was Ron and there was Nicole and--Ron, he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nicole, she was in the wrong place for a long time, and there is this common factor, this common element between the two of them, one thing they had in common with this man, this Defendant. And so we began with them, two very much alive, vibrant human beings. We went through 1989 and 1985, through the beating he inflicted on her and we went from that in `85, into 1989, and we came to this point on June 12th at Bundy.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor, could you cut the feed.

MR. DARDEN: So we have come full circle, and the only common element in all of this and the only direction in which all the evidence points is to O.J. Simpson. And I told you when this began that I had the hardest job. Nobody wants to do anything to this man. We don't. There is nothing personal about this. But the law is the law and it applies to us, it applies to you, it has to apply to him.

He made a promise a long time ago. He promised to love and to cherish and to keep her. He married her and he made those promises to her. He promised to be her husband and he was. And let me say to you that every wife killer or ex-wife killer starts off as a loving husband, and in every household where there is a marriage between a man and a woman there is a picture just like that picture right there, (Indicating). There is a picture just like that on every mantle in every home where the husband killed the wife. What he did that night on June 12th, the night of June 12th, to these two people, this brutality, is a violation of every law, high and low, that we can possibly think of. And I suppose there are some people that say, hey, we should cut him some slack, and you know, if this were a case of, you know, theft or embezzlement or something like that, you know, you can always make restitution, but this is a very, very serious charge. Two people are dead. Let me say that what you do in this case is entirely up to you. You are the jury. When I sit down, I sit down. I'm done. I have completed my duty. I have done what the law requires me to do.

I have lived up to the oath, my oath as a member of the District Attorney's office. And I presented, we hope we presented the best evidence we could. And if we didn't present the best evidence we could, don't hold that against us. I just want you to--you know, when the time comes to go into the jury room, I just want you to--somebody, somebody just say let's calm down, let's elect a Foreperson, let's read the law, let's take a minute and let's just look at the evidence. I would just like you to use your common sense when you do. When you do that, when you use your common sense, when you try to be objective, when you remove all of the emotion out of this case, when you remove all of the sympathy and passion and when you just look at the facts, the evidence as best you can, you will come up with the right decision. The world is watching and everybody wants to know what you are going to do. Marcia Clark and I know you are going to do the right thing under the law. And whatever you do, the decision is yours, and I'm glad that it is not mine. Let me turn my attention, and hopefully yours, to the Defense case, if I can talk about that a little while. They put on a Defense. They called 58 witnesses and they called 58 witnesses in this case to hopefully raise a reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of this man. You heard from some real, real muckity-mucks, some real big shots in the field of science and forensic science and DNA, and you heard from Henry Lee, a real impressive group of experts. I suppose when you consider our case, you have to consider their case as well, and you have to assess the credibility of their witnesses, just like you have to assess the credibility of our witnesses, and when it comes to assessing the credibility of witnesses, you apply the same standard, regardless of whether it is a Defense witness or a Prosecution witness. You have to decide whether or not that expert testimony is worth anything or what it is worth. I hope that when you do that, I hope you keep in mind that, you know, people made a lot of money testifying in this case and you should consider that on the issue or question of whether or not those witnesses are biased. But study the Defense case carefully, I insist that you do, as painful as some of it might be for you.

But consider this: The Defense that they put on in this case, it wasn't really an affirmative Defense, wasn't the kind of Defense where they showed you that he wasn't there, okay, at the time of the murder. They never--they never did that. They never showed you that. What they did was they attacked all of our evidence. Well, not all of it. They didn't attack the domestic violence. There are lots of things that they attacked initially, only to find out of course, only for you to find out that they didn't have a chance with it. But what you really wanted to know in that Defense case, and I can't talk to you directly, but I'm going to assume you are reasonable people, you have common sense, good common sense, you are all successful at life. What you really wanted to know, correct, maybe I am wrong, but what you really wanted to know is where was he at the time of the murders? Right? Where was that Bronco? Have they proven to you that that Bronco was not at Bundy or could not have been at Bundy? That would have been very helpful to you. Would that not have been impressive to you? Isn't that the kind of evidence you want to hear, that you want to see, credible reliable evidence on that issue. That is the kind of evidence that raises a reasonable doubt. They didn't do that. They didn't put on that kind of evidence because they couldn't put on that kind of evidence. They don't have that kind of evidence. We all know where the Bronco was at 10:15. It was at Bundy. You would have liked to have known that some other person was with Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman, right? I mean, wouldn't you like to have--wouldn't you not have liked to have seen some evidence from some witness that the person--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, this is improper.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: --that killed these two people was someone other than the Defendant? When Mr. Cochran spoke to you during his opening statement, he talked to you about witnesses, witnesses that he intended to call, and he gave you the name of those witnesses and he told you what they were going to say. You know, we did the same thing. I did the same thing. You know, on domestic violence I told you I was going to call a few other people. I didn't. I think you got the point. And I can't keep you here forever. Apparently this sequestration thing is a real drag, right, and I would like to end this experience, and I can understand that, but he promised to present to you the testimony of some witnesses who, had they testified, could have--could have perhaps raised a reasonable doubt in this case. So where are all those people? Who are those people? Well, one of those people he mentioned was a woman named Rosa Lopez? Do you remember this in his opening statement? He said that Rosa Lopez was the maid that lived next door to 360 north Rockingham and she would come had here and testify that the Bronco was parked at 8:00 P.M. that night, the night of June 11th, that it was parked in the exact same place the police found it the next day and that it was parked in the exact same manner, tail sticking out, remember that? He said he was going to present that testimony to you. He was going to call this witness. Well, where is she? Where was she? You would have liked to have heard that testimony, wouldn't you? He didn't call her. He told you about a woman named Mary Anne Gerchas and he told you that she would testify that she was out on Bundy Avenue and that she saw four men running, two Hispanic men, two white men, and that a couple of the men wore knit caps, we have a knit cap at the death scene, and that this happened at about 10:45. That is what the Defense told you they would do. They told you they would call Mary Anne Gerchas to give you that information, and you probably--you may not remember all the names, but I'm sure you remember that when you heard this that, wow, the Defense is going to call these people, whoa, this is going to be some dog fight. I mean, these people are going to come in here and they are going to provide an alibi. Rosa Lopez is going to give an alibi by showing that the Bronco had been there all night. Mary Anne Gerchas was going to come in and testify that, hey, there were other persons, other men apparently running from the area near 875 south Bundy, a few of them wearing ski caps consistent with perhaps the real killer, a killer other than this man here. Did they call Mary Anne Gerchas? What happened to her? Where is that testimony? You would want to hear that, wouldn't you? And right after they talked about Gerchas they talked about a man named Tom Lang who was supposedly down the street who also saw somebody. They told you that Tom Lang saw Nicole Brown standing on the street at Bundy embracing--embracing someone, and that Tom Lang, as he stood there on the street, also saw a man standing some distance behind them, a man who appeared angry, a man standing there with his hands clenched looking at Nicole and this other person, the person she was embracing. It is right there in the transcript at page 12,225. Where is that person? We already talked about Dr. Lenore Walker. Where is Dr. Walker? He told you Al Cowlings would testify. Where is A.C.? He told you that the Defendant was out chipping golf balls. He told you Paula Barbieri was going to come in and testify about her relationship with the Defendant. We didn't get Paula Barbieri. What did we get in terms of her relationship with the Defendant? We got other people, people on the periphery, the stuff you needed to hear to raise a reasonable doubt, and you are reasonable people, never got presented in this case. It never got presented. What you got was a lot of smoke. You got people like Gerdes telling you that the crime lab is, you know--can't be relied on, but then the substrate controls are all clean. You got guys like Professor MacDonell out doing glove experiments where he has taken his own blood and then he is putting it on a new pair of Aris gloves and he is rubbing it around like this, (Indicating), to see if they shrink.

When you look at the Defense in this case you will see that it really isn't helpful at all. It is all smoke. It really is all smoke. And you know, you are going to have to be careful when you deal with that Defense evidence. Some of it was pretty good, though. I mean, that stuff they did to Fuhrman was textbook stuff from a legal perspective, but even that you have to look and say, well, what does it do for us? It upsets us. But then you have to look at all the evidence and see how it is helpful, if it is helpful at all. They called demeanor witnesses and witness to testify to the Defendant's demeanor after the murders, and Marcia Clark talked to you about that, you know. Murderers don't walk around with neon signs saying "I just killed somebody." People do things, commit crimes like this, especially a rage killing like this one, he will calm down, they will calm down and they want to get away with it. He wanted to get away with it, so he certainly isn't going to do anything that is going to draw attention to him. But they showed you these photographs. They showed you photographs of the Defendant and some women at an event the night before the murders. Remember that? Because he had Carol Connor, the woman with the keyboard vest come in and testify about the event the night before. Remember she told you that she witnessed an exquisite romantic moment between the Defendant and Paula Barbieri? Well, what does that do for you? How does that help you resolve this case? It doesn't help at all, especially when you consider the fact that he and Paula had a disagreement, for lack of a better term, over his refusal to let her go to the recital the next day. But beyond that, it is a picture. He is at this big fancy event and somebody says "Will you please pose with us for a picture?" Well, when somebody takes your picture, what is the first thing they say? "Cheese." What point is it? What good is it? What value is a picture like that when somebody is posing for you? And even in that video after the recital, he sees the video camera. He looks right toward it. Posed-for pictures are worthless. And they call that guy McKay. Remember Mr. McKay who worked for the AARP--was it the AARP or the American Association of Psychologists or something like that in Chicago, and there was a golfing event and the Defendant came to the event as the spokesperson for Hertz and Mr. McKay and the Defendant and two other gentlemen took a picture together. They are posing for a picture. Not only are they posing for a picture, the Defendant is basically at work, he's a spokesperson for Hertz. It is his job to go out and play golf with these people. So how does that help you? There is nothing in the record that establishes for you--and I guess Dr. Walker could have done this--whether or not, you know, murderers have neon signs over their heads that indicate they are a murderer. How do you know? How do you know? Whenever you watch TV you watch the news and some brutal killing happens and it is the neighbor, they always interview the neighbors of the neighbor who did the murder and the neighbor says how was he? How did he act? What kind of guy was he? Well, he was a nice guy. They always say that. You don't know. You can't tell. The testimony you heard about demeanor on the airplane and at the airport was a waste of your time really, but if you want to attach some significance to it, you go ahead, it is up to you. I mean, you are the jury. And the only demeanor really that is important was his demeanor that night, you know, after he got into that Bronco and headed toward 875 south Bundy. But this Defense that they have put on in this case is what we in the profession call a shotgun Defense and it is the Defense as old as the law. Way back in the day--way, way back in the day, even back when I was in law school, old lawyers and old law professors shared with us the old school approach to a Criminal Defense case, and every lawyer knows this. You are a Criminal Defense attorney and you have a tough case. This is what you do. You argue the law. And if the law is against you, you argue the facts. And if the facts are against you, you raise hell and blame somebody else. When the facts and the law are against you, blame the police, blame the Prosecution, point the finger elsewhere, create a smokescreen. And that is what they have done in this case, ladies and gentlemen, smoke and mirrors. That is it. That is what you've got. They put on those timeline witnesses. Remember Ellen Aaronson and Danny Mandel, Judy Telander, Pilnak. Remember Pilnak? She was the woman that had two watches. If you haven't learned anything else about this case, I'm sure that you have learned that there are people who are banging at the door to get in on this case. Those people and the testimony they had to offer really wasn't helpful at all. I mean, Danny Mandel and Ellen Aaronson were on a data blind date. They went to the Mezzaluna. They say that they walked past Bundy. In fact, Ellen Aaronson gave an interview to the police the day after the killings and she told the police that she passed Bundy at eleven o'clock, but once she heard about the Prosecution's theory of the case, well, what does she do? She went back to the Mezzaluna, she talked to Mandel. They got together and they attempted to reconstruct what they did that evening. She told the police she passed at eleven o'clock. Mandel told the police they passed between 10:28 and 10:32 and he knew that because he checked his watch, but even Mandel, even Mandel himself didn't know whether he passed 875 south Bundy that night or not. He didn't know. He didn't know until--if it ever happened, he didn't know until he and Aaronson got together and started putting their notes together trying to do as they say, to reconstruct what happened. His time and passage at 875 south Bundy contradicts her time. They got together on this story because they got together and attempted, as they say, to reconstruct what happened. What good is this testimony to you? And if they want to say they passed at 10:28 and there were no dead bodies out there, well, fine. I don't know how they can say that. I mean, they are on a date, they are looking at each other. That pathway is pitch dark and we know that. We know that because when the bodies were discovered the police were called and Riske said he couldn't even see any bodies up that pathway when he first arrived and got out of his car. He had to walk all the way up the pathway and use a flashlight. The only reason anybody found the bodies was because of Kato. Not Kato the human, Kato the dog. So how much attention were they paying to that particular pathway? There are lots of pathways leading to lots of condominiums on Bundy drive. That testimony isn't helpful to you at all, but hey, deal with it whatever you like. Then they called Francesca Harman. Remember her? She testified that at 10:20 she was driving west on Dorothy, okay, and she is driving west on Dorothy south of Bundy and she got to Bundy and she made a right-hand turn. She didn't see any bodies. Then I asked her some questions. I said, well, when you made that right-hand turn at--at Bundy, did your headlights hit 875 south Bundy? I mean, did they sweep across the front of the condominium? What was her answer? No. I asked her did your lights hit the gate at 875 south Bundy? She said no. So I asked her this: Did you tell the Defense that your lights didn't hit the gate at 875 south Bundy? And what was her response? I didn't have to. They were in the car with me. They took her out on a test drive to have her show them the route she took that night. It was clearly apparent that she could not have seen what was in front of 875 southbound because her lights never hit the front of the location and they called her to testify anyway. What does that say about the Defense case that you heard? Well, it says they are desperate. That is what it says. We are not wedded to a 10:15 time frame, okay? The killings very well could have happened at 10:15, but they could have happened at 10:17 also. They could have happened at 10:21. We called witnesses to the stand to testify to a point in time that they first heard the wail of that dog, of Kato, because we know that the wail was a plaintive wail and we know the dog was in distress, and so we know that something was happening, something very bad was happening to the dog's master. And if the dog was first heard around 10:15, I don't know, that may mean that the Defendant is hiding outside and the dog is aware of it. It may not necessarily mean that the killing happened at that specific time. It happened somewhere around 10:15. We can't give you the exact time. We can't give you the exact time to the minute. If they want to push the time to 10:30, push it to 10:30, because anyway you look at it, he has still got time to get to Bundy because we know he is in the Bronco at 10:03. He has got to time to get to Bundy and do these killings and get back to Rockingham by 10:54 or 10:45. Their witness, Robert Heidstra, told you that on the Sunday night you could easily drive from 875 south Bundy to the Defendant's house and he knows that because Heidstra, he worked next door at the Salingers, okay? He worked at the Defendant's neighbor's house. He told you that you could drive there from 875 south Bundy under four minutes on a Sunday night easy. So it doesn't make--it makes us no difference. Makes us no difference at all as far as all of the timing is concerned. But they also called Denise Pilnak, the woman that wore two watches, and she came in here and showed you her two watches so that you would find her credible and believe her because she wanted to get in on this case. Weird stuff. Weird stuff. But you--I don't know. She testified that she drove--what did she drive? No, she came home with Judy Telander and she made some phone calls and she kicked Telander out of her house at a certain time and all of this and how--all of that. How does she know that? Well, because six months after the murders she put together this timeline, six months later. So how is that helpful? Then there is Telander and she is describing her drive up Bundy or around or near Bundy and near Bundy. You know what is weird is that when you look at Telander's testimony and you look at Harman's testimony and you look at Heidstra's testimony and you look at Pilnak's testimony and you look at Aaronson's testimony and you look at Mandel's testimony, all of these Defense witnesses, and what you see, what you come away with is this: These people were all at Bundy at the same time basically. If you believe them, they are all basically on Bundy at the intersection or within view of 875 south Bundy. They are all there in this small area basically at the same time. But when you talk to them, when they testify, they all tell you they didn't see any cars, they didn't see any people walking, they didn't see each other. Mutually exclusive, they mutually exclude each other. All of that testimony, they contradict themselves. They contradict themselves. And I'm not here to say these people are lying or whatever. They may just be mistaken, I don't know. But you have to evaluate their testimony and I just think it is important that you--that you take note of that. And I hope as well that you would take a look back at the timeline witnesses, if that is what we can call them, the ones that we called, Mark Storfer who was concerned that the dog barking might wake his little boy, and so he told you what time it was. He looked directly at the clock and he was interviewed the next day, the day after the murders. He knew what time it was when he heard the dog barking. Look back at Eva Stein. She lived in the condo directly above the walkway where the bodies were found. She lived right next door at 873 south Bundy. I believe her time was 10:20. Was it 10:30?

MS. CLARK: 10:20.

MR. DARDEN: It was 10:20. Those are the People you can rely on in terms of time. They are right there. They live there, they live right there near 875 south Bundy.

So you've heard the Defense and you have heard the Prosecution case, and as I said before, you are going to have to make the decision in this case, and you know, whatever decision you make we will live with. But after I finish talking to you today, the Defense is going to talk to you, and I don't know who is going to talk to you or who is going to talk to you first. I would ask that you listen and listen as attentively as you have listened to me, apparently, but I'm going to ask you as well that you keep in mind that as you listen to them consider this: Hope at least that they can somehow extrapolate from all the evidence we've heard in this case where the Defendant was at the time of the murders. If he ain't the murderer, where was he? Maybe they can tell you that based on the evidence in this case. And they put on a Defense, and bear in mind and insist I think if they can explain to you what happened to O.J. Simpson's Aris light 70263 gloves, the gloves found at the murder scene, the same style of gloves purchased by Nicole, the same style of gloves you see him wearing in that January 6, 1992, game photo. Where are his gloves? They called 58 witnesses. They called the maid, Gigi Guarin. They called Miss Arnelle Simpson. He never owned a pair of those gloves. I don't recall the Defense asking them if he owned a pair of those gloves. I don't recall the Defense asking the maid, the woman who kept the closet, who put things up, who did the laundry, I don't recall them asking her if he owned a pair of gloves like that, like the ones we found at Bundy, like the one we found behind his house. And I don't recall them asking the maid whether or not he owned a pair of Bruno Maglis. This is stuff you would want to know. Insist that the Defense explain to you just who does--who kills two people wearing $200.00 leisure shoes if it ain't this man, if it ain't this Defendant? Ask them to explain to you why the bloody shoeprints leading away from the body are size 12, his size. And where did all that blood come? Why is it when he spoke to Tom Lange, he told Tom Lange the shoes he wore the night before were white Reeboks? They put on a Defense and you would expect that if the man that Allan Park saw entering the Defendant's house that night was not the Defendant, would you have expected them to call that man to tell you that, hey, it was me. It wasn't the Defendant, right?

If O.J. Simpson did create or cause those thumps on the wall behind Kato Kaelin's room, what did it? When he hears these the Defendant doesn't seem too concerned those. Kato is frightened enough to grab a flashlight, he is frightened enough to tell the woman he is talking to on the phone, hey, if I'm not back in ten minutes, call the police, worry about me, or words to that effect. But when he tells the Defendant about these thumps on the wall, he isn't too concerned about it. He has Westec Security. We know that because the police talked to Westec, because they entered his house. Did the Defendant call the police to say, hey, I may have a prowler on my property? Did he tell Kato to? Did he call Westec, his private security, to come check this out? Did they? No. Why not? Because he knew. The Defendant knew who caused the thumps on the wall. It was him. Why did he lie to Allan Park about being asleep? He wasn't asleep. And there are a variety of questions, a variety of questions that you ought to insist be answered, that should be answered by you, by the Defense before you even consider acquitting this man of these very, very brutal crimes. The whole thing with the cut on his hand, what a fluke that is. Are you going to fall for that? They talk about cover-ups. That is a cover-up. That is a cover-up. Ask them to explain to you how--how it is, if there were two killers, how the other one got out of that bloody criminal scene without leaving any evidence of his presence. A major, major question in all of this is what happened to that little black bag, the bag on the driveway, the one that Kato offered to go get that night just before the Defendant left for the airport? The Defendant said "I will get it, I will get it." What happened to that bag? Has it been seen since? The Defense--well, we know that some of the luggage apparently taken to Chicago by the Defendant was seized by retired Judge Delbert Wong. Remember the Louie Vuitton bag, the one the Defendant came back from Chicago with, the one he gave to Robert Kardashian? You saw it on tape. What happened to the little black bag? What happened to the contents of that Louie Vuitton bag? When you look at the tape, you see Kardashian standing there in front of the Defendant's house and you can tell that that bag is full, but when that bag comes to Delbert Wong, to Judge Wong, when it is pointed out to him, when it is seized by him months and months later, there is nothing in the bag. The bag is empty. What was in that bag? Ask them to explain to you why it is that if he didn't do it, why then is there a ton of evidence pointing to him and only to him. And ask them to explain to you, hey, if this is a rush to judgment, why then did the police go out to that house eight times prior to 1989? Why didn't they ever arrest him? And if this is a rush to judgment, why did the police stand out in front of the house, in front of 875 south Bundy that night for a couple of hours doing nothing, as the Defense has asserted, doing nothing but waiting for Vannatter and Lange? That is a rush to judgment? This is no rush to judgment. Unfortunately this is just how things go. Those cops got out there to conduct a murder investigation and that investigation led them to Rockingham. They followed the blood trail. Using your common sense and when you evaluate all the evidence, you should do the same thing, take a look at the crime scene and follow that blood trail, because when you do, you are going to follow it right into his house, into his yard, into his bathroom, into his bedroom, right into his lap. And that blood trail went nowhere else. It didn't go anywhere else and it didn't go to any other person. When I began this discussion with you last night, you know, I talked to you about justice and what justice really means in this case. And it just means doing the right thing under the law. I mean, basically that is all it means, following his instructions, just do what he tells you to do, the way he tells you to do it, and you will be fine. And I've spent hours talking to you and I've talked to you about the explosion, about that fuse, how the fuse gets shorter. We have explained to you the--that he had the opportunity and the means and the motive to do it and that he did it. And we discussed a little bit about the smoke. We talked about the smoke the Defense has put up. You got to find--you have to find your way through the smoke. One of the first things they are going to tell you is the Prosecution's case lasted six months and ours lasted two months. They are going to tell you that. You just keep in mind who was cross-examining those witnesses for days and days and days about minutia, about minutia. There was a lot of minutia in this case and you know it was because you didn't write it down. The Defense got lost in minutia in their attempt to confuse you and to raise a reasonable doubt.

Well, let me explain justice to you this way and then I will sit down and I will be quiet. The People put on their case, the Defense put on their case, and I assert that the Defense case is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, all about distracting you from the real evidence in this case. So imagine the smoke and imagine a burning house. Imagine that you are standing in front of a burning house, and from inside that burning house you can hear the wail of a baby, a baby's cry, a baby in fear, a baby about to lose its life. And you can hear that baby screaming. You can hear that wail. Now, that baby, that baby is justice. This is baby justice. Usually justice is a strong woman, but in this case justice is just a baby. And you hear that baby and you hear that wail and you see the smoke, you see the Defense. There is all this smoke in front of you and you feel a sense--you have a sense of justice and you have a sense of what the law requires and you have a strong commitment to justice and to the law and you want to do the right thing while justice is about to perish, justice is about to be lost, baby justice is about to be lost. And so you start to wade through that smoke trying to get to that baby. You have got to save that baby, you have to save baby justice, and you happen to run into smoke, find your way through the smoke, and if you happen to run into a couple of Defense attorneys along the way, just ask them to politely step aside and let you find your way through the smoke, because the smoke isn't over, okay? The smoke is good to get heavier because they are about to talk to you. Let's use your common sense. Wade through the evidence. Get down to the bottom line. And please do the right thing. It has been a Honor to appear before you and we will wait for your verdict.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Darden. All right. Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the Prosecution's opening argument to you. What is next is the Defense argument, and what I'm going to do at this time is take an early break as far as you are concerned. As with when the Prosecution argument started, you noticed that they used some demonstrative boards for you that were not actually in evidence, and what I need to do now is to preview the ones that the Defense is going to use to see if they are appropriate and acceptable for use during the course of the argument, so that is what we will be doing here in the courtroom for the next--probably take us about a half hour or so to do that. So I'm going to let you go early for lunch. However, while you are up there at lunch, I'm going to ask that the bailiffs pass out to you a one-page questionnaire, and I have some questions that I wanted to ask of you about the deliberations, and you will notice that we have a new table in the jury room today because we are getting down to the point where we are actually going to start the deliberations shortly in this case. My guess is the way that we are going with the arguments--they are going a little faster than I had anticipated, and my hope is that you will actually have the case in your hands and started deliberations on Monday. That is my hope and expectation. In any event, I'm going to ask you about what your desires are as far as the hours and days of deliberation. Do you want to work a formal 9:00 to 5:00 day? Do you want to work an evening session? Do you want to work on--say, put in a half day or a full day on Saturday? If so, you will have--all the deliberations, by the way, have to be done here in the courthouse and in the jury room. But those are questions that I need to ask of you to see what your feelings are, because obviously you are the ones who are doing the work in this case. Also, I needed to tell you some things about limitations on visitation while deliberations are in progress, and I wanted your thoughts on that as well. So it is a one-page questionnaire. Give it some thought. Keep these answers private to yourself, and when I get your responses, then I will make determinations as to the length of the deliberations and the nature of visitation during deliberations. All right. So you all remember my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, and don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. Fill out the questionnaire. Have a nice lunch. And we will see you back here at 1:30 and we will start the Defense argument at 1:30. All right. Have a nice lunch.

(At 11:44 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 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: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. The record should reflect that over the noon hour, we had an informal showing of the argument boards produced by the Defense. Counsel, any comment before we resume with the jury?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. The People have a couple of objections to lodge.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I filed with the court a couple of motions. One dealt with the potential for Mr. Cochran to mention either Detective Fuhrman's invocation, the other--and with the potential for referral to matters contained on the tape that were deemed inadmissible by this court. And we have proposed a--we have proposed a remedy should such violation occur, and the Defense response doesn't appear to be very responsive to the People's motion. So the People would urge the court to instruct counsel that if he does violate the court's order by mentioning Detective Fuhrman's invocation or if he does violate the court's ruling with respect to the content of the tapes that was deemed inadmissible by referring to them in some manner in closing argument, that the appropriate sanction and one that would prevent--that would make his violation not worthwhile, not worth doing, is to say if you do mention such a thing, this is the remedy. "I will instruct the jury that Detective Fuhrman did not plant the glove." The remedy has to be something that makes it unworthwhile for the Defense to violate the court's order. Otherwise, if all it is is a monetary sanction or an admonition that it's improper in front of the jury, that would not be--that would not give the Defense incentive to abide by the court's ruling. And so the People urge the court to make sure that the Defense does not violate rulings by giving--making a sanction onerous enough so that it would not be worth their while to do so. With respect to the burden of proof chart, does the court want to hear that now?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: We filed the motion. Did the court have an opportunity to read our motion on it?

THE COURT: No. I have not seen it.

MS. CLARK: I think--

THE COURT: Do you have the chart handy?

MS. CLARK: I do. Do you have an extra copy there?

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Did Miss Robertson give it to you?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. DOUGLAS: Would the court like to see the board, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: The problem with this board is that it's extremely misleading and it's going to confuse and mislead the jury on a matter of law. And it's one thing to draw reasonable inferences from the record and from testimony to say we've heard this, we've heard this, therefore that, but there is no misinterpretation of how that is permitted.

And counsel although can ask--although counsel can ask the jury to draw unreasonable inferences from the record and that is what he will do, I do not think there's any authority permitting counsel to ask the jury to misinterpret the law, which is what this invites them to do by creating the impression that the burden of proof is so overwhelming, it would be unbelievable that we could get a conviction in any case if it were as stated on this chart. It's misleading in five ways. First of all, it contains phrases, several of them, that supposedly describes thresholds of evidence that don't exist and have never been a part of the definition of reasonable doubt. It contains the phrases "Highly unlikely," "Less than likely," "Probably not unlikely" and a variety of others that the court has seen. All of these are used to describe thresholds of evidence that fall in the category of not guilty according to the chart, but none of them find their way into the penal code section 1096, definition of reasonable doubt. So it's misleading in that respect. Secondly, it's misleading because it contains terms in the not guilty range that are consistent with guilty. For example, the phrase "May not be" is used to describe a threshold of evidence in the category not guilty when in fact under 290, the jury is entitled to convict the Defendant if all they have is some possible doubt. Excuse me. And as the court knows, I did go over with the jury at some length the fact that a mere possible or imaginary doubt is not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. What this chart conveys to the jury is that mere possible doubt is sufficient. It contravenes the burden of proof by saying that certain terms--by certain of its terminology in some of those levels, what they say is not guilty is actually guilty. You see what I mean? So, third, it's also misleading because it implies that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is absolute doubt. I mean, absolute certainty. In other words, no doubt at all. It does that by implication by having the bottom of it not guilty or absolutely not guilty, creating the impression at the top of that which is the burden of proof we have to carry is absolute certainty. There's nothing in this world that could be proven with absolute certainty. That's why we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt as a standard. Yet by implication, that is what the chart seems to infer to the jury and that's direct misinterpretation of the law.

Fourth, it's misleading because it uses terms that are synonymous, treating them like they're distinct categories. For example, the terms "Probably not," "Less than likely," "Unlikely," they're synonymous, but in this chart, broken down as though they're separate gradations when, in fact, they're all the same. Same thing with "Perhaps" and "Suspected." So they create gradations that really don't exist. It's a figmentary kind of depiction of all of the levels that a person might have a belief and so it amplifies the burden of proof unfairly. Fifth and last, the chart is misleading because the visual nature of the presentation of the degrees of proof suggest indirect and unsubstantiating numerical levels of certainty. It would imply that there is some kind of numerical level that could be attached to what constitutes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And the inference drawn here by the number of levels that they have, if you work it out mathematically, is that 93 percent equals guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's improper and we don't categorize our burden of proof by mathematical probabilities or by quantities that can be mathematically defined. That would be impossible to do. It's misleading to the jury and it's improper. So we would ask the court--urge the court strenuously not to permit this chart as the jury will be misled to what the People's burden of proof really is and what is meant by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And then--and Mr. Mayvis points out correctly, as we cited at the end of the motion, your Honor, the freeman case makes it very, very clear that to vary from the standard reasonable doubt instruction is a perilous exercise, and this chart varies substantially from the definition given to the jury in their jury instruction and from the definition given in penal code section 1096. And for all of these reasons, because it is misleading and because it is a very dangerous practice and because it may very well give the jury a misimpression of what the burden of proof really is, it should not be allowed. Counsel's also previewed for us the--laser show they intend to play. What counsel has attempted to do is subvert the court's ruling concerning the video clips by using stills from videotape, and I thought the court said we couldn't do that and yet, that's what they've done. So instead of playing the moving picture, they took the video clip and just used a still from that. I don't--

THE COURT: My recollection though is that the Prosecution array that was displayed to us also included static photos of persons while testifying.

MS. CLARK: I thought we were precluded from using them.

THE COURT: Not the static photos, no.

MS. CLARK: Oh, I didn't know that.

THE COURT: Yeah. The actual use of the videotapes. But if you want to say this is so and so, this is what the person--this is who it is, this is what they testified to, that's permissible.

MS. CLARK: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Never mind.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: With respect to--there's one other thing, your Honor. They showed stills of the glove demonstration with Mr. Simpson, a number of them with him trying on the gloves in front of the jury, but there's a number of them which is in effect using a video clip. Now, if they want to use that and if the court wants to permit them to use that, then we would ask the court in fairness to allow us to play the whole tape rather than just those segments being shown by the Defense.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Blasier, you handling this matter?

MR. BLASIER: I am, your Honor. Let me--

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MR. BLASIER: Good afternoon. With respect to the--I guess it's a prophylactic instruction that they want in case we do something wrong, then this is what our punishment is going to be. I've never heard of anything like that. We know what the rules are. We know what we can say, can't say, and I am sure if we say something we're not supposed to say, they'll jump up, you know, holler at us and whatever will happen will happen. I think it's absolutely ludicrous for us to sit here and debate whether we might do something wrong or if we do, what should happen about it. I think that's a foolish motion quite frankly. As to the charts, the burden of proof chart, I've probably used that chart in every trial I've done in the last five years. It's never been excluded. I've never been told by a court I can't tell the jury what I think reasonable doubt is. They were allowed to tell the jury what they think reasonable doubt is. That's part of argument. That's what argument is for.

The court reads the instruction. Those are the words in the instruction. We're entitled to say this is how we think you should interpret that. There's nothing on there about percentages. I guess they went so far as to count up the little boxes and add them altogether and divide them up and say we are going to make some argument that 93 percent or seven percent I guess is reasonable doubt. That's foolish. We're not going to offer any kind of a statement like that. The freeman case talks about the court's instruction. For the last five years, I've also asked the court to give my own instructions on reasonable doubt and I never get those. They always give 2.90. But I've never been precluded from saying this is what we think reasonable doubt is. They're going to have another shot at the jury. They can get up and say that's a lot of hooey. You shouldn't look at it that way, you should look at it this way. So I would--I think there's nothing wrong with that chart. As to video clips, if they want us to show the whole thing, we'll be happy to, of the glove demo.

THE COURT: All right. When we're talking about the glove demo, both sides want to use that?

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor. It's not a matter that we want to use it. It's a matter that I don't think it should be allowed for either side. And what I was saying is that, you know, they have some stills they want to show which are, of course, you know, just the parts that are most favorable to them. But I think it would be inappropriate to use them. We could have used it in our opening argument. That was the plan that we had until it was ruled that we couldn't. But the problem with the glove demonstration was that it's an act of mobile thing. To take still shots from that is very misleading to the jury and it has penalized the People because we couldn't--we felt we couldn't use it.

THE COURT: Well, my recollection is that the Prosecution argued against the use of videotape because it's not the official record.

MS. CLARK: That's right. That's right. Our position hasn't changed, your Honor. I think the court's ruling was also that we could only--at the point that the court was saying we could use videotape, the court was saying that it could only be taken of the witness in the blue chair, and this doesn't qualify.

MR. BLASIER: This is not a tape of testimony. This is a picture of the demonstrative demonstration that was done, and we only had two stills by the way.

THE COURT: When do you anticipate getting to that?

MR. BLASIER: May I have a minute?

MR. DOUGLAS: Hour and a half.

MR. BLASIER: Hour and a half.

THE COURT: All right. Let me see it. Let me see the excerpt that you propose to use or the stills--I'm sorry--that you propose to use.

MR. BLASIER: The stills?

THE COURT: Yeah.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: That's it.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Submit it.

THE COURT: All right. Submit it?

MS. CLARK: With respect to the glove photos? The only point I wanted to add, your Honor, other than the fact that we would have used this ourselves in opening argument, is that if--these photographs are misleading because they only show a portion of it. But in order to show all--I mean, either the clip should be shown or none of it should be shown, and I think that none of it should be shown. Counsel can argue it as we argued it, but I don't think this is appropriate and certainly not the stills that they're using.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As far as the Prosecution motion for preemptive instruction, admonition or warning to the Defense regarding Detective Fuhrman and regarding the McKinny tapes, the court finds that to be premature. I trust that counsel know what the law is regarding appropriate argument by counsel. The evidence code is clear that counsel may not argue or mention the invocation and I'm sure Defense counsel know that the sanction will be swift and severe, and I don't think it's necessary for the court to take any action at this time. As far as the chart regarding burden of proof, reasonable doubt, that is a very familiar chart to the court. I've seen it before. I'm sure I'll see it again. The objection to that is overruled. The objection to the clips of the glove demo is sustained. It is not part of the official record. All right. Anything else? Are we ready? All right. Deputy Trower, let's have the jurors, please.

MS. CLARK: Judge, what's our break schedule?

THE COURT: 3:15. 3:15, and we are going to quit at 7:45 tonight.

MS. CLARK: Then 5:00 to 6:00 dinner break?

THE COURT: 5:00 to 6:00, breaking at 7:45.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: May we approach one second, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure. 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: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: As I mentioned to you, we had some preliminary matters we had to take up out of your presence. We're now ready to proceed with the Defense argument. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

(Closing argument by Mr. Cochran)

MR. COCHRAN: Judge Ito, my colleagues on the Defense, my colleagues on the Prosecution, the Goldman family, the Brown family and to the Simpson family. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: The Defendant, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson, is now afforded an opportunity to argue the case, if you will, but I'm not going to argue with you, ladies and gentlemen. What I'm going to do is to try and discuss the reasonable inferences which I feel can be drawn from this evidence. At the outset, let me join with the others in thanking you for the service that you've rendered. You are truly a marvelous jury, the longest serving jury in Los Angeles County, perhaps the most patient and healthy jury we've ever seen. I hope that your health and your good health continues. We met approximately one year and one day ago on September 26th, 1994. I guess we've been together longer than some relationships as it were. But we've had a unique relationship in this matter in that you've been the judges of the facts. We have been advocates on both sides. The judge has been the judge of the law. We all understand our various roles in this endeavor that I'm going to call a journey toward justice. That's what we're going to be talking about this afternoon as I see to address you. The final test of your service as jurors will not lie in the fact that you've stayed here more than a year, but will lie in the quality of the verdict that you render and whether or not that verdict speaks justice as we move towards justice. Now, you'll recall during a process called voir dire examination, each of you were thoroughly questioned by the lawyers. You probably thought, gee, I wish they'd leave me alone. But you understood I'm sure that this is very serious business. Our client, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson, is on trial for his life, and so we had to be very, very careful, both sides, in trying to get people who could be fair to both sides. You'll recall those questions, that you keep an open mind, which I hope you still have even to this day, that you wouldn't be swayed by sympathy for or passion against either side in this case, that you would give both sides of this lawsuit the benefit of your individual opinion. No one, no one can tell you what the facts are. That's going to be your job to determine. It's not a question of age or experience. We talked about that. This is one of those jobs where you kind of learn on the job, and so it's important that you fully understand that and that's why voir dire was so very important as we asked you all of those questions before you were sequestered, before you were actually picked. Now, each of you filled out the questionnaire and you answered the questions honestly I'm sure. You know, Sister Rose said a long time ago, "He who violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith himself." And, of course, both sides of this lawsuit have faith that you'll live up to your promises and I'm sure you'll do that. You know, Abraham Lincoln said that jury service is the highest act of citizenship. So if it's any consolation to you, you've been involved in that very highest act of citizenship. And so again, we applaud you and we thank you as we move toward justice. One other entity or group of ladies or two ladies that I should thank are our marvelous court reporters. They have been patient with us. They've been here from the very beginning. We very much appreciate them in their service and I especially appreciate them because sometimes I speak rather rapidly and they have a tough time keeping up with me. So I trust that today, if I start to speak too fast in my zeal, Miss Moxham and Chris will bring that to my attention. I'm sure they will. Now, in the course of this process where we're discussing the reasonable inferences of the evidence, I ask you to remember that we're all advocates. We're all officers of this court. I will recall the evidence and speak about the evidence. Should I misstate that evidence, please don't hold that against Mr. Simpson. I will never intentionally to that. In fact, I think you'll find that during my presentation, unlike my learned colleagues on the other side, I'm going to read you testimony of what the witnesses actually said so there will be no misunderstanding about what was said about certain key things. But remember that we are all advocates. And I think it was Miss Clark who said saying it so doesn't make it so. I think that applies very much to their argument. Ultimately, it's what you determine to be the facts is what's going to be important, and all of us can live with that. You are empowered to do justice. You are empowered to ensure that this great system of ours works. Listen for a moment, will you, please. One of my favorite people in history is the great Frederick Douglas. He said shortly after the slaves were freed, quote, "In a composite nation like ours as before the law, there should be no rich, no poor, no high, no low, no white, no black, but common country, common citizenship, equal rights and a common destiny." This marvelous statement was made more than 100 years ago. It's an ideal worth striving for and one that we still strive for. We haven't reached this goal yet, but certainly in this great country of ours, we're trying. With a jury such as this, we hope we can do that in this particular case. Now, in this case, you're aware that we represent Mr. Orenthal James Simpson. The Prosecution never calls him Mr. Orenthal James Simpson. They call him Defendant. I want to tell you right at the outset that Orenthal James Simpson, like all defendants, is presumed to be innocent. He's entitled to the same dignity and respect as all the rest of us. As he sits over there now, he's cloaked in a presumption of innocence. You will determine the facts of whether or not he's set free to walk out those doors or whether he spends the rest of his life in prison. But he's Orenthal James Simpson. He's not just the Defendant, and we on the Defense are proud, consider it a privilege to have been part of representing him in this exercise and this journey towards justice, make no mistake about it.

Finally, I apologize to you for the length that this journey has taken. But, you know, when you're seeking justice, there are no shortcuts. If you were to trade places with either side, you'd want someone to fight hard for you and vigorously, especially if it was a person who maintained their innocence from the very beginning of the proceedings. Some of you in voir dire talked about that. You've been involved in other cases where you felt the lawyers didn't stand up. Well, I certainly hope that in this case, on both sides, you felt the lawyers did their best to represent their respective positions. And we will continue I'm sure to do that so that although I apologize for the length of the trial, I hope and I trust that you will understand that in a journey towards justice, there is no shortcut. Finally, with regard to your responsibilities, we asked you at the very beginning to don't compromise. This is not a case for the timid or the weak of heart. This is not a case for the naive. This is a case for courageous citizens who believe in the constitution. And while I'm talking about the constitution, think with me for a moment how many times you heard my learned adversary say the Defense didn't prove, the Defense didn't do this, Defense didn't do that. Remember back in voir dire? What did the judge tell us? Judge Ito said the Defense could sit here and do absolutely nothing. One of you is from Missouri, and he reminded you--who's from Missouri here--saying to the Prosecution, you show us. Now, we didn't do that, but we don't have an obligation as you see--you heard from the jury instruction. And at the end, I will show you some others. We don't have to do anything. We don't have to prove anything. This is the Prosecution's burden, and we can't let them turn the constitution on its head. We can't let them get away from their burden. It's my job--one of my jobs is to remind you of that and to remind them of that. But that's their burden. They must prove Mr. Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, and we will talk about what a reasonable doubt means. And so now that we have this opportunity to analyze the facts of the case, I agree with one thing that Mr. Darden said. To this task, I ask you to bring your common sense. Collectively, the 14 of you have more than 500 years of experience. I know you're all young, but add that by 14--you won't hold that against me I don't think--500 years of experience. You didn't leave your common sense out in that hallway when you came in here. We're going to ask you to apply it to the facts of this case. I'd like to comment and to compliment Miss Clark and Mr. Darden on what I thought were fine arguments yesterday. I don't agree with much of what they said, but I listened intently, as I hope you'll do with me. And together, hopefully these discussions are going to be helpful to you in trying to arrive at a decision in this case where you don't compromise, where you don't do violence to your conscious, but you do the right thing. And you are the ones who are empowered to determine what is the right thing. Let me ask each of you a question. Have you ever in your life been falsely accused of something? Have you ever been falsely accused? Ever had to sit there and take it and watch the proceedings and wait and wait and wait, all the while knowing that you didn't do it? All you could do during such a process is to really maintain your dignity; isn't that correct? Knowing that you were innocent, but maintaining your dignity and remembering always that all you're left with after a crisis is your conduct during. So that's another reason why we are proud to represent this man who's maintained his innocence and who has conducted himself with dignity throughout these proceedings. Now, last night, as I thought about the arguments of my colleagues, two words came to mind. And I want to--I asked my wife this morning to get the dictionary out and look up two words. The two words were "Speculative" and "Cynical." Let me see if I can get those words that she got for me.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: I asked her--I was thinking about this case--to go to Webster's. And I want you to tell me what does it mean to speculate, what does it mean to be cynical, as I thought about my colleagues' arguments and their approach to this case and their view of this case. "Cynical" is described as contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives, gloomy distrustful view of life. And to speculate--to speculate, to engage in conjecture and to surmise or--is to take to be the truth on the basis of insufficient evidence. I mention those two definitions to you because I felt that much of what we heard yesterday and again this morning was mere speculation. Understand this, ladies and gentlemen; that none of us in this courtroom were out at 875 Bundy on June 12th, 1994 after 10:30 or 10:45 in the evening, so that everything we say to you is our best effort to piece together what took place in this case. When people theorize about things that may have been and talk to you about short fuses, you're going to see it's just that. It's speculation. People see things that are totally cynical. Maybe that's their view of the world. Not everybody shares that view. Now, in this case--and this is a homicide case and a very, very, very serious case. And of course, it's important for us to understand that. It is a sad fact that in American society, a large number of people are murdered each year. Violence unfortunately has become a way of life in America. And so when this sort of tragedy does in fact happen, it becomes the business of the police to step up and step in and to take charge of the matter. A good efficient, competent, noncorrupt police department will carefully set about the business of investigating homicides. They won't rush to judgment. They won't be bound by an obsession to win at all costs. They will set about trying to apprehend the killer or killers and trying to protect the innocent from suspicion.

In this case, the victims' families had an absolute right to demand exactly just that in this case. But it was clear unfortunately that in this case, there was another agenda. From the very first orders issued by the LAPD so-called brass, they were more concerned with their own images, the publicity that might be generated from this case than they were in doing professional police work. That's why this case has become such a hallmark and that's why Mr. Simpson is the one on trial. But your verdict in this case will go far beyond the walls of Department 103 because your verdict talks about justice in America and it talks about the police and whether they're above the law and it looks at the police perhaps as though they haven't been looked at very recently. Remember, I told you this is not for the naive, the faint of heart or the timid. So it seems to us that the evidence shows that professional police work took a backseat right at the beginning. Untrained officers trampled--remember, I used the word in opening statement--they traipsed through the evidence. And it was interesting because the Prosecution didn't agree with that at the beginning, but later on in this trial, we heard Mr. Goldberg, talking to witnesses, use my words, "Traipsing" through the witness scene, that scene there at Bundy. He used our words because they understood. We knew what we were talking about. We were able to demonstrate it through the videos. They delayed unconscionably routine procedures in notifying the Coroners. They didn't call the criminalist out on time and yes, they allowed this investigation to be infected by a dishonest and corrupt detective. They did that in this case. And they may try to back away from it all they want, but that's very important, as you're going to see, to this case and the resolution of my client's innocence. Because of their bungling, they ignored the obvious clues. They didn't pick up paper at the scene with prints on it. Because of their vanity, they very soon pretended to solve this crime and we think implicated an innocent man, and they never, they never ever looked for anyone else. We think if they had done their job as we have done, Mr. Simpson would have been eliminated early on. And so this case is not--let me say it at the outset--is not about attacking the Los Angeles Police Department. We're not anti-police in making these statements. You're not anti-police. We all need the police. I just said we have so much crime in this country, we need the police.

But what we need and what we must demand, what all of us should have are honest, effective, nonbiased police officers. Who could demand less? Any of you say that's not what we should have? And so let me tell you about how we're going to proceed here this afternoon. The Defense has one opportunity basically to address you. This is after the Prosecutors are finished. I will address you first, and after I'm concluded--and I will talk generally about the lay witnesses and overview of the evidence and what you've heard. I will try not to bore you. I'll strive to be honest in my discussions, to be relevant, to be concise of what we talk about here. When I'm finished, Mr. Barry Scheck will come before you and address some of the forensic issues. And then finally, after Mr. Scheck finishes, I'll come back and conclude some concluding remarks regarding what you've heard over the course of the last two days at any rate. Now, you understand that because the Prosecution bears the burden in this case and in all cases, Miss Clark will argue last to seek to rebut that which we bring up. Presumably, she won't be back up here talking about all kinds of new things, but seek to rebut that which is being argued.

And let me tell you up front, if she brings up anything, we may be precluded from standing up saying, "Wait a minute, your Honor. Here's the answer to that." But you can then substitute your common sense, your judgment in that place, and that's required in this journey toward justice. Now, at the outset, let's talk about this time line for the Defense. I said earlier that Mr. Darden did a good job in his argument, but one thing he tended to trip over and stumble over was when he started to talk about our case. He doesn't know our case like we know our case. It was interesting, wasn't it, because first he stood up and started talking about the time line being at 10:15. Then he said, well, they didn't prove anything, but, "Golly, well, it may have been as late as 10:30." That's interesting, isn't it? Never heard that before. You look back and see what Miss Clark promised you a year ago. 10:15. 10:15 was all they talked about, and they were going to use, because of the incompetence of this investigation, the wail of a dog. So that's what we've been relegated to in this case because of this very, very important investigation.

But having said the Defense doesn't have to prove anything in this case, we did in fact. So Mr. Darden can talk all he wanted to about his theories about motive. They're just that, his speculative theories about motive. But when it came down to the end, he wasn't talking about motive, was he? He was trying to talk about our time line. Why would he do that? Let's talk about why he would. Because the Defense in this case called many witnesses who corroborated each other and who shattered the Prosecution's time line. Now, these are witnesses to a person who were known by the Prosecution, but discarded by the Prosecution. Why? Because they didn't fit their tortured, narrow window of opportunity. So when you invisualize for me that jig-saw puzzle where they want to reduce this case down to a jig-saw puzzle, the part that deals with opportunity is the time line. And we're going to start off with that because in a search for truth, let's look for the truth. Not some contorted, twisted truth, but the real truth, the facts that you heard during the course of this particular case. We think after you look at this time line for the Defense, you will agree with our earlier analysis. This is a case about a rush to judgment, a case where there's been obsession to win at all costs, and in the words of Dr. Henry Lee, something is wrong with the Prosecution's case. Let's start off with Francesca Harmon. Francesca Harmon is a lady who left the dinner party on Dorothy at about 10:20 P.M. she drove west on Dorothy and Bundy and turned north on Bundy. So she would be heading north toward 875. She saw nothing, heard nothing, no barking dogs, lady known, of course, to both sides. And so you see this graphic regarding Francesca Harmon. And I think to familiarize you with that, I think at 10:20, as I understand it, that's the approximate time that she would pass by or near Nicole Brown Simpson's home there. You see it with the "X" marked there in this photographic. That's Miss Harmon. We followed Francesca Harmon with Ellen Aaronson and Dan Mandel, remember, the two people who had been on their first date. They had gone to Mezzaluna. And they were interesting young people. I think you would find them credible. By the way, you hold all witnesses up to the same standard. No side has a priority on the truth. These are witnesses known to both sides. We're the ones, however, who elected to call them and bring them here for you.

You know, how they walked home from this first date at Mezzaluna, walking directly by the walkway at 875 south Bundy, and they said they passed by there. Remember, they were clear, they passed by there at 10:25. And you'll see the little kind of purple lines shows you the route they took. So they passed right in front of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's home at 10:25. And you remember, they continued on. So they were over on Darlington Street by 10:29. She said that it took them about four minutes from the time they passed 875 south Bundy to get home that evening. This was their first date and I guess, as I recall, this was also their last date. They saw no blood, they saw no barking dogs. I submit to you, if the bodies had been there, they could have been seen. Now, why do I say that? I say that because we have a contact print in evidence--and I'm going to ask Mr. Harris, if he can, to show us this contact print. This is an item you will be able to take back in the jury room. This is a photograph taken by Mr. Rokahr at night and it will let you see, when Mr. Harris gets it into focus, that scene that particular night, what you could see with regard to this body. Your Honor, you may want to cut the feed on part of this. 33, Howard.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now--and this exhibit is what number, Mr.--do you have it? I believe it may be 86. I'll get it for you as soon as he takes it off, your Honor. Now, this exhibit--and we'll try to give them to your Honor when we first get them up there.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: This exhibit no. 86 was a photograph that we got late in the trial from Mr. Rokahr, the photographer, who was called by us. You see that document over there? That's a contact sheet. Remember, we talked about all of these photographs in sequence, and this first roll were taken at night. This is going to be a very, very important role for you as this case progresses. This is a photograph at night of what you could see from across the street. And there were lights in and around there. And so when Mr. Darden stands up here as an advocate and tells you it was pitch black and you couldn't see anything, this is the photograph that was taken before the sun came up. This photograph was taken at night. It's not pitch black.

We know also that, according to the evidence, blood had flowed down that walkway. There were bloody paw prints that went southbound on Bundy there. So you see that photograph. You see that photograph. Now, you can be an advocate. We're all sworn to do the right thing. We talked about his oath. Your oath is also to tell the truth. It's not pitch black. We have the evidence. And I am going to try to do that throughout where they have misled you and have said things not correct. I'm going to try and straighten it out for you. Mr. Harris, why don't you tell the court now what that number is.

MR. HARRIS: 1369.

MR. COCHRAN: No. 1369. And that's Rokahr. We're going to come back to some other photographs on that, but you'll recall his testimony. And the reason why 1369 is so important is because it is undisputed that at 10:25, Mandel and Aaronson walked passed there. If there was blood down on that sidewalk, if there had been--a killing had taken place, if there were dogs barking or wailing, don't you think given that, that had you been out there, you'd see it?

So the time has come now to stop all this folly and fantasy. Let's deal in reality and in the facts of what took place and what you can see with your own eyes. I don't want you to speculate or theorize. When I sit down, I want you to understand what the facts are of this case. Mr. Harris, you can take that down. After that, we had Denise Pilnak and Judy Telander. You know, and I think, again, as advocates, we have a responsibility to treat all of these witnesses with respect. These people didn't ask to come down here. These people don't ask to be maligned. I don't think anybody really wants that with the exception of one or two, and most of them were called by the Prosecution. So when Denise Pilnak, the lady who wore two watches, comes in here and tells you--I ask you to judge her credibility like you do all the witnesses the court has instructed you. You hold all witnesses up to the same standard. You look at the reasonableness of what they have to say. You look at their bias or interest. You look at their demeanor on the stand. You use your common sense. You use your visceral reaction, if I can use that word, to make a determination of whether or not you think this person is telling you the truth.

None of these people know or knew O.J. Simpson with the exception of the people who were together. They don't know each other. They're witnesses available to both sides. But in the search for truth, we're the ones who subpoenaed them and brought them in. Let's look at Denise Pilnak. She tells you that she was at home with her friend, Judy Telander. She is across the street from 875 South Bundy. She's south and across the street. You'll recall that. She spoke of how eerily quiet--remember those words? It was at about 10:24 P.M. when Telander left her house, and she remembered that because she wanted to get Telander out of there. She had been there all day and she wanted to use her computer or something to type some letters. Remember that? So she went outside on the porch with Telander, as I recall. And Pilnak just didn't come to you and tell you that. Pilnak did something else. She--and I believe, your Honor, that's exhibit 1237. She showed us--

THE COURT: Phone records.

MR. COCHRAN: The phone record, your Honor. She showed us that she got on the phone as soon as Pilnak left and called her mother, remember, she said in Gardena. And you look there on June 12th at 10:25 P.M., she made a call to Gardena. She was able to fix the exact time that her friend left. And she said to us something very interesting; that it was quiet when her friend left and the quiet continued for at least another 10 minutes. So that would be 10:25 to 10:35 at the earliest. She says that at 10:35 is the first time she heard dogs barking loudly that particular night. And so that she, as you will see, along with Robert Heidstra confirm each other. They don't necessarily know each other, but they confirm each other as to when this barking really, really began. Now, they weren't laying in bed and had been asleep like Eva Stein. They weren't like Miss Elsie Taestart, who is across the street who didn't really know what was happening. These are people who were outside or in that area who can come in here and tell you why they remember these particular times. They were wide awake, up and about, outside around the time when this barking took place. Then we call this man, Robert Heidstra. You know, because it came out that Robert Heidstra had been talking to the Prosecution, remember what he said?

Now, this is the man--who is an interesting man--who details cars. He's the man who is well-known to the Prosecution. Remember, he talked to Detective Payne, almost right away during the investigation to Payne and he told Payne the same thing he told you in the course of this trial. This is what he said. He says he lives nearby and he has these two elderly dogs, one of whom I recall was 14 years of age. And so these dogs walk kind of slowly. Remember that. He walks and he takes this route. Now, that graphic up there shows you the route he takes. Remember, he told you he left home a little bit late that particular Sunday. 10:15, he leaves home and he proceeds on this route and, you know, he's in that alleyway that runs parallel to Bundy and he knows this neighborhood. He's been doing this for more than 14 years. He knows not only the neighborhood, he knows the dogs, he knows their barks, he knows the gates, he knows when they clank, he knows all of that. This is an interesting situation. Wouldn't you have thought that--of all the witnesses in this trial, in this journey towards justice, this is the only witness who ever heard any voices. But they didn't call him. You know why? Because it doesn't fit in their time line as you're going to see. And so he tells you that. And you'll recall, he's directly opposite Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's condo in that alley when he hears what he believes is the Akita start barking. And that's at about 10:35 P.M. he recognizes he says the Akita bark since he walks that way, that same way each and every evening. So while in that alleyway, east of 875 south Bundy, he hears a voice yell, "Hey, hey, hey," and he says he then hears a gate slam. Now, he goes on and says at about 10:40, 10:45, he sees this white vehicle which he describes clearly as a van or a Jeep. Now, they will try and tell you all these things about it being some Bronco, but he never said anything about a Bronco. He said a van or a Jeep. And the important part was--is what he tells the detective. But he says it goes southbound on Bundy away from, this is where Mr. Simpson lived. And can you imagine, in this area in West Los Angeles and Brentwood, the number of white vehicles there are and must be in that particular area? But the reason why they didn't call him is because at 10:45, at 10:45, O.J. Simpson cannot be guilty of this crime, can he? How do we know that? How do we know that, ladies and gentlemen?

Well, yesterday, in her zeal and advocacy, Miss Clark tried to push the time back from 10:40 or 10:45 that Kato heard those thumps. She tried in her chart there to push it back, remember, to 10:53. Some of you probably were surprised. There's been no testimony about that. So let me tell you--let me quote for you. Counsel, this is page 19873. This is Miss Clark talking to one of her favorite witnesses, Mr. Kato Kaelin. "By Miss Clark: And what happened with that picture when the thumps occurred?

"The picture tilted from--that would be right to left. "The picture moved? "Answer: Yes, it did. "At that point that you heard the thumps on the wall, sir, approximately how long had you been on the phone with Rachel Ferrera?" Remember, he started to call his friend, called his girlfriend. "About a half hour." This is after he went back in the house, he called his girlfriend.

"So approximately what time was it when you heard the thumps on the wall?" Answer by Mr. Kaelin: "At about 10:40." At about 10:40. Now, this is the time when the dogs first start to bark over there, about 10:40. "Is that exact 10:40," Miss Clark says. "Well, what I remember. I didn't look at the clock, but around 10:40. "Question: Do you recall previously testifying that it was 10:40 to 10:45? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Okay. And is that correct?

"Answer: Yes." Now, that's their witness. That's their witness. That's what he has to say. There's no question he's there. They know he's there. You know he's there. They don't call him. What about this search for truth? Can they handle the truth? You will be making that kind of decision.

And so we then know, according to this, that by the time Heidstra sees this vehicle turn south on Bundy, Kato Kaelin has already heard the three thumps on the Rockingham wall outside of his room. You know, that's so interesting because Miss Clark tried to change how those thumps sounded. Now, remember--this is something you will never forget probably. I won't come all the way over there, but let me see if I can duplicate--Kato Kaelin said--here's how he said those thumps sounded, (Indicating) one, two, three, except he used that thick place up there. He said they were thumps, almost like a signal; one, two, three (Indicating) is what he had to say. And, of course, you'll recall that. Your notes are much better than ours I'm sure. Apparently the Prosecution in their zeal and their obsession to win would have you believe that Mr. Orenthal James Simpson is so amazing that he can be in two places at the same time even though they're miles apart. And when Darden was talking to you today, remember, he used Heidstra to say, "Well, on a Sunday evening, you could make it over there in about four minutes." Remember he said that? Well, in their own--in their own drive-through that Vannatter did between five and six minutes--you saw it. It took close to six minutes. He didn't tell you that again today. And if you want to get a flavor for how--we heard the word desperate a couple of times, but how witnesses were treated--these are ordinary witnesses, regular citizens. Let me share with you a transcript regarding Heidstra. Counsel, I'm going to be looking at 36368 through 36370. This is how Mr. Darden treated this witness who helped to shatter their time line and establish O.J. Simpson's innocence. "Didn't you tell us yesterday that the voice was a youthful voice? "Yeah. Sounded like a young voice. "Okay. When you heard that voice, you thought that that was the voice of a young white male, didn't you?" And there was an objection you may recall. "The voice sounded like the voice of a white male," Mr. Darden said.

"Answer: How could I say that it is a white male? I don't know the voice. It could be anybody there. "Question: Did you ever tell

Mr. Stevens, my investigator, that it sounded like a white male? "Answer: No. Never saw Mr. Stevens come in here and say that. "Never said that?

"Answer: I don't recall that at all. I said it was a clear voice, but never what kind of voice, white or brown or yellow. "And then there was that second voice, correct? "Right. "And that second voice, that voice sounded deeper than the first voice, didn't it? "Answer: A little bit, but I couldn't hardly hear it with the dogs, the commotion with two dogs there. It was very short. "Did you ever tell anyone that The second voice was a deep voice? "Answer: Was deep, was deeper

Than the other one, than, `hey, hey, hey.'" okay. Then we get to the question at line 22, counsel. "The second voice that you heard sounded like the voice of a black man; is that correct?" Objection. "The witness: Of course not." Now, you know, we can be advocates. Those questions--nobody ever came in to impeach that man. He told you he heard two voices. He told you when this took place. He told you why, because he walks his dogs. He knows that neighborhood. A search for truth. You see, their job is not to just try to convict. Their job as Prosecutors is to make sure the innocent go free also, to make sure all the witnesses come to your attention as we've had to do in this case. So you can see that these responsible citizen witnesses who came before you were oftentimes treated roughly and ridiculed and attacked by the Prosecution in their obsession to win. You don't think Heidstra was attacked? Remember he was asked the question, something to the effect, "Are you a citizen here," because he was from France apparently and something about his job and his little apartment because he's a car detailer. Everybody is entitled to dignity. That's what we fought for in this country. You don't treat witnesses who just come in here--they don't get paid to tell the truth like that--just purely and simply because they're not saying what you want them to say in your contorted version of what the truth ought to be. But you saw that yourself. I don't have to tell you about it. Interesting enough, they chose not to mention even one of the Defense witnesses in Miss Clark's discussion of her time line. The Prosecutors noted that none of their time line witnesses asked to be involved in this case. Well, none of the witnesses we called asked to be called in this case. They came forward. You saw how they were treated, and yet, they told you what they observed. But perhaps the most important thing about them is, these aren't any family members. These aren't people who know O.J. Simpson. These are just people who happened to be out there that particular night. And I think you can now see from that graphic that they all passed by there. We tried to make it as clear as we could. It's common sense. It's common sense just like he said. It becomes very, very clear right at the outset. So if you accept the Prosecution's scenario, it's not enough time for O.J. Simpson to commit these murders given the evidence that we understand. Let me just succinct it at the very beginning to help you understand where I am going on this. Remember Bodziak they like to talk about so much? F. Lee Bailey cross-examined Bodziak the first time he was here. Bailey got him to say this remarkable thing about whoever left out that back gate turned and went back the other way. It's pretty interesting because--I didn't see all those prints, but that's what he says. They went back to the scene. Remember that? That's what Bodziak had seen. Darden said this morning the killer or killers that went that way, they weren't in any hurry. They went that way and then came back. You take that along with the fact that the credible evidence regarding this struggle took between five to 15 minutes. Now, that's what Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Michael Baden said. They not only told you that, they showed you why that was true. You know, while I'm about it, just to digress for just a moment, Mr. Darden talked this morning about calling witnesses or not calling witnesses. Isn't that interesting? Now, they're the Prosecutors. They are the ones who have the burden. In the History of Man Runneth, not to the contrary. Nobody around here can remember any time that the Coroner who did the autopsy, the actual autopsy on these bodies wasn't called by these Prosecutors. Why do you think that was? They didn't call the Coroner. They chose instead to call Dr. Lakshmanan who came in here. They showed you what they thought about him. They talked about this man so badly. I mean for eight days, we heard Dr. Lakshmanan talk to you. They talk about length of time in this trial. Let me put that in perspective for you. For eight days, Dr. Lakshmanan sat on that stand and went through direct examination by Brian Kelberg. Check your notes if you think I'm wrong about that. Bob Shapiro got up and took three and a half hours and demolished him, because at the end of the day, Lakshmanan told you this:

"Well, these were deaths that were caused by stab wounds and the time of death was between 9:00 and 12:00." Remember all those discussions about big ticket items, big ticket items? And when you get back into the jury room, you will have a lot of fun trying to figure out all those red and blue marks that they drew over the Coroner. They spent eight days trashing their own Coroner and they didn't call him. Why is that in this search for truth? They call somebody else who's not even there at the autopsies who has the benefit of our experts, Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf, who point out to him the mistakes that Golden has made. He then runs in here and testifies about those mistakes that we had discovered. Remember, ladies and gentlemen, in this search for truth, our experts were in place right away. O.J. Simpson was paying for these experts to find the killer or killers. And you'll recall the evidence that Dr. Lee, Michael Baden, Barbara Wolf were offered them at the beginning. So the idea is from the beginning, there was this search for truth. And so I mention that parenthetically at this point because I think it's important. You talk about not calling witnesses in every murder case, it's basic that you've got to call the Coroner. But they did a number of things in this case, ladies and gentlemen, that had never been seen before. Of the top of our heads, four detectives going to the scene to notify somebody who is not even a next of kin. A detective carries blood 25 or 30 miles around in his pocket. They do things that you have never heard of before in this case. Is it because it's Orenthal James Simpson? And so as we look then at the time line and the importance of this time line, I want you to remember these words. Like the defining moment in this trial, the day Mr. Darden asked Mr. Simpson to try on those gloves and the gloves didn't fit, remember these words; if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. And we are going to be talking about that throughout. So to summarize, if you take the witnesses that we presented who stand unimpeached, unimpeached, and if you are left with dogs starting to bark at 10:35 or 10:40, 10:40 let's say--and we know from the most qualified individuals, Henry Lee and Michael Baden, this was a struggle that took from five to 15 minutes. It's already 10:55. And remember, the thumps were at 10:40 or 10:45--O.J. Simpson could not be guilty. He is then entitled to an acquittal. And we have talked to you and you've heard from the court and my colleagues talked to you about this whole idea of circumstantial evidence. I want to talk to you a little more about that now. We showed you the incredible evidence that it would be impossible, O.J. could not, would not, did not commit these crimes. And where you have a circumstantial evidence case, this becomes very, very important. The Prosecution then must disprove our time line beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they don't, you must acquit. He would then be entitled to an acquittal. So let's see if we can look quickly at this jury instruction, sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence, generally. Mr. Douglas is going to help me today. Can I have just a second, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Douglas. Now, in both places, you can see this instruction. It's called "Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence," evidence generally. And to be as accurate as possible, let me allude to all of it, less I favor one portion or another, and together we can consider it. This is the law that his Honor has already given you as it relates to circumstantial evidence, which this is in this case, about opportunity to commit these crimes.

"However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only (1) consistent with a theory that the Defendant is guilty of a crime, but (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion. "Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the Defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count, either one of these counts is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to guilt and the other which points

To innocence, you as jurors must adopt that interpretation which points to Defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt. "If on the other hand, one interpretation of such evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable." I put that up at this very moment because you've just seen the time line which is circumstantial evidence of O.J. Simpson's innocence because he couldn't have done the crime given this time. So under that scenario, even if the Prosecution's time line was reasonable, if they're both reasonable--I think you must agree ours is reasonable--it becomes your duty to adopt that which points towards innocence. But even further, if theirs is unreasonable and ours is reasonable, he's still entitled to an acquittal. The only way they're entitled to a conviction is ours is unreasonable and theirs is reasonable, and I think you can see and understand that's not true, that shouldn't happen, that's not the facts of this case.

So before I look at their time line, let me just see if I can summarize what I believe the Prosecution has tried to tell you about their theory in this case. And this is just kind of rough, but listening to them yesterday, they try to tell you that an insanely, jealous man stalks his ex-wife, stabs her and a male visitor in a murderous rage, leaves a bloods--trail of blood to his home, barely catches a plane to Chicago, in a rush to go there, leaves one glove at the murder scene and one glove behind his house. In the Defense of this case, you have heard evidence about O.J. Simpson's great life. Not only did he have a great life, he had a great day that day playing golf, comes back from being out of town all week long, comes back to go to his child's recital, goes to that recital, prepares in the evening to get something to eat, a hamburger. By the way--I have to stop at this point. I'm glad Miss Clark doesn't know this, but, you know, if you've ever been to McDonald's, they don't like you to bring hundred dollar bills in there. You know, you can't get a hundred dollar bill changed there generally. Some of these things about common sense, some people don't know.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, you're beyond the evidence here.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, all right. Thank you.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: You use your common sense about fast food places. He then takes a shower, barely catches his plane to Chicago, someone murders his wife and this male visitor for reasons unknown in this trial. Others seek to implicate him as the most obvious suspect, but the investigation becomes a tragic combination of sloppy errors and cover-ups trying to achieve his conviction. Those are going to be pretty much the hypothesis that you heard and will be hearing in this case. Under whatever scenario, based upon what I've already told you in this first hour of the argument, this man is entitled to an acquittal. But let's now turn briefly to the Prosecution's time line scenario. And you heard Miss Clark yesterday talk about this time line and talk about these witnesses. And she relies very heavily on this Pablo Fenjves. You remember him? He's one of the early, early witnesses who started off I think talking about a plaintiff wail of a dog at 10:30. It got pushed back to 10:15. But it's interesting because Darden, not Marcia Clark, has now come back and conceded, well, you know, maybe it really was later. They did a pretty good job. You know, so he's saying that. But Pablo Fenjves told us that he's in that alleyway--down the alleyway and across from where Nicole Brown Simpson lives 10:15, 10:30, whatever, 10:20. Eva Stein next door was asleep, claims she was awakened. You ever wake up at night? You might see the time, right, you might not. She says about 10:20 or so, she thinks she hears dogs barking. Well, I presume that dogs bark throughout that neighborhood all the time. We don't know, and that's the problem with trying to convict somebody or set the time of death by a dog barking. Louis carp, her boyfriend, comes home sometime after 10:20. And then, of course, Miss Elsie tester, the lady from across the street, doesn't know when or what was precisely when she heard the barks. Then there's Mark Storfer. Mark Storfer, interesting man, because you remember, he's the man who always set his watch five minutes fast he says presumably. He told us here in testimony--counsel, 17090--says:

"At 10:28 is when I looked at the TV , which was a couple minutes after I had gotten in the room." Right. Okay. And then he talks about: "I looked out the window of our bedroom that faces north Bundy to see if I could see where that dog was or what was going on. It was pretty dark and I couldn't see anything unusual and I couldn't locate the dog. I also looked out the west-facing window of our bedroom to see if the dog was further over to the west--we face the alley on the west side--and I could not see anything at that time either." Now, this witness becomes kind of important, doesn't he, because the Prosecution is going to tell you that no matter what time it is, whether it's 10:40 or 10:45 or whether it's 10:15 or 10:20 or 10:25, Mr. Darden makes this big quantum leap, the Bronco was there. Well, where is Mark Storfer who looks down that alley--and what exhibit is this, Mr. Harris, do you know? Exhibit no. 38, your Honor. This is looking northbound down that alleyway. And you recall this because we've all been out there and you recall where Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's condo is located. And you recall that it's sitting out in the driveway there, right there (Indicating). There's a black Jeep Cherokee as I recall. And you see this man, you presume he looked up this alleyway, he didn't see any white Bronco. Nobody ever tells you about any white Bronco parked back there, doesn't tell you about any car parked back there. So when you see People tell you about mountains of evidence and oceans of evidence, their oceans soon become little streams, their mountains become molehills when you look at the facts. So we go on. In addition to Mark Storfer looking up that alley and seeing nothing or seeing no car or doesn't see a dog, we hear about the other witnesses who become pretty much part of the time line. Miss Clark does take some licenses regarding time. She says that Mr. Goldman leaves Mezzaluna, and she said at about 9:50 P.M., says he goes home and changes clothes, that he talked to Stewart Tanner about getting together later that evening. Remember that? He talked about going to Baja Cantina out at the Marina.

Wouldn't you think it would be logical to expect if he worked all day, when he went home to change clothes, he might have showered, might have gotten something to eat, especially if later on, when you hear Mr. Scheck, you look at the amount of food, undigested food that was still in the stomach of these two victims. But in a rush to judgment, in a rush to contort these facts, Miss Clark tells you yesterday let's give him five minutes. And he's been working all day, he's got to change clothes, he's got to come home. Let's give him five minutes or 10 minutes, correct? She says let's give him 10 minutes. That seems to me to be really, really fast. What it really is, ladies and gentlemen, is more of that speculation. She doesn't know how long Mr. Goldman was there. None of us know that. We know he changed clothes. She has absolutely no idea. But so you understand that when you look at when somebody says something like that to you. And then as part of their time line, she tells you yesterday that there's something sinister in Mr. Simpson seeking change to buy a Big Mac from McDonald's. I suppose that if you're in this jealous rage, if the fuse is running so short, it's interesting, isn't it, to stop, go get a hamburger at McDonald's? Does that make any sense to any of you? Does it make sense to you to drive to McDonald's? There's no evidence that he tried to tell Kato Kaelin not to come. The evidence is that these two men got in the Bentley and went to McDonald's. The evidence is that while O.J. Simpson is in this murderous rage, he's worried about money to tip the skycaps at the airport because he has $100 bills. So he gets $20 from Kato Kaelin. What's unusual about that? Kato Kaelin is living there for free. So I suppose he could give him $20. Then Kato Kaelin wants to go get something to eat. And Miss Clark said they could have gone to a restaurant. Well, you can do anything I suppose. But the facts are, they went to McDonald's to get a hamburger. O.J. Simpson ate the hamburger. Presumably he was hungry. Now, what's sinister about that, unless you're cynical in your view totally of this case. Kato Kaelin, their witness. They called him. They turned on him. You observed him. I ask you to hold him up to the same standards you do all the other witnesses, but I ask you, don't misquote him. Tell the truth about what he had to say. And so when he says 10:40 or 10:45, don't try to make it 10:52.

So if you believe in this Prosecution's theory, there's this blood leading down to this rear walkway. And Miss Clark told us yesterday and unveiled her theory. Here's what they ask you to believe. O.J. Simpson comes home from these brutal murders in a Bronco that he must be driving awfully fast to get back in this time frame. He parks this Bronco out there by the Rockingham gate, somehow gets in the gate, gets down the side of his house. And what does she tell you? He bumps into the air conditioner. Let's examine that for a minute. The evidence is, O.J. Simpson lived in this house for 17 years. Who do you think knows this place better or the best of all? This is his estate. This is where he lives. This is where he's raised his children. This is where he's been married. This is where--two marriages. He knows this place. So as part of their fantasy, their theory, their speculation, they have O.J. Simpson walking down this walkway running into an air conditioner. Well, if he ran into the air conditioner, where is all the bruises since he ran into the air conditioner? Where is the sound that he made?

That doesn't make any sense. You see, the reason why they come up with this running into the air conditioner is because they can't say he climbed over the fence because there's too much shrubbery there not broke. They really don't know if he can climb over the fence with his arthritis. They have him then walking down this walkway bumping into the air conditioner. But, ladies and gentlemen, you know, we're talking about common sense here. Bumping into the air conditioner and then he just leaves? Is that what happens? Let's look at this. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. You all remember this. What exhibit is this, Mr. Douglas?

MR. DOUGLAS: 116, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll stand over here so I won't be in your way. Thank you. Under this scenario, under their scenario, while Allan Park is out here somewhere looking over in this direction, they have O.J. Simpson rushing back, parking the Bronco out here, and somewhere or other, he gets all the way down here. Remember, Fuhrman told you how far that was.

He gets all the way down here where this air conditioner is out here by Kato Kaelin's room. You'll see this right here. They have him running into this air conditioner. So he doesn't know his own house. He's all the way back here. And she says the reason he's back here is because he's going to go back here and he's going to bury the knife and the clothes. Isn't that something? How does she know that? She just makes that up out of hole cloth. Do you believe that's reasonable? Is that reasonable to you? Does anybody on this jury believe that? That's what you were told yesterday. He runs in this air conditioner and then, you know, bumps in, drops his glove. That's what she told you. Doesn't make any sense at all, does it, ladies and gentlemen? Doesn't make any sense at all. No sound from Kato Kaelin. Then what kind of--you know, the sound has always been very confusing. Maybe not to you, but to me. Kato Kaelin goes (Indicating), more like a signal than anything else, "Come out here" or whatever. But those are the facts of Kato Kaelin and what happened. And that's her theory. That's her reasonable rational theory that you have to buy into, which I think that you will find to be totally ridiculous. Remember, down this same way, there is a door in that side room there. If Mr. Simpson wanted to get in his house, what would stop him from going in that side door--who knows this house better--if he wanted to be not seen? I suppose he would know better than anybody else. Doesn't make any sense. Doesn't make any sense at all. What they are now trying to tell you--and here's something else that's equally implausible. She tells you that the reason why Mr. Simpson couldn't stop and hide these clothes is because he's too famous or too well-known. Remember that? She said O.J. Simpson is too famous and too well-known to stop and try to hide clothes or whatever that nature. Well, let's take that just a little bit further. Part of what makes their theory so ridiculous is, is O.J. Simpson going to get in a white Bronco that's well-known in Brentwood, drive over to his ex-wife's house, park the Bronco in this well-lit alleyway that you've just seen, leave the car there? Everybody knows him, knows that car. That's equally preposterous. So she can't have it both ways. He's too famous to stop and try to throw things in a dumpster the way she put it. He is equally too famous to drive this car, go there under these circumstances. That is preposterous. So if you believe the Prosecution's theory--and they told you all this about a bloody trail--where's the blood back there, ladies and gentlemen? There's not one drop of blood. Where's the blood back there? Where's the trail that leads to that glove? And further, look at this. Look at this, ladies and gentlemen. That's not something I'm making up. You see this with your own eyes. Look at the glove. Now, when that glove is picked up, remember seeing any blood on the ground? No blood on that shrubbery, no blood on anything there. Where's the blood? Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony? Where's the blood on the ground? Where's the blood on the leaves around there? Where's any of that? That glove looks as though it's been placed there. That glove looks as though it's been placed there. You look at A, you'll see how far it is out to the street. So their theory doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense. And so they get mad at Kato Kaelin and they tell you why he's biased, he's just indebted to O.J. Simpson, so we just can't trust him. But yet, they want you to trust him about the knocks on the wall and he becomes part of their theory. But their theory doesn't make sense. And when you are back there deliberating on this case, you're never going to be ever able to reconcile this time line and the fact there's no blood back there and O.J. Simpson would run into an air conditioner on his own property and then under her scenario, he still has the knife and the clothes. But what does she tell you yesterday? Well, he still has the knife and he's in these bloody clothes and presumably in bloody shoes, and what does he do? He goes in the house. Now, thank heaven, Judge Ito took us on a jury view. You've seen this house. You've seen this carpet. If he went in that house with bloody shoes, with bloody clothes, with his bloody hands as they say, where's the blood on the doorknob, where's the blood on the light switch, where's the blood on the banister, where's the blood on the carpet? That's like almost white carpet going up those stairs. Where is all that blood trail they've been banting about in this mountain of evidence? You will see it's little more than a river or a stream. They don't have any mountain or ocean of evidence. It's not so because they say so. That's just rhetoric. We this afternoon are talking about the facts. And so it doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. And so she has him then still with the knife, still with these bloody clothes, and then she does something very unusual again on the time. Remember, she gave Mr. Goldman 10 minutes to get dressed and to go over to Nicole Brown Simpson's house with this envelope. Mr. Simpson she says walks in this house in the walkway--and by the way, they were wrong. She was wrong about something else, again, I would like to read you. She's wrong in her description of Allan Park, if I can locate it. Allan Park said he saw this figure in the walkway only. And so that we're clear about that, let me just read it to you. I don't have to just tell you what I think it is. I'm going to read it for you. 20571, counsel, line 17. "Yes, I saw a figure come down. Well, not come down, but I saw a figure come into the entranceway of the house just about where the driveway starts." Saw a figure come into the entranceway of the house just about where the driveway starts. You see that right there, the driveway is. That's what he said. Yesterday we were trying to put it all down here, have him come because that was convenient to their theory, but that's not what the witness said. You look at the facts of this case and you'll see, not what they tell you. Continuing on, there's absolutely no evidence at all that Mr. Simpson ever tried to hide a knife or clothes or anything else on his property. You'll recall that Fuhrman--and when I get to Fuhrman, we'll be spending some time on him as you might imagine. But one of the things he said was that he encountered cobwebs further down that walkway, indicating, if that part is true--and I don't vouch for him at all--there had been nobody down that pathway for quite some time. And so she talks about O.J. being very, very recognizable. She talks about O.J. Simpson getting dressed up to go commit these murders. Just before we break for our break, I was thinking--I was thinking last night about this case and their theory and how it didn't make any sense and how it didn't fit and how something is wrong. It occurred to me how they were going to come here, stand up here and tell you how O.J. Simpson was going to disguise himself. He was going to put on a knit cap and some dark clothes, and he was going to get in his white Bronco, this recognizable person, and go over and kill his wife. That's what they want you to believe. That's how silly their argument is. And I said to myself, maybe I can demonstrate this graphically. Let me show you something. This is a knit cap. Let me put this knit cap on (Indicating). You have seen me for a year. If I put this knit cap on, who am I? I'm still Johnnie Cochran with a knit cap. And if you looked at O.J. Simpson over there--and he has a rather large head--O.J. Simpson in a knit cap from two blocks away is still O.J. Simpson. It's no disguise. It's no disguise. It makes no sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Good time, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-afternoon recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions. We'll stand in recess for 15.

(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. We will let the stragglers get in here.

(Brief pause.)

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 of our jury panel members. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, again. And Mr. Cochran, you may continue with your final argument.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you for your patience thus far, and we will start up again and see if we can make it to dinner. When we left, just before we broke, I was sharing with you a knit hat or a knit cap that we've heard so much about in this case and it reminded me that there was testimony early on that Detective Lange had refused basically to pick up a knit cap inside the Brown residence. It was shown to him I think by some of the lawyers and one of the investigators on that date, because these are fairly common, but they don't really disguise anybody who is noticeable, do they? And although I was the guinea pig here this afternoon, if you were to put a knit cap on, how is that going to disguise you? We have been together. I would know your face anywhere now and you would know mine. And the people in Brentwood, in West Los Angeles, would know O.J. Simpson. They know his car, they know him. That is where he lives. Even the Prosecutors say he is so famous that he can't go anywhere where he wouldn't be recognized. Now, one of the things about the People's timeline or whatever is that you will recall that some of O.J.'s bags were already packed outside of the house on that bench when Kato came outside to investigate the thumps which he had heard. And this is interesting, because the Prosecutors have kind of talked at cross purposes on this. Kato at some point comes out because he hears these thumps allegedly and he has a little tiny flashlight or I think the court called it a pen light or a mag-lite or something like that. It was something small. Because it was dark back down that walkway. Apparently he went partway down that walkway and then he came back. It is interesting. He came back and at some point he lets Park in. And I remember all these questions about opening the gate and everything. Remember there is a dog there named Chachi and there is a lot of talk about these dogs and you've heard a little bit about these dogs. And one thing as the Prosecutors make these kind of wild speculations, you know now, now know that the Akita dog bought by O.J. was Chachi. Remember one of the dogs died, and like a good dad, he let the dog stay at the other house sometime with his son Justin and they named the dog after Kato, I think the understanding of what you've heard from Arnelle. But at any rate, I point that out because we know there was another dog over there named Chachi, a black dog, a black chow. But while Kato is out looking for these thumps--what happens with these thumps? Mr. Simpson talks to him. In fact, they go in the house together because Mr. Simpson is going to help him look or help him find a larger flashlight and then someone says or he is reminded that Mr. Simpson is running late for his trip, so then he then takes off. My understanding of the facts is Mr. Simpson said, "I will call you later and have you put the alarm on" because he was getting out of there. Parks was already there. But I think the interesting thing to remember is that some of the bags were already down, including that golf bag, were already down there. So it is not any unexpected trip. He started putting things down there. If you look at everything in a cynical, fashion you heard this morning, aha, there was a knapsack over or nap bag or some little bag they were talking about over on the driveway. Well, if you are golfer, isn't it reasonable to assume there is golf balls in there? And if you put that in your golf bag, what is the big deal? Because they have got to try to theorize and try to explain everything, which they can't explain. They weren't there, they rushed to judgment and it leads to this kind of wild speculation. You have to do that when you don't have a case. That is all you have seen them do time after time after time. With regard to that walkway, lest I be totally clear to you, if O.J. Simpson had been the one for whatever reason to walk into that air conditioning, where is the hair and trace? Where is the fiber? Where is the blood? They want to tell you about his fingers bleeding one minute and it stops bleeding, and in Miss Clark's scenario he bleeds, it coagulates, stops bleeding and then it starts bleeding again, because that is convenient for their theory. You know, as I listened to both of them, I wanted to call them doctor. Dr. Clark told you, well, gee, look at that blood drop. That cut is not big enough for a blood drop. She is not a doctor. How does she know that? Dr. Darden for the love and the forlorn. He speculates on and on. This isn't imagination. This is real life. This isn't anything for murder she wrote. If they tried to sell this story to murder she wrote they would send it back and say it is unbelievable. You are going to see it as we tie it together. It is nice to have vivid imaginations, but here in this courtroom we are searching for truth on this journey for justice. So we know that Kato had some concerns. He was looking around. We know that at some point Mr. Simpson comes down the stairs carrying the Louis Vuitton bag or whatever and Mr. Simpson leaves about 11:00, 11:02 for the airport. I think that is pretty clear based upon the evidence. And you will recall that Miss Clark again gives Mr. Simpson five minutes to rush in, according to her theory, he rushes in, changes clothes, disposes of all these clothes, showers, packs, doing everything and comes downstairs and composes himself. Can you imagine that? Who do they think they are talking to? In five minutes he does all these things. And then they tell you that, you know under this post-homicidal way you act, you will get yourself all composed and you just do this. This is preposterous. They are not experts. They can't testify. Those are just their wildest, rankest theories. You use your common sense when they tell you things like that. O.J. Simpson was O.J. Simpson, the way he always appeared by the people who knew him and talked to him. We will talk more about that when we talk about demeanor, but the reason they can't explain his demeanor and the way he acted like he always acts--they then talk about, well, you can't tell he is a murderer. Those are all very convenient words, aren't they? They fly in the face of reasonable activity by a reasonable man on that particular night. So there is Allan Park. O.J. Simpson comes down within five minutes of the time that they believe he goes upstairs. No time to dispose of bloody clothes. What about blood on the carpet? What about dirt on this white carpet? How does he shower? How does he get dressed? It doesn't make any sense at all, does it? Park himself says the golf bag was already packed and ready to go when he pulled into the driveway. And Miss Clark went to great trouble to tell you how credible she thought Mr. Park was and how he tried to lay everything out, and I think by in large we agree with that, but I think if you are going to quote Mr. Park, you ought to quote him accurately and not attempt to mislead or whatever. And so what I did is I went back to the transcript again where Miss Clark told you and showed you that photograph yesterday about whether or not Mr. Park saw or was looking at the Bronco or looking for the Bronco on the night of June 12th. You remember that? She told you yesterday I spent a long time with him and so I remembered because I asked him questions and his response and his response. I asked him at some point: "I'm asking you if you look to--made an effort to see if there was a car parked? "Answer: No. "Was that a correct answer at that time? "Answer: Yes. All right. "Question: There might have been a car parked there and you didn't see it? "Answer: Correct. "And the reason why you don't know one way or the other is because you weren't focusing on any cars or paying any attention; isn't that right?"

I went on to ask still another part of the question: "Basically your goal was to get Mr. O.J. Simpson--try to get him to the airport on time, isn't it? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: That is what you ended up doing, isn't it, sir? "Answer: Yes." Now, that is the testimony, so that is fine to come up here and tell you because they want to fit their theory that he didn't see the Bronco out there and do all the drama, but isn't it better to read the record if you want to be accurate, which I have just done for you? Isn't it reasonable to ask Mr. Park also, Mr. Park, if you were around the premises there and you were up at Ashford and down at Rockingham, did you ever hear a Bronco comment driving up? Did you hear a door slam? Did you ever hear an engine of a Bronco? And fortunately we asked him some of those questions. I asked him about seeing a Bronco in the past. And remember he talked about seeing one back in `88 or something of that nature and so then I asked him this question: "And would I be correct in assuming that those engines can be loud on occasion, those cars, being the broncos? "Answer: Could be. "Question: You didn't hear the engines on any cars or anything that sounded like a Ford Bronco that night, did you? "Answer: No." Now, again I have read from the transcript for you. I previously read to you about where Mr. Park said he saw Mr. Simpson in the entranceway of the house. We will put that aside. So we know that Mr. O.J. Simpson was preparing to leave for this trip that had been long planned, and when we summarize then the two timelines, it seems to me that their timeline is not even reasonable. It doesn't make any sense. It is a much less credible version than the testimony you've heard from our witnesses. Their version does in no way disprove the Defense timeline. We don't have to even put that forward, but we did. There then must be a reasonable doubt. Consider everything that Mr. Simpson would have had to have done in a very short time under their timeline. He would have had to drive over to Bundy, as they described in this little limited time frame where there is not enough time, kill two athletic people in a struggle that takes five to fifteen minutes, walk slowly from the scene, return to the scene, supposedly looking for a missing hat and glove and poking around, go back to this alley a second time, drive more than five minutes to Rockingham where nobody hears him or sees him, either stop along the way to hide these bloody clothes and knives, et cetera, or take them in the house with you where they are still hoisted by their own pitard because there is no blood, there is no trace, there is no nothing. So that is why the Prosecution has had to try and push back their timeline. Even to today they are still pushing it back because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't fit. That is why they abandoned Ellen Aaronson, why they abandoned Dan Mandel, why they didn't want to call Denise Pilnak, why they didn't want to call Robert Heidstra. That is why we are now hearing this preposterous add-on of time that the thumps may have occurred at 10:15. That is Miss Clark's wish list, but that is not the evidence in this case. Let's turn our attention for a moment and let's look at some other things that don't fit in this case. As I started to say before, perhaps the single most defining moment in this trial is the day they thought they would conduct this experiment on these gloves. They had this big build-up with Mr. Rubin who had been out of the business for five, six, seven, eight years, he had been in marketing even when he was there, but they were going to try to demonstrate to you that these were the killer's gloves and these gloves would fit Mr. Simpson. You don't need any photographs to understand this. I suppose that vision is indelibly imprinted in each and every one of your minds of how Mr. Simpson walked over here and stood before you and you saw four simple words, "The gloves didn't fit." And all their strategy started changing after that. Rubin was called back here more than all their witnesses, four times altogether. Rubin testified more than the investigating officers in this case, because their case from that day forward was slipping away from them and they knew it and they could never ever recapture it. We may all live to be a hundred years old, and I hope we do, but you will always remember those gloves, when Darden asked him to try them on, didn't fit. They know they didn't fit, and no matter what they do, they can't make them fit. They can talk about latex gloves. It doesn't make any difference. They could talk about shrinkage. But we did something even better, didn't we? We brought a man who won the Dondero award, Dr. Herb MacDonell, who did an experiment on these Aris light gloves and they wanted to talk about liquid or blood shrinking them. You will see it up there. And what did he say? They don't shrink. Put as much blood as you can on them. They don't shrink. It doesn't work. They have the power of the state. They could have done their own demonstration. They didn't because you know he is right. So we went about and proved to you these things. We didn't just stand up here and speculate as to what might be. We called a leading witness who came in and passed that on for you. You could see the overlays on there. They cannot explain that. They could have called witnesses. They didn't. We called the witness to prove beyond any doubt those gloves don't shrink. The gloves didn't fit Mr. Simpson because he is not the killer. Now, then they will say and Miss Clark said the other day, well, gee, these gloves had been thawed and they had been frozen and they had been all those things, but remember Susan Brockbank? Those gloves were measured on June 21st, 1994. Those gloves were basically the same size now as they were June 21st, so that won't work. They come and tell you all these things, but it won't work, and so if you looked at gloves--and here is the overlay. And there is something else about these gloves that I want to take a minute and share with you before we talk about Mr. Rubin and his testimony. You saw these pictures of the gloves. We had a couple of pairs of Aris lights and when you have gloves that don't fit, you can hardly do anything with them. It makes it very, very tough. I will put on a pair of Aris light gloves that are real tight and you will see how tough it is to try and get these on my hands, but I will put them on anyway here.

It is the same kind of gloves that Dr. MacDonell did his experiment with so there would be no mistake about the leather and all those things they like to talk about. They are hard to get on. Not as hard as Mr. Simpson, but they are hard to get on. The reason I wanted you to see these gloves, because they want to tell you that when you take off gloves, you take them off by this "V" portion. Remember this? Somebody testified. You don't take off gloves that way. One of the People's witnesses said that. You don't take them off that way. So we are asked to believe that in this tremendous struggle that night in which Ron Goldman fought so valiantly that somehow or other in that struggle somebody took these gloves, the way you pull gloves on--I don't have to tell you this. You pull them off like this, even Rubin knew this, pull them off like this, the gloves came off like this, (Indicating), not through any way like that, (Indicating). So I think it is interesting, when you look at these gloves and you look at what they are trying to have you believe. They talked a lot about in their rebuttal case about the glove pictures and the glove photographs. Remember that each of the glove photographs were taken or pictures of Mr. Simpson were taken in the winter. And you know the evidence. Mr. Simpson was living in New York generally from August through January when he is at football season and working for NBC sports. Generally in southern California you don't need or wear winter dress gloves in California. You don't go skiing in Aris light gloves. And you remember that the police, in searching Mr. Simpson's house, you remember Detective Lange. They searched O.J. Simpson's house for gloves, for shoes, for clothes. Found one brown glove. And I want you to look at, at some point, the brown glove that looks very similar to the brown gloves that Mr. Simpson--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony. That is outside the record, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: What? One brown glove.

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

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. This glove was picked up on June 28th, but what I was saying was this glove came out of Simpson's house. And I ask you to look at his glove, you will have this back in the jury room, look at it compared to some of the gloves he wore on the photographs. The--there were no Aris light gloves in O.J. Simpson's house. That is the point. They took this one glove on June 28th. That is the point. And the point is quite simply Richard Rubin. Let's put him in perspective. Bob Blasier questioned him. On his fourth trip here we discovered a letter that he had sent to the Prosecution. This man had become a soldier in the Prosecution's army. Wrote them a letter saying he wanted to come to their victory party. The problem with that letter was he wrote the letter before we had ever had a chance to put on our case. That is solidifies the rush to judgment, doesn't it? Because in America you have a right to wait until you hear all the evidence. That is what makes this country great. People are not making up their minds at the beginning. You don't decide baseball game or a football game at half-time. You wait until the end.

That is what this judge tells you everyday. Keep an open mind until you've heard everything. But Rubin wasn't going to do that. He was getting ready for the victory party in his own letter and wrote to them and he asked further, send me your cards, I want Mr. Hodgman's card, Miss Clark's card, and I will build a memorial to him on his wall the number of times he had come out here. You talk about people who want to be involved in this case, you stack him up to those other people who didn't want to be here. Richard Rubin is one of those people. And it goes to his bias. It goes to his interest. I'm telling you the facts. We told you about this letter. You've got to deal with that if you are going to be fair and impartial in this case. And then, as with all the Prosecution's evidence, they are going to tell you that something is not like what it seems. They take a Bloomingdales--in which there is no size or color or anything else on this receipt--and I find this particularly interesting because it is part and parcel of the Prosecution's case, isn't it, the way they have done things in this case. Look at this receipt from Bloomingdales, and this is in evidence--do we have a number for the court?

MR. HARRIS: 372-B, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: 372-B your Honor. This is this famous purchase, December of 1990, wasn't it? The lot number or the style number is 70268. That is what it says. It doesn't say anything about 70263. Two items. It says $77.00. $77.00 is what it says for those two items. It doesn't say anything about $55.00. It says $77.00. And it doesn't say anything about color or size or anything of that nature and it doesn't say anything about any mufflers, but yet you have been treated and told, oh, these had to be Aris light gloves. That looks like a computer-generated receipt. I wonder how if it was incorrectly inputted it didn't spit it out. This transaction apparently went through and whatever was purchased was purchased. The point is it is part of again the weakness of the Prosecution's case in telling you one thing and the record shows something else. You don't have any receipt anywhere when you get back there that says anything about 70268. You don't have one witness who ever says that Nicole Brown ever bought any Aris lights and gave them to O.J. Simpson. There is no such witness because it didn't happen. And the rest of it is speculation and theory on their part. Cynical speculation I might add to try to rush to judgment and win at any cost. Now, you heard during Mr. Darden's effective argument last night a lot of statements. And just before I get to that part, let me say a couple other things about Mr. Rubin that might be appropriate. Remember, Mr. Rubin is an interesting witness. When he was brought bank out here this last time he was asked, well, look, how many glove manufacturers are there in the world? He acknowledged there are over 100. Then Bob Blasier asked him a question, well, you know, how many did you check with? Two. He checked with two and then he stopped looking. Remember, he found out that this Brossier stitching can be made on singer sewing machines. Some of you may know more about that than I do, but they stopped making them after a period of time, but he stopped looking after a period of time and never called anybody else. And that is interesting. That is the way the Prosecution witnesses have conducted themselves throughout. Compare that he stopped looking with Agent Martz who finds three of the four things you need to find EDTA on the sock and the back gate. Rather than looking carefully for the characteristic, the fourth one, he stops searching and uses a far less discriminating test. Consider the EAP b found under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails where they try to come in and tell you it is a degraded BA and a cross-examination. Again Blasier got Matheson to admit there was no specific support in any of the literature for a BA degraded into a B, and this was by all accounts a double-banded B. The reason they didn't want to pursue that, because she may have scratched somebody with a b type, but they never pursued those things. The second hat at Bundy. The Bundy location inside, when the Defense investigator finds this hat, nobody wanted to collect it. They refused in fact to collect it. When we in this trial, before you, discovered that evidence had been moved at Bundy and that a key piece of evidence, the piece of paper, had disappeared, they didn't do anything to find out about it that we know of. I am concerned about those kind of things. But it is important--and when you look at Rubin--because you put him along with the other Prosecution witnesses and the things that they have had to say. I have told you about the Bloomingdales receipt. I told you about Brenda Vemich who came in. One other thing about Brenda Vemich. That was the day, I won't forget that day probably. She was a pretty tough witness. I was just trying to talk about receipts and things and she was pretty tough. And remember we asked her the question, well, who is the lady, who is the person, who is the salesperson for this? And that lady whose name was Hollings or something like that was in this building. They never called her on that receipt. They didn't have to call her, but we know she was here because Brenda Vemich told us. We also learned something else about these gloves, that even an extra large--there is probably three different sizes, the undersize, the standard and the oversize. And it depends what lot you get. That is what it boils down to, ladies and gentlemen. We know that. That makes sense, doesn't it? And so when you look at everything regarding these gloves--by the way, the lady's name was Olina Phipps, P-H-I-P-P-S. She was in the courthouse and of course was never called by the Prosecution. Shoe he was the actual sales clerk. But I think that the important thing about these gloves that Mr. Rubin was helping us with, in a couple of the pictures of the photographs of the gloves Mr. Simpson obviously had a heat pack on his hands inside the gloves. You could see the heat pack. If you live in cold weather, you know about that. Try though they will about shrinking--and they are going to show you, gee, it is raining out there and doing all those things. Isn't that preposterous? They will do anything to try to contort and distort the facts, try to get away from that tactical mistake showing you the gloves didn't fit. Spent all this time on that and the gloves still don't fit. Rubin can't help you. Rubin is biased. He can't find those gloves because O.J. Simpson has never had those gloves. For them to say otherwise is rank speculation. Now, as I said with Mr. Darden, we heard a lot of information about this so-called domestic discord that he talked about last night and today, and you know, we've been told in this case over and over again that you are to do your job devoid of sympathy or passion or emotion, and I dare say you are very, very intelligent people. And it is very, very hard for any of us to sit here and have to look at photographs of dead bodies, people who did not deserve to die. This case is about who committed these crimes, not trying to make you and the audience cry about what happened back on June 12th. So they can do it over and over again, but it is not going to work because you understand this case is not about trying to appeal to your emotion. This case is about the facts and whether these facts establish guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. You all understand that. So we heard last night and we are treated to this morning some very, very interesting observations by my learned colleague, Mr. Darden. Let me start off by sharing with you, and I will use his board on "Evidence of other crimes."

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, this is interesting because Mr. Darden started off by saying, well, you know, we are going to put together this other piece, it is not really one of the elements of the crime of murder, motive, but we are going to talk to you about motive now. We are going to tell you and convince you about the motive in this case, and then he spent a long time trying to do that. As I say, he did a fine job and addressed the facts and conjured up a lot of emotion. You notice how at the end he kind of petered out of steam there, and I'm sure he got tired and he petered out because this fuse he kept talking about kept going out. It never blew up, never exploded. There was no triggering mechanism. There is nothing to lead to that. It was a nice analogy, almost like that baby analogy, the baby justice and the house of fire. You don't have to go through the house of fire. You have to keep yourself on the prize, the house of justice, a city called Justice, and that is what this is leading to, so this is what it is all about. The court--Mr. Darden looks up there, says, well, gee, judge, whatever limited purpose, but let's talk about the limited purpose for which all of his argument was about. When you talk about this evidence of other crimes, such evidence was received--excuse me, sir--and may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show the characteristic method or plan or scheme about identity or motive. For the limited purpose for which you may consider such evidence, you must weigh it in the same manner as you do all other evidence in the case. You are not permitted to consider such evidence for any other purpose. So this isn't about character assassination of O.J. Simpson, as you might think at first blush. This is about Mr. Darden trying to conjure up a motive for you. And at the outset let me say that no, none, not one little bit of domestic violence is tolerable between a man and a woman. O.J. Simpson is not proud of that 1989 incident. He is not proud of it. But you know what? He paid his debt to that and it went to court. He went through that program. And the one good thing, and no matter how long Darden talked, from 1989 to now there was never any physical violence between O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson. Those are the facts. He kept going back and forth to `85, `89, `93, but there is no physical violence. In fact, let's look at the incidents that he talked about just quickly. And keep this in mind. This is supposedly for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show common scheme and plan, identity or motive; only for that limited purpose. Keep that in mind. He didn't bother reading all this to you. Let me read you something else again that goes along with this as we consider this evidence. The court has already instructed you about motive, and I listened very carefully as my friend read this, and he got to one part and he stopped, but I want to read you the rest of it. "Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown. However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in this case. Presence of motive may tend to establish guilt."

He stopped after that last part. Let me read you the rest of it. "Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence. You will therefore give its presents or absence, as the case may be, the weight to which you feel or find it is entitled." I wonder why he didn't read you the part about absence of motive in this case? Because as long as he stood up here and tried to talk to you, he couldn't show any physical violence after 1989. He could talk about 1985, the incident involving the Mercedes. Mr. Simpson wasn't arrested then. He can talk about 1993. Certainly you hate to think that two people could have an argument like that, but there was no physical violence. In fact, the police came out, if you recall, and did some further taping. These people were upset and they were arguing, but they never fought on this occasion. They never--no blows on this occasion. And certainly no one wants, if you think in your background, would not want your worse argument ever tape-recorded.

O.J. Simpson had perhaps his worse argument tape-recorded. And then he had the audacity to stand up here and say, well, they didn't call Lenore Walker. We didn't call Lenore Walker because it wasn't necessary. Talked about me saying she had some tests to say Mr. Simpson was not antisocial, had no antisocial personality. If that wasn't true, why didn't he call her? Because you don't have to call all witnesses. Just like he said. At some point all of us I think got the message. There are certain horrors of sequestration. I dare say we would still be trying this case, left to our own devices. Somebody had to have some good sense in this courtroom. We had to bring this matter to a close. We did what we set out to do, to demonstrate to you reasonable doubt. We think we have done that. We could call a lot more witnesses, as I talked to you about in opening statement, but I don't think that is necessary. Another word about opening statement. In opening statement I stood before you and I told you this is what we expect to show. This is not evidence. That was in January. This is what I would hope the evidence would show. If there is a witness that I didn't feel was credible or we didn't feel was credible, I wouldn't call that witness. If there is a witness that is not available, we didn't call that witness. If we didn't feel a witness was necessary, we wouldn't call that witness. The Defense doesn't have to prove anything. We have done that in this case, proved things, however, but we don't have to prove anything. So if a witness wasn't called, don't hold that against O.J. Simpson. You hold that against me. And I don't think you can hold that against me because the Defendant doesn't have to prove anything. And remember, the judge has already instructed you as follows, and let me read it to you again so that we make this clear. Maybe Mr. Darden will remember this. "The Prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information and that the Defendant was a perpetrator of any such crimes--such charged crime. The Defendant is not required to prove himself innocent or to prove that another person committed the crimes charged." Well, that law is not just for O.J. Simpson. That is the law of the State of California, for everyone, and they know it. I told you at the beginning in this search for truth, in your courage, we cannot let them turn the constitution on its head. I am going to be the reminder of that. So continuing on. He talks about what might sound like character assassination over and over again about these incidents of controlling and jealous rage. Just because he says that supposedly makes it so. Isn't it interesting, 17 years these folks were married, two beautiful kids, beautiful life. Do you think they had any good times together? Do you think they ever want to talk about any of the good times? Think about even after `93. Remember they got a divorce, in their chart, in 1992. They tried to get back together. And Dr. Christian Reichardt told you, it wasn't O.J. Simpson, it was Nicole Brown Simpson who asked to get back together in 1993. They tried to work it out for about a year. They didn't live together, but they tried to work it out. They talked about this and they tried to date exclusively. They tried to salvage a 17-year marriage and you could understand that. It was her idea. It didn't work out and they went their separate ways. The evidence is he had been dating Paula Barbieri back in 1992 for almost a year, but when he got back with his wife in April or May of 1993 he stopped dating her. When he broke up with his wife again, he started dating her again. He wanted to give it a fair shot. Remember Arnelle Simpson said she would wake up sometime in the morning and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson would be over there with the kids at the house. It was during this period of time. They were trying to get back and get along. They all went to Cabo San Lucas. They had a good life together. It is interesting how the Prosecution doesn't want to talk about that at all in their cynical view of life, two or three incidents and say this just tells us the whole picture. Well, all of us, all of us, there is more to the entire picture, and I ask you rhetorically this question. Who would know O.J. Simpson better? His mother Eunice, his sister Shirley, his sister Carmelita, his daughter Arnelle? Or Marcia Clark and Chris Darden? Who do you think knows him when they sit up here and talk about his public persona and he has got this dark side? Those are all just words. He is a human being and he is not perfect. He is not proud of some of the things he did, but they don't add up to murder. There is no escalation of force and violence after 1989. It is not there. We don't have to call Lenore Walker. Your common sense tells you this. And then he goes into this kind of make believe fantasy world where he is going to try to tell you on June 12th he is going to conjure up this rage. June 12th. Very interesting date, isn't it? It is wonderful that we live in the age of videotape because it tells you about who O.J. Simpson. Cindy Garvey tells you how O.J. Simpson was. He was this mean dark brooding person at this concert, that he was going to kill his ex-wife because he didn't like his seats. Because he didn't like his seats or because he didn't invite her to dinner. That is how silly what they are talking about in this case as he tries to play out this drama. But let me show you, rather than talk--a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me show you this video. You watch this video for a moment and we will talk about it. This is for Chris Darden.

(At 4:19 P.M. a videotape was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: You will recognize some of the people in this videotape after awhile. Mr. Simpson kissing Denise Brown, Miss Juditha Brown, Mr. Louis Brown. Talking to a friend. That is his son Justin who he kisses, smiling and happily waving. Mr. Brown is happy. Laughing and falling down and laughing again, bending over laughing. You see that. You see that with your own eyes. You will have that back in this jury room. How does that comport with this tortured, twisted reasoning that he was angry in some kind of a jealous rage? Did he look like he was a jealous rage to you? Your eyes aren't lying to you when you see that. Thank heaven we have videotape. I didn't tell you about that in opening statement. Do you think that is pretty compelling? Thank heaven we have that. And we know in this city how important videotapes can be when people don't want to believe things even when they see on it videotapes and you saw that yourself. When you are back there and somebody tries to tell you there was some kind of jealous rage on June 12th, look at O.J. Simpson interacting with the Brown family and everyone else. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make any sense. He isn't brooding. He is not angry. He kisses these family members. He is laughing and joking. He is playing with his son Justin. Those are the facts, not what I made up. These are items that don't fit. And if you want to go a little bit further, let's talk about what we know about him that evening. That video is what, about six o'clock in the evening. Let's start at six o'clock on June 12th. We know he had a good day that day. He had a good week. We will talk about part of the week under demeanor, but let's just talk about that part of the evening. Six o'clock he is at that recital. You know, you go to a recital because of are proud of your child. You know at these recitals--and you can all think back, and those of you who don't have kids, this program is long and your child is 33rd or 40th in the program. You love everybody else's child, but sometimes you don't want to sit there during the whole thing, you know. We are told some stuff where he moved a chair around. Most auditorium seats are like those, you can't move those seats around. This is preposterous. Mr. Darden wasn't in that auditorium. And even after that video, like any proud papa, you know what O.J. Simpson did? Took a picture, a photograph with his daughter. Let's look at this photograph for a minute, if you want to see how he looks while he is in this murderous rage, while this fuse is going on that Darden talks about. Where is the fuse now, Mr. Darden? Where is the fuse? Look at that look on his face liked any proud papa. He is proud of that little girl and who wouldn't be proud of her. And this is post the dance recital. She has the flowers apparently he went out and bought for her. He is standing there with her. The photograph is taken. There is no way--we have no way of knowing that would be important. We have no way of knowing that Chris Darden some day would stand before you and try to make you believe that that man was in a murderous rage at that time and that we would bring forward that same picture so you would see it with your own eyes, so you would see that. What exhibit is that Mr. Douglas, sir?

MR. DOUGLAS: I'm not sure.

MR. COCHRAN: Look on the back of it.

MR. DOUGLAS: We will get it.

MR. COCHRAN: We will get that for you, your Honor. So thank heaven again for the visual. A photograph is worth a thousand words. So he can speak a thousand words and I could show you one photograph. He could speak a thousand more words and I could show you that video. What it does is he puts the lie to this theory about some kind of murderous rage. We didn't stop there. This is serious business. A man's life is at stake. So what do we do? We talk to Gigi Guarin, his housekeeper. O.J. Simpson by in large has a great relationship with all the women in his life, and you have met a number of them. Gigi Guarin is the housekeeper. You saw how she came in here. She was a great witness. She said she was at Knotts Berry Farm on June 12th. She was out with her family and at eight o'clock she wanted to stay over because she was due to come home that evening and she said "Can I stay over" and Mr. Simpson says, "Yes, you may." And so I asked her how did he sound to you? He sounded like Mr. O.J. Simpson always sounds, the employer that she knows, the relationship that she has with him. You saw her. You observed her. You saw her go through cross-examination.

Did she seem believable to you? Eight o'clock. I think so. I think you will find so. Then we know that at nine o'clock he talked to Christian Reichardt, his friend Dr. Christian Reichardt, and you saw Chris Reichardt come in here and talk to you. I thought he made a very, very, very good witness from the standpoint of what he had to say. He told you that O.J. Simpson sounded even happier than usual. He was more jovial, he got his life back together and he was moving on. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that an interesting way of looking at circumstantial evidence. Let me show you how we differ in this case. A doctor witness comes in and says O.J. Simpson is jovial at nine o'clock on June 12th. Pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say? I think you would love to have that. Anybody would in a case where you are supposedly in a murderous rage. Instead of Chris Darden standing here and saying, well, that is pretty tough evidence for us to overcome, he says O.J. Simpson was happy because he was going to kill his wife. Now, if you believe that, I suppose I might as well sit down now and I am probably wasting my time. I don't think any of you believe that. That is preposterous. It flies in the face of everything that is reasonable. You have these two reasonable hypotheses, his isn't reasonable, but assume it is reasonable, you would have to adopt this, that he is jovial, he is happy. They make a date for that next Wednesday and O.J. Simpson returns from back east. You remember that. That is the testimony. Mr. Darden tries to make a big thing of the fact, well, gee, you know, golly, was he depressed about the fact that they had broken up or they had finally broke up? He said, yeah, he had been down. He never said he was depressed. Said he was down or upset and who wouldn't be. Remember the last questions I asked. If you had just ended a 17-year relationship and it was over, you would feel down for a short period of time until you got your life on track. You wouldn't go kill your ex-wife, the mother of your children. O.J. Simpson didn't try to kill or didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson when they got a divorce, when they went through whatever they went through when Faye Resnick moved in. None of these things happened. Because of their rush to judgment to try to come up with some kind of a motive, that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't stop with just Christian Reichardt. And what he had to say--and of course I have his testimony also about what he said. He talked about the demeanor of the various people he talked about, but most importantly, he talked about O.J. Simpson's demeanor and how it was that night and how he appeared to be. Let me just read you this part here. This is 42537, counsel. "Question: Now, with regard to the statement about whether or not you talked about Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, that was not the thrust of any of that conversation, was it? "Answer: Not at all."

She wasn't on his mind. At this time he is talking about getting ready to go to McDonald's. "In fact, do you recall that Mr. Simpson had said to you that he was out of the loop, that he was glad to be out of the loop, that he had gotten his life together with his new lady? Do you remember him telling you that? "Answer: That's correct. "And who was that new lady? "Answer: Paula Barbieri."

Let me just make a comment about Paula Barbieri. One of the most outrageous things I heard yesterday was this wild speculation that O.J. Simpson had some kind of falling out with Paula Barbieri on that Sunday. Where is the evidence of that? That is preposterous. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Remember when O.J. Simpson came back into town on Friday? The first person that met him and they spent the evening together was Paula Barbieri, and it was interesting, because I was having trouble hearing you, she said I stayed at the house until one of you reminded me I went to the prayer meeting is where she left. They had been together that day and then on the very next day they went to this dinner in support of Israel. And I guess Mr. Douglas can show us that. This is that dinner. I guess he is really working up that murderous rage that day with those little ladies that he is with. They seem to be happy of taking a picture with him. We had no idea we would have to use this to show to counterbalance the specious, cynical, speculative theory that he had some kind of a time fuse. But that photograph again demonstrates that. And then we have the testimony of the lady who was there, Carol Connor, about what she called that exquisite moment, and I suppose she is an artist, you could tell by the way she was dressed when she was here, and she had written this academy award winning love tune and she sees things we don't see, but she said it was an exquisite moment between O.J. Simpson and Paula Barbieri when they were in each other's arms at that dinner. Was he thinking about Nicole at that point? Only in Chris Darden's mind. Not by yourself and anyone else reasonable. So again you have these photographs and these word pictures which I think amply destroys this.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, exhibit 1227.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: So he continues on about Paula Barbieri. He says: "You knew about Paula Barbieri; isn't that correct? "Yes, I did. "Also, Mr. Simpson had told you that he began dating Paula Barbieri on a regular basis; isn't that correct. "Answer: Yeah. "And you had said and indicated to the police in an interview Mr. Simpson seemed to like Paula a lot and seemed happy or at least happier than he had been before he was with Paula; isn't that correct? "That's correct, yes.

"That is what you told the police, isn't it, sir? "That's correct. "When you talked to the police, Dr. Reichardt, were you telling them the truth? "Answer: Absolutely. "And when you were coming here today to testify to this jury, are you telling them the truth? "Answer: Absolutely." And so once again I haven't tried to speculate. I have read to you what the witness said. Now, what about this thing that Darden keeps talking about that he knows isn't so, that the police had been out there eight times on so-called domestic discord cases? He told you that a whole bunch of times and this is why you have to look with some suspicion at what the Prosecutors tell you in this case. You remember Officer Farrell, the officer who was a sergeant, I believe, after the `89 incident went back to the station to try and check and see whether or not there had ever been any incident with any of the police officers in that division in West Los Angeles had been called. Check your notes. So what he did was he had occasion to check for other domestic discord incidents. This becomes rather important later, as you are going to see, so he talks to us. He says--the question is: "All right. So you talked to some officers? How many? Just tell me in actual numbers how many officers did you talk to altogether? "Answer: I can't recall. Maybe ten. "And did you take any reports from any of those officers? "Answer: I requested if they had any information to write out a report and give it to me. "Question: And you got a report from one officer, did you not? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: And that officer's name is Mark Fuhrman. "Question: That's correct.

"And was that the only written report that you received? " so now when Darden stands up here and talks to you about these eight incidents or whatever where nothing happened, they checked with at least ten of the police officers in that division, nobody had any recollection of anything, of going out there. Now, we know from Shipp the police would stop by there. We know that. Shipp told us that. There is some photograph in evidence of O.J. Simpson with Shipp and maybe some other police officers. That was a place they would stop by on occasion. But this telling you eight to ten times when they know that was their own witness, Farrell--and then he has the audacity about stalking. He tells you in opening statement he is going to show you that O.J. Simpson was stalking Nicole Brown Simpson. This is the Prosecutor. Did he prove one incident with stalking? Absolutely not. In fact, yesterday when he sat up here and told you about O.J. Simpson looking in the window of Nicole Brown Simpson's house, I was somewhat dismayed, so I thought, gee, I better get the transcript out again, since the record is the best evidence, not what they say. Because they say it is so, isn't so.

They said this themselves and so we talked about this and you remember Mr. Colby, Colby and Coe, two people who lived next door to Nicole on Gretna Green? You remember them? You remember those two? And Mr. Colby was testifying on this date. Counsel, it is 13176. "I saw him observe the residence next door and then walk around the corner which would be southerly and westerly on Shetland and go back around again and look again at the residence. "Well, let me just stop you there, all right, so that it is clear. When you first saw the man who was on the walk five feet from Nicole Brown's driveway--"Objection. "Yes.

"Then he walked in a southerly direction and then back around the corner, our house is on a corner like this, (Indicating), he then went southerly and then westerly and then back around again. "Okay. Did he walk back to the same spot he was in when you saw him initially? "Yes, he did."

He goes on to talk about him walking within five yards of Nicole Brown Simpson's driveway and then walks back. And you remember there was the incident where Mr. Colby by said he was embarrassed because he saw this black man in Brentwood and he called the police and then he found out it was O.J. Simpson. Now, nowhere are you going to find in that testimony O.J. Simpson was up looking in a window or stalking anybody. He was on the sidewalk out there presumably waiting for his wife or the kids to come home and then he left. That is how the people have twisted and turned things in this case. That becomes his incident of stalking. When you go back, you look at this evidence. And I know you are going to be fair and honorable. You look at this and you will see, you will make short work of this. You will make short work of an emotional argument. It was very emotional. But it doesn't add up. It doesn't fit. It wasn't factual. It is for a limited purpose. And here may be the coup de grace. All of these things are supposedly for motive, to show how somebody might have acted on June 12th. Interesting, isn't it. Again in the words of Shakespeare, they are hoisted by their own pitard. They talk about these incidents involving Nicole and Mr. O.J. Simpson. Every time they would have an argument everybody would know about it, whether it was in `89 or in `93, everybody would know about it because it would be loud, it would be arguing back and forth. There was drinking on the time in `89, January 1st. Remember the evidence was they had both been drinking. It certainly doesn't make it right, but they were loud arguments and everybody knew about it. What kind of characteristic is that in this case? This is a case about stealth. This is a case about somebody who it seems to me is a professional assassin who kills these two people. And the thing that is so outrageous for them to stand here and tell you that this is all about Nicole Brown Simpson. Any of you thought during the last year what if the perpetrators were after Ron Goldman and that envelope that he had in his hand that Dr. Lee found that smear on? Who in this courtroom would know. The rest is speculation. This is their theory that they tried to come up with. We don't know. This is a case of reasonable doubt. This is a case of an innocent man wrongfully accused. They can't answer those questions, no one can under these circumstances. And so we move on and look at other things that don't fit. We know that there was this terrific struggle involving primarily Mr. Goldman--Mr. Goldman as he fought for his life. Why no bruises on Mr. Simpson's body? Admittedly there was a violent struggle involving two very, very fit adults. And let's look briefly at the bruises on Mr. Goldman's hands. I don't think we have to cut the feed on this, your Honor, I don't believe. Remember we talked about this in opening statement. We had a large bruise on the knuckle, according to Dr. Baden and others, is consistent with Mr. Goldman's fight that he put up for his life. He struck something, probably a person at that point, but Miss Clark and the others can't even admit that. In the face of doctors, a doctor who did the reautopsy reexamination of the death involving Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy, tells you one thing. The Prosecutors said, oh, no, he must have been flailing back, he must have hit his hand against the tree or something like that. Only the facts that they want to put into this little contorted theory that we prove to you otherwise. We proved to you what is reasonable under the circumstances. So I think you saw this in my opening and I think that is further evidence this was a very, very real fight, and of course in a real fight and in real life fights are awkward and clumsy. Ofttimes the combatants are rolling around on the ground. And one of the really interesting things in this case is the dug out area near Mr. Goldman's body. The feed should be cut. This area I thought was very, very interesting and remember I asked Detective Lange about this, and this is going to be very important later on. You see this dug out area. Remember, this is the pager over there and there is the dug out area, (Indicating). That gives some idea of the ferocity of this altercation that took place. Remember Dr. Henry Lee talked about blood all around in this area, the keys one place, the beeper someplace else. This dug out area, (Indicating). Interesting, isn't it? Now, think with me for a moment. If you fought for five to fifteen minutes in an area like that, I suppose both parties would have a lot of bruises and marks on them, wouldn't they? Mr. Goldman did and I bet you his perpetrator does.

But there is something else again. They want to tell you and you will hear a lot about socks before we are finished, that these socks, these socks that all of a sudden appear in that video at the foot of his bed, were being worn by Mr. O.J. Simpson. Well, ladies and gentlemen, when you see these socks, what do you think the dirt and dust was on these socks now? Let's see if they can ever explain this. Where was the dirt that was thrown up and moved around on these socks? You are not going to see any. You are not going to see any dirt because those socks weren't there. You see that dirt? You see that dug out? You remember this photograph. What number is this, Mr. Douglas?

MR. DOUGLAS: Exhibit 83, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: You remember this when you talk about this case and you wonder whether or not there is a reasonable doubt, whether or not this is an innocent man wrongfully accused, and so you look at this when you expect common sense would tell you there would be bruises and nicks and kicks and marks on all the perpetrators. With the heavy foliage there with the fence and the trees, you would expect scratches on everyone. Whereas Mr. Goldman has more than thirty stab wounds, you would expect this struggle five to fifteen minutes to have left that, but there is nothing like that in this case, nothing like that on Mr. Simpson's body. You have seen that before and you will see it again. Now, in this case--

MR. DOUGLAS: Exhibit 1249, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: In this case in opening statement I showed you Bob Shapiro's foresight and wisdom. He had these photographs taken I think on June 15th. Instead of praising this lawyer who was interested in the truth, the Prosecution says, well, they went to Dr. Huisenga. That wasn't really his doctor. Isn't that preposterous. Dr. Huisenga, by all accounts, is a qualified doctor. He was the raiders team doctor. I suppose he is supposes qualified. This is Mr. O.J. Simpson's body as it appeared on June 15th. Wouldn't you expect to see a lot of bruises and marks on that body? You see his back. Some of these aren't very flattering, but this is not about flattery; this is about his life. Now, on his hands--there is some slight abrasions on his hands, but nothing consistent with a fight like this. You know it. I know it. We all know it. We will talk more about this, this so-called fishhook cut and where he got that. It will become very clear when we talk about demeanor where that came from. Miss Clark wants to try and confuse that, but that is very, very clear. So with regard to Mr. Simpson's physical condition, I don't want to just tell you to take my word, stand here and say, oh, yeah, he was in great shape on that day or he looked good or whatever. Fortunately we had photographs again, we had graphic evidence of this man's body. This man had not been in a life and death struggle for five to fifteen minutes. Miss Clark herself said it. She used a boxing analogy saying boxers fight for three minutes per round. Sometimes there is a knock out in the first round. But in this instance we know because of the way the injuries were and the blood that this lasted for this period of time. There was a violent struggle. That man that you saw up there was not involved in that violent struggle. And so we did call--Bob Shapiro called Dr. Robert Huisenga as a witness in this case, and you recall that Dr. Huisenga was a very, very--seems to me a very credible, honest witness. What did he say? He said that O.J. Simpson looks like Tarzan but he moves more like Tarzan's grandfather. That is not to say that O.J. Simpson wouldn't be capable of committing a crime. That is never what we were trying to say. What we were trying to say was that see this man for who he is. See this man for the arthritis that he suffers, that everybody in his family suffers with arthritis. You saw his mother. You heard his sister and you heard he has it worse than they have. He can still play golf. He can still do that. And some of you I hope don't, but if you have it in the early stages, you know what it is, certainly on certain days. What I think it means is you don't go out looking for anybody to be in an altercation with. O.J. Simpson by all accounts has trouble with lateral movement for moving side to side because you saw when I had him come over here those knee operations that basically spell NFL, National Football League, four or five minutes on the left knee and maybe five minutes on the right knee. That is the price that a running back pays. When I'm talking about running back--and wasn't it interesting yesterday, Miss Clark says O.J. Simpson was a football player and he has to run through the line and he has the killer instinct. Isn't that really stretching it, ladies and gentlemen? O.J. Simpson hasn't played football for fifteen years. That man is 46 years old now. He is not going to run with anything any more. But she doesn't know much about sports, does she? Because a running back avoids trying to be hit. That is what he does. The problem with them, they don't block, they always run, they try to get out of the way, so he is not looking for contact. He gets tackled, but running backs don't try to run over anybody, only like maybe Jim Brown or somebody like that. The rest of them run out of bounds. So they grab at everything. The killer instinct? Played football fifteen years ago and he was the best at what he did. He won the Heisman trophy, according to his daughter, the day she was born, emblematic of the best football player award. And so this was brought to you only to give some further factors about who this man is, what limitations, if any. He has to give you a complete picture of who he is. Now we shift our attention to Mr. O.J. Simpson's demeanor, and I want you to examine with me the conduct both before and after June 12th, 1994, and the manner which this man reacted and handled himself. You will remember--and let's start off with the week before. We could have gone further back. You know from the evidence that he travels all the time. He hardly has any time to have any fuse for anything. He is never here. He is always traveling for Hertz, doing something with sports. He is not here. This particular week was typical of the kind of weeks he has it seems. He was here on Monday. On Tuesday he and Paula Barbieri got together and met with this interior designer who had done work on his house before. She brought out he has done some work on that house to change the bathroom around and do some other work. She had a budget and they gave her a check. Now, it is so interesting, isn't it, you change your house or get some work done, Mr. Darden says that is to get Nicole out of the house. Is that stupid? I mean, does that make any sense to you? That is preposterous. The man has moved on with his life. He is having some work done, some interior decorating work done. We have proved that. You can't see the positive side of that? O.J. Simpson, a check for Collins, and Collins, Mary Collins, June 7, $1,000, that was the down payment on the work she was going to do. Again you saw her. You saw her come in. This work was to be done. They wanted to do it. And Paula Barbieri played a role and a great part in that work. After that he was on the road, went back east to play golf with Jack McKay, and you saw Jack McKay, and remember they were golf buddies and it was a Hertz thing--not Hertz but association of retired something or other--played golf, but the most important thing I thought was Mr. McKay indicated--this was the information. Mr. McKay indicated that he observed Mr. Simpson walking and walking with a limp. You will recall that. And then we came to the Carol Connor dinner where Carol Connor observed the magic moment on this Saturday. And then we call witnesses from the family. And just before we take the dinner break, let's talk briefly about these witnesses from the family and what they had to say. The first. We first called Arnelle Simpson, and you saw Arnelle on the stand. Arnelle Simpson, the Defendant's daughter, born the day he won the Heisman trophy. Any daughter would be proud and want to testify for her father. But you saw her on the stand. You had a chance to judge her like you do the other witnesses, to observe her credibility and what she had to tell you. She told you that her father always rushed around.

Told you something about him, too. When she got out of college at Howard University, she wanted to come home, he had a place for her to come home to. You know, children go away and they come back a lot these days. So Kato Kaelin--they make a big thing about Kato Kaelin living there. And I choose to think it says something about O.J. Simpson. He doesn't tell Kato anything. He didn't say I don't want you living with my wife, we are trying to get back together. I suppose a guy could do that if they are trying to get back together. He didn't say that. He said come and live in the guest house. They turned that around to something bad. That is something positive about this man who with such dignity who sat there for all these months, this human being, this Orenthal James Simpson. That tells you something about him. And so his daughter tells you a lot about him. You can tell a lot about a person, I suppose, by their children. That tells you a lot about him. And they are living together and their life together and what he meant about her little brother and sister would come over there in the early morning hours after they were trying to get together in 1994 in May, they would be out by the pool and she would see them, about the kind of life they had together and the dogs that they purchased and the kind of things they did. Maybe a little bit of the other side of what these incidents are they want to talk about in the distant past. The way O.J. Simpson really is and really was. You saw her. You observed her. And she told you how her father reacted when he got the news that his ex-wife had been killed. She told you. She had never before heard her father sound like that, how upset he was, how he lost control of himself, how distraught he was. You heard and you saw her on that stand. That is why we called her, so you would have better understanding, because we knew, I knew there would come a day that Marcia Clark would stand here and say, well, you know, he wouldn't react like he does when somebody gets this information, just like he did yesterday, because what Miss Clark forgot was I examined Detective Phillips. And you look back through your notes. The first thing that O.J. Simpson said to Detective Phillips was, "What do you mean she has been killed?" And then he kept repeating himself and repeating himself, and Phillips, to his credit, said he became very, very upset, kept repeating himself, and Phillips gave the phone to Arnelle Simpson.

So they can make--she can again theorize, fantasize all she wants. Well, he didn't ask, well, it was a car accident? Have you ever had some bad news given to you? There is no book that you go to. The only book you should go to is the bible or your God, whomever you believe in to help get you through it. There is nothing that says how you would handle yourself in those times. These Prosecutors don't understand that. They would stand here and tell you that that is preposterous. This man was upset. And you are going to see at everything he did from that moment that he found out that his ex-wife had been killed was consistent only with innocence absolutely that day. And so Arnelle Simpson helps us in that regard. She is followed to the stand by Carmelita Durio. Sister, loves her brother, but you knew that. She was called to talk about Ron Shipp, one of the witnesses in this case that the Prosecution called. It is interesting, isn't it, that neither one of the Prosecutors wanted to talk about this dream, because I think they are embarrassed by this. They didn't talk about it. They should be embarrassed; a dream. They elicited something about a dream. Was it a daydream? Was a night dream? Was it a nightmare? Was he looking out the window? What does it mean. Even the judge in his instruction says you can totally disregard that. I mean, who knows what that means? It probably doesn't mean anything because Shipp did not tell you the truth. If you listen to Carmelita, if you listen to Shirley, if you listen to Miss Eunice Simpson, Shipp was never alone with O.J. Simpson that night. He was an O.J. want-to-be and bringing police officers over there, still wanted to be a police officer, off the force for whatever reason, drinking that night, drinking in the past, as he said he was. He is not credible and the evidence he brings is so unreliable and so irrelevant that I don't want to spend much of your time with it, but you saw it, you heard it then. I ask you to consider Carmelita, Shirley and Eunice as against Ron Shipp, and I ask who are you going to believe? I think there will be no contest. And so you remember what Miss Eunice Simpson said when she said that he seemed a bit spacey was the way she described it. He was never alone, never talked about any dreams when Shirley went upstairs with her husband. They spent the night with O.J. Simpson. This was a time for family. This is a time where people gathered around. This is the time for people being sad. They sat on the couch with O.J. Simpson holding his mother's hand. You remember that. My mother told me that you could tell a lot about a person about how they treat their mother. You probably have heard that, too. And your mother is the one who always comes for you and to you in times of tragedy and stress. True to those words, there was Eunice Simpson, as she is this very day, right there by her son's side sitting on that couch. Who are you going to believe? Eunice Simpson or Ron Shipp, this want-to-be? I submit that you are going to believe Eunice Simpson. She knows her boy. He knows his mother. And then each of these witnesses who dealt with O.J. Simpson--and let me just quickly come to it and we will get a logical breaking point so you can get to your dinner--Allan Park who she places such great credence in found O.J. Simpson to be--his demeanor to be normal. He never met him before. He was a normal guy. He was glad to be carrying O.J. Simpson around. The only thing that he said was interesting, he said it was hot. O.J. Simpson himself said he was hot in the back of the car.

And I thought about this today and this morning when I was rushing around trying to get dressed and come to court today to look forward to seeing you all again, for another year and a day. I took a shower and I was trying to get dressed and I kept sweating. I kept sweating. And I thought about how that applies to this case, because you know, we talk about common sense. Do you ever rush around and take a shower and you are sweating? O.J. Simpson always rushes around, according to his daughter, according to Gigi. Those are the kind of common sense things we know. And so when we come back this afternoon we are going to talk about Kato Kaelin and how he found O.J. Simpson to be the same O.J. Simpson and we are going to talk about a range of people who see this man from eleven o'clock until the next morning until he comes back. We will take them one at a time, but they all have one thing in common, it is O.J. Simpson and he is acting normally, he is himself, not acting, and I think that I think is probably best, and there are a number of good witnesses in that regard. But Howard Bingham is a well-known person around here and let me end on this point. Howard Bingham gets on the plane--and he was funny because he was in coach and he wanted to try to explain that to you, why he was sitting back there in coach, and O.J. was in first class and he sees O.J. and he rushes up there to say hello to him when the plane takes off, remember? I asked him how did O.J. Simpson seem to you? He said it was the same O.J. I have always seen and known. And so rhetorically I ask you again, Howard Bingham in this area for years, known O.J. for years. Who do you think knows O.J. Simpson better? Howard Bingham or Marcia Clark and Chris Darden? When we come back, we will answer that question. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We will stand in recess until six o'clock. All right. Have a pleasant evening meal.

(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. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we conclude with the evening session?

MR. COCHRAN: No, your Honor. Going to 7:45?

THE COURT: 7:45.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Let me get some water.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, would you get Mr. Cochran a glass of water, please.

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Deputy Trower, let's have the jury, please. By the way, counsel, we have with us this evening as one of our spectators Susan Mattingly, who was the one kind enough to get us the Xerox machine that we have back here, which has helped all of us immensely. So thank you, Susan. Everybody says thank you.

MR. DARDEN: My friend is going to be delayed because of a personal emergency.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Trower, hold the jury. Counsel, why don't you approach. Never mind. Never mind.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, Miss Clark.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

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

THE JURY: Good evening.

THE COURT: It is strange to say that, but I appreciate your hanging in there. Little chilly?

THE JURY: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cochran, you may continue with your closing argument.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good evening.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm glad you all came back. I appreciate that. Oh, I guess so. Now, where were we when we left off? We were talking about demeanor, Mr. Simpson's demeanor, and I think I posed a question with you just before we took our break about Howard Bingham, the photographer, who testified here, and I asked you the question, rhetorical question about who would know O.J. Simpson the better, his mood and how he appeared on this night; the Prosecutors or Mr. Bingham, who knew him for such a long time. It was a serious question because the Prosecutors I presume never met Mr. Simpson before we started this process. So I think it would be relevant for you to know about how somebody who knew him over a period of time saw him on that particular day, especially when they go into their doctor mode and they use terms like "Post-homicidal conduct." There's been no testimony in this case at all about post-homicidal conduct and about demeanor or how anybody acts in post-homicidal conduct. That again is more speculation. What we did in this case, we tried to call for you a number of witnesses who I think bear on this issue of demeanor, which it seems to us is totally relevant. For one thing, it totally rebuts this specious theory about any kind of a fuse or any rage that you've seen. We've done that. We've shared that with you already. And in the course of wrapping that up, keep in mind that both Kato Kaelin and Allan Park fall into the category of demeanor witnesses who place Mr. Simpson's demeanor as being entirely appropriate. And these are people's witnesses. So it doesn't matter whether we call the witnesses or they do. If you are in a search for truth, you look and see if there's a common thread of truth that runs throughout these witnesses. And I think we found that. Now, one of the things that I wanted to share with you, yesterday, Miss Clark in her argument tried to indicate something to the effect that Mr. Simpson didn't want Kato Kaelin I believe to spend time with him or something to that nature, as though he wanted to get rid of Kato Kaelin. It was part of her theory there. And I went back and looked at the testimony. At 19854, Miss Clark herself, when questioning Kato Kaelin: "When you got to that location, what did you do? "When I got to the door, yes, I turned. "Okay. What did you see? "O.J. "And where was he? "At the driver's side door of the rolls. "Did you say anything to him? "No. "What did you do? "I looked and said, `I'll eat in my room.'"

Then he went off to eat in his room. But there was--further on, it says: "Did you have any conversation with Mr. Simpson?" The answer was no. "And he said nothing to you? "No." So I think that was important to understand and put that record straight. But there was no discussion about whether Kato would go in the house with Mr. Simpson or whatever. They didn't talk. Kato went back to his room. Simpson was still out at his Bentley presumably trying to get ready to, you know, go on this trip which was long-planned. There had been some mention earlier of an argument at a Christmas party, and I wanted to again try and set the record straight before we went on with demeanor because I pulled up Kato Kaelin's testimony again. And what he says was that after--"Question: Did everybody go home together?

"Answer: Yes. "Everybody celebrate Christmas eve back at home? "Answer: At Rockingham, yes. "Question: Nicole, O.J. and the kids? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And yourself? "Answer: And Arnelle and Jason.

"Question: Whole family? "Yes." Now, what is it they tell you? There was an argument at the Jenner's and they don't tell you what the mood was. The testimony was, they left the Jenner's to go back home because it was Christmas eve and they all celebrated Christmas eve together. You've got to have the whole picture. Don't you think that seems reasonable? And there was some question about the flashlight, and here's what Kato Kaelin had to say about that, where he says:

"Then I said, `O.J., do we have a better flashlight?' and, umm, when I told him about the noise, he was going to take one way, I was going to go another way. But that is when I said, `we have this lousy flashlight. We need another one.'"

And so he was going to go inside and check. And then they went in the house. He followed behind. And then that's when Mr. Simpson had to then leave for the airport. So I think that again, I want to--I promised you I would always try to read the actual testimony to make it as clear as I could about where we were. Let me cut through a few housekeeping things before we get directly into the demeanor aspect. Miss Clark yesterday had made a number of points about phone calls and boards to Paula Barbieri. And you will recall we saw a number 305, which I think is in the Miami area code, and I think the evidence is that's a cell phone of some kind. And certainly if you call that phone number out here, you can reach people on a cell phone, and I find nothing unusual about that in regard to the calls that were made.

We--there also was some discussion about what Dr. Baden had to say about these cuts or cut on Mr. Simpson's hand. You'll recall that Brian Kelberg came back down here again and he asked some questions of Dr. Baden. I tried to pull up this testimony so I'd have it clear about when Mr. Simpson had gone to the Bronco to get the portable phone, when he went back to the Bronco apparently to get the paraphernalia and that phone and try to piece together as to when he got a small cut on his hand, not any large fishhook cut, which I think was clear from the evidence, at what point he may have bled inside that Bronco and/or may not have known that. So we read Baden--and this is at page 41182, question by Mr. Kelberg I believe. "What, if anything, did Mr. Simpson have to say as to the manner when he got cuts?

"Answer: That he recalled some blood after trying to retrieve his phone or some material from the Bronco, from a car, from a car that he had his phone. I think it was the Bronco, that he had gone to the Bronco to get something and may have somehow cut himself while getting stuff, stuff from the Bronco to bring with him to Chicago." Well, I think that it's important to tie this in with the fact that remember, Kato Kaelin and I think even Allan Park indicated that by the time they were there, Mr. Simpson finally came down the stairs, that when he left, there were bags already down. Certainly the golf bag, the other bag--bags already out there. He had been outside in that yard and apparently, according to Miss Clark's testimony, been at some point out to the Bronco and at some point he'd gotten this phone, this portable phone. We know he had gotten it because he made a phone call on that phone by 10:00 o'clock or by 10:03.

The car wasn't moving. This is a portable phone. And remember, I asked Gigi Guarin were there any portable phones inside that house. The testimony is, there were none. So there was no wireless telephone at Rockingham. So I think the testimony is and the reasonable inference is that Mr. Simpson made that phone call from that location to her cell phone number, 305 area code. Then once we--they left. As I told you, they left with Park. We know that was around 11:02. So now Mr. Simpson is in the car and you know how Park describes O.J. Simpson, nothing out of the ordinary. He says he's hot, but that's nothing unusual. And then Mr. Simpson gets to the airport. You remember those two young men who came in, Michael Norris and Michael Gladden. And these are the two airport couriers who were parked at the curb there, and one of them, Gladden, wanted to get Mr. Simpson's autograph. You'll recall that. And so even though Mr. Simpson was rushed and trying to get to the plane or whatever, he stopped and he gave his, "O.J. Simpson, peace to you." That was a signature that he gave at about, I think the testimony was, 11:20, 11:25 that particular night on June 12th. That was the testimony of Gladden.

Remember, they described O.J. Simpson as being kind of like a model or some kind of a poster boy for these jeans or whatever he had on. I think the way they described it, they felt he was dressed very neatly, looked very clean as the way they described him. And he was very approachable. He put some luggage down, then turned around and forgot about the autograph, then gave the autograph. You recall that? It was very interesting because Miss Clark said yesterday something to the effect, well, Mr. Simpson didn't put on his socks because he left his socks at home. Now, that was one of the most interesting things she said. You've been in this man's closet. You think that O.J. Simpson has one pair of socks? I don't think so. I think you saw his closet. You saw the clothes, the way they were lined up and the way they were. In fact, remember I asked the witness a question, is it trendy, is it fashionable that a lot of people in that part of town don't wear socks when they get dressed up to go out? They said, yes, that's fashionable. That's what happened. O.J. Simpson has lots of socks. And the evidence is--and it is so interesting, isn't it, because under the Prosecution's theory, if you do follow their theory, you're asked to believe that Mr. Simpson is in sweats and tennis shoes and I presume tennis socks, that he gets this urge to go and kill his wife and he takes off his tennis shoes and his tennis socks and puts on some dress socks and dress shoes--doesn't make any sense, does it--but keeps on his sweat clothes according to them. That's how preposterous their theory is in trying to make things fit, and you're going to see and you're going to understand that even better when we talk about these socks. So as O.J. Simpson then gets on the plane--and it was interesting because not only did he deal with Norris and Gladden, but he had an interesting man in the first class across from Steve Valerie. You saw Valerie, the young man who for pretty much most of that flight watched O.J. Simpson. Mr. Douglas, what's that number, sir?

MR. DOUGLAS: 1245.

MR. COCHRAN: 1245. Just give you some idea of this plane. We talked earlier about Bingham. And remember, Valerie was right across from O.J. Simpson as he sat up there in the fourth seat or something like that, and he watched him and noticed him and described for you Mr. Simpson's demeanor. He looked at O.J. Simpson's hands.

That was really one of the important things about it because, again, when Miss Clark, who was Dr. Clark in this regard, talked to you about these--this cut or whatever, she was describing how a little cut won't make this amount of blood, but this large cut. By all of the witnesses who didn't know each other, O.J. Simpson did not have this fishhook cut on his hand when he went to Chicago. That's unanimous, all the witnesses. You heard them. You saw them. Further, you heard the testimony of Drs. Huizenga and Baden who said this is not consistent with a knife. It's consistent with some kind of glass cut because it's raggedy, it is jagged. You remember that. You remember the testimony, and we can prove it further by witnesses who saw him before he was in that room in Chicago and witnesses who saw him after. And we'll talk about that. So on the plane was Bingham, and then we had the pilot on the plane. And the pilot who was flying the plane came back and asked Mr. Simpson to autograph the log book, which he did, and I think we have a photograph of that. Again, you saw pilot Stanfield who described how Mr. Simpson was seated there reading a book, a light shining down on him, not trying to hide from anybody, not anything. He was sitting there reading his book, looked up, talked to the pilot and gave his autograph and they both continued on with their business. Then he gets to Chicago and he lands and he deals with Jim Merrill, the Hertz driver. You'll recall him. The Hertz driver describes the number of bags that Mr. Simpson has, the luggage when he arrives. He describes the duffel bag, the light duffel bag, the garment bag with "OJS," the golf bag, Louis Vuitton bag. All those bags are described by Merrill. Then, of course, you remember we talked about the knapsack bag, which we think logically had golf balls in it, was inside the golf bag. So Merrill watched O.J. in the luggage area meet with some--I think he said 20 different fans while waiting for his luggage. Merrill says that he was friendly, relaxed and he saw no noticeable cuts on his hands. That's what Jim Merrill told you. That was his testimony. So we brought him here from Chicago to testify in that regard. Now, I want you to contrast Mr. Simpson's demeanor and behavior after he goes to this hotel room in Chicago. After he learns of his ex-wife's death, everybody is consistent. Again, these witnesses don't know this person. He was emotional, concerned with the cut finger. Dave Kilduff--Mr. Simpson gets the call--and here's where I want you to think with me for a moment. I want you to look at how he reacts to this information. I've already covered how his daughter describes him. She's never heard him like this before. He immediately gets plane reservations to come back to Los Angeles. He's then trying to get back, trying to leave this hotel. It's early in the morning, trying to get back to Los Angeles on the first thing flying. He's trying to get somebody to take him back to the airport. He's there to play in a golf tournament that day. Obviously, that's never going to happen. So we know that Dave Kilduff, the Hertz manager, drove Mr. Simpson to the airport. And how he described--now, this is the first witness--O.J. Simpson's finger is bleeding, this fishhook cut, this cut that he got in that room when that broken glass was there. But the Prosecutors then with a cynical view said, well, that couldn't happen. Dr. Baden says in talking to Mr. Simpson, he got that cut when he brushed this glass into the sink. It's entirely consistent. Doctors deal with cuts, and they say this is consistent with a glass cut. Kilduff says that O.J. Simpson is crying and he's upset. He finally makes the plane. And I think it's important to note that when he makes the plane, he sits next to--I think in seat 9--to a lawyer by the name of Mark Partridge just fortuitous. And I thought very interesting about this man, Partridge. Remember, he's the man who was a patent lawyer who had gone to Harvard. And he observed O.J. Simpson on this flight back. He saw him make these phone calls. He saw his emotional state. He saw him trying to gather information. He saw his finger. He saw the Band-Aid that he had that came off. He saw that it was cut. You saw his testimony. These were all citizens, time line witnesses, like you or I who were brought here pursuant to a subpoena. They didn't ask to be here. They didn't volunteer, but they had relevant information about what had taken place and what had happened. So it seems to me that we in our search for justice, in our journey toward the city of justice, must take these witnesses seriously. But you understand with the power of the state, the Prosecution had an equal access to all these witnesses, but they didn't call them. They didn't call them because they didn't fit. They didn't fit and they didn't want to hear. So the Prosecutors decided to attack.

And you'll remember how these witnesses generally were treated. I thought Partridge was treated especially bad. Here's a man who was so concerned about no one stealing his notes--he wrote notes about what took place--not to publish them. He's a patent lawyer. So he understood. He put his name on the side of the margin to write down his notes because he knew it would be important. When he said he knew this would be important and he sent those notes to the Prosecution and to the Defense, he said, "I'm just a witness here. This is what I saw. Can I be of some help," they chose not to call him. They chose to attack him as though he had like something to hide. In fact, remember Miss Clark standing and saying something to the effect, well, you know how busy the LAPD was, maybe they wouldn't have time to respond to you. Well, maybe not, but this is an important witness. That was the only person in the world who sat next to O.J. Simpson on a flight back from Chicago with everything he was doing, continues to do is consistent with innocence. They didn't want to hear it. But we brought this again for you to hear. And I ask you to judge this witness as you do all the others. You remember Mark Partridge, and I think you will. Remember, it was unfair to attack a witness, a citizen witness, who seemed to be totally objective and careful. And there was Ken Berris, the police officer in Chicago. Miss Clark talked about him coming out here, but we brought him out here. We brought Ken Berris out here. He was the police officer who maybe three hours after O.J. Simpson left that room went in that room at the O'Hare Plaza was it 11:00 o'clock or thereabouts I think he said he went in the room, and he found the glass, he found the doily, he found the towel, he found the bedding because the maids had not done anything with regard to that room. He found this broken glass. And the evidence is, contrary to what the Prosecutor will try to tell you, is that this glass is consistent with O.J. Simpson cutting his hand on it, and this is the cut, is the fishhook cut. Now, you characterize witnesses like Kato Kaelin and Partridge, Denise Pilnak and some others who felt the wrath of the Prosecution, and you have to ask yourself why, in a search for truth, why did that happen. Then Mr. Simpson returns back from Chicago, and this was very interesting. And you will recall--because officer Don Thompson saw somebody looking at him. He's a very, very impressive big fellow. He's about six foot seven or eight. He's a big guy. Remember him, he's the officer who is very interesting and very honest because he said that immediately upon Mr. Simpson coming back to Rockingham at 12:00 noon now on June 13th, what happens? Vannatter had told him to hook him up. Let's see that if we can. I'll give you a number in a minute, your Honor

MR. HARRIS: 1250.

MR. COCHRAN: You'll recognize Officer Thompson and Mr. Simpson as he grabbed hold of him at that moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: You'll recall that Officer Thompson had testified how he had been told by Vannatter to hook him up or handcuff him. He grabbed him by the arms as he went in there. And you'll recall the photograph. I believe that's Thompson there in the background--in the foreground. I thought Mr. Harris had that. But at any rate, you'll recall Mr. Simpson was standing over under a tree, and he handcuffed him until the lawyer Howard Weitzman came. You recall that because we saw that during the trial. That's Mr. Howard Weitzman, a lawyer, he's talking to Mr. Simpson. See that? Mr. Simpson's--I think Vannatter is going over to him and taking the handcuffs off I believe as the conversation goes on with Howard Weitzman.

(At 6:28 P.M., Deft's exhibit 1250, a videotape, was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He's not handcuffed at this point. Thank you. That was no. 1250, was it?

MR. HARRIS: That was 527.

MR. COCHRAN: 527. 1250, your Honor. The point of that was, we have said and I told you at the beginning and I told you in opening statement and told you again today, this was a rush to judgment. At 12:00 o'clock on June 13th, Vannatter told Thompson to handcuff O.J. Simpson or to hook him up. Vannatter lied about that because he said in his testimony he never told him that. Thompson was very clear that he told him. He didn't do that on his own. But it shows this rush to judgment. Vannatter did not want to admit that and never did. We will talk more about him when we discuss the officers together. But it seems to me the important thing for us to remember is that after this video, Mr. Simpson you'll recall is on his way downtown in a vehicle with Vannatter and Lange. You remember Howard Weitzman talks to Vannatter, Simpson gets in the car with the police in the back, goes downtown without either his business lawyer or Howard Weitzman, rides with the police. We know, according to the testimony in this case, he talks with Vannatter and Lange once he gets down there. I think we asked both of them about this conversation. We heard nothing else about this conversation. He has no lawyer in there with him. He has no lawyer in the car when he goes downtown. After he makes this statement to the police, which we haven't heard, he then gives a blood sample sometime around 2:00 o'clock or whatever that afternoon on the 13th. He voluntarily gives this blood sample. He then has a photograph taken of a cut on his finger. There's no lawyer present during all of that. The lawyers are someplace else at that point. So Simpson is dealing with this himself because he wants to clear this up. He's innocent. He wants to get it over with. Everything, everything this man does is consistent with innocence. He finds out, he gets the first thing smoking, he comes back here, he goes right to his residence, he talks to the police, he goes downtown with the police, he goes in a room with the police, he has his finger photographed, he gives blood. His lawyers are off someplace else. That's what this man did on June 13th. They weren't there then. That's what he did, consistent with innocence. They want to talk about luggage. The testimony again of this honest Police Officer Thompson is that they wouldn't let O.J. Simpson's luggage on the premises. They talk about Bob Kardashian. They smear Bob Kardashian, good, successful businessman and friend. He can't come on the premises. They have to take the luggage away. Now, these people have search warrants. They can do whatever they want to do at that point. They have the power of the state, and they have the audacity to stand here and tell you that when retired Judge Delbert Wong brings the Louis Vuitton bag months and months later, there's no clothes in it? Now, is that folly? They're not supposed to unpack it? That is silly. I shouldn't waste my time on it, but that's what was said here. You heard it. They are the ones who turned away the luggage. So you remember that when they stand up here and try to talk to you about the luggage and they didn't have it or what was in the luggage or what was--brought the luggage back. And if he didn't have, by the way, that portable phone in his luggage, you'd hear about that also. So understand, we're going to talk about the facts, not any speculation. So what more then could an innocent man do? We've talked briefly about the cut or cuts on O.J. Simpson's hand. It's interesting, isn't it, because the one cut--and these officers were there with their photographer, take a photograph of this cut. Remember in those other pictures, there was a cut on the side of his finger here (Indicating), a nick or something like that, looked like a paper cut I think they said. And it's interesting because if that cut had been there June 13th at 2:00 o'clock or whatever time they took it, don't you think the police would have taken a photograph of that? They didn't. It probably wasn't there at that point. So it's very interesting. This is the only cut they got, but we know he nicked himself in several places according to what he told Dr. Michael Baden. Miss Clark makes a big thing about some smear or some little tiny smear of blood in the bathroom upstairs. O.J. Simpson had been back home since Friday, shaved, whatever. I don't know when it got there. He didn't know when it got there. Doesn't it strike you as strange that under her hypothesis, under her theory, he comes back home with these bloody shoes on, bloody clothes with this white carpet, goes upstairs, no blood anywhere, a little tiny speck in the bathroom? Does that seem to you to be reasonable or rational or related to this case? One thing about blood spots, you can never date them, can never tell generally how old they are. Another thing that doesn't fit, the fingerprints. They didn't call them, but we called Gilbert Aguilar. You remember that. He's the fingerprint expert. He examined and dusted and found 17 latent prints that he was able to lift at Bundy, the crime scene, the gate, the fence, the front door. He was able to identify eight of the prints after comparing the known exemplars of the known ones being the police officers, people you might expect around there. But there were nine identifiable prints that were never identified. Remember, I asked about these various systems that you can put the prints in. It doesn't work for palms, but it works for prints. "What efforts did you take to try to find out who do these nine identifiable prints belong to?" To this day, we don't know. Are those the prints of the real killers? We will never know. They have not found those prints. We brought this witness in for you. We established this for you.

The fingernail scrapings. Mr. Scheck will talk more about this, this EAP B. But remember, there's no literature to justify how they want to contort and twist it. This double banded b is more like a b than anything they can ever justify. And it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit in their case, so they can't explain it. Like the number 4 allele on the steering column, there's no number 4's in this case. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. They don't and they cannot explain that. Dr. Irwin Golden, the missing Coroner. This man was trashed by his own department--it was brutal--by his own boss. And if he thinks he was going to be treated any better, remember how Kelberg dismissed him at the end? He said, "By the way, the next time you come and testify, learn how to speak slower." That was his last remarks to a man--you look at your notes--his last remarks to a man he kept on this stand for eight days to tell us that the cause of death was stabbing, the time of death was between 9:00 and 12:00, that it could have been a single-edged, a double-edged knife. That's how they treated their own witness they kept here, the Coroner of Los Angeles County. But they didn't call Dr. Golden. Why not? Why is that? Why are we left to speculate about that? They didn't like his testimony. He couldn't help them is the more logical and reasonable inference, isn't it? Whenever there's a witness that they couldn't fit within their little theory, they abandon him and talk bad about him. A rush to judgment. Detective Phillips at the very, very beginning of this case--remember I had Phillips as a witness. He's a nice man, and I quote him when he said--remember when he called the Coroner after all these hours, after all these hours out there? Now, remember, he's off the case by then too because, you know, LAPD robbery-homicide division has taken over. They find that out at 2:00 something in the morning, remember, and they wait for Lange and Vannatter to come until after 4:00 something. Here's Phillips still out there now. They're over at Bundy and they call the Coroner. It's like eight hours later now as I recall. What does he say in a little tape I think that we may have? He says I think, quote, "We're sort of breaking the rules here." They're worried about how they are going to look. They're worried about the press more than they're worried about these bodies that are still out there, more than they're worried about people traipsing through that crime scene, more than they're worried about trying to protect the innocent and pursue the guilty, which they should be doing, which they're required to do under the law, notify the Coroner immediately.

(At 6:38 P.M., a tape was played.)

(At 6:39 P.M., the playing of the tape was concluded.)

MR. COCHRAN: Was sort of breaking the rules not calling the criminalist. This is in the early morning hours. You remember that. Look at your notes. It's like 8:00 o'clock or so, isn't it? 6:00 o'clock. Now, it's 8:00 o'clock because they're back at Rockingham. It's 8:00 o'clock in the morning now. The bodies were found by Riske at 12:13. The Coroner didn't come until about 10:00 o'clock. Remember that. Fung, when he does come, goes to Rockingham before he goes to Bundy, sort of not following the rules. That's what this case is all about, not following the rules. They're more worried about vanity and things like that, not about these victims. We can demand more and should demand more of our police and it does become very relevant. I'll tie it in with this, so let me make it clear. We heard yesterday some snide comment about, oh, we had the best witnesses that money could buy or something like that in this case. Consider Dr. Henry Lee. By all accounts, the number one criminalist in America, probably in the world. He didn't take any money. The money for his time that O.J. Simpson had to pay went to the state of Connecticut to help the police and police fund. You heard that testimony. So it's a real, real unfortunate thing when lawyers stand here and demean people with national, wonderful reputations who come in here who get compensated only for their time. The only ones not being compensated for their time here are you, and we apologize for that. But these other witnesses, the law allows them to be paid for their time out of their offices. You heard that. They're not doing this to make money to be subjected to this, be on television every day, have people probing into your private lives. Nobody wants that. It's not any fun for any of these people. It's certainly not right to stand here and say things like that. Those aren't the facts at all as you know them. Earlier I said that there had been an offer that Drs. Lee and Baden and Wolf would assist the Prosecution. They did not accept it, but they were out here at least to the extent they were allowed to do things. You'll hear more about the testimony of Henry Lee on that. You remember how he rushed into this thing, when he came back from Seattle, how he was treated. That's the only time he seemed to be a little bit upset. He rushed back here from Seattle, and how they treated him, this Los Angeles Police Department. That's how they treated the number one criminalist in the world in their search for truth. Then Detective Lange. Lange is different than these other detectives and things. You saw Lange for about seven or eight days. Lange is different. He made mistakes. He has misstatements as you're going to see, but he was different. Remember that one day--and I'll tell you how you can characterize and understand he's different. It's very interesting. He's been on the stand for seven or eight days. One day he came in, he was a little different. He was a little more testy. And I asked him, I said, "Detective Lange, there's an article in the paper today"--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. It's in the record.

MR. COCHRAN: "There's an article in the paper today where Mr. Darden said that you're being too nice in answering my questions. Are you going to be tougher now? You know about that, don't you?" "No, Mr. Cochran. I'm just telling you the way it is regardless." No matter how you asked this man a question or what anybody would want him to say, he seemed to try to answer the best he could. Now, we don't always agree with everything he did, but it was refreshing to have somebody like that who wouldn't be told by these Prosecutors or anybody else what to say or what to do even when he's criticized in the paper. That was Lange. But I said I didn't always agree with him because I asked him--I said when Riske said about that melting ice cream--now, we're not Henry Lee, not by a long shot. But it seemed to me that if there were ice cream that was still melting or partially melted at 12:40 when Riske saw it--and that's Riske's testimony, partially melted ice cream at 12:40--if they don't bother picking up--and that ice cream, remember when you were at Bundy, that ice cream is when you go down those steps, and it's on that little banister there as you're going out in the garage. Might mean that Nicole Brown Simpson went down there and was letting somebody out who had been there earlier that evening. We'll never know. When they saw all those candles lit around the bathtub and water in the bathtub, we'll never know because they didn't bother to check. They were too worried about how they would look notifying and worrying about the press. We'll never know. They said the ice cream wasn't important, but it was important enough if they had--and this is the evidence--they had an ice cream melting test. Remember, I asked Lange about this again. Lange's experiment showed that this ice cream--went back to Ben and Jerry's. It was Ben and Jerry's ice cream, remember that? It melted in an hour and 15 minutes. It should be totally melted by that time frame. If you extrapolate backwards, if Riske finds the ice cream at 12:40 and is partially melted, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let's say it all had melted. If you went back an hour and 15 minutes, that's 11:25. Now, if the children are asleep, Nicole is the one eating ice cream. That seems important to us. Maybe not to them. That seems important. That's another bit of evidence. When you cannot, because of negligence and incompetence, determine the cause of death, you have to look at other things. Isn't that reasonable? Those are the facts, ladies and gentlemen. That's what happened in this case. They tell you it's not important. We think that is important. Another factor. Remember that photograph in the kitchen? There was a butcher knife on the table and you see some flowers there. It seems to me that when they came home, the butcher knife was used to cut whatever was off the flowers, if it was string or some rubber band, to place those flowers in a vase or whatever in that kitchen.

You look at those photographs when you get a chance. I'm always intrigued about the things they didn't do in this case. Even Riske who said--and his candor was refreshing. "Have you had any training in crime scenes?" He said they kind of glossed over that at the academy. Remember he said that. I could have fallen over when he said that. They glossed over training in crime scenes at the academy. And, boy, was that ever more true. The first officer on the scene told us that. We knew that right early on, didn't we? It's nothing we made up. It's not about being anti-police. You saw the police you could believe and you now know the ones you can't believe. And anybody, anybody who believes that all police are perfect, that they don't lie, that they don't have the same biases and racism that the rest of society has, then they're living in a dream world. So this is not for the faint of heart. This is not for the timid. As I said, this is for the courageous who understand what the constitution is all about. That's what we're talking about here. And so let's look at it. Riske, the very outset, in addition, he doesn't get any training, but goes in the house, the first thing he does, he picks up the phone and uses it. I said, "Well, didn't you think that might mark some fingerprints or if it had one of those numbers where you could get the last number called, wouldn't that be important? Well, did you think about that?" Well, he didn't think about that. "Did you think about the fact that, you know, you shouldn't be touching that phone? And you have a rover. You have something on your hip, some way to call. You could have used those portable phones that Phillips had with all those private numbers on it." He could have done all these things. He didn't use any of those things. He walked in there. And then, "You didn't notice that on that phone in the kitchen, when they're looking so hard for Mr. Simpson, that there's a speed dialer that you press a button and it says, dad, and it says Nanna and it says all the people? If they wanted to notify the next of kin, they call, press the button." They could have called, but not these investigators. They didn't think about doing that. Too busy to hatch a plan, standing around in the street doing nothing from 2:00 to 4:30. These are facts. This is what you heard. This is this case, so-called trial of the century. This is how they conducted themselves. Then we come to those socks. Those socks. They just don't fit. They just don't fit. They just don't fit.

Watch with me now a video. I want you to watch the time counter in this time frame, and you'll understand how important this is.

MR. DOUGLAS: 1068, your Honor.

(At 6:48 P.M., Deft's 1068, a videotape was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, where it says 3:13 P.M., Mr. Willie Ford says--all right. Back it up, please. This is Mr. Willie Ford going up into the bedroom. It's 3:13 where he says it's 4:14 because it hadn't been changed. It's 4:13 P.M. on June 13th, 1994. Okay. Thank you, your Honor. You look at the foot of the bed there where the socks are supposed to be. You'll see no socks in this video. And you'll recall that Mr. Willie Ford testified about this. And I asked him, "Well, where are the socks, Mr. Ford?" "I didn't see any socks." So now, that's interesting, isn't it? At 4:13 on June 13th, 1994, these socks are supposedly recovered, these mysterious socks, these socks that no one sees any blood on until August 4th all of a sudden, these socks that are picked up that Luper says he picks them up because they look out of place. "I don't see any reason to pick them up. I'll just take these socks because they look out of place." The only items that they took out of that place on that date is Lange. Lange takes the Reebok tennis shoes, the ones that he takes home. You remember that. That's all they really take because they don't come back until the 28th before they get that one brown glove. But these socks will be their undoing. It just doesn't fit. None of you can deny there are no socks at the foot of that bed 4:30 P.M. where then are the socks? Where are these socks, this important piece of evidence? Well, let me show you something. This board here was a board used by Dr. Henry Lee. This is interesting. Bear with me for a moment as you look at this.

THE COURT: Is this 1352?

MR. DOUGLAS: 52.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: In this photograph here, the one on the left, your Honor, if you'll notice, the socks are at the foot of the bed. If you look close at this photograph, you'll see there's no little white card there. You notice how they put these little evidence cards there when they're going to collect something. No little white card on this photograph here. And this is interesting, because you see these straps on the bed. Now, Luper told us when he testified, these straps were like--he called them some kind of luggage straps. And these luggage straps are down at this point, aren't they? See how they're down? No evidence card and the socks are there. We come over to this photograph here. Notice how the strap is now up on the bed? No longer hanging down anymore. It's been moved up. And Luper says that's when he looks under this bed and he sees that photograph. By the way, how wrong can they continue to be? That's no wedding photograph. That's no wedding. That's a photograph they took at some formal event. You look at that photograph and see. That's how they speculate. And most times, they've been wrong. But this is interesting. The strap is now up on the bed. And you look at the socks. Now it's been posed for you. Here is this no. 13 out here with these socks. Now, you look back at that video, and you'll have it. You'll notice that the video has the strap down. So the video is at a time before this card was placed, before the strap is up, before this is about to be collected. Now, isn't that strange, because at 4:13, there are no socks there. Now, how do we tie all this together? Do you remember, Fung and Mazzola have a log. And on their log, they tell when they collected things. They tell us that they collected the blood in the foyer at 4:30, that they then came upstairs, that they collect--here it is as we speak.

MR. DOUGLAS: 1091, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you move it over a little bit, Mr. Harris? Now, you see this where they collected things sequentially and they kept this log. And I think that you'll remember the testimony that at 4:30, they collected the blood in the foyer. Remember that? Let me see if I can point that out for you. In the foyer, red stain. And there's testimony--they testified 4:30. 1630 is 4:30. This is--well, this is at least 17 minutes after Mr. Ford is up there with that camera where there are no socks, right? So 1630, right there. They're downstairs. Then they say they go upstairs and they leave this time blank. But at 1640, they go and they look at this little red spot in the bathroom. Remember that? And they say in their testimony that the socks are collected between 1630 and 1640. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt, 1635. How could the socks be there at 4:35 when you just saw they're not there at 4:13? Who's fooling whom here? Setting this man up, and you can see it with your own eyes. You're not naive. Nobody is foolish here. Then they forget about this little strap exercise and they're posing stuff here. They move this off the bed, move this under the bed. They're going to make a big thing about this photograph under the bed. Then they put this number down here and they take these pictures for you later. But they didn't know that we would know or find out about Mr. Ford's video. So they took that video--you know, we talked about this early on. LAPD should always take videos of everything at that crime scene. They don't do that. But they took this video not because they wanted to help Mr. Simpson. If anything was missing or got broken, this was a civil liability video. Remember, they were going around taking photographs of things that might be missing of whatever if there was ever a suit later on.

But they got hoisted by their own petard again because the video has the counter and the number. They will never, ever be able to explain that to you because we've got the testimony in black and white as when they went upstairs and collected them. Those socks from the beginning is going to bring them down. So those are the socks, these socks. No dirt, no soil, no berries, no trace. Nobody sees any blood until August 4th. All these miraculous things start happening, and then--Mr. Scheck will talk more about this. Then we find out it has EDTA in it. Is it planted along with that back gate? How would it be on there? Why didn't they see the blood before that? There's a big fight here. Where is the dirt? Why would Mr. Simpson have on these kind of socks with a sweat outfit? Wait a minute. Now, you don't have to be like from the fashion police to know that. You don't wear those kinds of socks. You wear those kind of socks with a suit. You don't wear those kind of socks with a sweat outfit. Doesn't it make sense to you that those socks were in that hamper from Saturday night when Mr. Simpson went to that formal event? Those kind of socks is what you wear with your tuxedo when he was dressed with those other ladies. They went and took it out of the hamper and staged it there, and you see what happened. Is that not reasonable under these facts? I think you'll agree it is. It's the only reasonable explanation. It's posed there. And the reason for doing this is because they were out of place. But isn't that interesting, in the hamper in which Luper went and they all went, they didn't take anything else? You'd think the police would ask Mr. Simpson, "What were you wearing? In addition to the suit, what were you wearing that night?" They didn't take one thing. Yet we hear all this talk about, I wonder where the clothes went, I wonder where the clothes went. You'd think Mr. Simpson, who told them everything, cooperated with them fully, told them, like he told them about those shoes, what he was wearing. They didn't bother collecting those, did they? No towels, no nothing. She's worried about him taking this quick shower. If he took a shower, there's so much blood, he's covered with blood, why didn't they bring the towels in here? Something is wrong in this case. It just doesn't fit. When it doesn't fit, you must acquit. So the socks--I could talk about these socks forever, but I'm not going to do that because Mr. Scheck will talk about the forensic aspect of it. But let me just remind you of two quick more things. Dr. Herbert MacDonell came in here and he told you there was no splatter or spatter on these socks. These socks had compression transfer, and he used his hands to show you somebody took those socks and they put something on them and it went all the way through to side 3. Now, with all their experts bringing people back three, four times, they never had anybody to contravene that. How did that get over to side 3? How did it get over there? It wouldn't get there if there was a leg in the sock. Can anybody explain that? Can any of you explain that? Maybe Miss Clark can explain that. Experts can't explain it. Something is wrong. Then finally the EDTA which indicates the anticoagulant from a purple top tube is where that blood is from. The socks, as you know, are something that you want to get emotional about because we've known about these socks for some time. This is to say the least disturbing. It's worse than that though. In my opening statement, I told you about evidence that would be compromised, contaminated and corrupted and I told you something then. I said in this case, there's something even far more sinister. The socks are one example of that. Now, if you want to be fair deciding this case, you've got to deal with these socks. You'll get a chance to see them. Look for the dirt that you expect on them. Look for the spatter that you expect on them. Look and see why it went over to side 3. There's a leg in it. Now, isn't it interesting how you get this blood on this sock with your pants? Your pants have to be almost up. This would take a real contortion to do it. There's no way they could explain it. So let's just leave it where it is and Mr. Scheck will pick up on that. Then we've heard a lot about the so-called blood in the Bronco. Now, I want to tell you, I'm not anything like a scientist. In fact, when my mother and my father wanted me to become a doctor, I didn't because I wasn't that good in science. So I became a lawyer so I could talk. But let me tell you something. Even I know about amounts of blood, especially after this case. They tell you about all this blood in the Bronco. And you remember one of the early witnesses testified the total amount of blood on this console--on this console is .07 of drop of blood. Now, that's supposedly a mixture of Goldman and someone else.

Now, this is--I'm going to do a little Henry Lee experiment and I hope that it doesn't cause any--cause you any problems. Now, .07 of a drop--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Douglas. You are going to have to take this down.

MR. COCHRAN: This here, your Honor? .07 of a drop (Demonstrating), not even that much is the amount the testimony in this case is of the alleged blood on that console. Now, this is an amazing thing because you remember, this is the vehicle, in addition to everything else they did in this case, that's picked up, is towed away from Rockingham. You've all seen that photograph. It's taken over and ultimately ends up at Viertel's. Remember Blauzini, Willie Blauzini? Before we got to Blauzini, we dealt with John Meraz. Meraz says the vehicle was just open, you just go get in it. The press was waiting for him before he even drove it back. Everybody knew this was O.J. Simpson's vehicle and they were all looking at it, supposedly for all this blood that's supposed to be in here. This killer must have been covered in blood, and they say he drove this Bronco and he got in it. It would be covered with blood, wouldn't it? Everybody is looking for the blood.

Meraz says he gets inside the car. He didn't see any blood. Meraz said that. They malign Meraz because Meraz said he did take those receipts out of there that had--one had Mr. Simpson's name on it, one had Miss Simpson's name on it. But he said he didn't see any blood in there. They never called anybody to contravene that. But we want to make sure you understood what was happening. So we called William Blauzini, a man who works for pick-your-part as far as vehicles. And he was a pretty good witness, wasn't he? He said, "Look, this is my business, is looking in cars because I go in and buy them." He says, "I got in that car on June 21st and--" First of all said, "I went looking for blood because I had heard on the news there's going to be lots of blood in this car. So I went and got in the Bronco. It was not secured as usual. Bob Jones said, `oh, there it is over there. Go get in it.'" this is the same vehicle, no holds on it, could be released to Hertz, LAPD at work. He gets in the car on the driver's side where he stays almost five minutes, looking down, looking for blood, looking in the front. Remember, he takes his fingerprints or hands and puts them in the mirrors. Kind of like a souvenir in the right front window of the car.

He didn't see any blood. He looks all over for blood. Then he gets out, walks around, and I guess on the rear panel, as I'm leaning, again puts his hands again there. He walks around, looks inside the driver's side, looks back, looks all down on the console looking for blood. He's looking for blood, ladies and gentlemen, on June 21st, doesn't see any blood. Then he gets in the car. I asked him, "Did you look on the dash? Did you look on the door? Did you look on the console?" Didn't see any blood. He says that the patch on the bottom was cut out, the floor mat there, doesn't see any blood. Miss Clark cross-examined this man. He said, "Look, the Bronco is kind of high up. When I was getting ready to get in there, I rested my hands on the thing and looked right up there, and there was no blood in that Bronco." Now, this is very strange, isn't it? Here's a Bronco that has blood that appears, disappears and reappears and then disappears. This is the vehicle that's supposed to be secured, but it's not secured. Everybody gets in it. Meraz got it in, takes stuff out that could have been helpful. You know, there was a receipt there from Nicole Brown Simpson. There's testimony she rides and drives that car on occasion. That's forever lost to us because they didn't do their jobs again. Blauzini comes along, there's no blood in there. How do you explain all this when they talk about--stand up here and talk about an ocean of evidence? And may I say, this a tiny trickle of a stream, if anything. They're just words that they use. So this Bronco is particularly troubling. Less than that 7/10th's of that drop of blood is what's in that alleged console. Dr. Baden says the perpetrator would be covered with blood. Your common sense tells you the perpetrator would be covered with blood, five- to 15-minute battle and struggle of this dimension. And so it just doesn't fit. Something is wrong. How does anyone drive away in that car with bloody clothes with no blood there on the seats, no blood anyplace else? Every police officer who came in talked about how bloody this scene was. It doesn't make any sense. They can't explain it because Mr. Simpson was not in that car and didn't commit these murders. That's the reasonable and logical explanation. None other will do, and it's too late for them to change now these kind of shifting theories. So the Prosecution then has no shoes, no weapon, no clothes. They don't have anything except these socks, which appear all of a sudden under these circumstances. Now, when you want to think about the depths to which people will go to try to win, when you want to talk about an obsession to win, I'm going to give you an example. There was a witness in this case named Thano Peratis. This is a man who's their man who took O.J. Simpson's blood. This is a man who had a subpoena, at one point said he could have come down here and testify. They didn't call him. By the time we wanted to call him, he's unavailable because of his heart problem, remember? So what we did is, we read you his grand jury testimony I believe and we played for you his preliminary hearing testimony. And in that testimony, it's very, very consistent. He's been a nurse for a number of years. You saw him. He works for the city of Los Angeles. He says that when he took this blood from O.J. Simpson on June 13th, he took between 7.9 and 8.1 cc's of blood. That's what he said. That's real simple, isn't it? We knew that. He's sworn to tell the truth under oath both places, the grand jury and preliminary hearing. Pretty clear, isn't it? Pretty clear. You remember in my opening statement, I told you, you know, something's wrong here, something's sinister here, something's wrong, because if we take all their figures and assume they took 8 cc's of blood, there's 6.5 cc's accounted for, there is 1.5 cc's missing of this blood. There's some missing blood in this case. Where is it? The Prosecution wants to explain that for you to make everything real easy for you. So what do they do? What do they do? We were talking about the police before, but what do they do? Hank Goldberg doesn't give us any notice. He goes out there with a video camera with Oppler and this other lady, Miss Ramirez, and they take this bizarre home video of Peratis sitting there talking and mouthing words. It's the most bizarre thing. I mean as jurors, I'm sure you've seen some pretty high quality testimony here, but this was bizarre. He's sitting there talking about, "Well, you know, gee, I don't really remember how much I took," and he's going through all these gyrations. It was sad, the depths to which they had sunk to try--as part of this cover-up, to try to convince you that this man hadn't taken 8 cc's of blood. And at the very end of this case, we put in a syringe for you, the kind of syringe they used. And this syringe, interestingly enough, has markers on it. Not only--this wasn't a guessing game. It has 8 cc's right on it. I think it was a 10-cc syringe.

They knew what was taken. But that's the depths to which they will go to try to make it fit, and it just doesn't fit. That's what they'll do. You have to watch them. This is a classic example. You saw it with your own eyes. You heard the testimony. Need I say more? Is that a classic example? And there's another concrete example. Let's take Miss Laura McKinny. In all accounts, a nice and gentle lady who didn't want to be here. You heard the testimony. I had to go all the way to North Carolina to try to get these tapes. I had to go all the way to the North Carolina Court of Appeals to get these tapes. She comes here. She has proof about what she says. You know, there's conversations and there's conversations, but she has the conversations on tape. These Prosecutors, if you don't fit--you're going to have trouble, so much so that when Mr. Darden is questioning her, remember her famous response, quote, "Why are we having this adversarial conversation? Why do I detect this negativity? I'm just here to tell the truth. Aren't you in a search for truth, Mr. Prosecutor?" She said that. And then they went on to ask, "Well, why didn't you stop him from using this so-called `n' word?" She said, "I was in a journalistic mode. I didn't try to stop him from using that word anymore than I try to stop him from talking about cover-ups where male police officers have no respect for women police officers because they don't cover-up the misdeeds." That was her testimony from that witness stand. You saw her. She is credible; don't you think? She has tapes to back her up, but look at how she was treated by them. And Mr. Darden said something very interesting today. He said, "I'm just the messenger." Now, how many times have you heard that; "I'm the messenger. Don't blame me, I'm just doing my job?" There's no way out. He's a fine lawyer, but he can't hide behind just being a messenger. Well, whose message is he sending? Who is he representing in this message? He's a man of integrity. That statement is not going to fly; "I'm just the messenger." He's not any messenger. He's the Prosecutor with all the power of the State of California in this case. We are not going to let them get their way. We're not going to turn the constitution on its head in this case. We are not going to allow it. And so now we bring you to a segment of this discussion where we talk about, if you can't trust the messengers, watch out for their messages. Vannatter, the man who carries the blood. Fuhrman, the man who finds the glove. Remember those two phrases; Vannatter, the man who carries the blood, Fuhrman, the man who found the glove. Now, Detective Vannatter has been a police officer for 27, 28 years, experienced LAPD robbery-homicide man who was put on this case because of his experience, presumably because they had the resources downtown. You know what time he got there and what happened. One of the things that has been totally unexplainable to me is the fact that here you have Mr. Simpson cooperating fully, gives his blood, gives 8 cc's of blood we now know. Vannatter--the blood is then turned over to Vannatter. Now, we know that he could have booked that blood in Parker Center or could have gone over to piper tech. You see these two residences. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. And, your Honor, this is--okay. This is just the board, apparently not numbered. He's at Parker Center right over here in the police building, right down here, 150 North Los Angeles Street (Indicating). He takes this blood. He could have gone a couple of floors and booked the blood, the manual requires. But he didn't do that, did he? He could have gone over to piper tech, another facility right downtown here and booked that blood (Indicating). This is the reference sample of Mr. O.J. Simpson. He doesn't do that. What he does is, he goes way out in this area marked Brentwood heights. It must be 20, 25 miles, 27 miles, to go way out there carrying the blood in this unsealed gray envelope supposedly. Why is he doing that? Why is Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood out there? Why is he doing that? Doesn't make any sense. Violates their own rules. Why is he doing that in this case? Has he ever done it in any other case? No. Name another case where this has happened or you can ask them those questions all the time. With Bushey, "Officer Bushey, when have you ever sent four people, four detectives over to notifying somebody who is not even the next of kin?" "Well, Mr. Cochran, umm, umm, must be somebody, but I can't name you a case." There are no cases. These are the things they did in this case. So he goes way out there with that blood. Why does he do that? It doesn't make any sense. And so we know because we have--much of what happened is on video.

The strangest thing about this blood. He can't explain why he carries it out there. It gets even stranger, doesn't it, because supposedly after the blood is carried out to O.J. Simpson's residence, Vannatter gives the blood to Fung, according to what we heard, but Fung then uses some kind of a trash bag, a black trash bag and gives it to Mazzola, but he doesn't tell her that it's blood. Isn't that bizarre? Remember the video when Mazzola is walking along carrying it almost bumping into the hedges and the shrubbery? The most bizarre thing you have seen. She doesn't even know it. And then talk about cover-ups, Mazzola is asked, "Well, do you see--did you see when Vannatter gave the blood to Fung?" And she says, "No. I had sat down on the couch and I was closing my eyes on Mr. Simpson's couch at that moment. I wasn't looking at that moment." It sounds like a cover-up to you, always looking the other way, not looking, doesn't want to be involved, covering for somebody. It's bizarre, absolutely bizarre and it's untrue. It doesn't fit. So Vannatter, the man who carries the blood, starts lying in this case from the very, very beginning, trying to cover up for this rush to judgment. Those are words. That's rhetoric. Let me prove it for you. He tells us--and this is a board--the board is entitled "Vannatter's big lies," the man who carried the blood. He tells us that O.J. Simpson is not a suspect. That's the biggest lie we've heard probably in this entire trial. O.J. Simpson is not a suspect. They handcuff him within 30 to 45 seconds of the time he gets back here. He lies about that. Weitzman sees about getting him uncuffed and they take him downtown. But he does more than that. Not only does he lie about that at the beginning, he then feels comfortable enough to talk to these two brothers, Fiato brothers, and an FBI agent named Wachs. This is bizarre. The lead detective in this case put on here because of his experience is talking with these two guys who have been in this witness program for quite a while testifying for the government. Now, we know that in a rather unusual set of circumstances, they're in a room somewhere in some hotel drinking beer. It's not even Vannatter's case, and they're sitting around talking. And I asked the FBI agent, "Weren't you a little surprised that a detective would be talking to these two people about the Simpson case?" Well, we found out that there was a relationship allegedly between Denise Brown and one of these brothers, and maybe he feels comfortable. But why would he do that and what does he say? He tells them that, "We didn't go up to save any lives. O.J. Simpson was a suspect. The husband is always the suspect." But then he comes into court here, this lead detective, takes the stands again and lies to you under oath, says, "Oh, no. I never said that. I never said that. That would be a mistake if they said that. I never made that statement." He lied. He lied from the very beginning. He lied when they went over there. Then they bring in Commander Bushey, otherwise a good man, get him involved in this. Let me tell you something about what you heard about Phillips' voice. Phillips was talking to the Coroner's office about 7:00, 8:00 o'clock in the morning on June 13th. The man asked him to identify--"Well, yes, we have one male, female--one white female, one white male," as though he didn't know the names or whatever. Now, this is five and a half hours after Bushey said, "Go over and notify O.J. Simpson," who is not even the next of kin, "Because we don't want the family to find out about this like they did in the Belushi case." Remember him saying that? He's doing this all from his house, from his home. Phillips, if you look through his testimony, look back through your notes as to when he says he knows who this person is. But isn't it amazing that the children are already down at the station? They're at her house with a speed dialer. They know. Bushey knows. They don't follow his orders out. They stand out in the street, not investigating, stand out in the street planning, doing whatever they are going to do. But one thing they do, they decide that O.J. Simpson is a suspect in this case. Now, let me tell you why you're going to know that. They want to talk a lot about 1985, but he missed the whole point. 1985, something interesting happened in this case. In 1985, Mark Fuhrman responded to a call on Rockingham. Mark Fuhrman is a lying, purging, genocidal racist, and from that moment on, any time he could get O.J. Simpson, he would do it. That's when it started, in `85. When Farrell asked all the officers at West L.A., there are 10 of them, if they know anything about this residence, only one steps forward. And what does he say? "It's indelibly imprisoned in my mind," that call back in `85, four years later, he sits down and writes a report. Now, he knew what he was going to do on this particular night. So O.J. not a suspect. He went to save lives. He went to get a search warrant. That's why they were lying. He denies the statement to Wachs and Fiato. Then to get that search warrant, he lies to a judge. He says in the search warrant that O.J. left unexpectedly to Chicago. There's some writing on the search warrant--I think it's in evidence--and it's kind of interesting, because everybody knew. Kato knew he was going to Chicago. Everybody knew he was going to Chicago. It wasn't any unexpected trip, but I suppose it would help out. In fact, if you think about it, Miss Clark said this. "Well, that's why those socks were out there and everything, because he left in a hurry." Like he had one pair of socks. You know why those socks were out there. He left unexpectedly to try and justify what they were doing. It all comes back to Fuhrman when he says in that letter, "If I see an interracial couple, I'll stop them. If I don't have a reason, I'll make up a reason." This man thinks he's above the law. And even Darden, Mr. Darden, Mr. Christopher Darden, my friend, has to admit--he said it was textbook what's happened to their witness, not our witness. And so he lies to the judge. He lied to the judge. He's lied to you as jurors. Then he says that Arnelle and Kato said O.J. left unexpectedly. That's written in the warrant. They never said anything of the kind. Kato knew this was a planned trip for Hertz. He talked to Cathy Randa. Then in the search warrant, he says--he puts "Confirmed human blood on the door." That's never been tested, even to this day. Another lie in the search warrant. He denies telling Thompson in order to handcuff O.J. Simpson. Then he lies about O.J. Simpson's blood. Remember, there's testimony he got that blood about 2:30, and he was trying to push it back an hour. So, well, maybe like 3:30 because he had to explain. It's hard to explain those hours in there. Why does he walk around with this man's blood for--for three hours before he goes back to Rockingham? What is he doing with this blood? So he has an hour in there. You look at his testimony. He lies about between 2:30 and 3:30. Then Fuhrman testifies--between these two, I don't know who you can believe--Fuhrman testifies something about that when he talks to Kato, Kato tells him about these thumps, but he didn't tell anybody about it. He's so central to this case. He's got to be the big man who can solve this entire case. He doesn't tell the rest of them. Remember, he goes off all by himself for 15 minutes. He's just walking, goes off by himself supposedly where he finds this glove. No opportunity? We'll be talking about that.

But Vannatter comes in, says, "Yes, Fuhrman told me about the thumps on the wall," contrary to what Fuhrman had said. So these are the lies of the co-lead detective in this case. If you cannot trust the messenger, you can't trust the message that they're trying to give you. You can't trust the message. So this man who starts to lie from the very, very beginning. Let me have just a second. We covered the lies and the things that he did. And then they rope in Commander Bushey, try to back him up by saying, "Well, I ordered them to do this. It's a direct order to do this." Isn't that interesting? Let's think about this. You look at those logs and see how many police officers came out to Bundy and Rockingham. Maybe more than 30. You think that of those number of officers, that maybe one of them, maybe one of the patrol officers could have went to give him notice? It took all four detectives, all four LAPD experienced detectives to leave the bodies. They had to notify the Coroner. They didn't have a criminalist to go over to notify O.J. Simpson. Who's fooling who here? This is preposterous. They're lying, trying to get over that wall to get in that house. You don't believe so? You're talking about saving lives. Remember what Arnelle said. First of all, they all make this big mistake. They forget and they say, "Well, when we leave from the back, we go right in that back door of the house there, go right in the back door." But they forgot. Arnelle Simpson comes in here and testifies you can't go in the back door because remember, Kato had put on the alarm. You had to go around the house to the front. Arnelle had to open the keypad to let them in, remember? You think who knows better? You'd think she knows better or they know better? She had to let them in. So they're worried about dead bodies and people being in that house and saving lives? Who goes in first? Arnelle Simpson goes in first. These big, brave police officers, and the young lady just walks in there first. They don't go upstairs looking. They just want to be inside that house and make her leave to give Fuhrman a chance to start what he's doing, strolling around the premises and doing what he's doing there. Then we come to Detective Phillips, a nice man. But even he makes misstatements in this situation. Now, he knows Fuhrman probably better than anybody because he's the one who calls Fuhrman. He's the one that works with Fuhrman. Fuhrman in the culture of LAPD has been promoted. We have heard that in `85, when he goes out to this incident, he's a patrol officer. Now he's a detective, moving up in the ranks, working with Phillips. And Phillips calls him after 1:00 o'clock. Fuhrman has been down--somewhere down in La Quinta in the desert, and he comes back supposedly and he gets this call to respond to this location. And even Detective Phillips in this case--and I examined him. When I asked, "Well, Fuhrman told you, didn't he, about his going out on this call in `85 about this so-called domestic discord and then the `89 situation? You knew about that, didn't you," Phillips said, "No, no, no. I never knew. Nobody told me. I don't know anything about it. No, no, no, I didn't." And then Lange comes in here and then Lange's and Vannatter's report--right in the report--and it's in evidence, exhibit 1021--Lange directly impeaches Phillips, that Phillips did tell him about the `85 incident, that Fuhrman had told him he had been out on it. Why would he do that? Now, these are facts, ladies and gentlemen. This is what happened in this case before your very eyes. It's not anything I'm making up.

And who would know Mark Fuhrman better in this case, his lack of credibility, his lying, racist views than Ron Phillips, his supervisor, who apparently chose to look the other way. And I am sure he is as embarrassed as anybody else by this disgrace, Fuhrman. So it's important at the outset that we understand the role of Phillips as we understand the role of Vannatter. He was the one allegedly given this order by Bushey to go over and give the death notification. He didn't comply with it until much later. And presumably the reason they were going to go over was to give the notice to Mr. Simpson and Fuhrman was going because he was needed. Now, can you imagine this? Fuhrman with his views, genocidal views, was going to go over to give notice to O.J. Simpson, to help O.J. Simpson in his time of need. Can you imagine that? He's going over there to help him, help him with his kids. That is ludicrous. So from Riske to Bushey, you've seen and are seeing part of this code of silence, this cover-up, the cover-up that Laura McKinny talks about. The male officers get together to cover up for each other, don't tell the truth, hide, turn their head, cover. You can't trust this evidence. You can't trust the messenger. You can't trust the message. When Fuhrman gets on the witness stand and says, "I haven't used this `n' word for 10 years," you think Phillips knows he's lying? Some of you probably knew he was lying. It took those tapes to make those of you who didn't believe these kind of things exist to take place. Didn't he have an obligation to come forward under those circumstances? For--if Fuhrman speaks so candidly to this lady that he met in a restaurant in West L.A., you think he talks like that to the guys on the force? She talked about he said those words in police administration, police procedures. That's the way he talks. That's the way he is. Nobody came forward to reveal this. We revealed it for you. And let me just take a moment. This whole thing about the police and what they've done in this case is extremely painful to us and I think to all right-thinking citizens because you see, we live in Los Angeles and we love this place. But all we want is a good and honest police force where people are treated fairly no matter what part of the city they're in. That's all you want. So in talking to you about this, understand, there is no personal pride. But I told you when we started, this is not for the weak or the faint of heart.

And so let's move on. Then I just wanted to show you this part from Detective Phillips. This is what was asked of Phillips at 15084. Mr. Simpson and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson had been embroiled in previous domestic discord situations, one of these resulting in Mr. Simpson having to go to court. "You told them that too, didn't you? "Answer (Phillips): "I never told him that." He's talking about to Lange. So: "If--" My question: "If Detective Lange so indicates in his report, he's wrong? "Answer: If he tells you that I told him that, he may have learned that from Detective Fuhrman, but he didn't get the information from me. I never knew that." Then when Lange came in, I asked him the question about this same area. I asked Lange this question:

"So let's look at it together. Does that report indicate that Phillips stated that victim Brown was the ex-wife of O.J. Simpson, the well-known actor? "Answer: Yes, it does. "And does it say additionally Phillips stated that Mr. Simpson and victim 1 had been embroiled in previous domestic violence situations, one of which resulted in the arrest of Mr. Simpson? Does the report say that? "Yes, it does." And he goes on to talk about:

"Phillips told you that, didn't he?" And it goes on and says: "But he told you this before you went over to Rockingham; isn't that correct? "Answer: Yes." And so even Phillips was then impeached, and then Phillips tried as best he could to be a team player. It seems as though they got together--and Miss Clark tried to make a big thing out of this, but here's how he described Mr. O.J. Simpson when he told him that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson had been dead. "'what do you mean she's been killed? Oh, my God, Nicole is dead.' do you recall that testimony? "Yes. "What do you mean she's been killed? Oh, my God. Nicole is dead." Now, is that a question or is that a question; "What do you mean she's been killed?" They want to make something--I mean, is that preposterous? And then he goes on to say:

"He became upset and made that statement and he continued to be upset, continued to talk on the phone to himself. It took me several seconds to get him to talk to me again, to have him listen to me and he seemed very upset." These Prosecutors will tell you, oh, boy, there's something unusual about that. Find anything unusual about that? What do you think?

"He just kept repeating over and over again that Nicole had been killed. Eventually when I got his attention again is when I mentioned the children. You have to remember, this conversation took place very quickly. He was talking and I was talking and everybody was a little excited." That's what Phillips said. And so again, what I hope that I've done here is to let you share exactly what the testimony was. Then I asked Arnelle about it. She said:

"He was very upset. He was crying. He was saying, `Arnelle, I don't understand.' he was very upset, emotional." "Have you ever at any time in your then 25 years heard your father sound like that?

"Answer: No." She says he was upset, distraught, emotional. And then she describes him on that evening after he comes back from Chicago.

"He was seated with my grandmother, my aunt Shirley and Bob Kardashian was there, the family and friends. Some of his friends were coming and going. This was in the family room. "Now, with regard to his demeanor and how he appeared, describe again for the jury how he appeared before he left the room to go to some other place. How did he appear to you then? "He was just very upset. He was crying off and on. We were watching the news, and he kept talking to the TV saying, `you know, I can't believe this. I can't believe this,' in shock, upset and disbelief ." And I've read the other part for you about the police officers going in the back door, but she describes how they walk around and she opens the alarm. She's the one that went in, let the police in and she's the one who walked in first. And then even Tom Lange, personal favorite of mine--but in this instance, he made more mistakes than anything else. Human foibles and seems to be quite different than some of the others. Remember he told us how he took these tennis shoes that O.J. Simpson told him he was wearing? I said, "What did you do with those tennis shoes?" He said, "Well, I took the tennis shoes and I put them in the trunk of my car and was going to take them home for the night because it was too late to book them." Then we looked at this video, and the tennis shoes he got, remember, he put the tennis shoes in the front seat with him. Maybe he stopped halfway up on the road, on the freeway and put them in the trunk. But that's not what he did then. Then he was part of the group who says O.J. was not a suspect, turned his head perhaps. Maybe that's his partner. But you notice, he wasn't involved in this whole debacle with these Fiato brothers and agent Wachs. He wasn't involved. He's smarter. He didn't let that happen. You know, it's interesting because it's his case. That's his case that they're working on. You didn't see him come running in here trying to cover for anybody. He didn't do that, to his credit. Then we come, before we end the day, to Detective Mark Fuhrman. This man is an unspeakable disgrace. He's been unmasked for the whole world for what he is, and that's hopefully positive. His misdeeds go far beyond this case because he speaks of culture that's not tolerable in America. But let's talk about this case. People worry about, this is not the case of Mark Fuhrman. Well, it's not the case of Mark Fuhrman. Mark Fuhrman is not in custody. He's not--that's the man who they're trying to put away with witnesses like this, a corrupt police officer who is a liar and a perjurer. You know, they were talking yesterday in their argument about, "Well, gee, you think he would commit a felony?" What do you think it was when he was asked the questions by F. Lee Bailey so well put? And we'll talk about that at the very end, about whether he ever used the "N" word in 10 years and he swore to tell the truth and he lied and others knew he lied. But what I find particularly troubling is that they all knew about Mark Fuhrman and they weren't going to tell you. They tried to ease him by. Of all the witnesses who've testified in this case, how many were taken up to the grand jury room where they have this prep session to ask him all these questions? Miss Clark--I went back and I read again her introduction of Mark Fuhrman. How many witnesses did they do that with, where they took him up there and prepared him for this?

Because you see, they knew about the Kathleen Bell letter, but she didn't fit. She didn't fit what they wanted. They didn't want her. They'd rather malign her and believe this lying police officer. So they knew. Make no mistake about it. And so when they try to prepare him, talk to him and get him ready and make him seem like a choir boy and make him come in here and raise his right hand as though he's going to tell you the truth and give you a true story here, they knew he was a liar and a racist. There's something about good versus evil. There's something about truth. The truth crushed to earth will rise again. You can always count on that. So when Miss Clark so gently puts him on the stand and talks to him about, "Tell us how you feel about testifying today," "Nervous," okay, "Reluctant" and all the things about this bad lady Kathleen Bell--they brought it out at the beginning. "This bad Kathleen Bell saying all these mean things about you. Oh, and you don't--you don't know her even, do you? When we asked you to look at her on the Larry King show and you couldn't recognize her. You don't know her. Oh, well, it's just terrible, all these bad things happening to you, Detective Fuhrman."

Go back and you look at your notes of how the testimony was as they tried to bring him in here and pass him off. These things were all happening. Kathleen Bell's letter was in `85 and `86, the same time he went out to O.J. Simpson's house in `85 they want to talk so much about. What they are talking about is not even relevant. What we are talking about now is what happened in this case. It's so, after having made all these denials, been adopted and accepted by the Prosecution. And they put him on the stand and you saw it. You saw it. It was sickening. And then my colleague, Lee Bailey, who can't be with us today, but God bless him, wherever he is, did his cross-examination of this individual and he asked some interesting questions. Some of you probably wondered, "I wonder why he's asking that." He asked this man whether or not he ever met Kathleen Bell. Of course, he lied about that. "Never met this woman. I don't recognize her. I don't know her, gee, I don't know anything about that." Boy, and he sounded really convincing, didn't he?

He says, quote: "I do not recognize this woman as anybody I have ever met." That's what he says. Then Bailey says: "Have you used that word, referring to the `n' word, in the past 10 years? "Not that I recall, no. "You mean, if you call someone a Nigger, you had forgotten it?

"I'm not sure I can answer the question the way it's phrased, sir." And they go on. He says, "Well--" And then pins him down. "I want you to assume that perhaps at some time since 1985 or `86, you addressed a member of the African American race as a Nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part? "Answer: No, it is not possible. "Are you, therefore, saying that you have not used that word in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman?

"Answer: Yes. That is what I'm saying. "Question: And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person as a Nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman? "That's what I'm saying, sir. "So that anyone who comes to this court and quotes you as using that word in dealing with African Americans would be a liar; would they not, Detective Fuhrman? "Yes, they would. "All of them, correct? "All of them." That's what he told you under oath in this case. Did he lie? Did he lie? Did he lie under oath? Did this key Prosecution witness lie under oath? And I'm going to end this part and resume with him tomorrow morning. Did he lie? And they try to tell you it's not important. Let's remember this man. This is the man who was off this case shortly after 2:00 o'clock in the morning right after he got on it. This is the man who didn't want to be off this case. This is the man, when they're ringing the door bell at Ashford, who goes for a walk. And he describes how he's strolling. Let me quote him for you. Here's what he says:

"I was just strolling along looking at the house. Maybe I could see some movement inside. I was just walking while the other three detectives were down there." And that's when he walks down and he's the one who says the Bronco was parked askew and he sees some spot on the door. He makes all of the discoveries. He's got to be the big man because he's had it in for O.J. because of his views since `85. This is the man, he's the guy who climbs over the fence. He's the guy who goes in and talks to Kato Kaelin while the other detectives are talking to the family. He's the guy who's shining a light in Kato Kaelin's eyes. He's the guy looking at shoes and looking for suspects. He's the guy who's doing these things. He's the guy who says, "I don't tell anybody about the thumps on the wall." He's the guy who's off this case who's supposedly there to help this man, our client, O.J. Simpson, who then goes out all by himself, all by himself.

Now, he's worried about bodies or suspects or whatever. He doesn't even take out his gun. He goes around the side of the house, and lo and behold, he claims he finds this glove and he says the glove is still moist and sticky. Now, under their theory, at 10:40, 10:45, that glove is dropped. How many hours is that? It's now after 6:00 o'clock. So what is that? Seven and a half hours. The testimony about drying time around here, no dew point that night. Why would it be moist and sticky unless he brought it over there and planted it there to try to make this case? And there is a Caucasian hair on that glove. This man cannot be trusted. He is sinful to the Prosecution, and for them to say he's not important is untrue and you will not fall for it, because as guardians of justice here, we can't let it happen. We'll see you tomorrow. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, would you take it down, please. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to conclude our evening session at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, 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 will stand in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning. All right. Thank you, counsel. We're in recess.

(At 7:45 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Thursday, September 28, 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 Wednesday, September 27, 1995 volume 231

Pages 47501 through 47792, 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 231 pages 47501 - 47792

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

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday September 27, 1995 A.M. 47501 231

Wednesday September 27, 1995 P.M. 47582 231

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

PROCEEDINGS

Closing argument by Mr. Darden (Resumed) 47508 231

Closing argument by Mr. Cochran 45797 231

Closing argument by Mr. Cochran 45762 231

(Resumed)