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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, would you have a seat, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Miss Clark. The jury is not present. Counsel, just one matter before we get started this morning. You should have on your desk there a--the court schedule upcoming, and if you recollect, the one thing that is missing on the court's schedule is that we had agreed to be dark in this matter, my recollection was--

MR. COCHRAN: Wednesday, I believe, your Honor.

THE COURT: Wednesday, the 4th, and concluding early on Tuesday, and that will be in effect for that date as well. All right. Anything else we need to take up?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, Judge--

THE COURT: Deputy Smith, let's have the jurors, please.

THE COURT: All right. We are about to clear the courtroom.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, Miss Clark was just showing us some boards they have, some new boards we have not seen when your Honor came out, and we just started looking at the first one. May we have a few minutes to see the boards?

THE COURT: How many do you have, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: Just two boards, your Honor, and slides.

MR. COCHRAN: And if there are any graphs, we would like to see those also.

THE COURT: All right. Let's see the boards.

MS. CLARK: This one they have seen, (Indicating).

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: I just have one question about that, Marcia.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, this is going to be a discussion on the record, not amongst ourselves here, all right?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Can you see this, your Honor?

THE COURT: I have seen it.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Let's see the peels. Very nice.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: How much does that weigh, Mr. Fairtlough?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Pardon me?

THE COURT: How much does that weigh?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I'm not too sure, but it definitely gives you a workout.

MS. CLARK: I don't even try.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, why don't you let Mr. Fairtlough do this and let's look at the other board.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, let me do this and he can do the slide prep.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, let's look at the "Reliability of DNA results board."

MS. CLARK: I thought they did.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And Miss Clark, how many slides do you have?

MS. CLARK: Let me count, your Honor.

THE COURT: Roughly.


THE COURT: Okay. And everything else is either in evidence or previously used, correct?

MS. CLARK: Correct.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Do you have copies of those for the court so I can review it?

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I meant to make copies last night.

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


THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, are we ready to preview the slides?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Next.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, could we hold on one second.

(Brief pause.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


(The slides were displayed for the court and counsel.)


MR. FAIRTLOUGH: That's it, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Any other comments?

MR. COCHRAN: Is that everything, your Honor? Everything we haven't seen?

THE COURT: That is it. All right. Deputy Smith, let's have the jurors, please. I'm sorry, let's clear this and then we will have the jurors.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Miss Clark, the Defense is asking for the single version--you have two versions of verdict forms.

MS. CLARK: I haven't had a chance to look at them.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: But I will do it at lunch, okay?

THE COURT: All right. The issue being do you want the multiple forms, first, second, not guilty, or do you want just one verdict form, yes, no, circle the result?

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: That is the issue.

MS. CLARK: Okay. That is it.

(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 again, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: All right. At this time the Defense has concluded their summation and the Prosecution now has the opportunity to offer their rebuttal to the Defense summation. And Miss Clark, the Prosecution may proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you very much, your Honor. Mr. Darden will begin our closing.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.



MR. DARDEN: Good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. DARDEN: Well, we have come full circle again it seems. Here you are and here I am. And as Judge Ito just indicated, this is my last opportunity to speak with you, that is, until after you render your verdict. If at that time you are kind enough to spare a few moments and allow me to thank you personally at that time, not only for your verdict, but for your service as well. You've got a tough job, a very tough job. I don't envy you in that regard. But let me tell you something. I have had a tough job, too. The law is a tough thing to enforce in this town. Not everybody, not everybody wants to live up to the law or follow the law. Not everybody thinks that the law applies to them. I have been a Prosecutor for almost fifteen years, and if there is one rule that I have lived by, if there is one rule that means a lot to me, it is this one: No one is above the law; not the police, not the rich, no one. And I hope you agree with that.

I hope you agree with that rule. I hope you consider that--that motto. O.J. Simpson isn't above the law. You've heard a lot of argument over the past couple of days and I know you listened to all of the attorneys in this case intently and I did when I could and I listened yesterday and I had been anticipating yesterday's arguments from the Defense. I knew that those arguments would be passionate, I knew they would be loud and I knew they would be forceful, and I knew that they would be provocative, and I wasn't disappointed. But also I knew that they wouldn't talk much about the evidence. Mr. Scheck did, but that is okay. And I knew they would want to deliver a message to you, and that is, when I spoke to you the other day I said to you, hey, you can't send a message to Fuhrman, you can't send a message to the LAPD, you can't eradicate racism within the LAPD or within the L.A. community or within the nation as a whole by delivering a verdict of not guilty in a case like this where it is clear and you know it is clear, you feel it, you know it in your heart. You know it as you have sat here day after day listening to this testimony, you know it. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows he killed--

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

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Everybody knows.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: The evidence is there. You just have to find your way through the smoke. You just have to find your way through the smoke. You heard from Scheck yesterday. You heard him talk about our science. They have to attack our science because all the science points to O.J. Simpson, to this Defendant. It all points to him as the killer. They have to attack that science. Not only does common sense dictate that he is guilty, but we have proven him guilty to a scientific certainty. We have proven him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They hoisted that chart up on the--on the thing there yesterday with reasonable doubt. You remember that chart? It had reasonable doubt at the top and below that it had highly unlikely and all this other stuff. They put it on this thing and then they hoisted it all the way up to the ceiling. That isn't reasonable doubt. That is not what I'm required to prove to you. Mr. Cochran said to you, well, reasonable doubt is doubt with a reason. That is not reasonable doubt. When you look back at that instruction, when you look back at the reasonable doubt instruction, you will see when it comes to human affairs, there is always some degree of doubt no matter how small. The sun could explode tomorrow, it could explode today, but I doubt that that will happen. I really have no reason to believe that is true. I have no reason to believe that the sun will explode today or tomorrow. When you read the reasonable doubt instruction, apply it to--read it and apply it to your everyday situation, your everyday circumstances. What does it take? What does it take you as a human being after hearing all the evidence and after hearing the law that the judge gives you, what does it take for you to feel comfortable in your conclusion that he killed these people? They said that you have to be able to wake up the next day and feel as if the day before, the day that you rendered your verdict, that you did the right thing, that you rendered a verdict that you can live with. Let me ask you this: If you were to acquit him, what explanation would you give the day after that acquittal if someone said why did you acquit him? Would you say racism? Would you say it is because there is racism in the LAPD? That is what they want you to say. That is what they want you to think. You heard all of that--all the speaking and the fiery rhetoric and the quotes from proverbs and the like. You heard all of that yesterday, all of that fiery rhetoric. Well, let me tell you what Marcia Clark and I are. Let me tell you who we are. We are the voices, the voices of calm and reason in all of this. You just need to calm down, take that common sense God gave you, go back in the jury room. Don't let these people get you all riled up and all fired up because Fuhrman is a racist. Racism blinds you. Those epithets, they blind you. You never heard me use that epithet in this courtroom, did you? I'm not going to put on that kind of show for you know who, for people to watch. That is not where we are coming from. We want you to focus on the evidence. I'm eternally grateful that Mr. Fuhrman was exposed to be what he is, because I think we should know who those people are. I have said it once, I have said it before, we ought to put a big stamp tattooed on their forehead "Racist" so that when we see them we know who they are so that there is no speculation so that we don't have to guess. But what they want you to do and what they have done in this case is they have interjected this racism and now they want you to become impassioned, to be upset, and then they want you to make quantum leaps in logic and in judgment. They want to you say Fuhrman is a racist, he planted the glove. You can't get from point a to point B if you just sit down and use your common sense. If you are logical, if you are reasonable, you can't do that. It is true that Fuhrman is a racist. And it is also true that he killed these two people, and we proved that he killed the two people.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form.

MR. DARDEN: We proved that Fuhrman is a racist.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: This is my time to talk. Yesterday somebody said that you can't quiet a man's voice in a court of law. This is my time to talk and I want to talk to you. I heard the words they spoke yesterday about the constitution. I read the constitution. I'm a lawyer, I am a student of the constitution. I know what it means and what it doesn't mean. I know what it is. And Gil Scott Darron said that the constitution was just a notebook piece of paper. You remember that? And that is probably true. But what makes it more than that is the fact that there are decent, honest and courageous people behind it. You can write the law, but if you are not willing to enforce the law, then what is it? What is it worth? You can write the law. You can pass the law, but if people aren't willing to follow the law, then what good is it? I also looked back at the constitution last night, I sent my clerk to go get it for me, and I looked through the constitution, and you know what I saw? I saw some stuff in the constitution about Ron and about Nicole and the constitution said that Ron and Nicole had the right to liberty. It said that they had the right to life. It said that they had a right to the pursuit of happiness. It said that Nicole didn't have to stay with him if she didn't want to stay with him. That is what the constitution said. And I looked further and I looked in the constitution to see if it said anything about O.J. Simpson. You know what it said? It said he doesn't have the right to take those lives. He did not have the right to do what he did. They talk about courage. Courage is what Marcia Clark and I do everyday.

MR. COCHRAN: Object. I object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: I object, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: It is time to stand up.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: It is time to stand up. The constitution says that a man has no right to kill and then get away with it just because one of the investigating officers is a racist. Your job as jurors in this case is to get beyond all of that. The fact that Fuhrman is a racist goes to his bias, goes to his credibility and it may go to other things the judge will tell you, and I'm not going to tell you that you should limit your use of that. You should use it in any way you are instructed to use it by the court, but you shouldn't use it for anything else. As I said the other day, the issue of Fuhrman, it may not be an issue for another day, but it certainly is not an issue, that is in terms of sending him a message is not an issue for you in this case. You can't send him a message. You can't send the LAPD a message. You want to send the LAPD a message, I'm sure they will listen to you after this case is over. I am sure that they will. I listened to the lawyers talk to you and it has been a long trial and there has been a lot of evidence in this case, a lot of testimony, and it is easy to get lost in it all. It certainly is for me. I think you watched me. I mean, there were some days when the day just seemed to run on so long. Has it been a year and three days now? But it is easy to get lost in the evidence and it is easy for lawyers to get lost in the evidence, and as Judge Ito told you before, and I think I told you the other day, nothing we say in this argument is evidence. Nothing I say to you today is evidence. Certainly nothing they said to you is evidence in this case. The evidence is what you heard from the witness stand. The evidence is the exhibits.

I listened to one of the lawyers testify in this case. I heard lawyers add things, add facts into the record, or attempt to. The facts are what you heard in testimony by people who took an oath and who sat down in that chair. If you find what they said to be true, then you find the facts. Nothing a lawyer says is a fact. They said yesterday that I'm an advocate. Well, I am an advocate, and they are advocates, too. You've taken notes throughout this trial. We watched you all take notes. Rely on those notes, rely on the court reporter's transcript. Rely on your own recollection. Don't be misled, don't be misled. Because I listened to lawyers argue yesterday, and you know what we do when we start to argue and get caught up, you get in that role soon and pretty soon you just start saying stuff. It may not necessarily be true, it may not necessarily be what is in the record, so rely on the record. Rely on the record. If you rely on the record and use your common sense, you will find your way through the smoke. And I told you there was going to be some smoke. I told you there had been some smoke. Yesterday we heard the smoke. It was fiery rhetoric, but that is what we do. We are lawyers. I was reading last night about how important it is to remain calm and we heard a lot of quotations over the last couple of days. And I remembered a story that I had read once and a lot of people quote Martin Luther King and the like and that is all fine, but you know, I'm a student, I'm a student of that. I have studied him and studied him and studied him. And I recalled that in 1961 there was an incident involving Dr. King, and it might be helpful for you to recall this, as I'm sure you do, but it was 1961 and he had written a book and he was up in Harlem and there was a book signing and he was seated there at the table. There were a line of people walking up to him and asking him to sign their books and meeting him and saying hello. And finally this one woman walked up to him and she said to him, "Are you Martin Luther King?" And he said, "Well, ma'am, yes, I am." She said, "Well, I've been looking for you" and she reached into her purse and she pulled out an envelope opener and she plunged it into his chest. And the people in the store were horrified and everyone became panicked and people began running and screaming, "Oh, my God Dr. King has been stabbed. Oh, my God, Dr. King has been stabbed," and he fell to the floor and he laid there. And one of his assistants ran over to him and saw--saw this massive thing imbedded in his chest and the assistant started to reach for it to pull it out and Dr. King calmly said, "No, don't touch it; just get me to a hospital." Well, the assistant was hysterical.

"Dr. King, let me pull it out. Let me pull it out." Dr. King was calm. He laid there with this--with this thing imbedded in his chest and he said, "No, just don't touch it. I will be all right. Just get me to the hospital." And so the assistant did as he was told, as Dr. King instructed him to do, and he took him to the hospital and they rushed him into surgery and they operated on him for five hours. And they removed what, for all intents and purposes, was a knife out of his chest and it was removed by a black doctor, a black surgeon I am proud to say. And a few days later the surgeon went to see Dr. King who was still resting and rehabilitating in the hospital and he went to see him and the doctor said to Dr. King, he said, "It is a good thing you were so calm, Dr. King. It is a good thing you were so calm about the whole thing. The point of that blade was touching your aorta. Had you moved suddenly, if you so much as sneezed, you would have died instantly. You would have drowned in your own blood." Some folks would like to get you all riled up and get you so upset that you move suddenly and so that you drown in the minutia, so that you choke on the smoke. Some people want to make you mad and angry and bitter. King once wrote that we should never succumb to the temptation of bitterness and that the one thing about bitterness is its blindness. So don't be blinded by all of this; just do your job. I know you know what your job is. I know you know what to do. And I hope you don't mind too much that I--that I keep reminding you of that job, because this is important. This case is important. This is a murder case. There are two people that are dead. I think it is safe to say at this point, after all that I've heard over the last few days, I think it is safe to say that I'm the messenger and I volunteered for that job and I don't mind being the messenger. I told you what the message was. In 1989 the message was that he is going to kill me, he is going to kill me. And Edward said, "Who is going to kill you?" "O.J." "O.J. The football player?" "Yeah, he is going to kill me." That was the message in 1989. The new message today, there is another message. The message in `89 was that he is going to kill me. The message in `95 is he killed me. That is what this has been all about. That is the message we have been trying to send you the past eight months. The message is he killed her. And there is another message. And you might not be able to hear and see it and read it through all the smoke, and through all the shouting and all the rhetoric, but there is another message. And the other message is he killed me, too. He killed me, too. Through all the smoke and over all the rhetoric you have got to be calm and not succumb to bitterness and do the right thing. I heard a lot about courage, and you are fourteen courageous people and everybody in this room knows that. No one could ever call you cowards. No one can ever accuse you people of running away because you have a tough job and you know you have a tough job and you have sat here day after day, even when you were sick, even when you were sick, you came here and you listened to us. You listened to Marcia and I and you listened to the Defense. They want you to believe that if you acquit him that that will be the courageous thing to do. I think the courageous thing to do in this case would be to look at all the evidence. I think that takes courage. I think it takes courage not to jump to a snap conclusion. I think it takes courage to recognize within ourselves that what we heard yesterday was appeal to a certain part of us and it was appeal to some of us perhaps and not all of us, but it was an appeal to a certain part of us that only some of us know about. That is what happened yesterday. I think it takes courage to recognize that. If you mistrust the police--I spent seven years prosecuting bad policemen. I understand why you mistrust the police. If you have that basic mistrust--

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor, improper.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: I understand that, and perhaps you ought to, but I think that we have to do is we have to take every case on a case by case basis and every cop on a cop by cop basis. Yesterday they took Fuhrman, this racist, and then they put Vannatter with him and pretty soon they were interchanging Vannatter and Fuhrman.

Vannatter has been a detective 27, 28 years. You didn't hear anybody come in here and say he ever used that word. And it is easy to put up a big poster and say "Vannatter's big lies." That is easy to do. They say that he made an off-the-cuff remark eight months ago. That is what some people said. You heard what he said. Do you remember everything you say? Do you know everything that you've said? Does every lawyer in this case know everything that they've said? I heard one of the lawyers say that there was a Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove and that that hair was--that there was never any attempt to match that hair to anybody and that it could be Fuhrman's. That wasn't true. That is not what is in the record. I'm not going to put up a big poster and say "Defense big lies." Sometimes people misspeak, sometimes people forget, sometimes people are wrong, sometimes they say things they don't remember saying, sometimes they say things that they do remember saying and we admit to them. We have some of all of that in this case, I suppose. Well, let's talk about some of the things we heard over the last couple of days. Let's talk about some of the evidence. As I listened to them, I got the sense almost that they had sort of designed a special thing for each and every one of you. This is high tech stuff talking to juries these days. This is 1995. There are people that know what to say to individual jurors or particular jurors. I heard someone say--pose a question. What more could an innocent man do? You remember that question? You saw the videotape, you saw Officer Thompson standing there at the driveway. You saw the Defendant arrive. You saw him get out of the car. You saw him walk up the driveway. He walked up the driveway carrying this black bag over his shoulder. You remember that? He got out of the car and walked up the driveway and then a few minutes later we see Robert Kardashian carrying a Louis Vuitton bag. The police have a search warrant to search Rockingham. Have you ever heard that they had a search warrant to search Robert Kardashian? And when you pull up to your house, do you jump out of the car and give your luggage to your lawyer? That was June 13, 1994. And what is the testimony? What have we heard in this case? On March 28, 1995, retired Judge Delbert Wong, very fine judge, acting as a special master, an extension of Judge Ito, acting at Judge Ito's direction, he went to the Defendant's house where a Louis Vuitton bag was pointed out to him. Judge Wong brought that bag to court. Where is the bag? Judge Wong told us that it was on March 28th that he retrieved that bag. When you look at the video, you will see that that bag is bulging. What is in that bag? What was in that bag? Don't you want to know what was in that bag? And I will bet that at least once since I have been up here talking, I bet there has been somebody back there shaking their head from side to side. Does that happen? This is the evidence. They talked about evidence yesterday. They talked about showing you the evidence. This is the evidence. This bag is empty. There is nothing in this bag. There is nothing in this bag. Why bring this empty bag here to court to you? That is not what you are interested in. That is not what you want to know. When I finished here the other day, I left some questions for them. Who was that man who walked into the house that night? That is what you want to do. Who was the man Allan Park saw walking into the house? And let me tell you something. Search your notes, search your memory. They never brought it up, they never mentioned it, they never mentioned that man; never. That is what you want to know. You don't want to know what is in an empty bag. I told you one of the lawyers was--well, I told you the lawyers were testifying. They were adding evidence and information into this individual that you never heard from the witness stand. Chipping golf balls. There was golf balls in that little black bag. You know, remember the bag left on the driveway, the one that Kato offered to go get that the Defendant said, "No, no, I will get it, I will get it"? This is the nice when he is supposedly suffering from acute arthritis, an attack of acute arthritis. Do you remember somebody told you that, that he suffered from acute arthritis to the point that he couldn't deal cards or something. But yet we heard somebody interject into this case that he was out chipping golf balls. I assume you do that with a golf club. I don't know if you ever hear anybody on the witness stand tell you that this man was out chipping golf balls. Did you ever hear that? On the night of June 12th? There is no evidence in this case to that effect.

And then I believe the suggestion was made that that black bag was put into the golf bag with the golf clubs. There it is. You have it in evidence. You find that little bag, the one with the golf balls, the one Allan Park described, the one Kato Kaelin described, let me know. That is what you want to know, isn't it? Don't you want to know what was in that little bag, the one he wouldn't let anybody touch, the one that disappeared? They had showed these bags to Judge Delbert Wong. Why didn't they show him that one? There was the issue of the white Reebok shoes. They were all over Detective Lange about taking those white Reebok shoes home. Why did Detective Lange pick up those white Reebok shoes in the first place? Who told him that they had any amount of relevancy, any relevancy at all to this particular case? Who directed him to those white shoes? Who said that they had on those white shoes the evening before when they were asked by the detective? You know who. No one testified to having seen this man, this Defendant, O.J. Simpson, wearing white Reebok tennis shoes that night. Kato Kaelin didn't say it. You see that picture from the recital, the one they want to show you. Do you see any white Reebok tennis shoes on this man's feet in that photograph? What is up with that? What is up with that? Why is he sending them to get white Reebok shoes? He didn't wear white Reebok shoes that night. There is no evidence of that in this case.

MR. COCHRAN: Object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Smoke. Smoke, ladies and gentlemen. They are blowing smoke. And let me tell you, they made a big deal out of those white Reebok tennis shoes. They were all over Detective Lange about taking those shoes home. Remember? Remember that? They were all over him. They were trying to make him look like a fool for taking those white Reebok shoes home. Did you hear in this trial at any time that there was any forensic evidence, that there was any forensic value to those shoes? Did you hear anything about hair and blood and fiber or anything having to do with those white Reebok tennis shoes? They sent Detective Lange off on a wild goose chase and when the goose got to the witness stand they tried to roast him. They want you to throw your common sense out the window, just chuck it out the window. You can't do that.

They talk all this stuff about race and everything. We got one racist cop and on the last time, from what the evidence is--and trust me, I am not an apologist for this man--but the last time, according to the evidence, that anybody heard him use this slur was in 1988. They say since he used it in 1988 he must be a racist. Well, the last time that we know of from the stand that the Defendant beat up was in 1989. If you say it in `88 and you are a racist in `94, well, what are you if you beat her in `89? What are you in `94? But they want you to apply double standards. I will go back to Martin because I feel comfortable with Martin Luther King. Actually I have some Malcolm X, but I'm not going to drop that today. I don't want to get that deep. But Martin Luther King. For Martin Luther King justice was a critical issue in his life here on earth and it was more than a legal issue and it was more than a moral issue; it was a spiritual issue. And let me read to you what he said about justice. And they are just sitting there listening to me instead of staying with me. You got that quote? Are you still looking for that quote?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: He never does that when Marcia Clark is up here talking. I think it is a very appropriate quote for this case--and if he let's that happen again--you are lucky today is the last day of the trial. Read along with me what Martin Luther King said about justice. "Justice is the same for all issues. It cannot be categorized. It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people. Justice cannot be divided. Justice is indivisible." Okay. We can't have a system of law, a system of justice or a concept of justice or a concept of law or a legal standard of burden of proof. We can't have reasonable doubt over here for everybody else and then have another reasonable doubt standard for a particular individual. That ain't justice, okay? That is not justice. That is what he is talking about. That is what he is talking about. He is talking about a double standard of justice. We can't have that.

Let me ask you to ask yourself something. Ask yourselves this when you are in the jury room. As you go through all of that evidence--and I know you are going to critique each and every piece of it. I know you are. I can tell just by looking at you that you are. You are not going to let anything slip by you. You are not going to let anything get by you. You are going to take that evidence, take it apart, and you are going to review it. Ask yourself something as you look at that evidence and assess how important or significant it is to you in this case as you ask yourself whether it incriminates the Defendant or not, as you ask yourself, as they want you to ask yourself, is it planted or not? Ask yourself, hey, if this wasn't O.J. Simpson, would I even be thinking that this might be planted? Would I even be thinking that he wasn't guilty? Am I applying a double standard? Just ask yourself that. If it was anybody else, the same fine lawyers, the same defense, how would you view the case then? Throughout this case they have sent you and us on these little wild goose chases, chasing these red herrings. And you know some people call them red herrings, some people call them deceptions. Do you have my next exhibit ready? Are you reading along with me in this thing? I just gave you. What are you guys--

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

MS. CLARK: Page 11.

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

MR. DARDEN: They say that I am not following my script. Item 5. Have you got that picture?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: Think of all the wild goose chases we went on. You remember early on in the case that one time we discussed the issue of the blood drops at Rockingham and how they got there? And there are all kinds of questions, lots of questions, lots of cross-examination directed at the officers. And as you recall, there appeared to be, on the part of the Defense, an attempt to suggest to you that those blood drops at Rockingham were planted? Remember that? Remember how much time we spent on that? Remember how much time they spent crucifying Fung up here on the witness stand about blood drops at Rockingham? Remember the implications of all of that, how they attempted to suggest that he hadn't bled that night before going to Chicago?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, objection. Improper rebuttal. No such argument.

THE COURT: Overruled. Counsel, who is making the objections here, you or Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: We have two of us, your Honor, as they have two.

THE COURT: One person is making the objections. One person is making the objections. Who is making the objections?

MR. COCHRAN: We will have to talk.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. As they say, what is done in the dark will come to light. I just heard that yesterday. Remember this photograph? Here is another red herring we all went chasing after. Remember that? The police had contaminated the scene, they had traipsed through that scene, crime scene. You remember that. And they threw this photograph up there and what did you think? You thought. Oh, my God, you thought contamination. Garbage in, garbage out. Remember all that stuff? Remember that photograph? Look at the little square there on the right. See that little square there, (Indicating), where they blocked out the name of the media entity that produced that footage?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. That was required to do.

THE COURT: Yes. That was required by the court. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Remember they put that photograph up there?

THE COURT: Who has got a laser. Mr. Wooden?

MR. DARDEN: That is okay. Then what do we do? We went and we got a video. We went and we got a video. Do you have the video? Please. Back it up.

(A videotape was played.)

MR. DARDEN: What did we find out when we went and got that video? We found out that when those officers walked up that walkway that the tape had already been taken down, that the crime scene had already been disbanded. Remember that? They tell you not to believe the messenger. And then Henry Lee comes in here and talks about, you know, possible, maybe, want to be, might be, I don't know, could be portions of imprints or footprints or whatever, and he is making these calls on photographs taken on June 25th. You see the cops walking up and down that walkway after the crime scene has been disbanded?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, that is misleading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: That was not that walkway.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Proceed.

MR. DARDEN: And they tell you not to believe the messenger. And what about the cuts? What about the cuts? Was he cut? When was he cut? They tell you not to believe our message. How many times was he cut that night or the night of June 12th? Is it a coincidence that apparently at about the same time that these people are being butchered he somehow gets cut? And when did he get cut? When did he say he got cut? When did Dr. Baden say he got cut? And when did Dr. Huisenga say he got cut? Don't you think that that little deal in Chicago with the glass--and Marcia Clark will be talking more about that. Are you going to talk more about that?

MS. CLARK: About the glass?


MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: Awfully convenient. How many times can one person get cut in how many different states in one night in one morning? They called him. He knew he had to come back. They said, oh, he just came back. Where was he going to go? I find him. And they tell you not to trust the messenger. And when they showed you photographs during their argument, they showed you all these photographs of the Defendant's body, but they didn't show you that close-up photograph of his left hand. I'm not even going to ask you to put it up there. They didn't show that. Take a look at that photograph. Look at all those cuts. They are all over his hand. They are all over his left hand. That is the same hand that was left exposed during the commission of those murders because Ron Goldman pulled that glove off his hand. And they talk about, oh, well, does it look like O.J. Simpson was in a struggle for his life? It wasn't O.J. Simpson's life that was at stake. He wasn't the one about to lose his life. It was Ron. It was Ron Goldman who was in a life struggle. Look at the nicks and the cuts on him. We talk about heroes. We talk about heroes. A hero is a man that would rush into a life-threatening situation to save a woman without ever thinking about himself first. There are no heroes in this courtroom today. They called Ron Shipp a liar and they really went after him, the whole family. If you are a Prosecutor that really puts you in a difficult situation, when someone from the family comes up here to testify. We don't want to beat up on someone's family. We don't want to do that. This is family. We understand family. We understand why we have it, why they are so important to us, culturally speaking. I know mine is. My big brother would do anything for me, like yours would. But you have to assess the credibility of those folks, just like all the other folks that testified in this case. But they went after Ron Shipp and they had to go after Ron Shipp. They talk about Ron Shipp, his eyes being red and all of this stuff, you know. When you think about--when you think on the issue of whether Ron Shipp was drunk or something that night, I hope that you go back and you read Arnelle Simpson's testimony. And I will just leave it at that. And I hope that you will reflect on her testimony about Ron Shipp. But Ron Shipp, well, they tore into him early on in the trial, right, and that was the first real indication of just what this whole thing was going to be. And they tore into Ron Shipp. And let me offer to you a reasonable explanation for Ron Shipp's eyes being red the night of June 13th. Could it be because he knew that his friend Nicole was dead and that he knew his other friend had killed her?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that, your Honor. That is misleading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: They talk about this man's demeanor after the murders. What did Ron Shipp say about his demeanor? He says they went up into that bedroom, and they did--

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that, "They did." I object to the form.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled, counsel. This is argument.

MR. DARDEN: And what did the Defendant say? To be honest, I had been having dreams of killing her, and chuckled. They say that some people are afraid to hear the truth. I'm just the messenger. He chuckled. Ron Shipp had been a friend of this man for many, many years, to the Defendant. He was his personal policeman. He did all kind of things for him, all kind of things for him. We saw Ron Shipp in those photographs with the Defendant at his forty birthday party. He come over and used the Jacuzzi and the pool. Looked like Kato had to ask permission to use the Jacuzzi. Ron apparently just came over and used it. Ron Shipp told you that he would not have the blood of Nicole on his hands. And it is up to you to decide how credible he is or what significance you want to attach to his testimony, if at all, and it is up to you. But you watched him on the stand and you tell me didn't he look genuine? Didn't he look like he was hurting? In 1989 he went and talked to the Defendant about the beating he inflicted on Nicole. And I heard lawyers yesterday talk briefly about domestic violence and just slough it off, just slough it off to the side like it didn't mean anything. That is because they can't touch it and they can't deal with it. And they said that I could call Lenore Walker. There is a code section in the evidence code that says I can't call Lenore Walker. They know that. But oh, if they had. Ron Shipp was feeling guilty. Yesterday someone threw out this notion that the murderer was after Ron Goldman's envelope. When you get the evidence back there and the photographs, take a look at the envelope. It is for the most part sealed still. That is the way they found it, sealed closed for the most part. Nobody was after that envelope. If someone was there to commit a theft, well, you saw that condo. You saw how nice it was. Is there any indication, any evidence at all that anybody went into the condo to steal anything when they easily could have? This case has nothing to do with theft and robbery. This case only has to do with revenge and jealousy and control and rage. And I was referred to as Dr. Darden yesterday. Well, you know what? I don't know a whole lot about everything, but there is some things that I do know a whole lot about.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that, your Honor, self-serving.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: You don't need a Ph.D. to see what is going on here. Your life experience I think will help you understand what is going on here, just what you know, just what you read in the papers, just what you learned in school and just what you heard from your friends and your girlfriends. Someone suggested that that pathway, this pathway of death, this walkway of death where these two people lay wasn't pitch black that night, that it would have been easy to see two bodies laying there. That ain't true. That is not the evidence in this case. Mr. Karpf testified. He lived next door. He testified that the lighting wasn't great at that location. And Steven Schwab testified that that side of the street is dark. And you can find that testimony at page 13813 and 13086. Just reflect on the type of street lights they got out, those orange things. Everything is dark out there. I don't know why they have those things.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that is improper argument.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: If you don't want to rely on that, rely on Officer Riske's testimony and rely on Sukru Boztepe's testimony. He followed the dog, the dog--Kato, the dog; not Kato the human, but Kato the dog led Sukru to the bodies, and when the dog led Sukru up to the path to the bodies, even Sukru Boztepe had trouble seeing the bodies, and he walked right up there. He testified at page 13940 that he didn't even notice the bodies at first. And then he went and got a police officer, Robert Riske. And at page 14013, you remember his testimony, he testified that the lighting was very poor. "It actually took us a few seconds to find the bodies it was so dark." Robert Riske, Officer Riske testified. Keep in mind this is somebody who has been told there are a couple of dead bodies right up there. He is looking for bodies, unlike some other people that weren't looking for bodies, like Ellen Aaronson and Mandel and the other people out on a date strolling up and down the street. This is a policeman on duty. He is told there are two dead people up this walkway, and as he walks up the walkway he doesn't even see bodies initially. "It actually took us a few seconds to find the body so it was--we didn't see the bodies at all until we were directed by the witnesses." That is what Officer Riske said. And even then had to use a flashlight. And they say to you, don't believe the messenger. You are the ultimate trier of fact in this case. It is up to you to decide what is true and what isn't true, what is fact, what is not fact, what is material and what is irrelevant, and what is helpful to you in resolving this case and what isn't. It is all up to you. And we don't have a problem with that. I don't mind you having this case. Especially since we kept you in custody eight months now, I guess we kind of owe it to you. But when you resolve this case I just hope that you resolve it based on the evidence and not on the rhetoric of myself or others. They want you to believe that because there are no socks shown in that video--remember the Willie Ford video? I'm not going to even show it to you because I want to hurry up and get off this thing, and I have about eight more pages and I want to finish this morning.

THE COURT: All right. When you find a convenient breaking point--

MR. DARDEN: How about eleven o'clock?

THE COURT: The court reporter needs a break, so find a breaking point.

MR. DARDEN: 10:30 or now or close to now?

THE COURT: Closer.

MR. DARDEN: Closer. But just keep in mind, keep in mind the testimony you heard about those socks. They keep saying socks, socks, socks, and they keep talking about transfers, wet transfer stains on the inside no. 3 surface, inside the sock. Now, if you wear socks, you don't take your shoe off and then grab at the end of your toe and pull your sock off. They talk about planting blood and all this stuff. That is nonsense. When you pull off a sock, you stick your thumb or your finger into the sock, don't you, into the sock and you pull your sock down from the inside. You pull your sock down to your foot. Stains 1 and 2, he got that out there killing people. Stain 3 perhaps--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to this. Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Reasonable inference from the evidence.

MR. DARDEN: Stain no. 3. He could have got the blood off his head, underneath the fingernail. He could have taken the sock off, laid it down and then the sock touched the--

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. Who knows? Object.

THE COURT: Overruled, counsel.

MR. DARDEN: You decide. You look at the pictures of the socks. How else do you lay a sock down? I mean, the sides are touching. They are all touching in there. This is no big deal. This is all smoke. Common sense tells you that. Common sense dictates that. And when they say the socks aren't there, the socks aren't there; the socks are there. You heard Mazzola. You heard Fung testify. You heard Willie Ford testify. The reason those socks aren't in the video is because it was his job to go in there and videotape that room after Dennis Fung finished collecting the evidence. And they want to tell you about straps and stuff. And you know, you didn't really get that because that just vhroom, that was something they just threw in to throw right passed you.

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: They want to talk about the timer in the video. What did Willie Ford tell you about the time? He didn't even care about the time in the video. He never even check the time in the video. He never adjusted the timer in the video because it had nothing to do with his purpose in being there. And his purpose--

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: And his purpose was in videotaping that particular room. It was for civil liability purposes. He didn't want to contaminate the evidence, contaminate the room, so he had to wait until after Fung had collected the evidence from the room. That is Willie ford's testimony. You heard that brother testify. He looked like a co-conspirator to you? And they say don't trust the messenger.

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


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

THE COURT: Counsel, have a seat, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, before the jury comes in could we address the court?

THE COURT: One issue, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, when I began my closing argument yesterday there was an objection that Miss Clark made with respect to improper argument which she misheard the testimony and we said I believe an innocent man was accused and the transcript bore it out. However, I do have some concerns here with respect to improper vouching. I think it is improper to make an argument to the jury that Marcia and I are the ones with courage. That is classic improper vouching. I don't think a District Attorney is allowed to say that in closing argument and that is why we objected. I think it is improper for the District Attorney to talk about I prosecute police officers so I know. The implication is either, A, don't worry, I will take care of mark Fuhrman, I will prosecute; B, if Detective Vannatter is lying, don't worry, I would know that. I think that is improper vouching. I think it is improper to make an argument everybody knows he is guilty. That is wrong. I don't think that that kind of argument is permissible. I think it is impermissible. If they wanted to call an expert about domestic violence, that is one thing, but I think it is impermissible to say I know a lot about certain things with respect to domestic violence issues. And most importantly, there was this whole thing where they put up the video, where as was indicated, the court had ordered that that part be redacted and indicated deception. But worse of all, he then makes an argument that Dr. Lee--that those--that infers to the jury or directly states that those shoeprints could have been left by those officers taking the blanket away when Agent Bodziak specifically testified, agreeing with Dr. Lee that they could not be, so that directly misstates the evidence.

Finally, I would make this request, because this is the Prosecution's rebuttal summation and we do not have a chance to get back up, and if there were misstatements of evidence in their opening and closing argument we were able to get back up and read transcript and correct it. If we make an argument with respect to misstating the evidence, I would respectfully request that if the court is going to overrule it, overrule it with the caveat, which I know is the thrust and substance of the court's ruling, the jury's recollection controls, because I think that is the fair and neutral way to do it. And so I make that request of the court and I would also request the court caution counsel and that we have no more of this improper vouching because I think it is an improper form of argument, and I'm talking about those specific matters.

THE COURT: All right. Matter submitted?

MR. DARDEN: Submitted.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is noted. They are overruled. Let's have the jury, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, before that, there are a series of photographs of officers that the Prosecution expects to show that I was shown during this break, during Miss Clark's presentation, and I wanted--I have an objection I wanted to lodge.

THE COURT: What is your objection?

MR. COCHRAN: I think it is it is very similar to when we wanted to show the photographs of Mr. Simpson with the gloves on. That was a still. These are photographs of Riske and the various officers, Lange and the others, and we object. And with regard to the last two photographs that I was shown, that still has the KTLA channel 5 logo on those, so I wanted to lodge my objection, having just seen these things at this point. I think it is analogous and I think it is what the court has said. I haven't seen these before and I presume they would be pictures put up there that she will be testifying about.

THE COURT: Is this four--four-photograph--

MR. COCHRAN: No, no. I think they are one at a time. You can see them if you care to.

MS. CLARK: They are still photographs of the police officers.

MR. COCHRAN: Mostly police officers. I think Mazzola is in there also.

MS. CLARK: They are still photos. I just told Mr. Cochran, when he said he was going to object to this, that the court overruled my objection. I had objected to the stills that they were going to use. They elected not to use them ultimately, but the court overruled it saying the stills were proper. So I made this exhibit on that ruling.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, again the court can see the last photo with the KTLA seal.

THE COURT: Well, the KTLA seal is irrelevant.

MR. COCHRAN: I thought it was irrelevant, but you had us cover it up before, I thought. You had us cover that up. That was--

THE COURT: That is at a time where the source of it was not relevant to the issue.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. All right.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, one more--


MR. SCHECK: --objection I want to note for the record and that is I also think it was an improper argument that Mr. Simpson gave his bags to his lawyer on the way in. First of all, there is no facts in the record establishing that Mr. Kardashian was in the act of representing Mr. Simpson at that point in time or that there was any attorney/client relationship at that point in time, and I think it is highly inflammatory and improper argument, and also, it is not in accord with the known facts in the case. And another one I think that came perilously close to with respect to the discussion of darkness at Bundy, and that is, we all were at the scene. Now, Mr. Darden wasn't, I appreciate that, on the night that we did the jury view, and I have no objection to him citing from certain specific points in the record, but I would just like it noted, we all know what the lighting was like there because we recreated the best we could and then the Prosecution chose not to take the jury on a nighttime jury view. It was their decision. And it seems to me that in terms of good faith arguments based on what is not--what is knowledge of all the parties here, that I think they have to be very, very careful in terms of raising inferences to the jury about what could be seen and couldn't be seen, in light of what we know.

THE COURT: Well, what we know is from a recreation, counsel. The testimony of the witnesses as to approaching that walkway under conditions of darkness on June the 12th and June the 13th are in the record and it is a fair inference.


THE COURT: The argument is concluded, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: I understand that. I'm just saying that it is perilously close.

THE COURT: It is a fair inference that can be drawn from the record. Also, I'm going to admonish counsel on both sides not to make any head shakes, gestures grimaces. I have seen it on both sides. And if I see it again, I'm going to stop you in front of the jury and I'm going to upbraid you in front of the jury. Both sides. Both sides have done it.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

(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. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. I just want to make sure we are safe. Mr. Darden, you may continue.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning again. I'm just about done. Just about done, because I'm very anxious to get this case to you so that you can resolve it, so that we can have some closure as it relates to this case. One of the things that was mentioned the other day was something about Robert Heidstra, and you remember Mr. Heidstra. He was the witness who had the laminated letter from F. Lee Bailey saying he was going to be an important witness for the Defense. And much to do was made about Mr. Heidstra and why we didn't call him, we, the Prosecution didn't call him, and I think it was suggested that we didn't call him because he didn't fit our timeline.

Well, they don't know what we are thinking. They can't read our minds. They called Robert Heidstra in the Defense case. They don't know whether or not we were going to call him in the rebuttal case. They don't know that. Robert Heidstra is a very important witness. They called him. Fine. As long you heard the testimony, that is all that mattered. He testified that he left his house around 10:15, right? Isn't that what he testified to? He said he saw the clock in his apartment, as I recall. He left with his dogs. He left on a walk. He walked around the block. Halfway around the block, and as he approached Bundy, he heard these dogs barking, and he told you that it was around 10:30. And I asked him some questions. I asked him did you look at your watch when you first heard those dogs barking? No. All he could do was give you an approximation as to what time he heard those dogs barking, and in his best estimate, his best guess, it was about 10:30. And so he says he heard Kato, the dog, bark around 10:30 and that he changed directions and walked down that alleyway. He walked down the alley on the opposite side of Bundy. That is the side opposite from Nicole's condo. He walks down the alley. And as he walks down the alley he heard someone yell, "Hey, hey, hey." And he stopped and he paused and he told you that "Hey, hey, hey" voice sounded to him to be the voice of a young man, and he also told you that he heard the voice of another man, an older man, perhaps with a heavier voice. Remember that? Remember that? And he continued to walk down that alleyway, and when he got down to Dorothy he looked west toward Bundy and what did he see? What did he tell you he saw? He saw a vehicle coming east from the direction, from the direction of the alleyway, the alleyway that ran up behind Nicole Brown's condo. It was his vehicle. It was the Defendant.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. That misstates the evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: I asked Mr. Heidstra what color was that vehicle? He said it was white. Just like the Defendant's vehicle. I asked him if the vehicle had tinted windows? He said it did. You look at the pictures of the Defendant's Bronco. Tinted windows.

Yesterday someone stood up here and said to you Heidstra never said anything about Bronco. He said a Jeep or a van. I asked Mr. Heidstra about the vehicle he saw and he told you right here on the witness stand that the vehicle he saw was a Blazer or a Bronco. I asked him specifically. I asked him that specifically at pages 36339 and 36471. And at 36339 he told you--he testified. He was a Defense witness. He testified that the vehicle he saw could have been a Bronco. He didn't look at his watch. He didn't look to see what time it was when he first saw that Bronco. And what did that Bronco do?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, misstates the evidence again, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, ladies and gentlemen, you've heard all the evidence. As I indicated to you when we started these arguments, counsel may argue to you the evidence and draw reasonable inferences from that evidence; however, you are the exclusive judges as to what facts exist from the evidence in this case. Proceed, counsel.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor. And that is true. But this is their witness. This is Robert Heidstra. That is what he testified to here in the transcript. It could have been a Bronco. It could have been a Bronco. That is what he said. Chevy Blazer or a Bronco. Remember that? And I asked him a question. Okay. Well, you say Chevy Blazer or a Bronco. I asked him a question at page 36471. I asked Mr. Heidstra: "A Chevy Blazer and a Ford Bronco looks very much alike to you, doesn't it?"

And his answer was: "Yeah, they look alike. Certainly from a distance." I would suggest to you that the vehicle Heidstra saw leaving Bundy that night was a white Bronco. It is a white Bronco that has all that blood in it. It is the white Bronco that is parked askew at the Defendant's house. This is their witness. And I said it the other day and I will say it again today, I don't care what the time is. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all. He didn't look at his watch at the time that he saw that Bronco or that Blazer. And I asked him about that and I asked him if he looked at his watch and he told us he didn't look at his watch. And then I asked him how long it would take to get from Bundy to the Defendant's house, because as you recall, Mr. Heidstra washed cars, detailed cars for the Salingers, the people that lived directly next door to the Defendant's property. And I asked him at page 36413, counsel, at line 3, I asked him: "Mr. Heidstra, would they have enough time to drive to 360 north Rockingham at arrive by 10:52? " his answer:

"Yes, you could do it. Yes, sure." And I went on to ask him: "You could arrive there by 10:45, correct?" Line 14 page 36413, and at line 15 on that same page his answer was: "Right, yes." They want you to believe that Kato Kaelin heard the thumps at 10:45, and Miss Clark will explain to you how it is that we extrapolate some of the facts, some of the hard facts in this case, facts that can't be disputed and when you consider all the testimony and facts that help establish what time Kato Kaelin actually heard those thumps. But it doesn't matter. If Kaelin says 10:45 and that is his best estimate, Mr. Heidstra says, hey, there is enough time to drive that Bronco from this death scene, this scene of murder, to the Defendant's house. And finally we get to gloves. Finally we come around full circle once again to the issue of gloves. And I watched one of the Defense lawyers stand up here and pull a watch cap over their head and ask you what they looked like, if it changed their appearance. Well, you know, in a lighted courtroom at the intersection of Temple and Broadway it probably doesn't change his appearance at all, especially after somebody has been standing up in front of you for two or three hours. But the issue is would it change his appearance? Would it affect one's ability to recognize him if it was ten o'clock at night? How about 10:03? Will it affect your ability to recognize him in the dark? And what if he had on dark cotton sweats? And what if it was dark out there in front of that condo the way Officer Riske described? What if he had a big knife? These little demonstrations, what we saw, and then we saw one of the lawyers struggle with a pair of gloves. These are the gloves. These gloves are size small. The Defendant's gloves were extra large. We heard so much about the scriptures. I'm not even going to read it. Just read proverbs 6 one day when this is all over. Now, if I'm the messenger, you know I have delivered the message as best as I could, and the message is that he killed these two people and that is what the evidence dictates. They mess around with our science evidence and stuff and try to cause you to lose confidence in that evidence, but Marcia Clark will go back and go over some of the--some of the points we think you might be interested in hearing about, to sort of straighten that out. But I know that you are going to do a good job when you go into the jury room. All I could ever ask from you and all that I ask from you today is that you try and be as objective as you possibly can be, that you not allow any passion or emotion or any bias, any of that human feeling--these human feelings we all have to interfere with the decision you have to make. When I stood before you back in January I said there were many victims in this case. And there are many interests involved in this case. It is an important case to O.J. Simpson and it is an important case to the victims and their families. We just want you to be fair. I just want you to do the right thing. That means the right thing under the law.

We believe we have proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt. And it is unfortunate, it is unfortunate what jealousy does to you. It is unfortunate that obsession. It is unfortunate that obsession can do these things to you. It is unfortunate that two innocent people are dead because this got in this man's way. That is the message we wanted to deliver and I'm the messenger and I'm proud to have delivered it. I thank you for your verdict in advance, in the event I don't get a chance to talk to you then. All of us owe you a debt gratitude. God bless you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

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


MS. CLARK: Good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MS. CLARK: How are you? I'm not allowed to ask you that, I just realized that. Excuse me. I know you are tired of hearing us talk. I'm going to get right into the evidence because I want to go through what they said. I want to show you how the evidence corrects that and I want to talk to you about logic. I want to talk to you about what makes sense, okay, because you have heard a lot of things that really make no sense. You have been here. Lawyers spin stories and spin yarns, too, with no evidence to it. Not only no evidence, but no logic, and in that specifically I'm talking about this story about Mark Fuhrman swiping the bloody glove inside the Bronco. That is a story. That is an interesting story, but it has no substance. Not only does it have no proof to it, but it also has no logic to it, and I will show you why and that is what I want to talk to you about now; logic, what makes sense.

In this case we have seen what the Defendant has done and it has been a very contorted, inconsistent thing. I'm going to point out the inconsistencies to you, but basically they have jumped from we are stupid bumblers and we are brilliant conspirators, and he includes us in this. And I find that particularly painful, ladies and gentlemen, particularly painful, because I have been doing this a lot of years. I didn't start here, I started on that side of counsel table. I was a Defense attorney and I know what the ethical obligations are of a Prosecutor. I took a cut in pay to join this office because I believe in this job. I believe in doing it fairly and doing it right and I like the luxury of being a Prosecutor because I have the luxury on any case of going to the judge and saying guess what, your Honor, dismiss it, it is not here. Ladies and gentlemen, I can come to you and I can say don't convict, it is not here.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. This is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: I have that right. I have that luxury. This job gives me that luxury. It doesn't give me a lot of money, but it gives me that luxury. I can get up in the morning and look myself in the mirror and say I tell you the truth. I will never ask for a conviction unless I should, unless the law says I must, unless he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on credible evidence that you can trust, that you can rely on. I can never do it otherwise. That is my obligation.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your. Honor, this is improper.

MR. SCHECK: Improper.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And that is why I'm standing here before you today, because we have proven it to you, ladies and gentlemen. If I thought for one minute there was a conspiracy--

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. This is improper.

MR. SCHECK: Improper vouching.

THE COURT: Be seated. Ladies and gentlemen, would you have a seat in the jury room, please.

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

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Miss Clark, the last comment that you made, "If I thought for a minute there was a conspiracy"--

MS. CLARK: I didn't get to finish it. It would be my obligation to dismiss this case.

THE COURT: We are close. We are close here, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would ask an instruction.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, in view of the--

MR. SCHECK: This has been highly improper.

THE COURT: Wait. Sit down.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: You are close, Miss Clark. I realize it is not a complete thought, but what you can argue is what the evidence shows. You can argue ethical obligations that Prosecutors have. I'm just cautioning here that you are close here. You are close to the line.

MS. CLARK: Okay, okay.

THE COURT: You are not over it yet. I was--Mr. Scheck.

MS. CLARK: Excuse me. May I just ask for one point of clarification? The thought, as I completed it, is acceptable, is it not?

THE COURT: It is, but every time the "I's" get in there--

MS. CLARK: Yes. Let me just mention this. I have never had a Defense attorney make an argument like Mr. Cochran made, nor have I ever seen a Defense attorney get up and ask for jury nullification in this way.

THE COURT: It was very artfully phrased.

MS. CLARK: I will reserve comment, but what I'm saying, your Honor, is that when a Defense attorney does take the gloves off that way, hit below the belt the way Mr. Cochran does, the law permits us to argue our ethical obligations. The court is aware of that. Under People was Beamon, under U.S. versus Wade, we have the right then to argue what our obligations are. I get to tell the truth, the truth that I have a luxury, they don't have a luxury. I didn't have until I joined this office. They have to represent guilty people and stand you before the jury and say it hasn't been proven, no matter how well it has been proven.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, counsel. You are objecting to her argument to the court?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I object to that statement, guilty people. I am objecting to that. I think I have a right to do that, your Honor. I do.

MS. CLARK: Anyway, these are not remarks that I make to the jury, but when counsel takes off the gloves, makes personal attacks the way he has, saying basically that we are criminals, then we have the right under the law to correct that misimpression and to tell the jury we have ethical obligations that prevent us from pursuing a Prosecution unless we believe a hundred percent.

THE COURT: There is the problem.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Unless you believe the evidence shows it.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Right.

THE COURT: You have to be clear. You cannot infer that you have personal knowledge beyond the state of the evidence.

MS. CLARK: Right. Agreed. No question. I wouldn't do that.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this--they already have. They have gone over the line. Now, as the court noted, the argument yesterday, and it is one that these Prosecutors have to live with, is that they put Mark Fuhrman on the witness stand, they--he testified in a way about--you know, Mr. Cochran accurately cited the record. He read from it. Talking about how he went through all this terrible personal anguish and all these outside issues were raised and he was presented as a totally credible witness. Now, these Prosecutors have to get up in front of the jury and say he is a racist and a liar. They have to do that because that is what happened. The jury is allowed to consider the fact that they were plainly taken by surprise by the perjury of their own witness. They also have a right to consider the fact that other officers probably knew these facts and never came forward. That is fair argument and fair comment on the evidence. What is unfair argument and unfair comment and clear law is for a Prosecutor to stand up and say that I prosecute police officers, Marcia and I are the ones with courage, and then to go on now and say that she used to be a Defense lawyer and now she is a Prosecutor and she has the luxury of dismissing cases if the evidence is not there and coming forward if she thought something was exculpatory, et cetera, and then vouching personally for the reliability of the evidence, is a highly, highly improper form of argument in this state, every state. They have gone way over the line and it has really got to stop. It has really got to stop. And I don't like to sit here and constantly say, "Objection, objection, objection, objection" to improper forms of argument. And the court is being patient and controlled in terms of overruling it, but this is way, way over the line. I mean, I have been teaching law for eighteen years, and I never heard this kind of stuff, and I dare say that people--I mean, it is amazing. It is amazing. They cannot say it. And what is particularly galling is that they are saying it when they are the ones that have to live with the fact that one of their principle witnesses perjured himself after they put him on. It hurts, but Mr. Cochran's comments with respect to that are fair on the evidence, and trying to vouch in this fashion is improper--improper rebuttal and improper form of argument period.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, what I heard also was you can't trust the messengers and you can't trust the message.

MR. SCHECK: Well, those were--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.

MR. SCHECK: Sorry.

THE COURT: And Mr. Darden clearly cast himself as a messenger in his argument. That was a clear, clear shot at the integrity of counsel on this side, and they are entitled to respond.

MR. SCHECK: Wait a second. I think that is incorrect, and please hear me on this. Mr. Cochran's arguments yesterday, Mr. Darden got up and said I'm just the messenger sending you evidence. Mr. Cochran got up and said the messengers in this case are the witnesses. The messengers are mark Fuhrman--oh, he did--and Vannatter. He talked about these messengers being deceivers and that is the argument. Now, I mean, I don't see how the court can allow this kind of vouching if you are inferring that there is some kind of, you know, metaphor cross-over here. Mr. Cochran has a perfect right, it is a total fair comment on the evidence, to talk about these Prosecution witnesses as messengers. If Mr. Darden chooses to cast himself as a messenger, too, well, that is fine, but I didn't interpret that as a comment on Mr. Darden. It was a turn of phrase. And he specifically talked about these witnesses, and to the extent that Mr. Cochran is pointing out that Mark Fuhrman was put up there first as a credible witness and now they have to admit that he is a liar, as he did, and they are distancing themselves, that is fair comment. What is unfair comment is for them to get up here and in this fashion vouch for every other witness and every other piece of evidence in a highly improper form. They have gone way over the line, way over the line.

THE COURT: Cite me a case, counsel, California law dealing with comments of counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor, you have discretion here and we all know the basic principles.

THE COURT: I have cautioned and I have cautioned and I have cautioned them, counsel. Well, the California state bar is a bar that is unto itself and has its own rules.

MR. SCHECK: I have read the code on this case and I understand that you can say what you can't say in other jurisdictions about showing screens and the rest of it, but in this jurisdiction and in every other jurisdiction there are rules about vouching and they have gone over that line.

THE COURT: Well, here is the problem.

MR. SCHECK: We want an instruction.

THE COURT: No, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: The court should at least give a balancing instruction at this point to the jury that it is not the Prosecutor's personal views or personalities or anything else about the evidence that govern; it is their view of the evidence and they should take that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: I think we are entitled to an instruction like that at this point.

THE COURT: What a Prosecutor may not do as a Prosecutor, may not express personal opinion or belief in a Defendant's guilt where there is some substantial danger that the jurors will interpret this as being based upon information beyond the evidence produced at trial. I have not heard that yet.

MR. SCHECK: Well, that is--that is a different--that is a different improper form of argument, and I think actually Mr. Darden was pretty close to that when he was talking about everybody knows and yesterday he was saying things like he's a murderer. I think he actually went over that line. But let's put that aside. What I'm most concerned about--

THE COURT: Are you saying that there is a substantial danger that when a Prosecutor stands up and says that the Defendant accused of murder is a murderer, that that goes over the line?

MR. SCHECK: No, no, no. I'm saying that you just read, in terms of a Prosecutor's obligation, he has got to say things like the evidence shows, we submit, and I think that in terms of rhetoric he went over that line. But let's put that aside. What I'm most concerned about, and the court frankly is not addressing here, the court can't be seriously suggesting that there--that a form of argument that says we are courageous, we know our ethical obligations, we are telling you that this evidence is correct, if I thought there was a conspiracy, I would come forward and tell you, all that, everything they have been doing this morning is an improper form of argument. It is improper vouching. And your Honor, I think you know it, and I think that we have to have an instruction here.

THE COURT: You are close here, Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: I have made my point, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Miss Clark, I'm cautioning you, though.

MS. CLARK: I understand, your Honor.

THE COURT: People versus bane 5 cal.3d 839, the court's comments at 848.

MS. CLARK: I am aware.

THE COURT: You are cautioned.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I'm going to--

THE COURT: I don't want to hear any more "I's."

MS. CLARK: Right. You won't. I'm ready. I'm ready to say no more "I's."

THE COURT: Deputy Smith.

(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. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, as I indicated to you earlier, argument is a very important part of the case. It is the opportunity of the lawyers to actually bring everything together in a logical and coherent way. And I indicated to you that the lawyers may argue the evidence that is in the record and draw from that evidence reasonable inferences for you to consider. Those are the guidelines. I needed to discuss a few matters out of your presence with the lawyers. We are ready to proceed. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Once again, so as I was saying, if there is evidence of a conspiracy, it would be my obligation to dismiss, pure and simple, and I can go on to the next case.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, we object again.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: But there isn't, and in this case--

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to finish what I have to say to you and I'm going to do it as quickly as I can. Okay. What we have here is logic and evidence and common sense, which when you weave them all together you can see what the truth is. You can see what is really happening here. I'm going to start with a very simple example and that is the arguments that were made to you about the notification of the--to the Coroner. You might remember that counsel made a big deal about the fact that it wasn't the--the Coroner wasn't called until late, and Mr. Cochran has repeatedly referred to the rush to judgment. Now, let me address that with you for a second, the rush to judgment. The argument has been made that when they went to Rockingham, what they really wanted to do was make an arrest, right? Rush to judgment. They had it in mind that they were going to go there and arrest him and he was a suspect. And there was a reference made to a remark made by Mr. Vannatter in January or February of this year that seemed to contradict what he was telling you about his state of mind. Now, I don't know about you folks, but what I do when I have a doubt, when I wonder about what somebody really means, whether I can believe them, I look what they do, look what they do, that we were all taught as kids, actions speak louder than words. Yes, they do. Yes, they do. People can say things, we all know they can, but let's see what they do. Now, what did they do? Okay. Let's look back at the evidence that is not contested, the evidence that is--that stands unrefuted. They were out at Bundy. Commander Bushey told the initial detectives get on out there, go and make notification at Rockingham. You know that would be a problem for somebody who is famous, because if the media find out, it is all over the place, that is a very painful thing, and Commander Bushey sure doesn't want it to happen on his watch that that would happen in this case, so he told them, go out there. That is what he told you. Did they? No. They weren't sure if they were going to keep the case. I'm weaving the testimony for you together without reading from the transcript. You have it, though. I'm not going to bore you. But Detective Phillips did say we weren't sure if we were going to keep the case, if we had the resources. That was a real big problem with this case, because they only had four or six detectives in homicide over in West L.A. so they thought that it might be taken over by robbery/homicide division downtown that has many, many detectives and more resources, before they act, before they moved to make notification, which is an important thing to do in a homicide case. Your first contact with next of kin is to go and make the notification, make that contact, establish that rapport. And there might be some information that you can get from the next of kin or the person, you know, that would be very helpful to solving the case. The person could be a witness. Okay. Now, especially in this case where they have children in common, he might know who she is dating or not, because you know, they are divorced, but they still have to have contact. He might know something. It is an important first contact for them to make, so whoever is the handling detective is the one that is supposed to go. This is the testimony you've already heard. I'm not telling you anything knew. So they waited. They waited until they found out if robbery/homicide was going to take the case, and sure enough, they did. That is what happened. Vannatter and Lange came out there, and I guess they showed up around 4:00, 4:30, I think it was. All right. So they were standing out there waiting for quite a long time. Now, when Vannatter and Lange got there they--or in between I think when it was finally assigned to robbery/homicide, Commander Bushey spoke to them again and said go to Rockingham. You know, how many times do I have to say this? Go and do it. So then finally they still didn't go and do it. They still didn't run out there, okay? I can't remember, I think he said it was around the time--he couldn't be specific about the time, but he said he knew that Vannatter was there, that robbery/homicide had taken over the case. Now, Vannatter didn't get there I think until 4:00 or so. The record will refresh your memory. I can't remember exactly. I'm not trying to tell you for sure, but it was that time.

Even then they didn't go immediately. It wasn't--I think about five o'clock when they finally went to Rockingham, finally went there. Now, think about this. There were a lot of questions asked about why couldn't you have sent a rookie to go and make notification. Okay. Now, you know that doesn't make sense. If notification is an important thing, first of all, it has to be handled delicately, sensitively by people who have done this before, many times before, homicide detectives. It is one of the saddest parts of their job to have to make these notifications everyday, but they know how and they know how to deal with it. Bless you. So they are going to go and do it themselves. It is an important contact. That is their job. That is their duty, okay? So they can't send a rookie out to do it, but what should they do? Think about this now. If it is their intent to go out to Rockingham, make an arrest, because he is a suspect, there are certain things they should have done. No. 1 thing is you take back-up. You don't go by yourself. You take back-up. You take a couple of squad cars, you make notification downtown, hey, we are going to arrest and this is an important suspect, and you know, this could be a media event. You make plans. You make arrangements. They did nothing.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor.


MR. COCHRAN: Misleading.

MS. CLARK: They went out there and they took just the four detectives in their two cars they went over to Rockingham. That is all they did. What else should they have done ask yourself?

MR. COCHRAN: Misleading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Overruled. They may argue reasonable inference from the evidence that is in the record.

MR. COCHRAN: If it is misleading?

THE COURT: Counsel, have a seat.

MR. COCHRAN: I will, your Honor, but it is misleading.

MS. CLARK: Your common sense will tell you I'm not misleading you. This makes sense. I'm talking logic. I'm talking logic based on what the witnesses have told you. You know it when you hear it. Now, what else should they have done if they are going to go make an arrest that is going to take sometime? Really wrapped up. Do questioning. They could take downtown the things that you know happened when someone gets arrested. So if they know they are going to take a long time, they have a crime scene that has to be processed, they have two dead people lying out there and all that evidence around, what would they do? They would go to somebody who is going to stay at the crime scene and they would say call the Coroner, we are going to be gone a while. Call the criminalist, we are going to be gone a while. We need you to get this evidence collected and we won't be here because we are going to make an arrest. Did they do any of that? No. Now, what the evidence has shown is--and what they have testified to and what their actions tell you is true, they expected to come right back. Two of them would stay with Mr. Simpson, taking care of him, taking him to the station to get his children, making the arrangements, and two would go back to Bundy and handle the crime scene, and their actions totally support that. If they expected to be gone a long time, they wouldn't all four go or they would tell someone else take care of business for us, we are going to be gone. They didn't do that. What their actions tell you is we are coming right back. It doesn't really matter if somebody isn't taking care of business and calling the Coroner and calling the criminalist. Logic. Logic. Look at their actions. Look at their actions. You don't trust the word. Look at what they do. That is what they did. All right. Now, an argument was made to you about standing the constitution on its head, and that is because I said, look, why don't they call these witnesses? There are witnesses they should logically call. I'm talking about logic, I'm talking about reason, I'm talking about what do you expect, what would you like to hear? These are questions you are entitled to have answered. These are questions that you should consider. These are fair and reasonable questions and these are questions that do not stand the constitution on its head. I told you when I first argued to you in the beginning of all these long arguments, that they would be telling you many, many times, the Defense, we don't have to prove anything. If you heard it once, you heard it fifty times. They did. That is what they said, and that is right; they don't. But when they do, but when they try to, then you have to evaluate their evidence the same as ours. There is no difference. The jury instructions govern all the witnesses.

And so you look what is the quality of evidence that you have been given by the Defense? What witnesses have they called? What logical witnesses that you would expect to be called weren't called? That all tells you something. It is legitimate for you to consider it, you must consider it, because as I showed you in the jury instruction beyond a reasonable doubt, you must consider all of the evidence. That means everything that was done and not done. And here is an example. Thano Peratis. Remember, that was the nurse. He drew the blood. That was their witness. Now, he was their witness because he was the cornerstone of their case. Very important to make you believe that there is missing blood. But then--now I think Defense counsel made some reference to that, the notion that we--Hank Goldberg secretly went out and interviewed him. What secret? You know, if you have a question about this, ask the Judge. No attorney for either side is required to give notification to another side, oh, I'm going to go interview my witness. That makes sense, doesn't it? They don't notify us and we don't notify them. We talk to them, we give them evidence of it. We give them a statement, here, we talked to this guy. Here is the statement. That is what we do. Hank Goldberg went and talked to him. Mr. Peratis said, no, I didn't measure, no, I didn't look, and I realize I was wrong. I was trying to be very precise. Okay. Now, here is the syringe. You are going to have this back here. You can look at it. And what he said was I turn it over, I had it turned over and I couldn't see the number. And you will see when you look at the numbers and all these little lines as are sitting there like this, you are this going to be able to measure precisely how much you have got in there, but if you have it turned over, you are really not going to know. Okay. But beyond all of that, it kind of makes sense, if no one tells you must take this much blood, you are not going to look to take that much blood. You are going to take enough. You take enough for sampling, for testing, and that is what they did. Now, Thano Peratis is not truly a real important part of our case because we proved to you in many different ways the integrity of the evidence. I'm going to get into the blood evidence and why it is proven to have integrity in just a little bit. Let me start with hair and fiber, though. Jonathan, do we have this? Thank you. All right. Now, there were a number of misstatements made to you yesterday by Mr. Scheck concerning the hair and fiber evidence. I'm going to go into just a couple of them. And one thing that Mr. Scheck said was that Mr. Deedrick and Dr. Lee agreed that hair and fiber association was weak association. Well, here is what Dr. Lee testified to, page 43168. Question posed Dr. Lee. "Do you agree with the following statement: While it is difficult to make absolute individualizations ins these areas, the trace analyst can make identifications with a high degree of certainty and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence based on experience and analytical results? "Answer: I would say eighty to ninety percent that statement correct. They forgot one thing. Depends on sample. Not all the sample you can reach that degree of certainty. Some of the sample, yes, you can." In other words, it is a very good. What he said, "Can establish partial individuality with confidence." In other words, it is a very strong method of association. Now, I'm going to show you, show you the pictures, and you will see why they make that strong statement about it.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: You may remember, we showed you this during the trial. This is People's 480. Remember this? It says "Known head hairs" on the top row and then the "Hairs from the knit cap" at the bottom row, and you look at them and you compare and you see. Your eyes tell you. You don't need to look at x-rays. You don't need to look at autorads. These were the hairs in the knit cap found at the feet of Ron Goldman. This is testimony that was unrefuted. No Defense expert came in to tell you this wasn't so. And People's 481. Again, the "Defendant's known hairs," "Hairs taken from the knit cap," "Hair from Ron Goldman's shirt." You can see this.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Mr. Scheck also told you that the blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt, on the Rockingham glove and on the Defendant's socks, were very common. That is what he argued to you yesterday. That is not what the testimony said. Let me read to you what Doug Deedrick told you about this, page 35093. "Question: Now, you saw a lot of fibers in this case, correct? "Answer: A lot, yes. "Question: Was there something unusual about these particular blue black cotton fibers that drew your attention or made you pay particular attention to them? "Answer: Yes. Well, cotton fibers themselves, they are common. There is a lot of cotton fibers out there. What gives cotton fibers significance is that when you add color to them in a specific way, some you see more, maybe less likely than others. These particular--these are actually it is a real dark blue. It looks black, but in some areas the dye was not absorbed the same and this may be where the yarns are attached to the fabric. The same thing appeared also on the fibers that were recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt, the bluish area also present here. It was recovered from the Defendant's socks. The bluish area here is starting to show. Some of these areas can better be shown using instrumental techniques with color because the eyeball sees this as a shade of blue, this as a shade of blue and so forth." And then he goes into all of the methods that he used to examine these blue black cotton fibers to determine that they were--they did in fact share the same microscopic characteristics. And I was going to read it all to you, but it is just too long. There is a lot of tests that he used and it had to do with the color and it had to do with the dye and it had to do with the appearance. And if you need to have it read back, please do, but you also have a picture. And if you don't want to read it, you can just see it, People's 487.

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, would you just show that briefly to counsel.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Did you see it, your Honor? And you can look at these fibers. Look from the Rockingham glove, Ron Goldman's shirt, the Defendant's socks. These are things you can see. Now, there was also some discussion about the Defendant having dandruff, if you recall. And it was told to you that the Defendant always had dandruff in the off season. That is not what the testimony showed. Here is what the testimony actually showed about that, page 37441. "Question: And sometimes in the summer when you saw him take care of his hair he would have dandruff and sometime he would not? "Answer: That's correct." That was his barber. Another interesting thing that she told us is that unless you brush the hair vigorously, the dandruff does not come off. So I asked her: "If you don't, if you just brush his hair, the dandruff doesn't come off? "Answer: Right, which means if you don't brush or comb the hair and it just falls off by itself, the dandruff doesn't come off, if you don't do anything to the hair, I guess it will just stay there." Now, the hairs in the cap did not have dandruff and the Defense wants you to believe it couldn't be his hair because he has dandruff. That is not what the testimony showed. That is not what the evidence showed. The evidence showed sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't, but actually even if he did, it wouldn't come off in the knit cap because you had to brush vigorously to get it out so that it would show. So what you have in the knit cap are his hairs, the naturally shed hairs that are his because he wore the hat.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

MS. CLARK: Okay. You have jury instructions. I spoke to you a little bit about them before. There was one I didn't talk to you about I want to mention now because I'm going to talk a little bit about Dr. Baden and what he testified to, and that instruction is 2.--2.80? Do you have it on the bench, your Honor, 2.80?

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Wait. I have it. Thank you. You have a few instructions that tell you about expert testimony and this can be really helpful to you because I think that--I think I'm not alone in getting a little bit intimidated by experts, they know, they have "Doctor" in front of their name and what do I know, but you shouldn't be. You shouldn't be. You are allowed to evaluate the opinion of a doctor, and if it doesn't make sense, you can say, "You don't make sense, I don't believe you." It doesn't matter if they have "Doctor" or "Ph.D." before or after their name. You get to evaluate it because if it is not logical, if it doesn't make sense, it doesn't matter what their title is, and that is basically what the instruction says. 2.80, you will have it back there, and it says the following: "You are not bound to accept an expert opinion as conclusive, but should give to it the weight to which you find it to be entitled. You may disregard any such opinion if you find it to be unreasonable." Okay. So what that tells you is don't be intimidated by the title. You know what makes sense, and if you find it to be unreasonable, toss it. Okay? Dr. Baden told you some things that were--that made absolutely no sense. They defied the laws of gravity. What am I talking about? I'm not going to drag all the pictures out here right now, you will have them back there if you want to verify this. One thing that he said that I just couldn't believe I was hearing is that the jugular vein cut was the one that caused the blood on Ron Goldman's pants. Now, think about this. This is jumping blood, because there isn't a big--then it should be jumping down the shirt, right? Logic tells you that if he is bleeding from the neck, it is going to drip down his shirt and then get to his pants. You look at his shirt. It is not there. The front of the shirt is not blood-soaked in front over the place where the pants are all blood soaked, so it is very obvious that where the blood came from is the stab wound in the hip, and Dr. Baden's testimony on that makes absolutely no sense. Another thing that makes no sense, that actually disregards what gravity tells you must be true. But what I think what Dr. Lakshmanan told you as well, and he is medically qualified, and that is this: He also said--and this is how he gives you this big time frame, by the way, which makes no sense all by itself, and I will talk about that in a minute. He said that there was a period of between five to fifteen minutes from the time that the neck wound was inflicted to the time that the chest wound was inflicted, and he based that on the very small amount of blood found in the chest cavity on Ron Goldman's right side, okay? In other words, what he is basically telling you is that blood pressure had so dropped as a result of this jugular wound, he bled out so much that by the time he got stabbed here, (Indicating), it had to be about ten minutes later and that is why there is so little blood in the cavity. Okay. But Ron Goldman was lying on his right side and bleeding out, so you could actually see it in the photographs. You will have back there. There was a tree stump that I think has the number "106" on it. When you have the photographs, look at this, please, because it is blood-soaked, and what they did--before they got the actual reference vials of the victim's blood from the Coroner, was they went and they took blood samples from the place where the victims were lying so they would have some idea ahead of time what the victim's blood types were. So they took a swatch from the tree stump near Ron, because obviously that was his blood. They also took a swatch from the area of blood that Miss Brown was lying in, and that was her reference sample taken from the crime scene. That is how much he was bleeding out. Dr. Baden doesn't believe in gravity, doesn't believe that that is why he had so little blood in his cavity, doesn't believe that somebody lying on their right side is going to bleed out if he is lying there for a while, and says there is so little blood there, that means he was already near death and that means the jugular wound had been bleeding for quite a long time, and that is ridiculous. I will tell you why. You don't even have to be a doctor to figure this one out. Somebody commits murder, are they going to hang around? What was he doing for ten minutes? Between the time that he inflicted the jugular cut and the time that he inflicted the chest cavity, if you believe Dr. Baden, he has got ten minutes to kill. The door is standing open. There is no evidence of ransacking, there is no evidence of disturbance. What is he doing, playing solitaire out there? That is ridiculous. What are they asking you to buy? That is why I'm saying look at the jury instruction. You may disregard any such opinion if you find it to be unreasonable. Ladies and gentlemen, that is one of the most unreasonable things I think I have ever heard any doctor say. That is ridiculous.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, if would you slow down just a little.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, I'm trying to get it over with. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Chris. While we are on expert testimony, EDTA, very, very briefly. Okay. You were--you were told during argument that a letter was sent to Agent Martz asking him to refute the allegation that the blood was planted. That is not what the letter says. The letter says.

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this, counsel?

MS. CLARK: I didn't bring the exhibit number, your Honor. I just have the letter.

THE COURT: All right. Supply that for us.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: I don't have the number, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you just--all right. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: The question posed was: "We would like you to test these items for the presence/absence of EDTA in order to refute the possibility that the stain on the sock could have come from the reference sample." Now, what is the point of that? When we heard that the Defendant was going to make this outrageous allegation, I thought, well, I won't close my mind to anything. Let's find out.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Be careful.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So we sent the reference samples and we sent the sock and we sent the rear gate samples to Agent Martz for testing. Let's find out. And what was the result? No EDTA. No big surprise, but no EDTA. Now, he came in and he testified and he showed you these charts, and I want to show them to you one at time because it made it so clear. And perhaps you may recall he tested his own blood unpreserved, he tested the evidence on the gate and he tested the blood on the sock, and guess what? His own unpreserved blood and the gate stain and the sock stain all came out looking the same. They came out looking like this. We taped all their charts together so what you see here is the results of all those things.

THE COURT: What exhibit?

MS. CLARK: That is 544-e, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. That was Agent Martz' own blood and the evidence; that means the gate, the rear gate blood and the sock blood. That is what that looked like, so unpreserved blood, and the evidence had all those jagged peaks. Okay. Here is 544-f. This is what it looks like when we have EDTA preserved blood. All the same. That is--that stuff all comes from the test-tube with EDTA in it. Does that look anything like the jagged peaks that we just showed you? That is pretty easy. But Dr. Rieders thought he could--thought he could get you to blind your eyes and listen to his title and say, well, gee, I'm not qualified, maybe they do look alike. I mean, it is ridiculous, but he did that and he insults your intelligence with this. But what is even worse and what shows you really that this is a man whose opinion is for sale is that his initial report said I found two of the three ions on the gate and on the sock and he thought that was going to be good enough for him to say, well, could be consistent with and he could slide around with that. Unfortunately what happened, after he wrote that report, was Agent Martz then said, gosh, I wonder what it would be like if I tested my own blood without any EDTA in it? Took blood out of his arm and he went and he tested it with not EDTA, just regular ol' blood, and guess what? It looked just like the gate, it looked just like the sock.

When Dr. Rieders found that out, he said, I've got to do something because they have just proven me completely wrong for what he did. For the first time on the witness stand he said I found another ion on the sock and he tried to show you that one of those peaks matches something else. It was really reprehensible, and I know, I got a little bit excited with Dr. Rieders, but this is a man--this is a man--let's not forget where he comes from. Let's not forget what he did before. I asked him about questions about this other case, the case of poisoning you may recall, the case of oleander poisoning in which he was asked by the District Attorneys of Ventura County and this county to find out whether a man died of natural causes or had been poisoned to death. Now, that sounds pretty serious, doesn't it? That is a murder charge that can or cannot be brought based on what his test shows. And he did preliminary screening tests, he did not use state of the art, he didn't even know what state of the art was available at the time, and he came back with the answer, yes, poison is present. Poison is present. And had the D.A. and the Defense attorney not joined together to go out and find an expert who had much more sophisticated equipment who could do definitive testing, an innocent man would have gone to prison for murder because Dr. Rieders was so sloppy and so out of date and had an opinion for hire for whoever was bidding, that is what would have happened, but fortunately the D.A. said, no, we are going to go and check that again.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: Counsel, that does go beyond the scope.

MR. COCHRAN: Goes beyond the evidence.

MS. CLARK: And that is why you have to view very, very carefully the experts, see if they make sense, see if you can rely on them, see if they are believable, see if they are logical, and consider the fact that they are for hire. Sure, that makes a difference. Dr. Baden, Dr. Baden who came and told that you gravity doesn't work, paid over $100,000 in this case. He is very charming, he is very affable, I enjoyed seeing him in court, but hearing him was something else. Over $100,000 he got paid in this case. There was also a reference made to you, Mr. Darden began to address it, about golf balls, you may recall, and then it was argued as well. It was argued that the Defendant had that little dark bag that he insisted on picking up and that was for carrying golf balls to the tournament in Chicago. Now, first of all, what kind of sense does that make? You take your own golf balls to a golf tournament? Don't you think they are going to give you some there? But it is worse than that, because that is not what the evidence shows. Allan Park was specifically asked about that. "Can you tell us, sir, whether you saw any golf balls in that lawn area that night? "Answer: No." Kato was asked the same question. "Did you ever see balls in relationship to a bag that was similar to the bag you saw on the driveway on June the 12th? "No, I don't think so. I don't remember seeing that. I think there were balls in the garage, kind of just balls that were there." And that was a question asked by Mr. Shapiro of Kato Kaelin. So not only doesn't it make any sense, but there is no evidence to support it at all. Now, there was something else said to you represented that Mr. Kaelin and pictures and a videotape also refute, and that is a side door.

You may recall that Defense counsel mentioned to you why would it be Mr. Simpson walking in through that front door when Allan Park was sitting out there watching him? He could have gone in from the side. Not true. And the evidence proves it is not true. First of all, Mr. Kaelin testified that the laundry room referred to by counsel was not really used, but we have better than that for you, ladies and gentlemen. We have a videotape. We have that inventory videotape that counsel brought in that shows that door, that shows on June 13th that there were things--little step ladder and stuff like that in front of the door, which gives you a clear indication that door waters not in use and that is the condition of that area on that--on the afternoon of June the 13th. Do we have the clip?

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

MR. WOODEN: 1068.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Wooden.

(At 11:46 A.M., Defense exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.)

MS. CLARK: There we go. Laundry room. Whoops, back up. That was quick.

(The playing of the videotape continues.)

MS. CLARK: Okay. See the laundry room in there. See that step ladder? You saw it--see the step ladder? See the bag of laundry? It is stacked in front of the door.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. That is--

THE COURT: Overruled, counsel. It speaks for itself.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The counter is at 3:01 P.M. thank you, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Now, do you put a step ladder, do you put a basket of laundry if front of a door that you use? Obviously not. So there was no other way in and that is why, that is why Allan Park saw the Defendant walking in the door that night. And I'm going to tell you something, ladies and gentlemen. That was the defining moment of this trial. That was the one. Because when you understand that the Defendant was out that night, when you understand that he lied to Allan Park about being asleep, when you understand that that Bronco was moved and that he was out in that Bronco that night and that 10:03 call to Paula Barbieri is because he was out there making that phone call, then you understand how the Defense falls apart, then you understand where he was when his whereabouts are unaccounted for. And Allan Park's testimony is unrefuted. Allan Park came in and told us the truth and he told it consistently, the Bronco was not there and neither was the Defendant, until 10:54. Excuse me. Thumps on the wall, 10:52. That is one more important point.

MR. COCHRAN: That misstates again, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled, counsel.

MS. CLARK: That is another important point and this is why phone records are a good thing and you will have the testimony. I'm not going to read to you any more. You are probably tired of hearing that. You have it in the record. I asked specifically Kato: "Did you look at a clock? Did you look at your watch when you heard that thumping noise on your wall?

"No, I didn't. "So this is an estimate? "Yes, it is an estimate." He is estimating because he is not looking at what time it is. He says: "I called Rachel around this time. About a half an hour later I heard the thumps." It is an estimate. We had to go with that until we realized that Allan Park had a phone record. He had a phone record that said when he made a call and said when the call ended. And it was at the end of that call to his boss or from his boss that he saw Kato Kaelin out in the side yard, and Kato Kaelin told you, and it is unrefuted and it is uncontested, that it was two to three minutes after the thumping that he was out on that side yard. That is what he told you. And that means that the thumping occurred at 10:52 and then Allan Park saw Kato in the side yard at 10:54, at the same time as he saw the Defendant walking in the door, 10:54. That means that two minutes after the thumping the Defendant is going into his house and that means the thumping was done by the Defendant. And they want to make fun of the fact that he ran into an air conditioner because it is his property and wouldn't he know better? Well I don't think that he hangs out on the south pathway a whole lot. That is not where Mr. Simpson would go. That is where a repairman would go, maybe a maid would go. He doesn't go down there, and anyway--

MR. COCHRAN: Again that is speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And that dark and that narrow little pathway in a hurry when you are pressed and you are frantic, you are not going to be looking to see everything that is coming. You are running, you are running, he is in a hurry and that is why that happens. And now, there was also some statement about there was nothing around that glove, but Dr. Lee, Dr. Lee said differently. Page 43200. "Question: Now, in addition to that, doctor, when you were at the Rockingham location did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of air conditioning unit near Kato Kaelin's house? "Answer: Yes, sir."

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may we approach?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, your Honor--

MS. CLARK: It is in the record, your Honor.

THE COURT: Hold on. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We got a problem here. Never mind. Go ahead. By the way, counsel, one of you gets to make objections; not both of you. I have warned you about that three times now.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: It is not trial by committee.

MR. COCHRAN: Forgive us. Sometimes it is something that we want to get to you right away and we are both speaking, so that is why that happened, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: This appears to be, if you read the entire thing, quote, he said he found nothing out there.

MS. CLARK: No, that is not--

MR. SCHECK: Not only that, let's make it very clear, and I'm sure the court recalls this, and that is that I came in the next day and made a specific objection on the record because this was a situation where he was about to bring up presumptive testing. And then I said, "You have answered the question" and cut it off and I made a specific objection on the record because Dr. Lee would have come back and testified that what he did was a swipe on the air conditioner and he got a positive, but a positive that came not from what in his opinion was blood, but from the fact that you tests the surfaces, you are going to get positives, and I made that specific objection on the record.

THE COURT: Hold on, hold on.

MR. SCHECK: Ruling about closing argument--

MS. CLARK: You know--

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Goldberg knows--

THE COURT: Hold on. It does not appear--that argument does not appear to be supported by the record.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, you know something? You are only looking at one page. I will get the other pages for you. It is exactly what the witness said. Have I misrepresented what the witness said?

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. It is five minutes to noon. Move on to something else. Skip this point and we will pull the record. This is from volume 213.

MS. CLARK: I read the record. That is all I did.

THE COURT: Counsel. "Question: Now, in addition to that, doctor, when you were at the Rockingham location did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of the air conditioning near Kato Kaelin's house? "Answer: Yes, sir. "Question: And was that something that you believed that--that you thought appeared to be blood? "Answer: I test some door knobs, some sink traps and air conditioner. "Question: I am just asking about the air conditioner." "I saw"--the answer is: "I saw in different places."

MS. CLARK: Including the air conditioner, your Honor.


MS. CLARK: That is what he said. What are we talking about here? Those are his words.

MR. SCHECK: I came in and corrected her on the record.

MS. CLARK: They can deny reality. They are in denial about this. That is what he said.

THE COURT: Keep your voice down. Wait a minute. There is only one person, Mr. Cochran, who is arguing.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: It is noontime. Let me pull the full record. Move on to something else.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MS. CLARK: It was also represented that Dr. Lee and Dr. Baden both agreed that the amount of struggle would have been a very long one. Dr. Lee didn't say that. He said something a lot less certain than that, and I will read to you what he said. "Question: Can you tell us blow by blow what happened here? "Answer: No, I cannot. That is a good question. "Question: All right. Thank you. And doctor, would it be fair to say if we cannot tell blow by blow what happened here, you cannot tell blow by blow what happened, then it is difficult to give any kind of a scientific estimate of time? "Answer: That's correct." That is what Dr. Lee said. Now, with respect to Dr. Baden, it was represented to you that Dr. Baden said the perpetrator would have been covered in blood. That is not true. You can have all of Dr. Baden's testimony read back. I went and looked at it. It is not there. He didn't say that.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form.

MS. CLARK: He didn't say it. Not only that, but their own expert, Mr. MacDonell--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --had some interesting things to say about what kind of blood or how much blood you would ever expect to find, and as a matter of fact, we read the title into the record, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.". This makes sense. A crime can happen in many different ways. Use your logic and use your common sense. If you are standing behind somebody cutting their throat, they are bleeding out and they are not bleeding on you, so you will get some on your hands, maybe you will get a little bit of the spatter, but you are not going to be covered in blood and you are certainly not going to be covered in the kind of blood in the Bronco because it is not on your back. When you think about this, think about it logically, but don't let the record mislead you. If you want it read back, they will do it for you. They will do it for you. Don't hesitate to ask, ladies and gentlemen. Most important is that you base your decision on what is there, what is really there, not on what some lawyers tells you is there or not on what you wish was there, but what is on really there. I know you will do that. Take a break?

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will take our noon recess at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Do not 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, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:30.

(At 11:59 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Scheck, you wanted to be heard on page 43200?

MR. SCHECK: Yes, your Honor. A few things to say about that. The first point to be made is that I think in Miss Clark's argument, she started to say that--with the statement there was nothing around the glove, but Dr. Lee--Dr. Lee stated differently. Now, she starts with a question: "Dr. Lee, when you were at the Rockingham location, did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of the air conditioning unit near Kato's house?

"Answer: Yes, sir." That's all that's in the record at this point. Now, as the court noted at the bench, I would say there's three reasons at least that this was improper comment and that we should have an instruction to the jury, which is my request, that there is no evidence in this case Dr. Lee found blood on the air conditioner. And it's for at least three reasons. No. 1, there's a clear ruling in this case by this court that we've all had to live by that presumptive tests are not admissible for showing that blood was present, and that is a clear ruling. There was a ruling that in the impeachment of Dennis Fung, that I had opened the door with respect to the Bronco, and the court made a limited finding that they could offer testimony about the extent of presumptive testing in the Bronco.

So they know that that rule is in effect, and we've all lived with it and been very careful with it since. So that's point no. 1. Point no. 2, as the court noted from the bench, when one goes on to read the rest of the testimony of Dr. Lee in this area, he--the answers that were elicited were not that he had found blood on the air conditioning when Mr. Goldberg went on and continued asking him the question, and, in fact, as I had noted on the record--and I'll get to the third point here--that he cut off Dr. Lee when Dr. Lee was about to give a further explanation when he indicated that he had found--he had done presumptive tests on the doorknobs, some sink traps and air conditioner. And then Mr. Goldberg said: "I'm just asking about the air conditioner. "Answer: I saw in different places. That's just about tests." And then Mr. Goldberg said: "That's all right, your Honor. I'll move on. I think he answered the question." Now, I came back the next day--

THE COURT: Is there a report by Dr. Lee that says he did any testing there?

MR. SCHECK: Yes. He did presumptive testing there. But I came back the next day, and it's at 43380 of the record, and what happened, your Honor, is that I indicated to the court at that point--have you read this?

THE COURT: No. I don't have 43380. Have Mr. Byrne give me the next volume, 214, please.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. I came back the next day, your Honor--I think it actually starts at 43379. I came back the next day and made an objection on the record. And what I pointed out was that when I listened to the--I had thought that when Mr. Goldberg at this time--this is what I indicated on the record--said, "That's enough, Dr. Lee," that what he was doing was trying to cut off the witness so there would not be testimony about presumptive testing, which would have violated the court's rule. And I thought that that's what he was doing. When I listened again the next night to the tape--because frankly, all these commentators were saying, oh, there's evidence of blood on the air conditioner.

THE COURT: You didn't really listen to those people, did you?

MR. SCHECK: No. I listened to the tape of testimony. And when I listened to the tape of the testimony and the implication, I became concerned--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. What page?

MR. SCHECK: It's - I think it starts at 43379 and goes on to 43380.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: See where I'm beginning? It's just before we took up the issue of the Fuhrman tapes. Should I read it or is the court reading?

THE COURT: I'm reading it right now.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. I've reviewed the 43379 through 43381.

MR. SCHECK: And so I think the record indicates that I immediately approached the court and I said that I was fearful that even though it wasn't explicitly stated on the record, that the Prosecution might argue that there was blood found on the air conditioning from the way the questions and answers were brought out and the way Mr. Goldberg cut him off, and I had misinterpreted Mr. Goldberg. He was cutting it off for purposes of putting this inference, which was improper in the first place because of the ruling on presumptive tests in the record, instead of trying to cut Dr. Lee off before he got into an area that was improper. And, in fact, as I indicated in the record, that Dr. Lee was about to say that presumptive tests on sink traps, metal surfaces like air conditioners, doorknobs and on that kind will always give false positives because of the nature of the metal surface and the bacteria, et cetera, which he was about to testify to, and they knew it because in interviews with Dr. Lee, that's what he had said. In any event--well, I won't--that's what Dr. Lee told me, and I offered to bring in an affidavit to that effect.

And then the court indicated as I put that objection on the record and it was clear and I thought in effect, the court had ruled on that with respect to indicating to the People that a timely objection had been made on the record and if they wanted to come forward and make this argument, they would have to present argument to the court that this was a fair inference from the evidence. I thought that's how the record stands right now. And they should, you know--and this kind of--this kind of comment, given the fact that the court had made a clear ruling in this case that presumptive tests are not proof of blood, no. 1, no. 2, that the testimony itself does not support that contention, no. 3, there was a timely objection noted on the record to the court giving the Prosecutors clear warning that if they wanted to make this argument, they'd better come in here and persuade the court it was fair comment on the record. All of that being said, it seems to me highly improper and against the rulings of this court for them now to argue that there's blood on the air conditioner, reading these questions and answers. It's not what the record states. It's not what the ruling of this court is. It's misleading to the jury, and we're entitled to a curative instruction to the effect that there is no evidence that Dr. Lee found blood on the air conditioner. Highly improper argument. Clear misconduct.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to allow Mr. Goldberg to address it since he was the one that did the questioning. But I'll remind the court the record says exactly what I read to the jury.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: The issue of presumptive blood testing is one that we have addressed on a number of occasions with your Honor, and the state of record was that presumptive blood testing does not come in. We have abided by that although the Defense has not. They asked Mr. Lee questions about the walkway with respect to parallel line imprints on June the 25th that he photographed. Those were presumptively tested. There were no confirmatory tests. Dr. Lee offered the opinion that they were blood in his opinion based upon his forensic knowledge and was not specifically asked by counsel to testify that he had done blood testing, that that's how he knew. So he was basically relying on his generalized training and experience, it looks like blood; therefore, it is blood. The basis for that opinion we know outside of the record is presumptive blood test. That came in. The court allowed it in. Then with Mr. Bodziak, counsel asked again questions about Mr. Lee's presumptive blood testing and even called it that, blood testing, even though Mr. Scheck and I had had an agreement outside the record that he would not raise the subject of presumptive blood testing with Mr. Bodziak without first clearing it with the court, and he just went ahead and did it on two occasions. I put before the jury the fact that presumptive blood testing has taken place. So I don't understand all the ins and outs and the exceptions and the rights and the wrongs with respect to the court's ruling. All I know is that it seems to be when the Defense wants to establish that something's blood, they don't seem to have difficulty doing it even if the only basis for it is a presumptive blood test. And that being the case, we believed properly that we could do the same thing. Now, in this question that I asked Dr. Lee, I did not ask him about presumptive blood tests. I simply asked him:

"All right. Now, in addition to that, doctor, when you were at the Rockingham location, did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of the air conditioning next to Kato Kaelin's house? "Answer: Yes, sir." No question about forensic blood tests. I'm asking him based on his experience and training as a forensic serologist, a very highly regarded one, whether it appeared to be and was based upon his forensic opinion. Then I asked him: "And was that something that you believe that you thought appeared to be blood?

"Answer: I test some doorknobs, some sink traps and air conditioner. "I'm just asking you about the air conditioner . "I saw in different places period." There's no indication from the transcript that I cut him off. And I said, "That's all right, your Honor. I will move on," because I was fearful that he was going to start talking about presumptive blood testing, which he had not to heretofore. He simply told what he--what appeared to be the case and what his opinion was as a forensic expert. Now, the court has allowed police officers to come in and say something appeared to be blood or "I thought something was blood" or even something was blood, and we know California courts allow this and your Honor has allowed this in this trial. And I don't know why the world's perhaps highly--most highly regarded forensic serologist, Dr. Henry Lee, can't come in here and tell us that something based upon his experience, his training and his observations appeared to be blood. That's what this is. Now, as to good faith belief, other than that it's in the record--and Dr. Lee has never been shy about trying to qualify and explain his answers--we also have a good faith basis because we have a report in which he said the same thing, that he tested this with an orthotoluidine test, which is highly reliable, which Dr. Lee regards to be reliable, and that it got a positive. I don't believe that I ever spoke to Dr. Lee about this question in my conversations with him at all. And that--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, let me ask you this. Did he indicate that he saw something that appeared to him to be blood and then he tested it with orthotoluidine?

MR. GOLDBERG: In where?

THE COURT: In his report.

MR. GOLDBERG: In his report, there was a red stain that he tested and with an orthotoluidine test and it was--

THE COURT: On the air conditioner?

MR. GOLDBERG: On the air conditioner and it was positive for blood. So that was the good faith basis for my question. Now, on the--as to materials that are starting on 4338--excuse me--79 of the transcript, I was unaware of this, that this conversation even took place because I was not in court during it and was not aware until counsel made this argument during Miss Clark's argument. I know how your Honor has conducted this case and I know based upon the experience that I've had in this court that your Honor would not have ruled on an issue like this without my being here, and you did not rule because this was my area, it was my witness, I knew this testimony and I would be the person who was prepared to deal with it. Now, on 43381, your Honor says basically--well, Mr. Scheck says on 43380, lines 27 through 28: "I just want to make clear that we have an objection to that," and then your Honor says, "All right." And then on 43381, lines 13 through 14, your Honor says: "This is a comment for the purposes of making a timely objection I take it then? "Answer by Mr. Scheck: Right. "The Court: All right. Let's launch into the McKinny matter." Then you continue on with the 402 hearing on McKinny. So there is no ruling whatsoever on--with respect to this issue. If counsel wanted to make a motion to strike, I suppose that could have been done. We closed evidence. We have introduced all of our exhibits. Miss Clark is arguing about something that is in the record. She read it verbatim. She is entitled to do this under the court's rulings and I do not see any basis whatsoever to prevent Miss Clark from continuing on this line very briefly of argument. It's an important point because it's directly contradictory to what Mr. Cochran represented to this jury and that she should be allowed to proceed on this issue.

MR. SCHECK: May I respond, your Honor? First of all, it would seem to me that there's a clear question of waiver as to the whole argument he just made now for a very simple reason. I came forward and put this objection on the record the next day, indicating that it would not be Dr. Lee's testimony that that was blood because of false positives from testing sink traps, drains, et cetera, and that would have been his answer to the question and the record is ambiguous and misleading with respect to that because he cut off the answer. So I put them on notice. It is not an excuse that can be tolerated at law, that somebody sitting at this table the very next day after Dr. Lee got off the witness stand didn't go upstairs and tell Mr. Goldberg that this was said so he could come back down and we could settle the record on this issue and it could be clear what could be offered in closing argument and what couldn't be. That is not an excuse. Lack of continuity in the District Attorney's office or the fact that nobody will call him up so he can come down and argue this as though the rest of them are incapable or don't understand this issue is not an answer.

It's clearly waived. It is clearly waived. And what is particularly nefarious is that all of a sudden, this issue arises during rebuttal. This is planned, your Honor. It was exactly what I objected to. It is an unfair inference from the evidence. It is not supported by the record even if the questions and answers--and it violates the clear instruction that we were all operating under here. It is in bad faith because I indicated that would not be the answer that Dr. Lee gave to the question. And it is quite different to be saying that certain points in time, I look at a stain and I say, you know, black imprints could be consistent with blood, and they can certainly make objections and settle the record at that point. I made my objection. I made it clear. The ruling was clear. It is outrageous for them to be arguing that this is blood on the air conditioner from this part of the transcript. When the record was made, their opportunity to correct it was there. They have to come into this court, and it's just outrageous.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. The question was to Dr. Lee, did he see anything that in his opinion was consistent with or appeared to be blood in the area of the air conditioning unit near Kato Kaelin's bedroom, and the answer was yes, and then the question later was focused back on the air conditioner and the answer was, "I saw in different places," and that's the state of the record. The--there is no mention of presumptive testing that was done, although Dr. Lee's answer does say, "I test some doorknobs, some sink traps and air conditioner," and I accept the representations of counsel what was done was the orthotoluidine tests. The fact that Dr. Lee--Dr. Lee I think is competent to say, "I saw something that appeared to me to be consistent with blood." The problem is that it was not confirmed. I am going to direct counsel to move on from that topic.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, please.

MS. CLARK: I previewed the montage for Defense that Mr. Cochran indicates he'd like to interpose an objection to. Let me indicate to the court that what it is is a syntheses of evidence that has been admitted already.

THE COURT: All right. May I see it?

MS. CLARK: Yes. 150, 151, 153.

THE COURT: What is the connection between the audio and the montage? Is that the audio that you anticipate playing at the same time as the montage?

MS. CLARK: Yes. It goes in tandem with the argument that's going to be made to present it, which is the motive for the murder.

THE COURT: Do you think the tape directly relates to the last two photographs?

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Does the audio tape directly pertain to the last two--

MS. CLARK: I can't--I'm sorry. The last--

THE COURT: The last two photographs.

MS. CLARK: Yes. That's the point. That's the case, your Honor. That's the whole--that is it; that the motive for these murders is the nature of the problem and that's why she wound up there. We are synthesizing the evidence. We do it through verbal argument, saying we have the motive, it carries forward up to the date of June 12th, and then we do it with pictures, pictures that have been admitted in evidence. All of this has been admitted.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: This is unfair. It's incredibly inflammatory. Those tapes have nothing to do with the photographs that are up there. If she wants to argue that, then so be it. This is improper rebuttal, your Honor, trying to spring this on us at the last minute. The tape that she's referring to is a different time than the photographs. It's a photograph from 1989--tape's from `93 and the picture--they try to link all these things together. They have nothing to do with this evidence. This evidence of other offenses was limited for a very limited purpose so the court is aware of that. The reason it was in there--and this would be incredibly unfair and it's typical of what the Prosecution is doing in this rebuttal. This is outrageous, your Honor. They're vouching--they're doing all of these things, taking things out where they know they're wrong. Yet, they're trying to do this at the eleventh hour when she has maybe an hour or so left faced with this. This is outrageous and you should stop it. They held this back, you know, to keep us from dealing with this until the last minute. Now we see it at 1:55 on the day of the last day of her argument. This is outrageous, your Honor. The court should put a stop to it. This is the end of it and we should get on and get this case to the jury. They're never going to stop unless you exercise your wisdom and discretion and stop it.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I don't think that Mr. Cochran has a right to use the word "Outrageous." This is a man who argued Mark Fuhrman was commensurate with Adolph Hitler. This is a man who demanded jury nullification. But this is proper argument.

THE COURT: Counsel, let's address the issue.


THE COURT: Are these items in evidence?

MS. CLARK: They're all in evidence, your Honor. And the purpose for which we're using the tape being played over these photographs is the very purpose for which the domestic violence matters were admitted, which is for the purpose of motive and identification, and that's why it's been synthesized this way. I think we are using it for an entirely appropriate purpose, as the court has permitted us to do, with the jury instruction that limits it. We have I think appropriately argued it. Mr. Darden appropriately argued in that vein, but this is argument. And we are synthesizing all of it. The domestic violence is the underlying theme in the case. It certainly is the motivation in the case and it goes to identification as well.

THE COURT: All right. I think the record is not completely clear because we did not identify what all these items are, but what we started out with were photographs of the domestic violence injuries, the Polaroid photographs.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I should be more specific. They are the domestic violence photographs with respect to the 1989 incident. Then I believe they are the photographs from the safe deposit box and then we have the photographs from Rockingham that pertain to this case and they conclude with the photographs of Bundy pertaining to this case.

THE COURT: And this is while you're playing the first portion of People's exhibit what?

MS. CLARK: What is the number?

THE COURT: This is the `93 tape?

MS. CLARK: `89 and the `93 tapes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I say something when you get an opportunity?

THE COURT: Miss Clark, have you concluded with your argument?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, in the `93 incident, as you're well aware, the tape they played, there was only the back--the French doors were damaged. There was no physical damage. And the `89 incident, they ran these two things together. They have nothing to do with each other. They're just supposing. This is an interpretation they're placing on the evidence. If they want to show the evidence, that's one thing. But to play the tape in conjunction with that, that's a production from the District Attorney's office at this eleventh hour and it's unfair. It's absolutely unfair. It's inflammatory. This is improper rebuttal. We've seen all this evidence. In addition to that, the court has told us on several occasions you are going to stop us when there's redundancy, and this is absolutely redundant. It is improper. The prejudice far outweighs any probative value because they're meshing things that don't follow. They do not follow. This evidence was limited for a limited purpose, and they're tying things together and making a conclusion just as she did with this incident regarding the air conditioning, and that's unfair, vouching for things. It's wrong, Judge, and it shouldn't happen.

THE COURT: Is that the word for the day?

MR. COCHRAN: "Vouching"?


MR. COCHRAN: "Vouching" is the word for the day, your Honor, the eye word, and it's personally vouching and it's wrong and they know it's wrong, everybody knows it's wrong and it shouldn't happen, Judge.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, I do think it is a problem with the sound track because you've run the two sound tracks together, the `89--is that two tapes?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, both of which have been admitted.

THE COURT: I understand. It's misleading because you can't tell that there are two tapes. There's no break with them.

MS. CLARK: I'll tell them. How about if I tell the jury we're running them together?

THE COURT: When do you anticipate doing this in your argument?

MS. CLARK: At the end. I'll introduce it, I'll explain to the jury we've run the two tapes together. I have to--I have to tell them what they're seeing and hearing.

I don't want to mislead them. I want to tell them the truth. I want them to hear exactly--I want them to know exactly what it is that they're hearing. I want them to know that it's the `89 tape. And then we're going to run the `93 tape and we're going to run the pictures from `89 and we're going to run the pictures from the safe deposit box. I want them to be very clear about what they're seeing and hearing. I don't want there to be any mistakes about it.

THE COURT: All right. With that caveat, the objection is overruled. All right. Let's proceed.

(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've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: And, Miss Clark, you may continue with your concluding summation.

MS. CLARK: Thank you very much, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: I forget where I left off, so I'm just going to pick up with something else. There were some remarks made about the treatment given to some of the witnesses, and I confess that there are probably some I could have been nicer to. Mark Partridge came in to testify to the Defendant's demeanor when he came back from Chicago, and this kind of--it's a really good example of what I'm talking about. He made notes, detailed notes the next day, you might remember, of everything that the Defendant said to him and everything that he said to Mr. Simpson, and he copyrighted them. He copyrighted them. What does that mean? That means you have a proprietary interest in the material. The very next day after he speaks to him, he's going to sell these notes. He's going to make some money off of this.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: He's got some proprietary interest in this. Now, what kind of a man is that? What kind of a person is that? And it's very indicative. It's very, very consistent. You heard from Ellen Arronson. She came up to testify. She was the one, she said she called in to the police to say--she initially said that she heard the dogs barking at 11:30. Then she saw the preliminary and she realized, "I'd better call back again and change the time so I can make myself a witness," you know, a groupie. And, yeah, I don't like that kind of person. That doesn't belong in a criminal trial.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Counsel, rephrase that, please.

MS. CLARK: Okay. That's the kind of person that will offer any testimony they can to get their 15 minutes of fame. That's not the kind of testimony you can trust. At the end of the trial or end of the People's case, we had--or maybe it was the whole trial--we had the Judge take judicial notice of something, and I'm sure you were wondering what did that relate to. And the judicial notice that he took was that the moon on the night of June the 12th was a crescent moon, 12 percent illuminated. You may recall that. That's very important for two reasons. The first and most important reason is, it tells you what the lighting conditions were like that night. It was not a full moon. It was a dark night. Witnesses--their testimony has been referred to by Mr. Darden--have confirmed that it was dark. Officer Riske made it very clear it was dark. Sukru Boztepe, who was walking with the dog, said, "I would not have looked up there. I wouldn't have seen the body if the dog had not stopped and look at the pathway." That's important. So you have that judicial notice taken. That means it's an undisputed fact. You are to accept a 12 percent crescent moon.

When I cross-examined Miss Arronson and I asked her what was the moon like, "Oh, it was a full moon." "Are you sure?" "Yes, I'm very sure." It's in the record. Have it read back. She was very sure. She was very wrong too. She also testified that she was very sure that she called the police officer to give her statement to him the first time on June the 14th. I showed her the police report. It said June the 15th. "Are you sure?" "I'm very sure." She's very sure about a lot of things, but one thing she really didn't know was when she was walking down the street. And you know how else you know she wasn't down that street when she said she was? Because Mark Storfer said he looked out his window at 10:23. I read it and I reviewed it. Now, I'm so tired I can't remember exactly. You can have it read back because I think what he said was 10:23.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

MS. CLARK: In any case--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. When there's an objection, please stop.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.

MR. COCHRAN: Misstatement.

THE COURT: Remember, you're the Judge of the facts. You're the sole Judge of the facts. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Yes. And, you know, if you have a doubt about something I'm saying, please have it read back to you or look at your notes, okay, because I'm not trying to play fast and loose here. But it was within two minutes of when she passed Bundy that he looked out his window. If she's walking down Bundy in that light colored outfit that she said she was wearing on that night, he should have seen her when he looked north on Bundy because he said he looked out the window, looked north and he saw no one walking there, which is kind of--which is actually consistent with the other witnesses who don't say they saw anybody either. All the witnesses that were called by the Defense somehow were in the same place, none of them saw each other. Very weird. Defense has raised the issue about there being--why wasn't there dirt, why wasn't there mud at Rockingham tracked in the--tracked in the house on that light carpet. There wouldn't be--there was--

You saw the bloody shoeprints, and they faded out halfway down the Bundy walk to the point where there were no visible bloody shoeprints on that walk at the end of the walkway. Then you saw the imprint in the Bronco, so that whatever blood was left on the shoe was picked up by the soft tufts of the carpet. By the time he gets back to Rockingham, there isn't much left there. Whatever blood, whatever mud, whatever dirt he's got on his shoes, he's tracked off. This is common experience, you know. Either blood or mud, whatever you get on your shoes doesn't stay there forever. You walk, it comes off, and as you walk, more comes off. By the time he gets home, there's not a lot of excess there. Maybe there's some trace amount, but you're not going to notice that on a carpet. And so that in itself says nothing, and the testimony of their expert, Mr. MacDonell, I think even Dr. Lee does not dispute that.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Misstatement, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Of greater importance and I think actually--yes. Dr. Lee even testified--he was asked specifically if somebody walked through dirt, walked through berries, would you necessarily see it, and his answer was you might see it and you might not. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that's what their witnesses have said. Now, there was an issue raised with respect to EAP. That's a conventional blood marker, okay. And you may recall there was testimony that Nicole Brown had an EAP type of BA. The blood under her fingernails was typed and came back with an EAP of B. We had testimony from Greg Matheson to indicate to you that that was degraded--that the BA degraded to a B. In order to confirm that it was her blood and not the blood of someone else, they did DNA testing on that blood, and the DNA confirmed that it was hers, it was her blood, and that it had degraded and it had degraded because, no. 1, the EAP marker degrades very rapidly, no. 2, her hand was in wet blood and blood in a wet state degrades quickly, more quickly than it will on a dried gate, for example, or in a dried condition. Now, there's more to that. First of all, Gary agreed--Gary Sims agreed with Greg Matheson in his conclusion that the blood under her fingernails was hers and not that of another perpetrator.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. Counsel, you need not make that objection any further. I have instructed the jury that they are the sole judges of what the facts are in this case; and if counsel chooses to argue a line of argument that is in contradiction to what these jurors find to be the fact, they do so at their own peril. The objection is made. Thank you. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Moreover, Dr. Lee, who was called by the Defense to testify, never contradicted that and he agreed that Greg Matheson was a good scientist. There was some testimony I think from Dr. Baden that you can get somehow the blood of someone under your nails without getting the skin under your nails. I don't see how that can possibly happen, but--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled, counsel.

MS. CLARK: What is interesting is that the Defendant's EAP type is also a BA also. Now, the blood on the rear gate, the blood that came back to the RFLP testing, making the Defendant 1 in 57 billion or something, obviously, it's an identification. That's his blood. There's not even any dispute that that's his blood on the rear gate. That blood also had an EAP that was a BA degraded to a B.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. That's not in the record.

THE COURT: Hold on. Counsel, with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at sidebar. I don't reflect that in the record. I don't reflect that in the record.

MS. CLARK: Yeah, it is in the record. This is a tactic by them. I really wish that the court would--

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. SCHECK: My recollection--

THE COURT: No, counsel.

MS. CLARK: 25962.

THE COURT: Do you actually have a transcript or notes?

MS. CLARK: We have a note with a transcript reference.

THE COURT: You know, I'm not optimistic we're going to finish today.

MS. CLARK: Well, if you don't tell them--you know, Judge, this is such an obvious ploy.

MR. COCHRAN: It's not a ploy.

MS. CLARK: Every other thing they're objecting to, it's in the record.

THE COURT: All right. You say 25962?

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. That's what we have. Is our numbering the same? What witness is up there?

THE COURT: Matheson.

MS. CLARK: Yeah. Can Mr. Goldberg help you, your Honor?

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't recollect that.

MR. SCHECK: I have a very distinct recollection of what happened. If you recall, your Honor--

MS. CLARK: Wait. Could you wait?

THE COURT: Let them find it.

MR. GOLDBERG: It was also brought out with Gary Sims as well.

MS. CLARK: I know it's in Siam's testimony.

THE COURT: Here's our problem. I don't recollect that testimony in the record.

MR. SCHECK: May I be heard? May I be heard?

MS. CLARK: May I get rock? I know it came in.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry. Right over here. I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. 25965. "Question: And was 117 identified as being one of the rear gate stains from the Bundy location? "Answer: Yes, I believe it was. "Question: And you got a B like pattern on that? "Answer: I called it a B, question mark, inconclusive, yes." All right. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Could I see the particular transcript?


MS. CLARK: It came in with Sims also, your Honor.

THE COURT: Your argument is, that degraded from double band B to a single B?

MS. CLARK: No. From BA to a B.

MR. SCHECK: That's not the testimony.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, our argument is based on inference. We know it's his blood. They've conceded it.

MR. SCHECK: Also--

MS. CLARK: Wait a minute. What's going on here? This is a fair inference in the record. EAP is a BA. That's in the record. It is also in the record that the rear gate type is his blood. It is also in the record that the EAP is a B on the rear gate, and the inference is, based on other testimony concerning the very same issue, that that's indicative of degradation. This is a reasonable inference and not the only reasonable inference that you can draw.

MR. SCHECK: Wait a second. That's not the testimony. "There were eight stains from the Bundy location? "Yes, I believe it was. "You got an AB like a fingerprint on that? "I call it a B question mark, inconclusive, yes." That is not what this woman just said. There is no testimony it degraded into a B. That's what the record says. My recollection is, this particular electrophoretic plate was not allowed in, if you recall, on redirect examination with this witness because it was outside the scope of the direct examination about the fingernail scrapings, and then this particular thing wasn't let in. But the point is, this doesn't support what it just says. That is not Matheson's testimony and they can't argue this.

THE COURT: The record speaks for itself. Objection overruled.

MS. CLARK: May I please read it to the jury?

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Miss Moxham, are you ready? Proceed.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to finish today, ladies and gentlemen, I promise. I promise. I really--it's just so important, I really want the record to be straight. I want you to know, on the rear gate, 117, there was testimony to indicate that Mr. Simpson's EAP marker was a BA. So was Nicole a BA. There was testimony in the record indicating that a BA can degrade and turn into a B because the a bands drop off. That was early testimony. That's what happens. It can degrade that way. That was the testimony. The blood under her nails that--how the DNA--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --typed back to her also had an EAP result of B, which Greg Matheson testified was indicative to him, that the EAP marker had degraded, that the a bands had dropped off. That was his testimony. With respect to the rear gate, he testified as well--that's the rear gate where the Defendant's blood is--DNA came back to him. The EAP marker that he has a BA just like hers came back degraded to a B. And here's the testimony that he gave.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: He stated as follows: "And was 117 identified as being one of the rear gate stains from the Bundy location? "Answer: Yes, I believe it was. "And you got a B like pattern on that? "Answer: I call it a B, question mark, inconclusive, yes."

MR. SCHECK: Objection. That's not what--

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: I just read it to you. If you want to have it read to you, ladies and gentlemen--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Counsel, I've ruled.

MR. SCHECK: She misread it.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: The page number is 25965 if you want to read it again. What that indicates to you, ladies and gentlemen, is that--there was also testimony--I should tell you there was--there is another conventional marker for serology called PGM. Maybe you remember that. And the PGM on the rear gate was also degraded. There was testimony I believe from Greg Matheson about that as well. That's important for a couple of reasons. No. 1, with respect to the blood under her nails, what it indicates is that it's her blood. It's her blood. No. 2, what it also indicates is that the blood on the rear gate was degraded. There was PGM degradation and EAP degradation, which indicates to you that it was out there for a while. It's all in the record. It's very logical and it's very consistent. I could go into greater depth on this and talk about--you know, what they're trying to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very, very sensitive, what they call exquisitely sensitive test and the PCR picked up Nicole, but not the blood--or not the blood of the real killer that was under her nails.

Well, how could that be? Conventional serology is not nearly as sensitive as PCR, not nearly. So if the EAP marker that Greg Matheson testified was breaking down under her nails, that isn't nearly as sensitive, they want to point you to that and say that's the blood of the real killer, in contradiction to the testimony of Greg Matheson and Gary Sims. And yet, we have very sensitive DNA testing that says it's hers, and they say ignore that. It doesn't make any sense. The blood under her nails is hers. That's what makes sense. That's logical. There was also testimony and there was also some points made about bindle no. 47, the infamous bindle no. 47. That's one of the Bundy blood trail drops. And in that, Dr. Lee testified I believe that there was--the bindles that were placed into--I mean, the swatches that were placed in the bindle were obviously still wet when placed in there and some of the sizes and shapes of the swatches matched the imprints of blood on the bindle and one did not and a big deal was made about this. I'm not really sure why because it's inconsistent.

Remember I told you I would point out inconsistent defenses. Their Defense seems to have been all along that the Bundy blood drops that all came back to the Defendant were contaminated, right? Well, with this testimony from Dr. Lee, it would seem they're trying to say there was some kind of planting going on because one of the little imprints in the bindle didn't match. I don't know which one they want to choose, but the truth of the matter is that Collin Yamauchi said he took one of those little swatches out for testing. So, of course, there is going to be one imprint there that doesn't match the swatches because one of them is gone. He tested it. No big mystery here. This is--it's very simple. It's very, very, very simple. And it's interesting that they really did not tell--what they don't make a big deal about, which I don't understand and was testified to, is that item no. 42, item no. 42 is Nicole's blood pool. Remember I told you they took a representative sample of the blood underneath Nicole and the blood that was right near Ron Goldman and the tree stump, okay. His was no. 41. Hers was no. 42. No. 42 then was her blood and--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Objection.

MS. CLARK: --in that one, they also have--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --they have imprints. There was one imprint, I think there was testimony that didn't match the size of the swatch. What, they're planting Nicole's blood--you know, that would be the logical inference to be drawn--in her own blood pool? That would be ridiculous. But you see what I mean? That exposes the fact that all of these arguments about the minutia make no sense when you look at the big picture. You look at the big picture and you realize, well, there's nothing sinister here, you know. Open the doors. Open the windows. Let in the light here. Blow out that smoke, because when you look at the whole picture, you see the truth. It's very, very simple. All right. I'd like to talk to you a little bit about contamination. There was a lot of talk to you about that in this trial I know, and it really is not as complicated and it really is not as easy to do as they've been making you think, and I would like to show you what I mean by that with a few slides. I'm not going--I'm going to try not to say things like "Substrate control" and "Reagent blanks" and all that stuff. I'd like to talk about it the way I talk about other things, everything else in my life except for the science stuff. All right. Here are the reasons why you can have faith and you can rely on the validity of the results of the testing of the Bundy blood trail. No. 1, you've heard us talk about it too many times, substrate controls were clean. They should have showed contamination and they didn't, and they were tested and they came up clean. And what that gives you is quality assurance. You know you can rely on the result because you have this. The bindles were closed. That's very important. Remember if you will the testimony concerning opening of the blood vial, the Defendant's reference vial. And they were saying that when the blood vial was opened, that that somehow contaminated the bindles and the swatches that were taken from the Bundy walk, that there was some aerosol effect, that his blood was spraying all over the place. Well, the problem with that is that Collin's testimony was, when he opened the blood vial of the Defendant's reference blood, he was 10 to 15 feet away from the swatches and these swatches were in closed bindles. And not only that, but the bindles were inside envelopes that were closed.

Now, what testimony have you heard in this trial that DNA can fly from a test tube into a closed envelope through a closed bindle onto the swatches? None. In fact, there's testimony to the contrary. And that brings us to next, there was no vacuum in this test tube. This was not a vacutainer. This was a syringe, and it's already been shown to you and the testimony was--

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Excuse me, counsel. Not a syringe.

MS. CLARK: Thano Peratis.

MR. SCHECK: No. It's a vacutainer tube.


MS. CLARK: He said it was a syringe.

THE COURT: I stand corrected. Syringe.

MR. SCHECK: No vacuum in the tube.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: You have the tape there. It was not a vacutainer that was used. It was a syringe. And there was testimony concerning this from Collin Yamauchi as well. And by the way, while we're at it, let me point out something else.

Mr. Scheck argued yesterday that Collin Yamauchi, when he opened up the Defendant's reference vial, he spilled blood on his gloves and spilled it on the chem-wipe. And it sounds to me like if it was spilled, I guess then it is true that there is no missing blood because it got spilled. But the truth of the matter is and the testimony was that, as Collin Yamauchi told you, when he opened it, he thought he might have gotten a little bit when--a little bit on his gloves and that he immediately changed his gloves and threw them away before he went to handle anything. So you don't have any problems with flying DNA and you don't have the kind of--you don't have the contact that you need to have in order to show contamination. And by the way, I should indicate to you that Gary Sims, whom the Defense endorses to be a very good scientist, indicated he too has had the experience of opening a reference vial and getting a little bit of it out and then you wipe it off, you clean up, it's fine. Okay. All of the swatches that were tested on the Bundy walk were consistent. They all came back to the Defendant. That's important for the following reason.

If you have contamination, what you should expect to find are results that are out of succinct, willy-nilly if you will. What should have happened is, you should have seen the Defendant's blood type coming up, for example, in the sample that was taken from the pool of blood under Nicole where it shouldn't be, you know. Remember, I told you about 41 and 42.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, objection.

MS. CLARK: 41 came from--

THE COURT: Overruled, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

MS. CLARK: --from the area near Ron Goldman.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: There was a tree stump that he was curled around and there was blood on that tree stump, and they recovered it as a representative sample from the crime scene of what his blood type would be. If this was in fact contamination and the Defendant's type was flying all over the place, why don't we find it in Ron Goldman's crime scene sample? Why don't we find it in the sample taken from the pool of blood underneath Nicole? We don't.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: If you had contamination, it should be in other places, places where it doesn't belong. But you don't have that. You only have the Defendant's blood type coming up in the places where the killer dripped blood. This is the other point that was made by the Defense. And in order for you to believe that the results of the Bundy blood trail were the result of contamination, you must first believe that all of the DNA on all of the swatches completely and totally degraded. Now, when you think about the fact, as was brought out in testimony, that you can recover DNA through PCR analysis from Egyptian mummies, then how can you possibly buy this story about stains that were recovered a few hours ago completely and totally degrading every single one of them, all of these swatches for all of the drops--

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled, counsel.

MS. CLARK: --completely degrading to the point where they're able to pick up contamination? It makes no sense. It's completely illogical. It stands science on its head.

So this is a list of all of the reasons that I just told to you. For all of these reasons, bindles and envelope were closed, substrate controls were clean, swatches were tested and typed consistent with the Defendant, which otherwise you would expect to have willy-nilly, you'd have weird results happening. Every drop in the trail would have had to completely degrade in order to pick up somebody else's type, and the DNA didn't fly across the room. Now, there's--something else that you should know about this is the following. We did conventional serology, if you recall, on one of the blood drops on the Bundy walk, item no. 49. We did conventional serology. That means no DNA stuff. That's just regular what we call PGM markers. You've heard them talk about that. We did a PGM test on item 49. That came back to the Defendant. It put him within .5 percent of the population that could have deposited that blood. So even if you do not take into account the DNA, even Dr. Gerdes, their expert, conceded that conventional serology is very hardy stuff and he said no problem with contamination for PGM typing. That testimony is in 40198 to 40199 if you want to review that.

He said, in fact, that the conventional testing, when conventional serology comes back, the same as DNA testing, it's a good cross check for the validity of your results. And we have that here. We have that. Dr. Lee also told you that his lab does DNA testing. He felt that molecular biologists, like Dr. Gerdes, should not tell forensic scientists what to do or how to do it or when to do DNA testing and he thinks, he said, that forensic scientists are in the best position to know. That was Dr. Lee's opinion. He even indicated--and there's a portion of the transcript you could have read back. He was asked a series of hypothetical questions, for example, that an officer would go to a crime scene and pick up blood on his shoe and then go and give that bloody shoe to the criminalist to test for DNA and he was asked: "Dr. Lee, could you--would you get valid results if you did such testing? Wouldn't you be worried about contamination because you didn't collect carefully, you just collected by picking it up on your shoe?"

He said, no, you could get valid results doing that, even doing it that way. And, you know, we didn't do that in this case. You know, we picked it up correctly in this case. All right. So we talked about contamination. Let's talk about planting. First of all, the socks. With respect to the socks, there was testimony--and then there was argument about this sheet and you're going to have it. It's in evidence, isn't it, your Honor, the blood search sheet, work sheet? Yes, it is. Good. Good. You'll be able to see it. You'll see the whole thing, the whole controversy, all the shouting about this. And Michele Kestler testified to it late in the trial it showed that, as to the socks, there was a notation that there was to be blood search done. At the moment that they looked at them, there was none obvious. Now, what the Defense wants you to believe is that they had already done a blood search and there was none obvious. When you look at the sheets, you will see what the truth is as Michelle said. It's really very simple.

You can see that in the column where it says "Blood search," it's a scheduled item list of things to be done. A blood search was to be done. It had not yet been done. You want confirmation, check the testimony of their witness, Dr. Baden. Dr. Baden was asked about that and Dr. Baden made notes about his interview or his contact with Miss Kestler early on in the case, and here's what they had to say. They were going over Dr. Baden's notes of when he was reviewing the evidence at page 41270.

"Question: And what does that say? "Answer: No. 13, two dark socks, no analysis yet. "Question: Do you see anything written regarding no blood observed? "Answer: We didn't write that down. No. There was no blood observed or else I would have included it. "Question: Now, doctor, what does `no analysis yet' refer to? "Answer: Miss Kestler told me that no analysis had yet been done on the socks by the Los Angeles Police Department and we didn't do any further analysis on it." That was the testimony of Dr. Baden. That's what Michele Kestler told him. There was some further testimony that you might find interesting from Dr. Baden, and that's concerning how visible blood would be on those black socks under normal lighting conditions such as we are in here right now. You may recall that I asked Mr. MacDonell about that a little bit.

He said, no, you need high intensity light because those dark socks, it's very hard to see bloodstains on them. At page 41272, there was--questioning of Dr. Baden went as follows: "Question: What was the lighting like at the time of your observations? "Answer: Not very bright. It was a little better than the--better lighting than here presently, but not very bright. "Question: Not what you would describe as the kind of ideal lighting for conducting a close visual examination of something like a dark pair of socks? "Answer: Yes. That's fair.

"Question: There was no high-intensity lighting, was there? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: And high-intensity lighting, the kind of lighting that you would like to have when conducting a close visual inspection of an item like black socks, right?

"Answer: That's correct, yes." Big mystery. Now, what's even sillier about this argument, no. 1 thing, it seems that what the Defense is arguing here is that somebody went and took the socks out of the hamper and put them on the floor. The first thing I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, why? Why? Why not just come in and say we went through his hamper, we found the socks, we took them. Why not? What difference does it make? It makes it more incriminating somehow that the socks are on the floor. It doesn't matter. The question is, what's on the socks, not where the socks are. They're in the hamper, they're on the floor, same thing, no difference. If you'd rather consider them as having been in the hamper, consider it. That's not the way he left them, but, you know, what's the point of doing something like that? That's silly. That makes no sense. Now, think of this too. Why would you--it would seem that what they're basically saying, there was no blood on the socks. That's what they're saying, right? Why would you plant a blank pair of socks and then go back two months later and say, "I forgot, I'm supposed to plant blood on them. What have I been thinking? I've got to go back, put the blood there."

Does that make any sense to you at all? I mean, there's no logic to this. This is--this defies common sense. This is--you have to buy--you have to buy this. You have to buy that story or else the Defendant is guilty. That's it. And who could think like this? I mean, this is not only tortured logic, this is out the window. This is over the line. This is--talk about doesn't pass the laugh test. Only it's not really very funny. It's not funny what they're saying, but it's crazy. Now, so then they give you this stuff about the surface 3. They have these little microscopic red balls that they talk about. Now, the truth of the matter was that the testimony from Mr. MacDonell and from Dr. Lee I believe, but certainly from Mr. MacDonell was that he could not say that those little microscopic balls on surface 3 came only from surface 2. In other words--and if it didn't, if you can't say that, then you don't have any evidence of planting. What you have there is a couple of the other things that were indicated. For example, you saw the photograph of the socks. They were inside out. The toe was lying on the ankle, and we know that his blood was on the toe. With his blood lying on the--on the toe, pressing on the inside of the ankle, that would be on surface 3, you have the possibility of transfer right there. Another possibility that was pointed out was the phenol test where you could see the photographs. There's a drop there of moisture in the photograph. You touch it to the sock, you swab around for blood, and then you can get a wet transfer. But if somebody goes to plant blood--first of all, why would you plant blood on black socks that no one can see? But that's not the story. Doesn't make any sense either, but assume you do. Assume you do. Aren't you going to plant enough so it will be found and it will be typeable and they'll find it and they'll see it, in which case if you do that, you don't wind up with little microscopic balls you can't hardly see except under high magnification. You are going to wind up with something there. You are going--it's going to be bleeding through into the other side. It makes no sense. This makes no sense. And who did that? When did they do it? How did they do it? None of these things are explained to you. It's just thrown out there. Like I was telling you, because a lawyer says so doesn't make it so. Look for the evidence. Look for the proof.

Look how, look when, look who. Do you have any of that? You have none of it. Not only don't you have that, but you have no logic to go with it. There's no logic in what they're saying. It makes no sense and it didn't happen. Not only do you know that it makes no sense, but now we've proven it didn't happen. We did the EDTA test. You look at those graphs. They tell you it didn't happen. Not only have we proven our case, we've disproven theirs. How much more could you ask? The rear gate. That's another one they want you to believe blood was planted on. Now, I've already talked to you about this a little bit. They were making a lot of arguments about the blood was not degraded on the rear gate and, therefore, you should believe that because there were high amounts of DNA on it, that it had to be planted. Well, we've proven that wasn't true with the EDTA test. So you know that's not so. You have other assurances though. As I told you, there was degradation. EAP degraded to a B and the PGM degraded as well. So there's degradation on that rear gate. It was exposed.

But then I think it was really the most telling of all, Officer Riske, the first officer on the scene--it's been a long time since you've seen his face. He was very early on in this case, but he was very honest. He was very candid. Even Defense counsel agrees. And this is what he had to say about that, page 14068.

"Question: Now, when you went out towards the--out through the rear gate, were you able to see any other blood drops? "Answer: I met with my partner at the rear gate and--yes, I did. "Question: How much and how did you happen to see those?

"Answer: My partner directed my attention to them. "Question: And how did he do that? "Answer: He just told me he saw blood on the gate and on the driveway and he showed me where they were with his flashlight. "Question: Shone his light on them? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: Was he staying away from them?

"Answer: Yes." Officer Riske is describing the actions of his partner, Officer Terrazas, who saw blood on the rear gate. They were the first officers there in the early morning hours--excuse me--just shortly after midnight, June 13th, 1994. Defense counsel asks why didn't--why didn't the dog run out through the rear gate. If it was Mr. Simpson there, he would have run out behind him through the rear gate. You recall that argument yesterday? You know why? You already know the answer. The front gate was open, but the rear gate was closed because he closed the rear gate, and that's another reason why you know his blood is on that gate.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that.

MS. CLARK: And that's why the dog didn't run out the back. The dog ran out the front because the front gate was open and the rear gate was closed. And Officer Riske told you that too. When they got there, the rear gate was closed and he was careful not to touch it. You could have that testimony read back to you. But that's why the dog didn't run out the back. But maybe that is also why the dog, after running out the front, ran around to the back. You recall the testimony of the bloody paw prints that went south on Bundy and then went west on Dorothy towards the rear alley, going out to look for his owner.

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

THE COURT: Overruled, counsel.

MS. CLARK: There was testimony from a number of witnesses who were present, the first of them Officer Riske, who traced those bloody paw prints down Bundy and west on Dorothy. You can have it read back. The Bronco. Now, you think that--first of all, Defense counsel wants you to believe that Mark Fuhrman went into that Bronco and that's why he was able to describe blood inside the Bronco that couldn't be seen on the outside of the Bronco. And let me just make a logical point to you. If he was in that Bronco doing all these nefarious things, why would he then go out and describe what he saw when he was in the Bronco doing these nefarious things, doing these bad things? He wouldn't admit to knowing anything about the inside of that Bronco. He wouldn't admit to making detailed observations of blood that's inside the Bronco. That's just a logical point. But there's more. The Defense would have you believe that the extra 4 allele on the PCR testing they found on the steering wheel comes from mark Fuhrman. Now, Defense counsel has made many, many requests, many of them. One of them was to get the officers' hair to eliminate from the Rockingham glove.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Improper.

THE COURT: It's in the record, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: No. No. It wasn't requested--

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: No. There wasn't--

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: We got hair standards from all the officers. No problem, counsel. Let's go look. And we did, and Mark Fuhrman and all the other officers were eliminated from that Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove. A similar request could have been made for the blood of mark Fuhrman, and it was not. And had it been asked, it would have been done.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And the request would have been honored. Had they made one, it could have been done.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Counsel, move on.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to the cell phone cut, I want to make a point on that. 172, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Let me direct your attention to this one. You see the blood inside the well of the door handle on the driver's side? Inside?

Okay. That's an important blood spot. If you think about it, that blood is only going to get in that spot if you are sitting in the car with the door closed and you reached to open it, and in putting your hand on that handle, a bloody knuckle touches the well. That's how that blood gets there. The door closed, you're sitting in the car. That's very important because what that tells you, what that tells you is that it means that the Defendant was driving with a cut hand. His hand was already cut when he came back to Rockingham. When he opened that door, that knuckle was cut. It was cut at Bundy. That stain is very important. That stain tells you it was no razor sharp cell phone and it didn't happen when he was getting ready to leave for the airport. It happened earlier that night when he was out. That's what that tells you, that, of course, and the blood in the bathroom that shows he was bleeding earlier before he got down to see the limo driver. Now, the allegation made about the blood on the console, if I understood the argument that's been made here, it is that the Defendant was in the Bronco and he was bleeding and he dripped some of his blood on the console.

I've got a problem with that already, okay, because he was cut on the left hand, on the left hand and that's why you have his blood on the left-hand side of the car and you have the victims' blood on the console where he dropped the glove. That's why you don't have--see if I can describe this better. On the left-hand side, you have the drippings that came back to the Defendant. On the right-hand side, you have the smears, okay, and the smears came from the Rockingham glove. The Rockingham glove has the blood of the Defendant and Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. It has all three of them on there, okay. And in a moist condition, it will swipe a little bit like you see here (Indicating). Now, what they're trying to tell you is that the Defendant dripped blood on that side somehow with his cut left hand, dripped over on the console and that later, Mark Fuhrman came in and just happened to take the bloody Rockingham Bundy glove that did not have the blood of the Defendant on it, but swipe exactly where the Defendant had dripped on the console, and somehow, that's how his blood got mixed up with Ron Goldman's blood on the console.

If you wanted to sell this story in Hollywood, they wouldn't buy it because it's so incredible. It's not even funny. It's ludicrous, okay. This is ludicrous. But above and beyond that, they're also saying this. They are saying that Dennis Fung collected all of the blood on the console and it was all gone. Then someone came back later and planted blood exactly in the same place as it had been before to look exactly the same way it had looked before. This is ridiculous. Talk about makes no sense? Talk about--just unbelievable. You'll have the pictures. You need to look at the pictures. Look at the pictures yourself. You will have them back in the jury room. Compare--look at all the pictures you can get your hands on. Compare the blood patterns on this console from the photos that were taken. This one's later, September 1st, down here and this one up here was on June 14th (Indicating). Compare them. You ask yourself, you ask yourself how could this possibly happen, how could it happen that they can duplicate exactly the way the blood looks on June 14th on September 1st?

It can't happen. But you need to go back and look at it. You need to get your hands on this stuff yourselves and talk about this because this is so far beyond the pale that only your seeing yourself and holding this in your hands is believing that they're actually, actually saying this to you. Now, the problem with it really though is that you have to buy the planting theory. You have to buy the--this far out idea, this stuff because, otherwise, if you don't, he's guilty. Guilty. He's got Ron Goldman's blood in his car. What's it doing there? That's it. That's it. He's guilty. So they have to find an excuse. That's why you have these--this flailing about. You have contamination, you have planting, you have contamination and planting and/or planting, you got everything, everything to explain it all away, everything. But the theories get wilder and wilder because the proof is so devastating. There's so much of it and there's so much to explain. Here's what really happened. I mean, let's come back to reality here. The truth of the matter is that when the officers got to Rockingham--and this is the state of the record. Now, we're talking evidence and not fairy tales, okay.

The state of the evidence is this, ladies and gentlemen. The detectives got to Rockingham, the Bronco was locked. They asked Kato for the key. He couldn't find the key. They towed it in a locked condition, and on June the 14th, they--Dennis Fung had to get something to slim jim the door open to get in to collect the blood. That's the evidence. Not nearly as exciting, much more boring, but it's the truth. It's the truth. That's what happened. And so they never did, by the way, lock the car again because they didn't have the keys. That's why you had all this testimony about the car sitting there at Viertel's and people being able to open the door. They couldn't lock it because if they did, they couldn't open it again. They would have to slim jim it. This is the state of the record. That's the truth. And by the way, the blood that was collected that's shown here in the bottom photograph that has the number 26 on it on this exhibit, that blood was collected and sent directly to the Department of Justice. It didn't go through that cesspool they want to call the LAPD. It went straight up to DOJ, and it was tested and it came back with the RFLP result of Ron Goldman and the Defendant. All right. There was also briefly--somebody made reference to Detective Mulldorfer not seeing blood in the Bronco. Well, that if you had the impression she was looking for blood in the Bronco and tried to find it but failed, then you were given the wrong impression, and let me correct it very briefly.

"Question by Mr. Darden: Detective, are you telling us there was no blood on the console? "Answer: No. "Question: You weren't investigating the issue of whether or not there was blood on the console; is that correct? "Answer: That was not the focus of my investigation. "Question: The focus of your investigation was Mr. Meraz, correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: You had learned that he had stolen items from the Defendant's vehicle, correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And the items that you learned about were credit receipts; is that right? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Your investigation was focusing on theft of items of paper? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Your investigation wasn't focused on biological evidence, was it?

"Answer: No." That wasn't her job. Now, I want to come to a very important piece of evidence, and that is the bloody shoeprint on the Bronco carpet shown probably better up here on this top photograph 33. There was testimony that went to this by Mr. Bodziak. Now, how did they explain that, because that's real serious. You know, that shows--that's a very important piece of evidence. We have the Bruno Magli going down the Bundy walk in blood and then we have a bloody imprint right there (Indicating) where you'd put your foot if you were the driver. And what does that look like? That's very highly incriminating. Now, they want us to explain this one away by saying that Mark Fuhrman stepped in the blood of Nicole Brown because--actually this is all woven in, a bunch of stuff together. That photograph where you see him pointing to the evidence at Bundy, that really wasn't taken at 7:00 or 6:30 or something as was testified to. No, no, no, no, no. That was taken before he left to go to Rockingham. And the blood on his shoe dried. He was standing there--he was marching around in her pool of blood. That's what you have to believe. Then he went out on Rockingham, he stepped on the wet grass, he got it wet again, and when he got into this Bronco, which I guess he must have had a slim jim with him to break into it because it was locked, he got in and he put his foot on that carpet right where you would put it if you were driving it. But he didn't have the keys. So why would he be sitting that way? I don't know, but that's the story. That's what you're supposed to believe. Now, there's a bunch of problems with that story that make it impossible. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense and it didn't happen, and here's why. No. 1, there was testimony from Mr. Bodziak concerning the characteristics of this stain. And that means 33 where the imprint is. And what he said was that there were the "S" squiggles that were very distinctive of this Silga design of the Bruno Maglis. He said there was not distinguishable characteristics for him to make an absolute positive identification. But you can see. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that logic and common sense in your own powers of observation tell you that's the Bruno Magli shoe.

And Mr. Bodziak told you that he excluded the shoes of all of the officers including those of Mark Fuhrman from the bloody shoeprints at Bundy.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. Miss Clark, let's wind this up and take a break.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Then I'll hear your comment.

MS. CLARK: Here was the testimony of Agent Bodziak, page 32738: "Question: With respect to these two exhibits--" referring to the exhibits of the officers' shoes, and I'll show you those. "--were you able to include or exclude the officers' shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location? "Answer: I was able to exclude those officers' footprints as having made any of the distinguishable Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning." That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officers' shoes. And when we come back from the break, I'll show you.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid-afternoon recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll be in recess for 15. All right. Let me see counsel at sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have a number of objections. The first one is that Miss Clark was making argument about there being no--that you should have--item 42, there should have been DNA result--kept on referring to as DNA results as showing the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson being taken from the samples. She was making this argument and she is indicating that--her argument was that the swatches and bindle 42 showed that it was the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson. Now, what's misleading and without--devoid of any factual support in the record, highly misleading is that there are no conventional serology results and no DNA test results on those swatches. So it's improper argument. There's no factual foundation at all in the record for that and it's highly misleading. That's no. 1. No. 2, she made an argument that the PCR testing here can detect DNA from Egyptian mummies.

THE COURT: That's not what she said. There was testimony that PCR has been used to type Egyptian mummies.

MR. SCHECK: Therefore, you should be able to find DNA from degraded samples here. It seems to me, your Honor, this is highly misleading and argument that is without support in the record, the DNA typing for Egyptian mummies.

THE COURT: You've made the point. Let's--

MR. SCHECK: Well, that's wrong. No. 3, she misquoted--misled the jury with respect to the testimony of Dr. Baden about blood searches being planned, an excerpt that she read with respect to the testimony of Dr. Baden. She did not tell the jury and she misled them because they were--made statements about his own records, not their records on June 22nd where they talked about--

THE COURT: What's misleading going off his notes?

MR. SCHECK: She did not mention June--she contemplated it as though discussion about the June 29th blood search when this was taking place on June 22nd. That was wrong and highly misleading. She gave a page number. I may get it wrong. I may have to go back--40098 with respect to Dr. Gerdes talking about conventional serology.

THE COURT: As being a confirmation.

MR. SCHECK: Confirming. I can't find that in that citation.

MS. CLARK: I'll read it for the jury--for counsel.

MR. SCHECK: I just want to know--

MS. CLARK: I checked everything.

MR. SCHECK: I may have misheard your page reference. Just give me that. The page reference I wrote down I don't see as relating to what she said. But definitely, the one statement that she made that is completely improper--and perhaps she doesn't know it, but the court should think back--and that is around the time that we withdrew the DNA motion, we had in writing and on the record made a request for exemplars, DNA exemplars from the officers in the case. We asked for that. If you recall, what they agreed to do was give us exemplars where DNA typing--I should say from the evidence collections, but they refused to give them to the police officers. You can check with Mr. Clarke and Mr. Harmon. You can go back and get the report. Please search your memory. We had specifically requested that. What she just told us--

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Stop there. Tell me about 42, the blood testing on 4--what testing was done on 42?

MS. CLARK: The conventional serology. 42 is the one that gave us the EAP degraded also to a B, and I told--what I actually told the jury is, you know, it is her blood because it's under her body, pool of blood. That's what I said. And the--there was testimony concerning conventional serology done on that. I think there was--was there PCR on that? Also PCR in that. Collin did that. So there was a type on that.

MR. SCHECK: Why don't we tell the results? On their board, they show conventional serology, just inconclusive typing results and the DNA typing by Mr. Yamauchi on sample 42 showed no results. Those are the facts in the record, not this nonsense that she's telling us now.

MS. CLARK: What do you mean?

MR. SCHECK: Well, because you are misstating the record.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: These are the most specious objections and counsel's inappropriate demeanor is something that I want to raise with the court separately when we conclude this. But I have not misrepresented anything to this jury. I have told this jury that it is her pool of blood that is underneath her body. And if there was contamination, you know, what counsel is saying doesn't disprove a thing. I said nothing--in fact, it proves it better because if it was totally degraded and no results was obtained, then it should have gotten the Defendant's type also. If, according to his testimony, contamination is correct, then that should have come up. Nothing I had said misled the jury.

THE COURT: How about the business about the request? My recollection is, that's true.

MS. CLARK: I have no knowledge of that. You would not have opposed it. And Johnnie knows. He asked me to get the elimination standards for hair, and I went and I got the hair--

MR. COCHRAN: That's right. She cannot--

MS. CLARK: Let me check with rock. And rock don't trust anything he said.

MR. SCHECK: Her specific statement was, a request for these samples would have been honored.

THE COURT: What I want you to do is come back with, with regard to 42, the most we could say about the blood underneath her--and the results are posted on the results board, correct?


MS. CLARK: Yeah.

MR. SCHECK: No, no. It's wrong. Now--

THE COURT: Counsel, listen. You should understand I'm not going to go over--this has been a nine-month trial. If you want to go back through argument and fight over what the testimony was or wasn't when you have conflicting testimony about just about everything that went on in this case, we're not going to do that. The jury has been admonished that counsel can argue the facts in the case. And if they argue something that's not to the recollection of the jury, they do that at their peril. We're not going to go back and search through each and every item.

MR. SCHECK: We're not asking you to do that. Please let me make my record.

MS. CLARK: How many times--

THE COURT: Counsel, don't interrupt counsel.

MR. SCHECK: All I am asking the court to do--I think it's in accordance with proper procedure when statements are made without any factual foundation in the record, and frankly, I think if you look back at the argument here in a way that is totally misleading, there are no DNA results on sample no. 42.

THE COURT: I don't recollect it.

MR. SCHECK: Then who--please check the record. Please check the serology board.

THE COURT: What item is that?

MR. SCHECK: It shows no results.

THE COURT: What item is that? Would you answer my question?

MR. SCHECK: Item no. 42. I'm being very direct.

THE COURT: What chart is that?

MR. SCHECK: Conventional serology chart and then the--their own DNA testing shows no result.

MS. CLARK: How is that--you know what I'm missing here is that I said that is obviously her blood because it's under her body, and if there was contamination, that blood that was collected should have shown his type as well. How have I misled them?

THE COURT: Does that infer there was testing?

MS. CLARK: There was testing.

MR. SCHECK: No results on any of it show that and results which is--because there were no results. No result.


(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. Counsel, did we determine which of the results boards--which exhibit has the 42 results?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I step out?

THE COURT: No. Which exhibit is it?

MS. CLARK: We're looking.

MR. SCHECK: Conventional serology board.

MS. CLARK: I don't know what issue is left.

THE COURT: The issue is 42 and the issue is the state of the record regarding request for blood samples or PCR results from the investigating officers. That's the issue. I think the state of the record is, a request was made and declined. That's my recollection of what happened.

MS. CLARK: For--wait. What are we talking about?

THE COURT: We're talking about two things. We're talking about 42, Nicole Brown Simpson blood pool results.


THE COURT: And we're talking about the request for the PCR testing results of any of the investigating officers with regard to the 4 allele on the steering wheel.

MS. CLARK: Could I ask Mr. Harmon to address the court on that matter, because he handled it. I didn't.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, your Honor. Starting with the request in--what seemed like a lifetime ago--we had a lot of requests from the Defense. Some of them we acquiesced to initially because we had the material and it was readily available.

THE COURT: Let's cut to the chase.


THE COURT: What's the state of the record?

MR. HARMON: The state of the record is, many, many months ago, they requested a broad request, all laboratory personnel and a vague request for police personnel. We eventually provided all the PCR typing results for all the police personnel that we had and then that were produced as this trial slowly progressed and we told them that we didn't have them for police officers, and it is my recollection that that was the end of that and that there was never a formal request made of you to resolve the request.

THE COURT: The problem is, this is reference to items not in the record. That's my concern.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me?

THE COURT: This is something that is not in the record before the jury though.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Hold on. I'm not finished talking to Mr. Harmon.

MR. SCHECK: I apologize.

THE COURT: That has not been a subject of questions and answers before the jury; is that correct? My recollection is that it has not.

MR. HARMON: That police officers were not typed?


MS. CLARK: That is correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, Mr. Harmon--listen carefully to his answer because his answer accords with your recollection and my recollection. It wasn't a vague request. We requested the types--

THE COURT: Counsel, the point is, is it in the record before the jury. The answer is no.

MR. SCHECK: No, no.

THE COURT: No, no. Counsel, that's the issue. If it's not in the record before the jury, then it's not something that's appropriate to have argument made of. Do you agree?

MR. SCHECK: I agree with that. And I have a further point if you may just hear me. And that point is this, because you must instruct the jury to the contrary. As Mr. Harmon has indicated and as the court recalls, we did make such a request for the typings of the police officers, and they chose not to do them. Mr. Harmon can say now they weren't available, so we didn't produce them. But the record and the truth is, we made the request and they did not provide it. What Miss Clark just told the jury is if--

THE COURT: Counsel, I know.

MR. SCHECK: That would have been honored. Untrue, and they should be so instructed. The request was made and it was not honored. Those are the facts. That's what the jury should be instructed. She had no right to say it in the first place. What she said wasn't true and that should be corrected.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, can I just comment on that?

THE COURT: No, no, no. You don't need to comment on that. You know, it's obvious to me we're not going to finish this today, isn't it? So now, what's going to happen is, Miss Clark is going to get a second wind over the weekend.

MS. CLARK: Judge, why won't we be able to finish today?

THE COURT: You are going to finish in 90 minutes?



MS. CLARK: Especially if we don't have 90 minutes of argument in-between, I'll be done. I will be done, your Honor. Now, what I had no knowledge of what--it was my understanding from Mr. Harmon that the request was made. Mr. Harmon said, "Give me a list of the officers." They never came back to him and that was the state of the report.

THE COURT: The state of the record is this. No typing results, PCR typing results were made available to the Defense by the Prosecution during the course of the case. That's the state of the record.

MS. CLARK: Then I will correct it.

THE COURT: That is not before the jury and you need to correct that.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: The request was made for it. That's the important point. She said the request would have been honored. The request was made and it wasn't--

MS. CLARK: You know what the problem is, your Honor?


MS. CLARK: He makes it sound like there was a refusal, and that's not the truth.

THE COURT: Counsel, what I'm asking you to say is, correct your argument that no results, no PCR results of any of the investigating officers were provided to the Defense. You need to correct that period. All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, what about the request? She said "Request."

THE COURT: Counsel, no.

MR. SCHECK: Well, that's the truth. We made a request and they didn't provide them. She said "Request."

THE COURT: Sit down. I've heard enough. We're going to conclude this.

MR. SCHECK: It's not fair.

THE COURT: Deputy Smith. I've allowed counsel on both sides wide latitude in argument here.

MR. SCHECK: With no disrespect to the court, I don't agree.

THE COURT: Thank you. I'm sure we will have a chance to talk about it some other time.

(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. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Miss Clark, you may conclude your summation.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. I'm almost done. Let me correct one thing. With respect to the--on the steering wheel, the 4 allele, I'm informed by Mr. Harmon that we have not provided PCR results on the investigating officers. I would also remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that I think even Dr. Gerdes conceded that the 4 allele that was found on the steering wheel of the Bronco could have come from anyone driving the car. And, as you know, there was testimony concerning other people driving the car. I think it was a housekeeper, Gigi, also drives the car.

So I was going to tell you about the border and the imprint on the carpet, okay. And I want to show you this. First, let me show you mark Fuhrman's shoe, the one that was excluded that he wore that night when he was at Bundy. It was excluded as having been a Bruno Magli by Mr. Bodziak. And here's his--the bottom of his shoe.

THE COURT: What exhibit is this, counsel? Is this from the large board?

MS. CLARK: It's from 396, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You can see there's--I think you can see pretty well. There's no squiggle on the heel. That's the important thing. Now, what I would like--I'm going to ask for Mr. Goldberg to help me out here because he knows this better. There was an overlay made of the way the--it's a transparency with the way the Bruno Magli sole, Silga sole looks. You can overlay that on this actual carpet stain and see how it lines up. Mr. Bodziak I would caution you said that when somebody puts their foot on a carpet--again, this is common sense--you'll move it, you may twist it a little bit. So it's a little fuzzy, but you'll be able to see it. And I'm going to direct your attention--sorry about that--first of all, this line here that is the border and then the squiggles in here (Indicating). And I'm going to have Mr. Goldberg line the transparency up so you can see what we're talking about. You see the red arrows that are on here? Can you see them from where you are? They're little. Okay. Agent Bodziak was the one that marked these features to show what he thought was consistent with the Bruno Magli design.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, for the record, I just found People's 390-e.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: I have an objection to this.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Can everybody see? Can you all see?

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Now, there was--now, what's key and fundamental to your belief that anyone other than the Defendant could have put this bloody shoeprint in the Bronco--and you recall that the testimony was that the typing came back to Nicole, that was her blood. What's key to your belief that it was not his shoe that put it there is the Defense contention that he in fact was down in the crime scene pointing to the evidence at Bundy and stepped in her pool of blood before he went to Rockingham because if you rely on the state of the record which states that he did not step down into that area until after he went to Rockingham, he didn't have opportunity to get her blood on his shoes. So the Defense contention is that he actually took that photograph before he went to Rockingham and that's how he got her blood on his shoes and that's how the blood got on the carpet of the Defendant's Bronco. However, the testimony elicited early in this trial is completely opposite, completely opposite, and it's the testimony of an officer whose honesty was praised by Defense counsel earlier in argument, Officer Riske. And he testified concerning that photograph as follows at page 14115:

"Question: And by the time you came around to the front, was it starting to get light? "Answer: No. It was--"Question: Still dark? "Answer: Still dark. "Question: What did you do out front? "Answer: Like I said, maintained security of the crime scene. "Question: At some point, a photographer arrived? "Question: Did you have contact with the photographer in the front of the location? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: And was it daylight by then? "Answer: I had talked to him earlier, but he hadn't taken any pictures of the front while I was there. Then he came--it was just starting to get daylight, and he came and he took a couple pictures.

"Question: Now, was this the same photographer you had contacted earlier at the rear of the location, the rear alley? "Answer: Yes, it was. "Question: When he came to the front of the location and it was lighter, did you point anything out to him? "Answer: No, I didn't. "Question: Did you see him taking pictures in that front area? "Answer: I saw Detective Fuhrman. He was showing him the glove and he took a picture of the glove. "Question: Okay. He was pointing to it? "Answer: I believe he lifted up the leaves and the plants so he could see it better and he took a picture.

"Question: And now I'm pointing to it." It's People's 55. You ready? Could we cut the feed please, your Honor? "We should mark it as People's 55." And then: "Question: Do you recognize the person in that photograph, sir? "Answer: Yes, I do. "Question: Who is that? "Answer: It's Detective Fuhrman and the victim. "Question: And what's he pointing to? "Answer: He's pointing to the glove. "Question: The glove and the cap? "Answer: The cap. "Question: The ones that you saw when you arrived shortly after midnight? "Answer: That's correct."

Page 14118: "Question: Now, what time was it that you were relieved from this crime scene? "Answer: 7:15. "Question: At 7:15? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: And in relationship to that time that you left the crime scene, when did Detective Fuhrman appear and point out things to the photographer? "Answer: I would say within 40 minutes. I'm not really sure. Within an hour. "Question: So it was shortly before you left the crime scene completely? "Correct. Right." So 40 minutes to an hour before Officer Riske left the scene--and he left at 7:15--is when that photograph was taken. He was there and he saw it happen, and that was after Mark Fuhrman came back from Rockingham. Mystery solved. And that shoeprint belongs to the Defendant.

What you see, ladies and gentlemen, is a very elaborate effort to make you disbelieve a great wealth of evidence, and what you've heard is basically a conspiracy that extends from Officer Riske to Commander Bushey. Do you realize how many people would have had to have gotten involved in a conspiracy within an hour? Can you imagine how this could happen? Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange never even knew Mark Fuhrman until they met him that night at Bundy, and yet the allegation by the Defense is that they got together that night, meeting the first time, for the very first time, and everybody's covering up and conspiring all of a sudden. Impossible. Not only that, but there are other people involved as well, people we don't even know who they are, according to the Defense, who are willing to get involved in this. You realize how many people have to be involved? I mean it boggles the mind. We don't even know who they're talking about. But that's the contortion you have to go through to believe in this conspiracy theory. That's the contortion you have to go through to step away from the very obvious truth you can see when you look straight on and clear-eyed at this evidence.

If you look at it straight on, you can see the truth. It's very clear and it's very obvious. Mr. Simpson committed these murders, ladies and gentlemen. We don't like it and it's hard, but it's true. Now, I have one more exhibit I would like to show you, and this exhibit is entitled, "Unrefuted evidence," and I think that this will bring home to you the power of the evidence in this case. And the reason that there are two men now helping is because it's a magnetic board and it weighs about a ton.

THE COURT: You can move over by Deputy Long. All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. This is the unrefuted evidence. This is evidence which has not been contested by any contradictory evidence. That's all that's on this board. Okay.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Forgive me for interrupting you. Any remains on this board?

MS. CLARK: No, your Honor. Wait. Maybe. Yes, but we are not going to get to it just yet. Shall I tell you when or you want to go ahead and tell him?

THE COURT: Tell Mr. Bancroft when.

MS. CLARK: Okay. First of all, opportunity. Opportunity deals with the time. As we've already established, between 9:36 and 10:53, the Defendant's whereabouts are unaccounted for. No dispute about that. Nobody's contradicting that. Kato Kaelin saw the Defendant wearing a dark sweat suit at 9:36. No contradictory testimony about that. Charles Cale did not see the Bronco on Rockingham when he walked his dog between 9:30 and 9:45. No witness came forward to dispute that either. The Defendant tried to call Paula Barbieri on his cell phone from the Bronco at 10:02, 10:03. There's no contradictory testimony as to that fact.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection to the form of that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Allan Park did not see the Bronco on Rockingham 10:32 or 10:30. No witness came forward to contradict his testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Allan Park buzzed the intercom at Rockingham at 10:40, at 10:43 and at 10:49. There was no answer. No testimony contradicts that. A white, very light colored Bronco type vehicle observed at Bundy and Dorothy after the murders occurred. That was the testimony of Mr. Heidstra, testimony that was uncontradicted.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. Counsel, that objection has been made. It's for the record. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Kato Kaelin heard the three thumps on his wall at 10:51 or 10:52. That testimony isn't contradicted. Let me make one further point about that. An argument has been made to you, ladies and gentlemen, that somehow that those thumps were a signal. That is not what Kato said. That is not what he said, nor was he questioned as to whether or not the thumps he demonstrated for you were that fast or was it slower. He was indicating to you the force, why his wall shook.

Now, how could an earthquake sound like this (Indicating)? Okay. He said an earthquake. He said a prowler. Those were the things that he said. He did not say "Signal." It didn't sound like that to him. That's what he said, "Earthquake, prowler." Those were his words, uncontradicted. Allan Park saw the person in dark clothes, six foot, 200 pounds, walk across the driveway at 10:54 walking into the house, testimony that is uncontradicted, two minutes after the thumps heard by Kato, uncontradicted testimony. And at 10:55, when Allan Park got out of his limo to go and buzz the Defendant, the Defendant finally answered. That testimony, ladies and gentlemen, is uncontradicted. What this testimony proves is not only that the Defendant was not home, but it proves he was not sleeping and it proves that he lied about it to create the impression--to create an alibi for himself.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to that.

MS. CLARK: You don't need to do that unless--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --you've been doing something you need to have an alibi for, unless you've been doing something that you need to hide. The shoeprints at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe. There is no contradiction for that testimony. The Defendant wears a size 12 shoe. That testimony is uncontradicted. The bloody shoe impression on the Bronco carpet is consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe. That testimony is uncontradicted. That's the one we just showed you. The left glove at Bundy and the right glove at Rockingham are Aris light gloves, size extra large, uncontradicted. Nicole Brown bought two pair of Aris light gloves at Bloomingdales in New York on December 18, 1990.

MR. COCHRAN: Objection again.

MS. CLARK: Testimony that is uncontradicted.

THE COURT: Overruled, counsel.

MS. CLARK: The Defendant wore black and brown Aris light gloves between December 18th, 1990 and June the 12th, 1994. Let me make one further point about that. If the gloves you saw him in in these photographs that we showed to you, ladies and gentlemen, were not the ones purchased for him by Nicole Brown, why is it we have no photographs dating before the day she purchased those two pair of gloves?

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

THE COURT: Overruled. It's a fair inference from the evidence, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Which only shows, ladies and gentlemen, and highlights one further point for you. Where are they? If they are not the gloves you have here in court, where are they? They are here.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, again, objection. We have no obligation--

THE COURT: Overruled. No. That's not correct, counsel.

MS. CLARK: The killer dropped blood to the left of the shoeprints at Bundy. That's testimony that's uncontradicted. The Defendant had a fresh cut on his left hand during the week of June the 13th, 1994, uncontradicted. A blood drop on the Bundy trail was typed the same as the Defendant's. And this is the conventional serology I was telling you. This is the PGM typing that they did, not the DNA. This is uncontradicted. No one--no one contradicts the accuracy or the integrity of that. No one claims that's the product of contamination.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Blood transfers were visible in the Defendant's Bronco. Don Thompson, Officer Don Thompson, who was at Rockingham that morning said he saw blood in the Bronco. Blood drops are on the street, in the driveway, 360 Rockingham, uncontradicted. Blood drops were found in the foyer and in the master bathroom at Rockingham, testimony that's uncontradicted. It's also uncontradicted that it's his blood.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, remains?

MS. CLARK: Yes. Now, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on the Rockingham glove, uncontradicted. Blue black cotton fiber found on Ron Goldman's shirt, the Defendant's socks and the Rockingham glove, uncontradicted. Fiber consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on the dark knit cap at Bundy, uncontradicted. Hairs consistent with the Defendant found on the dark knit cap at Bundy, uncontradicted. Hairs consistent with the Defendant found on Ron Goldman's shirt, uncontradicted.

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence.

MS. CLARK: On this, I refer to head hair as well as limb hairs.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Motive, you know. Full circle. Spousal abuse, domestic violence against Nicole Brown. Unrefuted. You can see, ladies and gentlemen, this is just what hasn't been contested. Now, you add to that the fact of all of the evidence that they've tried to claim was contaminated or planted. I've shown you how it wasn't. Add all of that to this. It is truly overwhelming. If you would like to take notes on this, I can leave it up for a little while. It won't go back with you to the jury room because it's only for argument. All right.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Would you just approach real quick, please.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. I'd like to conclude my remarks to you today, ladies and gentlemen. I want to remind you--because we've come full circle. I've been with you such a long time. It's been so long since we actually had a chance to both talk, and I look forward to the time that we can again. I wanted to remind you back to the time of jury selection when we first asked questions of you as a group in order to select 12 of you to sit as jurors, and that was on I think November 2nd 1994 you were altogether here and we were actually able to both talk and exchange. I think it was even before the alternate jurors were selected, and we asked some of you as individuals what you would expect of us as public Prosecutors if we were assigned to prosecute a case where, heaven forbid, a loved one of yours had been murdered, a son, a sister, a father, a brother and imagine that it is you sitting in the audience where the victims' families sit today.

What would you expect of us? What would you want? Your answers were that you expected us to be fair, to be vigorous in our Prosecution of the case, to be ethical. We've done everything in our power to be all of those things, ladies and gentlemen, everything. And if you recall, we as representatives of the community expected of you and we talked about what we wanted, what we would ask of you. And if you remember, we expected you to use your common sense, to be open-minded, to be reasonable and to be fair and to have the moral courage to be just. And if you'll think back to this time of jury selection when all of you were first together, you will remember that we talked about the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. it's been so long, I wonder if you remember that, the highest court in the land. And we asked if you knew what was inscribed on the facade of the Supreme Court building up above the steps, up above the pillars. If you think back, we told you what was written above those marble pillars, "Equal justice under the law." We talked about what that meant, "Equal justice under the law."

You may recall, that means the law is to be applied equally to all persons in this country regardless of whether one is rich or poor or race or creed or color, famous or otherwise. Not even the President of the United States is above the law. You all agreed with that. We asked you if you had courage to be just to a person. Each of you, each of you said yes, some individually, some responded as a group. And we asked you, you may recall, what equal justice under the law meant to you, and you replied that is the way it should definitely be. And that's right. That is the way it should definitely be. But you see, equal justice under the law is an ideal. It's an abstract principle and it takes you to make this principle a reality. Only you can make this ideal real. I think that with all you've already gone through, you've shown yourselves to be people of remarkable integrity, strength, courage and patience, people who will face the hard questions. And this is one of them. I think it's been hard for all of us to be here and listen to all of the evidence in this case, evidence that proves Mr. Simpson is guilty because none of us wanted to believe it. We all wanted to believe that our image of him was right. And we all know that we never knew him exactly, but we kind of felt like we did, and it's really kind of hard to have to believe that the man we saw in the movies and commercials could do this. But he did. And the fact that he did doesn't mean that he wasn't a great football player. It doesn't mean he never did a good thing in his life. Nothing takes that away. That's still here. It will always be here. But so will the fact that he committed these murders. And even though it's a hard thing, still it cannot mean, it cannot mean that you let a guilty person go free, that someone who commits murder is not held accountable for it. He had strength and he had weaknesses, and it's his weakness that brought us here today and it's his weakness that's why we're here and Ron and Nicole are not. And Defense would say no motive, no motive. It's one of the oldest motives ever known, ladies and gentlemen; anger, fear of abandonment, jealousy, loss of control of Nicole and of himself. Usually I feel like I'm the only one left to speak for the victims. But in this case, Ron and Nicole are speaking to you. They're speaking to you and they're telling you who murdered them. Nicole started before she even died. Remember back in 1989, she cried to Detective Edwards, "He's going to kill me. He's going to kill me." The children were there. 1990, she made a safe deposit box, put photographs of her beaten face and her haunted look in a safe deposit box along with a will. She was only 30 years old. How many 30 years old you know do that, a will, a safe deposit box? It's like writing in the event of my death. She knew. "He's going to kill me." 1993, the 911 tape, the children were there. He was screaming. She was crying and she was frightened. I think the thing that perhaps was so chilling about her voice is that sound of resignation. There was a resignation to it, inevitability. She knew she was going to die. And Ron, he speaks to you and struggling so valiantly. He forced his murderer to leave the evidence behind that you might not ordinarily have found. And they both are telling you who did it with their hair, their clothes, their bodies, their blood. They tell you he did it. He did it. Mr. Simpson, Orenthal Simpson, he did it. They told you in the only way they can. Will you hear them or will you ignore their plea for justice, or as Nicole said to Detective Edwards, "You never do anything about him." Will you?

I want to play something for you, ladies and gentlemen, that puts it altogether. Let me explain what this is. Thank you. This is a compilation of the 1989 tape, 911 call, the 1993 911 call, photographs from the 1989 beating and the photographs from her safe deposit box and the photographs from Rockingham and Bundy.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that without further explanation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(At 3:55 P.M., a videotape was played.)

MS. CLARK: I don't have to say anything else. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the People of the State of California, because we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, far beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed these murders, we ask you to find the Defendant guilty of murder in the first degree of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Let me see counsel at the sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: I gave each side a package of the concluding instructions. I put a special instruction in there: "During the course of their arguments, counsel for both sides argues that, `the world is watching.'" "This was not an appropriate argument," I'm going to take that out. "You are reminded that you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling."

MR. COCHRAN: What you said earlier. Judge, one of the other--I don't think--

THE COURT: You have it. This is just concluding.


MS. CLARK: You're going to let them select a Foreperson?

MR. SCHECK: I would like to make an application to request an instruction before you do this. First of all, the objection that I made on the record, if the court would look at page 32751 of the record, you will see that Agent Bodziak testified that he could not make an overlay and could not take that overlay over the carpet fibers, and that's exactly what Mr. Goldberg did. So I think that was an unfair demonstration and misstates the testimony. That is a specific place in the record if you want to look at it. Secondly, what I would request of the court at this point in time, since many objections have been made where the court has overruled the objection--and I realize you gave one earlier instruction to this effect, but I think it should be clear to the jury, particularly since a number of times you said "Overruled" on something like that's a fair inference, that it may be intentional, give--

THE COURT: Keep your voice down.

MR. SCHECK: --fair inference that in fact the statements on the record are true. So I would only request of the court, given the nature of this closing argument and People's rebuttal summation and our inability to get it correct, what we think significantly misstates the facts, is that the court just give a standard admonition to the jury that during the course of the closing arguments, objections have been made, I've made rulings on them with respect to--and that the jury's recollection controls and they shouldn't interpret anything from your rulings.

THE COURT: Counsel, the first instruction I'm going to give them is not to take cue--

MR. COCHRAN: Could you throw in this part about closing argument though?

THE COURT: No. It's clear enough. The objection regarding Bodziak is overruled. All right. Let's proceed.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience, and I just have a few final instructions I need to give to you before you start your deliberations on this matter.


THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I have not intended by anything that I have said or done or by any questions that I may have asked or by any of the rulings that I have made in your presence to intimate or suggest what you should find to be the facts or that I believe or disbelieve any of the witnesses. If anything that I have done during the course of this trial or said has seemed to so indicate to you, you will disregard it and form your own conclusion. The instructions which I have given to you will be made available in written form for your deliberations. They must not be defaced or written upon in any way. You will find that the instructions may be typed, printed or handwritten. Portions may have been added or deleted. You must disregard any deleted part of an instruction and not speculate as to what it was or as to the reason for its deletion.

You are not to be concerned with the reasons for any modifications. Every part of the text of an instruction, whether it is typed, printed or handwritten, is of equal importance. You are to be governed only by the instruction in its final wording. The People and the Defendant are entitled to the individual opinion of each juror. Each of you must consider the evidence for the purpose of reaching a verdict if you can do so. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but should do so only after discussing the evidence and the instructions with the other jurors. Do not hesitate to change an opinion if you are convinced it is wrong. However, do not decide any question in a particular way because a majority of the jurors or any of them favor such a decision. Do not decide any issue in this case by chance such as the drawing of lots or by any other chance determination.

The attitude and conduct of jurors at all times are very important. It is rarely helpful for a juror at the beginning of the deliberations to express an emphatic opinion on the case or to announce a determination to stand for a certain verdict. When one does that at the outset, a sense of pride may be aroused and one may hesitate to change a position even if it is shown to be wrong. Remember that you are not partisans or advocates in this matter. You are the impartial judges of the facts. In your deliberations, do not discuss or consider the subject of penalty or punishment. That subject must not in any way affect your verdict. Do not disclose to anyone outside the jury, not even to me or to any member of my staff, either orally or in writing, how you may be divided numerically in your balloting as to any issue unless I specifically direct otherwise.

You have been given notebooks and pencils. You are to leave them in your seat in the jury room when you leave each day and at each recess. You will be able to take them into the jury room for your deliberations. You are reminded that notes are only an aid to memory and should not take precedence over independent recollection. A juror who does not take notes should rely upon his or her independent recollection of the evidence and not be influenced by the fact that other jurors do take notes. Notes are for the notetaker's own personal use in refreshing his or her recollection of the evidence. Finally, should any discrepancy exist between a juror's recollection of the evidence and his or her notes, he or she may request that the court reporter read back the relevant proceedings, and the trial transcript must prevail over any notes.

In this case, there are three possible verdicts as to each count. These various possible verdicts are set forth in the forms of verdict which you will receive. Only one of the possible verdicts may be returned by you as to any particular count. If you all have agreed upon one verdict as to a particular count, the corresponding form--excuse me--the corresponding form is the only verdict form to be signed as to that count. The other forms are to be left unsigned. During the periods of recess, you must not discuss with anyone any subject connected with this trial and you must not deliberate further upon the case until all 12 of you are together and reassembled in the jury room. Once the clerk or the bailiff has been notified that the jury has reassembled, you may continue your deliberations.

During the course of their arguments, counsel for both sides argued that, quote, "The world is watching," unquote. You are reminded that you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. Both the Prosecution and the Defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh all the evidence, apply the law as I have instructed you and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences. You shall now retire and select one of your number to act as Foreperson. He or she will preside over your deliberations. In order to reach verdicts, all 12 jurors must agree as to the decision and as to any finding you have been instructed to include in your verdict. As soon as all of you have agreed upon a verdict so that when polled, each may state truthfully that the verdicts express his or her vote, have them dated and signed by your Foreperson and then return with them to this courtroom. You are to return to the clerk any unsigned verdict forms. Mrs. Robertson, are you prepared to swear the bailiff?

THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sergeant Smith.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that you will take charge of the jury and keep them together, that you will not speak to them yourself, nor allow anyone else to speak to them, upon matters connected with this case except by order of this court, and when they have agreed upon a verdict, you will return them into the court, so help you God?


THE CLERK: And further, do you solemnly swear that you'll take charge of the alternate jurors and keep them apart from the jury while they deliberate on the cause, until otherwise instructed by the court, so help you God?


THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to ask that you step into the jury room to proceed with your election of a Foreperson. As soon as you have done that, would you notify the bailiff by pressing on our buzzer three times here that you've reached a determination as to the Foreperson, and then I'll bring you out for the closing admonitions and then we'll conclude the session for the day. In fact, I think what I will do is give them the closing admonition at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, as I've indicated to you, you are not to discuss the case while you are away from the jury room. Your jury deliberations may take place only while all 12 of you are assembled in the jury room. Otherwise, when you go back to the hotel, when we conclude for the day and during the course of any recesses, you may not discuss amongst yourselves the facts and circumstances of the case. You may not conduct any deliberations while you are at the hotel or anywhere in-between. All right. And I'll ask the 12 jurors to step back into the jury room at this time and we'll have the bailiffs take charge of the two alternates. All right. I need to see counsel. Excuse me. Sergeant Smith, do we have anyone in the jury room presently?

SERGEANT SMITH: I'll have to check.

THE COURT: If you could escort the two alternates to the jury room. Be seated, ladies and gentlemen.

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

THE COURT: One matter of sequestration I wanted to ask counsel about. My research attorney advises me that there is case law that alternate jurors are to be kept separate from sequestered jurors during part of their deliberations, which would mean--which includes at the hotel according to the case law that I've read. Now they've been admonished not to conduct any deliberations while they are away from the jury room here in the court--and I'll be issuing shortly a schedule of jury deliberations--what are your thoughts as far as keeping the two alternates separate?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, with regard to that, I think you've admonished them. Defense has absolutely no objection to the alternates being able to be with the other jurors during the time they are at the hotel. They're not going to deliberate. They've been together all this time. I think that's appropriate. We have no objection to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: People's position?

MS. CLARK: I've got to say, your Honor, I feel so sorry for them, how can we have two of them separated from all of them? It's hard enough where they live. I can't object to them being together after all they've been through. So--

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Stipulation. It's required we stipulate.

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. That seems the humane thing to do.


THE COURT: All right. It will be bad enough keeping them separate in another room during this time in any event. All right. Counsel, I am going to direct counsel to be available within one hour's phone call, within one hour of receiving a call from Mrs. Robertson, the clerk, to be available with regards to questions and jury read back. And I understand that both sides wish to be present during any read back. The Defendant wishes to be present; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. That is, Mr. Carl Douglas will be sitting in for all read backs. Mr. Simpson would like to be present for all such read backs if the court pleases. There's one other request I have, your Honor, with regard to the verdict when you get to that point. Shall I do that now?

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, any problem with designating one individual on your team to be the person to respond within one hour to Mrs. Robertson's call?

MS. CLARK: Yes. I mean no. No. Is it all right with the court we can alternate? I don't want to have any one person always be summoned and absolutely, I'll have somebody here in one hour.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, you had a question regarding the verdict?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. The court--as the court knows, this is part of the case where one does not know how long it will take. And this has been a very long trial, and because counsel have been tied up in this matter for some time--maybe we have a verdict already. They want to go home. Any question would be moot.

THE COURT: Good sign that they can agree that quickly on a Foreperson. But since--can we have it quiet, please.

MR. COCHRAN: The point I was going to indicate to the court is whether or not--it may not be necessary--whether or not we may be able to--and the court will be out of the area I believe on some weekends--and that could we have a 24-hour window from the time that the court gets the verdict to the time that all counsel who wants to be present if it's at all possible?

THE COURT: My concern, counsel, is that we have a sequestered jury, and to keep them any longer than is necessary after they deliver a verdict would be very difficult.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand that.

THE COURT: I'm going to ask counsel to be available within four hours of being notified.

MR. COCHRAN: Would the court, because I will be out of town, consider making it six hours?

THE COURT: Let's say four hours. Let's see where you are when it happens. Let's not create any windows that are too wide, keeping in mind that once this jury reaches a verdict, I expect they'll want to go home.

MR. COCHRAN: I would think so. We'll see. All right.

THE COURT: All right. That will give all parties enough time to get their--the interested parties together and to assemble here at the courthouse. All right. Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran, anything else we need to take up?

MR. COCHRAN: One question. If the verdict is at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, I presume court will then go over more than likely to the next day?

THE COURT: I'll issue a deliberation schedule, an anticipated schedule of returning verdicts while this jury deliberates contemplating--as you know, the jury is asking for permission to deliberate on Saturdays, as they're telling me on the questionnaire since they're here, they might as well work on Saturday. If a verdict is returned on a Saturday, it will probably be held until Monday essentially because of logistical problems of opening the courthouse over the weekend to take a verdict.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Fine.

THE COURT: So you should anticipate that. Anything else? All right. Counsel, thank you very much.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll be in recess.

MS. CLARK: Can we at sidebar without the court reporter?

THE COURT: I'll see counsel in chambers without the court reporter.

(At 4:15 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Monday, October 2, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)


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

The People of the State of California,)


Vs.) No. Ba097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)


Reporter's transcript of proceedings Friday, September 29, 1995 volume 233

Pages 48037 through 48286, inclusive



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



Index for volume 233 pages 48037 - 48286


Day date session page vol.

Friday September 29, 1995 A.M. 48037 233 P.M. 48156 233



Rebuttal argument by Mr. Darden 48046 233

Rebuttal argument by ms. Clark 48102 233

Rebuttal argument by ms. Clark (Resumed) 48179 233

Final instructions 48272 233