Summations

O.J. Simpson

JANUARY 21, 1997
(Excerpts)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

NO. SC031947
SHARON RUFO, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES

THE COURT: [...] Bring the jury in.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I request -- respectfully request that we take a break at the time Judge Perez is taking a break. I'd like to ask to bring this matter before him.

THE COURT: It's my courtroom, Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I'm just making that as a request.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard the evidence in this case and now we're about to hear closing arguments by the attorneys for each side.
I want to remind you that what the attorneys argue to you, what they state to you at this stage of the proceedings are not evidence. Whatever they argue, whatever they refer to with regards to the evidence, that it is their opinion as to what they believe the evidence showed or did not show and how they feel that the jury should rule with regards to the nature of the evidence, and how the jury should apply the law to that state of the evidence as they perceive it.
Evidence is only that which you heard from the witness stand and the graphic and other types of evidence that we denote as evidence that we've received in the trial.
You are the sole judges as to what the evidence means and what it established, what it did not establish.
You must not consider what the attorneys state to you as the evidence.
The reason that the Court instructs you every day not to allow any outside interference with the evidence gathering process by jurors is precisely to ensure that you do not go outside of the trial for your information.
What you decide this case upon has to be that which was received in the trial and you cannot rely on any information received elsewhere.
So that is why you must not permit radio, television, newspaper, magazine, or word of mouth information about this case, that was not received in the trial itself, to affect your judgment in any way.
When I tell you that the statements of the attorneys do not constitute evidence and the statements of what they say the law is is not what the law is, it's not my intention to tell you to disregard what the attorneys say. This is the last chance that they have to directly talk to you about the case and it's very important to both sides that you pay close attention to what their views are of what the evidence was and how you should apply the law to this case.
At the end of the case, after the attorneys have argued to you, I will instruct you as to what the law is that you will apply to the evidence as you find it to be.
And I'll also be giving you a special verdict form which you will fill out according to the instructions that are directly on the instruction forms themselves.
And in this fashion, you will be reaching your decision in this case.
So at this time, Mr. Petrocelli, I will invite you or Mr. Kelly or any other plaintiffs' counsel to commence their opening portion of the closing argument.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Good morning.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, defense counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I first would like to extend our appreciation to Your Honor and your excellent staff. This has been a long trial and we are greatly appreciative of the way that you have conducted these proceedings.
But it is you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to whom we owe the deepest debt of gratitude. You have given up the last four months of your lives at great personal sacrifice to be here and to make a commitment to serve on this jury. You have been here every day, taking notes, listening attentively, focusing on all the evidence that has come in, and for that we are extremely grateful. We thank you.
We are here to determine responsibility for the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Two vital people who had most of their lives ahead of them.
Here they are in life.
(Indicating to Elmo).
Steve.
By now, today, Ron Goldman would have been 29 years old, and I think he would have had that restaurant that he wanted to open shaped in the design of an ankh, the Egyptian symbol for eternal life, which Ron always wore around his neck and even had tattooed on his shoulder.
You want to put the other picture up?
(Indicating to Elmo).
Nicole Brown Simpson would have been 37 years old.
Not on a day unlike today, I think she would have, like she did every day, gotten up and taken care of her children, feed them, take them to school, karate lessons, dance lessons, bring them home, feed them dinner, play with them, put them to bed.
Okay.
Ron Goldman will never get to open his restaurant, ladies and gentlemen.
And Nicole Brown Simpson will never see her children grow up.
Because on a Sunday evening in 1994, these two vital people, their lives came to a sudden end in a few moments of uncontrollable rage.
Here they are in death (indicating to Elmo).
I apologize for the photograph.
Nicole, as you can imagine, was helpless at the hands of this enraged man, and she died within moments of the gaping cut to her throat.
Ron Goldman, instead of running from danger, tried to help a friend, but he too was defenseless against this powerful man with a 6-inch knife stabbing over and over and over again until Ron collapsed to the ground and died with his eyes still open.
Now, had Ron lived, ladies and gentlemen, he'd have been on this witness stand and he would have relived what happened that night and he would have told us what he saw.

MR. BAKER: I object. This is improper evidence.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Overruled. It's argument.

MR. PETROCELLI: But that is why Ron Goldman was killed. So he could not tell you what he saw that evening.
But even though Ron and Nicole's voices will not be heard in this courtroom, they will not be on that stand, their last struggling moments to stay alive, ladies and gentlemen, provided us the key evidence necessary to identify their killer.
They managed to get a glove pulled off, a hat to drop off, they managed to dig nails into the left hand of this man, cause other injuries to his hand, forcing him to drop his blood next to their bodies as he tried to get away.
And by their blood, they forced him to step, step, step as he walked to the back, leaving shoe prints that are just like fingerprints in this case that tell us who did this, who did this unspeakable tragedy.
So these crucial pieces of evidence after all are the voices of Ron and Nicole speaking to us from their graves, telling us, telling all of you, that there is a killer in this courtroom (indicating to Mr. Simpson.)
That is the man who attacked them, who confronted them, and who killed them on that Sunday evening in June. The defendant, Orenthal Simpson.
You heard his voice on the witness stand, ladies and gentlemen. You heard his voice on the witness stand. He took the stand about a week or so ago, about one full day in his defense.
Now, by that time, we the plaintiffs had presented overwhelming and highly incriminating evidence that Mr. Simpson committed these murders on June 12.
We did not merely prove that he did these things by a preponderance of the evidence, which, as you will hear later on as the Judge will instruct you, is the burden of proof that we have to meet in this case.
We didn't prove it merely by clear and convincing evidence, which is yet another burden of proof.
We didn't prove it merely by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof that applies in criminal cases.
We proved it to a certainty. We proved it beyond any doubt.
So what did Mr. Simpson say about all this evidence when he took the stand?
What did his fine lawyer, Mr. Baker, ask him about?
Did Mr. Simpson explain why his blood and his DNA were found dripped on the ground near the two victims. Did he talk about that?
Did he explain why his glove was found next to these two murdered people? Did he explain that?
Did he explain why his other glove was found back at his house? Did he talk about that?
Did he explain why his hat, his knit cap, was at the murder scene? Why it had his head hairs in it? Why it had his clothing fibers? Did he explain any of that? Not one word.
Did he explain why his blood was in his car that night? Did he explain why Ron Goldman's blood was in his car that night? Why Nicole's blood was in his car that night? Did he say anything about this?
Did he talk about why his blood, O.J. Simpson's blood, was dripped on the driveway of his property that night? In his foyer? Up in his bathroom right next to his bedroom? Did he talk about that?
Did he explain why his socks had his blood, why his socks had Nicole's blood on them, on both socks? Not one word did you hear when we waited to hear.
Did he talk about what happened to those brown Aris leather light gloves, size extra large, that we saw him wearing in those photos of him at the football games? The ones that are identical to the murder gloves.
Now, if they are not the murder gloves, as he says, why didn't he bring them to court? Why didn't he bring them here and say here are my gloves. I am innocent. Did he say any of that? Did he talk about that?
Did he say anything about the 30 photographs, over 30 photographs in fact, of him wearing those "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes that he swore to you, under oath on that witness stand, that he never owned and never wore? Did he talk about those photos?
No, he didn't.
Did he explain, by the way, how one of those photos could be a fake if it was published eight months before the murders in a Buffalo sports newspaper? Did you hear anything about that?
You didn't hear a word.
If those were not the shoes he was really wearing, as he said, did he come here that day and bring his shoes that he did wear that day at the football game? Did he bring them to court? Did he show them to you? Did he say here are the shoes I was wearing; I wasn't wearing those ugly ass shoes. I was wearing these shoes. Did he bring those shoes here to show them to you to prove his innocence?
How about a photograph. Did he produce a single photograph?
This guy's got to be one of the most photographed people in the world, perhaps. Sitting there on a side line, with thousands of cameras, television cameras.
Did he bring a photograph wearing the shoes he claims he was really wearing?
Not one.
Did he explain to you how he could cut himself the night of the murders between 10 and 11, at the time these murders occurred, on his left finger, and yet not know how?
"I don't know how I cut myself."
Did he even talk about that?
Did he explain to you last week how he could cut himself so badly in Chicago, he claims so bad as to leave a permanent scar on that finger, and yet not know how he did it?
Did he talk about that?
This was his chance to tell us what the answers were. Confronted with all this evidence, highly incriminating, conclusively incriminating evidence, pointing right at him, and what did he choose to say, what did he choose to tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
Well, he talked about his accomplishments as a football player. How he won the Heismann trophy. Ran 2,003 yards in one NFL season. How he broke records and received awards. We heard all about that.
We heard about his work for Hertz, Chevrolet, the jobs as a broadcaster, as an actor.
He dropped some names of famous people he socialized with. I'm sure you remember that. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and people like that.
Talked and talked and talked about golf. A lot about golf.
And he went to great lengths, ladies and gentlemen, to talk about his character. Remember how he was asked, and you heard Mr. Baker say in his opening statement about this Hall of Fame speech, about how a guy's character will always endure.
Well, you heard about that.
We heard about how he always tries to help others.
We heard that he still goes to his mother for advice.
And then he talked of his honesty, and he told us, looking you straight in the eye, right here, and said, I have never, ever attempted to tell a lie about anything important in my life.
Now, we heard him say that.
He talked about Nicole, too, of course. About how he tried to be a good husband to her. About how he was a good father to their children. And about how he would never harm her.
These are the things Mr. Baker asked him about and these are the things he spoke about.
The bottom line here, ladies and gentlemen, is that they would like you to believe that that handsome man with the charming smile, the expensive suit, who's lived the life of fame, celebrity and fortune, and who claims to be dedicated to his family, flawless in character, incapable of telling a lie, that that man could not possibly be responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
But it is that very same sense of superiority, ladies and gentlemen, that Mr. Simpson has attained that explains why he has absolutely no sense of responsibility for his actions or his obligation to tell the truth or for anything else.
He'll talk about responsibility.
Can you put the picture up?

(Photo is displayed on Elmo.)

What kind of man, ladies and gentlemen, confronted with this bruised and battered picture of Nicole, says, I take full responsibility for causing all those injuries, but I didn't hit her, I didn't strike her, I didn't slap her, I didn't do anything wrong, I was just defending myself, I was just trying to get her out of my bedroom.
What kind of man, who has shared a bedroom with his wife for 10 years, calls it my bedroom, my house, my property, me.
What kind of man takes a baseball bat to his wife's car, right in front of her, and then says he was not upset, he was not out of control, he was not in a state of rage, and she wasn't upset at all, not the slightest, even though she went to call the police for help.
What kind of man kicks open a door so hard as to break it in pieces and then says it was just a reflex, and actually went on to blame it on his kids, saying they had broken it before.
What kind of man says his deceased wife's, voice on a 911 tape, which we played in court, what kind of man says his wife is lying on that tape when she says she's afraid and when she says that he's going to beat the shit out of her, to use her words. What kind of man says his deceased wife is lying when you heard her voice trembling on that tape.
What kind of man says cheating on your wife isn't a lie, which is what he said.
What kind of man says that his wife's most private writings about her feelings and attitudes, in fact her last written words, which I will show you later on, are a, quote, pack of lies, end of quotes.
What kind of man, when shown 30 photographs of him wearing those Bruno Magli shoes, looks you straight in the eye with a straight face and says that's me, it's my head, that's my jacket, that's my tie, that's my shirt, those are my arms, that's my hands, that's my belt, pants, not my shoes, those are people I know that I'm taking pictures with, but no, not my shoes, I wasn't wearing those shoes. What kind of man says that to you with a straight face?
What kind of man says that virtually every other person in this case who testified on the stand against him is either lying or mistaken, and he's right.
What kind of man would try to ruin the lives of innocent people just doing their jobs, accusing them of fabricating evidence, planting evidence, committing perjury, just to protect himself.
And what kind of man comes into court and looks you straight in the eye and says I never lied about anything important in my life, and then lied about everything important in this case.
Well, let me tell you what kind of man says those things, ladies and gentlemen.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
You can take that down, Steve (indicating to Elmo).
A guilty man. A guilty man. A man with no remorse. A man with no conscience.
This man is so obsessed with trying to salvage his image and protect himself that he'll come into this courtroom, knowing the whole world is watching, and he will smear the name and reputation of the mother of his children while she rests in her grave.
This is a man, ladies and gentlemen, who I submit to you has lied and lied and lied to you about every important fact in this case.
Every one.
Did you notice, by the way, how Mr. Baker referred to Mr. Simpson on the witness stand as O.J. and Juice, even though every other witness was addressed by his or her formal name?
We all know Mr. Baker is a very experienced lawyer, and I'm sure that was no accident.
O.J. Simpson has been marketing, manufacturing, packaging and selling his image to the American public for over 30 years.
And know what they tried to do in this courtroom, he and his defense team, to sell you an image, O.J., Juice, an image, a personality.
I even asked him, are you an actor? He says no, I'm a personality.
Now, we are not here, though, in this important trial to be sold anything and we're not here to talk about O.J. and Juice and talk about images.
We're here to talk about a man named Simpson, a deeply flawed man named Simpson, and what he did on June 12, 1994.
And in the final analysis, that's what this case is all about, ladies and gentlemen. It's about fixing responsibility for the deaths of these two innocent victims.
And we would all agree that in this society we all have to accept responsibility, we all have to be accountable for what we do. All of you folks, you are responsible in your lives, to your families, at your jobs, on this jury. You get up every morning, you come here, you listen, you concentrate, you focus, you take notes.
If you break the rules, you know there are consequences such as being discharged from the jury.
You understand your responsibility. You accept it.
Now, those are the rules that we all have to abide by. Those rules don't change, ladies and gentlemen, if a person has won the Heismann trophy or has broken football records.
You all agreed when this case began that you would treat Mr. Simpson by the same standards and responsibility, the same rules as anybody, as you would want to be treated, and I have no doubt that you will do so.
And I submit to you that when you judge Mr. Simpson by the same rules, by the same standards of responsibility that you would judge any other person, what you saw in this courtroom, what you heard in this courtroom, can only lead you to conclude, ladies and gentlemen, that this man is responsible for killing two people on June 12, that he's utterly incapable of accepting responsibility for his actions, that he can not and will not tell the truth either.
Therefore it is up to you, all of you, to fix responsibility on him for what he did for the sake of the victims, their families, and for some small measure of justice.
Now, I'd like to begin by looking at the most incriminating of the evidence that we have presented to you. And that's the evidence that was found at 875 South Bundy, which is of course where Nicole lived, where the murders occurred, as we know.
To summarize, ladies and gentlemen, at Bundy we have a substantial amount of blood evidence, DNA evidence matching Mr. Simpson's DNA.
We have his shoe prints, those unique shoe prints, one of a kind, size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, leading away from the bodies to the back.
These are the shoes that Mr. Simpson owned, wore, and lied to you about, as you saw from the photos and his testimony.
We also have a single Aris leather light brown glove, extra large, found at the scene between the bodies, and of course Mr. Simpson owned such a glove, as you saw from the photos.
We have hair and fiber evidence at Bundy. We have head hairs of Mr. Simpson in a hat just like hats that he owned. We have blue-black -- dark blue-black cotton fibers found on Mr. Goldman's shirt which matched fibers found on Mr. Simpson's socks in his bedroom and on the glove that he dropped at his home in Rockingham, the same blue-black cotton fiber matching, meaning that he was the common source, the messenger between all three of these places.
We also had this rare unique carpet fiber that was found at Bundy, and it was -- and it matched the carpet fiber in Mr. Simpson's Bronco: You have blood; you have shoes, you have hair and fiber; you have everything that you need.
Now, I'm going to put up a board in a second and go over this evidence in a little more detail, but I want to mention a few things, a few sort of obvious observations.
Bundy is the home of Nicole Brown Simpson. These murders didn't occur at -- in a dark alley or parking lot or convenience store; they occurred right at her home, not far from her front door, which was left wide open, with the lights on inside, you'll remember the testimony. There's no evidence of a burglary here, robbery, vandalism, or rape, or any kind of sexual assault. We're not dealing with any of that here.
Nothing on the victims' person: Their jewelry, their personal effects, nothing was taken; nothing was removed; nothing inside the home was touched or disturbed; nothing was stolen; nothing was ransacked. Nicole had a very expensive Ferrari out in the garage, another car out there, a Jeep Cherokee. None of that was touched.
The children were upstairs, asleep in their bedrooms, unharmed. There's no evidence that anybody touched or tried to hurt those children.
There's no evidence that Nicole was expecting anyone, either.
Ron Goldman went there at the very last minute, when he was asked by Nicole, right before 10 o'clock, to drop off a pair of glasses.
Nobody knew Ron Goldman was going to Nicole's condominium on his way to meet some friends; only he knew, Nicole knew, and Karen Crawford, who worked at Mezzaluna. She knew when she took the call from Nicole and saw Ron leave.
So it is very clear that Nicole Brown Simpson was the target of this attack. By someone who knew she would be home and someone who knew where she lived.
It's not a gunshot killing. We're talking about a killing by a knife, up close, by a person, obviously from these wounds, in a state of rage, a rage killing.
And all these signs, ladies and gentlemen point directly to a person who knew Nicole, knew where to find her, and had no reason to go to her house that night except to confront her, and had no reason to expect Ron Goldman, who showed up unexpectedly.
There's no such person other than O.J. Simpson, ladies and gentlemen. And all the physical evidence proves that it was him.
Can we put out the Bundy board.

(Exhibit referred to was displayed on the Elmo screen.)

MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to go over this evidence in a little bit of detail, because this is the most critical evidence in the case (indicating to board displayed on the Elmo screen), all at Bundy, all where the murders occurred.
What we have, of course, are the blood drops that were leaving the scene of the -- of where the bodies were found, going out towards the alley (indicating), and then one drop right over here on the other side of the rear (indicating), indicate -- we have the blood drops on the rear gate, as the killer bled a few drops as he went through that gate.
These blood drops (indicating), of course, are on the left side of the shoe prints. They're on the left side of the shoe prints, indicating that the person who dropped this blood was injured on his left side, such as a left finger or left hand.
We have the shoe prints. Of course, it's unique prints made in Nicole's blood.
What you need to understand, ladies and gentlemen, is, that shoe made that footprint, that is a perfect match -- and there's not any testimony in this case disputing that; nobody challenges that -- that shoe made that shoe print. If he's wearing that shoe, he did it.
Those are the gloves identical to one of the gloves found here. A left glove was found here, and the right glove was found at Rockingham, gloves identical to these two gloves which you see Mr. Simpson wearing.
And indeed, if these are not the murder gloves, he could have and should have brought those gloves to court. And he didn't.
You have here a hat just like the hat Mr. Simpson has at his house, the one that was recovered from his bedroom by the police, just like that one. In that hat, we had various hair and fiber evidence, which I will go over with you.
And, of course, we have the cuts from the left finger -- left fingers, dropping blood on the left side of the shoe prints.
So, you see, it's all here, ladies and gentlemen.
There are some fibers here -- there's some blue-black cotton fibers that were found on Mr. Goldman's shirt, matching fiber found on the sock in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, and another one on the glove at Rockingham: The same blue-black cotton fiber which, we submit to you, is consistent with a blue-black cotton sweat suit, which we have proved to you that Mr. Simpson owned at the time.

MR. BAKER: I object. There's been no testimony of blue-black anything.

MR. PETROCELLI: There has, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson owned a sweat suit at the time. I'll go over that with you in a bit. He tried to lie to you, to say he didn't have one, until we called in witnesses to impeach him. And we'll go over that.
So, we have his gloves, his hat, the sweat suit, his shoes, his cuts, his blood, his hair, his fibers. It's all here; it's all at Bundy.
Now, let me talk to you a little bit about the blood evidence, because it obviously is so crucial and it is so incriminating, and I just want to discuss it briefly.
I won't do it justice. Mr. Lambert put on that evidence through our expert witnesses; and let me go over just a little bit with you.
The five blood drops that you have there that left a trail to the left of shoe prints, were tested by three different laboratories: The Los Angeles Police Department's Scientific Investigation Division, the California Department of Justice, and the Cellmark Laboratory back east, where Dr. Robin Cotton works. Gary Sims works for the Department of Justice. And you heard from Collin Yamauchi, from the LAPD's lab, the SID lab.
All three labs tested these blood drops. And all three got the very same results; there's no differences in the results. All three separate labs, acting independently, got the same results. And all three labs found that these blood drops matched Mr. Simpson's DNA pattern. Okay.
They tested these blood drops at 12 different genetic markers: The DQ Alpha location, D1S80, five polymarker locations, and five RFLP locations. All -- at all 12 of these genetic markers or locations where the DNA was tested, the DNA pattern matched Mr. Simpson at all 12.
Now, this alone, ladies and gentlemen, is conclusive proof that that's his blood.
We'll bring out the frequency board in a minute.
But at a minimum -- at a minimum, now -- only one out of a 170 million people in the world would have these DNA patterns. And O.J. Simpson is one of them.
The defense in this case -- it's important you understand this -- they don't contest these results; they don't contest that these DNA test results matched Mr. Simpson's blood.
Do you remember when Mr. Lambert read to you something called Defendant's Responses to Request for Admissions? I don't know if it was very exciting, but he sat here and read to you -- those were the defense's admissions to his -- those blood-test results. And they're conclusive on this issue.
And they establish that those blood drops are Mr. Simpson's blood. And you have to accept that. They don't contest it.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. That's improper. That isn't what we admitted to.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: Understand something: All the defense can say -- they can say is -- they haven't presented any evidence -- all they can say is that if you get around these test results, showing his blood is at -- the evidence, these blood drops had to have been planted or somehow contaminated.
And if you don't buy into any of that, and his blood's there, and he did it, unless they can prove to you how his blood got in those labs.
There hasn't been one, not one iota of evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that any of those blood drops were planted.
In the first place, as you'll remember from the police testimony and the criminalists, these blood drops were collected on the morning of June 13 at Bundy, when Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola went out there.

Mr. Simpson didn't even give his blood to the Los Angeles Police Department until 3:30 in the afternoon that same day, after all the blood in this case was collected.
So they didn't have his blood to go to Bundy and start dropping blood drops. They didn't have it. He didn't give them his blood until 3:30. And these were all collected beforehand.
So they could not have been planted there.
And remember the testimony that the blood drops were fresh when they were found, that was given by Dennis Fung, it was still reddish in color? And his testimony is unrefuted about that.
And, Mr. Simpson, of course, gave you no explanation how his blood could have gotten there innocently. He had no innocent explanation for why his blood was at Bundy.
In fact, he had no innocent explanation for any of this evidence, nothing. He had no innocent explanation for anything.
He tries to also say, ladies and gentlemen, that why the blood -- these test results showed my blood was because there was a contamination in the lab.
He tried to ask a lot of questions of witnesses about that.
First of all, as we proved from the experts, when blood is contaminated, it doesn't turn somebody's blood into O.J. Simpson's blood. So just saying contamination didn't mean much; his blood just didn't show up because there's some contamination involved.
Moreover, you heard the evidence from Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark, Gary Sims of DOJ, Brad -- Dr. Brad Popovich. There isn't any evidence of any contamination. None. They reviewed the work in this case.
Dr. Popovich reviewed all blood work in this case, and said there's no evidence of any contamination. None. The test results are reliable, they're accurate, and they're unaffected by contamination. Those were his words.
And he came on the stand and he gave that testimony just last week. And he reviewed all the work in this case, unaffected by contamination. There's no evidence of contamination in this case.
I'm going to talk to you a little bit later on about why we have these arguments of -- about conspiracy and planting and contamination. And I'm going to show you how these arguments were born.
But let me just tell you something: There isn't any evidence to support any of this stuff.
Their expert, Dr. John Gerdes -- this was the guy they put on the witness stand -- he's the guy that represents mainly rapists and murderers if you recall. He's the guy -- he testifies for them, I should say. He's the guy who said -- tried to say there was some contamination, but finally had to concede that if there was contamination, it would have showed up on the substrate controls.
Throughout this whole process of collecting blood evidence, there were these control swatches taken every step of the way of collection and testing.
If there's any contamination, if Mr. Simpson's blood is somehow accidentally being put on the various blood swatches in this case, it would also show up on these control swatches. And every single one of these control swatches, their expert had to admit in the end, was completely free of contamination. Zero contamination on any control swatches. And that's really the end of discussion about contamination.
If Mr. Simpson's blood is not on the control swatches, there's no contamination.
Blood stain 52, by the way, that one Robin -- Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark testified -- that's the one right outside the back gate -- on that stain alone, she was able to obtain what she called a 5-probe RFLP match, which means she tested the DNA at five different locations. That's a very, very significant match under this RFLP test. And in the entire population, the number of people who could have had this 5-probe RFLP match is somewhere between one out of every 170 million and one out of every 2.2 billion.
And Mr. Simpson is such a person who has that 5-probe match. That blood stain alone, number 52, is sufficient to show Mr. Simpson is responsible for these murders.
He has no innocent explanation why his blood and his DNA were found at Bundy right after the murders.
Now, on the back gate -- you heard a lot of testimony about the blood on the back gate. Gary Sims, from the Department of Justice, tested the back-gate blood, and he did a 9-probe RFLP match on that back-gate stain. And he found that it matched Simpson's DNA pattern.
A 9-probe match -- I'll show you the frequencies. And they're very, very high.
Again, their expert, Dr. Gerdes, admitted that that result could not be the result of contamination. That 9-probe match could not have come about by contamination. It's conclusive proof that Simpson's blood is on the back gate.
They don't really quarrel with that. What they say is, it was planted there.
Let me explain something about this back-gate planting argument, okay?
If blood evidence at Bundy was checked on the morning of June 13, and these three stains on the back gate were overlooked and they were not collected until July 3 -- the criminalists, Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, did not go here and here and here to pick up stains; they just didn't do it. However, we know they were -- they were not planted, because four or five police officers, who we brought in here to testify, said they saw blood on the back gate. They saw blood, these blood stains on the back gate when they came to the crime scene, to either secure it or to investigate it.
In fact -- I know it's been a long trial and it's hard to remember all this -- but the very first officer on the scene, Robert Riske, one of the first witnesses in our case, he saw the blood on the back gate, and he wrote it down in his notes.
And it's right there in his notes, if you want to take a look at it. And that's exhibit --
What's that, 833, Steve?

MR. FOSTER: Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: 833. Okay.
You want to bring out the results board real fast? And I'll move on to the hair and fiber evidence.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, is this a good place for a break?

THE COURT: You want to take a break now?

MR. PETROCELLI: Let me get through the blood, and then before we go to the next topic --

THE COURT: Okay.

(Board entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Bundy Crime Scene, Exhibit 833, displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Again, these are the blood drops tested by the various labs. (Indicating.) It's five Bundy stains, and then it's three back-gate stains, and you'll see the labs, DOJ and Cellmark, that did the various tests, and the matches that they came up with.
This is Nicole (indicating). This is a shoe print in Nicole Brown Simpson's blood (indicating). This is why it comes up with Nicole Brown. All the rest of them are O.J. Simpson.
No, the defense does not challenge these results. They have had an expert who was around when some of this testing was done. He didn't come in here and testify.
They don't contest any of these results; they agree with these results.
They have no evidence of contamination.
Dr. Popovich reviewed our experts' -- reviewed all this, and testified -- said no contamination.
Dr. Henry Lee testified for the defense. He said he had no problems about DNA in this case.
And you'll see the frequencies up there. The defense did not challenge any of the frequencies, either, ladies and gentlemen. They did not bring in a geneticist, population geneticist or statistician. The frequencies are undisputed. And they show that this blood is all O.J. Simpson's blood.
This is a good place, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
Remember, during argument -- you cannot discuss this case until the Court gives the case to you, after instructions.
Don't talk about the argument among yourselves, or the evidence.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. PETROCELLI: We're trying to cool down a little here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's very warm.

MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, thank you. Before the break I described to you the overwhelming blood evidence that incriminates Mr. Simpson.
I would now like to talk briefly about what we call hair and fiber evidence.
You will remember we put on the witness stand Douglas Deedrick from the FBI. He's the chief of the hair and fibers unit. He's an undisputed expert in hair and fiber analysis.
He testified that Mr. Simpson's defense experts examined these hair and fiber materials as well, and that he did not disagree with Mr. Deedrick's conclusions.
And remember, the defense did not call any expert witnesses to refute or disagree with what Mr. Deedrick said about these hair and fiber matches. So his testimony that there were matches is completely unrefuted. Nobody disagrees with it.
Now, Agent Deedrick testified about the head hairs found in that cap up there, the blue cap. And he said that there were 12 head hairs found and they matched Mr. Simpson's head hair. That alone is very incriminating. Why is his head hair in that hat right next to the victim's bodies.
Nine of the head hairs -- actually there were twelve head hairs in all. Nine of them were found actually inside the cap. What that means is that those head hairs, according to Doug Deedrick, likely came right off of Mr. Simpson's head when the cap came off or when he was using the cap. Call that a primary transfer. The fact that those head hairs were inside the cap suggests that they didn't just blow in there from some other source.
The defense liked to talk about the fact that there was a blanket that was brought out from Nicole's house to use for the bodies. Well, they never proved that that blanket had any head hairs of Mr. Simpson or any fibers or anything regarding Mr. Simpson. And in fact, the testimony about that blanket, as you will recall from Officer Thompson, was that he examined it, it was clean and folded, and he got it from a -- I think a linen closet upstairs.
That blanket is really irrelevant.
The head hairs, Mr. Simpson's, nine of them, inside the hat. That shows direct physical contact between Mr. Simpson and that cap.
Two -- yeah, two of these head hairs, by the way, were actually intertwined in the fabric of that cap, which shows that they had been there for some time.
You'll recall Mr. Deedrick's testimony; not something that could have just, again, blown in there, but they had been in there some time.
Two of Mr. Simpson's head hairs intertwined in the cap indicating that that cap was on his head.
We showed you pictures or a picture, I believe, when I cross-examined Mr. Simpson back in November, of a hat just like that hat, the knit cap, that was recovered from his bedroom by the police right after the murders. So we know that Mr. Simpson had knit caps like that.
In addition, there was also a head hair matching Mr. Simpson's head hair on Ron Goldman's shirt. On his shirt there was also a limb hair found, which Doug Deedrick found as a limb hair and as a Negroid limb hair.
These hairs on Ron Goldman's shirt, again, show that Mr. Simpson was in contact with Ron Goldman. There isn't any innocent explanation, ladies and gentlemen, for Mr. Simpson's hair to be on Ron Goldman's shirt.
Mr. Simpson says he never met Ron Goldman. Well, why is his hair on Ron Goldman's shirt?
A few words about the carpet fiber evidence. You will recall there was testimony that there was a rare carpet fiber that was found on the Bundy knit cap and also on the glove found at Rockingham. This carpet fiber was this medium mocha color which matched the same medium mocha color of the fibers in Mr. Simpson's Bronco, his 1994 Bronco.
There was testimony that this carpet fiber was produced by a company called Masland Industries, who had an exclusive contract with Ford beginning in May, 1993, that this particular type of medium mocha color was only used in three types of cars; one of which was a Ford Bronco.
Mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco was manufactured in October of 1993, further indicating that this rare carpet fiber came from his car.
And again, you have to think about it.
Now, you have carpet fibers from his Bronco on that hat, and on the gloves at Rockingham. Again, indicating that Mr. Simpson's car was in contact with that hat and in contact with the glove at Rockingham. Again, putting Mr. Simpson and no one else right smack in the middle of all of this evidence.
And finally, on fibers; we have 24 blue-black cotton fibers which Doug Deedrick said was a kind of unique fiber, a bluish coloration when he looked at it very close under a microscope. And fibers of this type were found on Ron Goldman's shirt, again, on Mr. Simpson's socks, and in his bedroom, and on the glove dropped at Rockingham.
So you have matching blue-black fibers on three objects; Ron Goldman's shirt, the glove that was used in these murders found at Rockingham, and a pair of socks, Mr. Simpson's socks.
Again, Mr. Simpson and no one else is the common source between these three objects. He's the messenger. He's the one who had contact with all these things, ladies and gentlemen.
Nobody else.
Now, there was some testimony about a sweat suit. I want to get into that right now.
And we suggest to you these blue-black cotton fibers came from a sweat suit or sweat outfit or sweat clothes that OJ Simpson was wearing on the night of these murders.
You will recall when I first examined Mr. Simpson on the witness stand, I asked him whether he owned any dark sweat clothing as of June 12, 1994, he said, no, he did not own a single piece of dark sweat clothing. He gave that testimony on November 25.
I then showed him some photographs of him wearing dark sweat clothing taken on May 25, May 26, May 27, just a couple weeks before the murders, at his house in the course of his filming an exercise video for Playboy.
Can you put up the photo.

(Photograph displayed on Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: I showed these photos to Mr. Simpson, and some other photos, and I said, well, what about this sweat suit, didn't you have that as of June 12? And he said I didn't keep it. I got to wear those outfits and I returned them to the wardrobe person. I didn't keep any of them, okay.
On December 4, couple of weeks later, we called the wardrobe person Leslie Gardner, put her on the stand, and she testified that Mr. Simpson did not in fact -- did not in fact return any clothing to her.
She testified how she acquired some sweat suit items, gave them to Mr. Simpson, he used them, and to her knowledge, they were never returned, certainly not to her. And she did not know that they had been returned to anyone else.
Now, a week or so ago, Mr. Simpson returned to the witness stand under the friendly questioning of his lawyer, Mr. Baker. And he said, you know, I've been thinking about this sweat suit thing, and I did keep a sweat suit top, but it was a cashmere top, okay. And I didn't keep anything else. Did you keep any cotton outfits? No, I did not, just this one cashmere top.
And he said cashmere, of course, because cotton fibers were found near there, and he would like you to believe that he didn't have any cotton fiber outfits. He would like you to believe that he never had, as of June 12, 1994, in his possession, in his wardrobe, in his closet, any dark sweat suit made with any cotton fibers.
So we then -- despite this change in testimony now by him, we then called Ms. Gardner back, if you will recall, on -- on January 14. And she testified that she did, in fact, order a cashmere sweat suit outfit for Mr. Simpson, but it was too small, it didn't fit, and she returned it. She didn't leave it with him, she didn't give it to him, she returned it.
She then testified that the item that she did give to Mr. Simpson, and that he did wear, were cotton -- some cotton fleece items, okay, a black cotton fleece zip-up front sweater.
Can you put that up.

(Photograph of OJ Simpson wearing a sweat outfit displayed on Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: She never got this back, ladies and gentlemen. She never got this back.
This has cotton fibers. I think she testified it's some kind of blend; some of the fibers are cotton, the others are polyester.
O.J. Simpson, she said, never returned that outfit to her. Despite what Mr. Simpson said on the witness stand.
In addition, she said she gave Mr. Simpson this outfit, which was taken at the time of the video (indicating to photo in magazine), and then published in this magazine. Again, a cotton fleece-type pants, okay.
Neither this cotton-type pants or that cotton top was ever returned to Ms. Gardner, or to anyone else associated with the production, to the best of her knowledge.

MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. There's no evidence it wasn't returned to anyone else.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: So, ladies and gentlemen, you have to ask yourself, why is OJ Simpson so obviously lying about this sweat suit? Why is he lying? Why is he changing his story?
As we trap him, he changes again. We trap him again, he changes it again.
Why is he lying? Why is he saying -- a guy with all the clothing that he has, why is he saying I never had a dark sweat suit as of June 12?
Why would he say such a thing?
Because he wore a dark sweat suit on June 12 when he killed two people. That's why he's saying such a thing. That's why he's lying to you.
Let's go to the gloves.
You heard the testimony of the former executive of the Aris Isotoner Company, Richard Rubin. And he testified that the glove found at Bundy was a brown men's leather light extra large glove. It had SKU number 70263.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. There was no testimony from Richard Rubin about any numbers whatsoever.

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, there was, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: No, there wasn't.

THE COURT: Okay. Approach the bench.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: This is the cite I have, Your Honor (indicating to document).

MR. BAKER: What page are you referring to?

MR. PETROCELLI: Look on page 82 -- 91, November 6, 1996. Do you have it?

MR. BAKER: We'll get it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Computer people are better at it than I am.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 81 to 82. November 6.

THE COURT: Bring it up.

MR. PETROCELLI: Bring up the computer.

(Mr. Gelblum complies.)

(Court reviews transcript.)

MR. PETROCELLI: You have to page down, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Style number.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's right there.

MR. BAKER: It's the style number.

MR. PETROCELLI: You said there were no numbers, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: No, no. I knew there was a style number, not an individual number. But you're going to try to tell this jury that that indicates that those gloves -- you're --

MR. PETROCELLI: I absolutely am telling them. That's absolutely what he testified. It's unrebutted.
You want to see it? It's page 93 to 94.

(Counsel and Court review transcript on computer screen.)

MR. BAKER: 94, Phil.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's on page 93 to 94.
Can I get on with my argument now, Your Honor?

MR. BAKER: Can you guys move it up to 93, 94.

MR. PETROCELLI: This is not helpful.
What's that? What's that number just -- there. Go back to where it said the number.

(Indicating to computer screen.)

MR. PETROCELLI: See.

MR. BAKER: That's a style number.

MR. PETROCELLI: 70263, brown extra large.

MR. BAKER: I want a serial number.

MR. GELBLUM: That's in here.

MR. PETROCELLI: There's a cutter number, too, Your Honor.

(Mr. Gelblum adjusts screen.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Cutter No. 359 the sequence is 9. What exactly is the cutter number?

MR. BAKER: Wait. Wait. Back up.

(Indicating to computer screen.)

MR. BAKER: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can I get on with my argument?
Okay, thank you.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: As I was saying, Mr. Rubin, the glove expert, and the only glove expert called in the case -- by the way, they didn't call any glove expert -- said that the number on this glove, 70263, on this Bundy glove, it had a cutter number of 359 and a sequence control number of 9. While I'm here, the glove that he examined that was found at Rockingham had the identical numbers.
And he said they are a pair.
And there is no doubt about it, and don't let yourselves be fooled by all these hokus-pokus photo games which the defense likes to play, trying to say this is a hole. This is not a hole. This is not what you see. We'll get into that.
Okay. But all that is designed to sort of confuse and distract you from the real evidence.
That's real simple.
Okay. These are two matching gloves, and the only glove expert that has testified has said so; they have the same numbers, they're identical, they're a pair, the Bundy glove and the Rockingham glove.
And these numbers, by the way, that he testified about, he said on the stand they are stenciled on the inside of the glove.
This isn't something that he is just pulling out of air. These are in the glove itself, these numbers.
Mr. Rubin explained that these particular kind of gloves were manufactured by Aris Isotoner and only sold exclusively to Bloomingdale's; a store where Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson shopped during the times they were in and lived in New York City.
Only Bloomingdale's, you could get these gloves.
And furthermore, to show how rare these gloves are, there were only 200 to 240 of these gloves sold in the size and color in 1990 and 1991; only 200 to 240 pairs of these gloves.
Mr. Simpson himself had to admit that, yes, Nicole did shop in Bloomingdale's, he shopped in Bloomingdale's. But won't you know it, wouldn't you come to expect that when I said and, of course, Nicole would buy you gloves from time to time? Absolutely not, she never bought me gloves. That's the one thing she never bought, was a pair of those brown gloves.
And -- do you have that receipt, by the way, Exhibit 390 (indicating to Mr. Foster).

(Exhibit 390 displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: We have a receipt here showing Nicole purchasing two pair of Aris leather light extra large gloves. That's Exhibit 390.
Mr. Simpson said she never bought him gloves.
There's a receipt. They sold for $55 a pair, 30 percent discount, that Nicole got when she bought them on December 18, 1990.
Now, Mr. Simpson wore this black glove -- pair of black gloves, and a pair of brown gloves for about three and a half years after they were bought because we were able to see them in photographs. This isn't a pair of gloves that he threw away after using them for the first time.
He wore them at football games when he worked there as an announcer, particularly in cold and inclement weather, when it was raining, and he's seen with an umbrella.
See him holding the microphone. Particularly -- the right glove had a lot of wear and tear to it, particularly in the palm area, it's a little more worn out than the left glove.
These were his gloves. He's wearing them.
Can you show the pictures.

(Exhibit No. 642 is displayed.)

MR. FOSTER: Yes. 643.

MR. PETROCELLI: 643.

MR. FOSTER: This is 660.

(Exhibits are displayed on Elmo)

MR. PETROCELLI: 660. This one was taken by the way, January 15, 1994.
Stay on that for a second.
Mr. Rubin, our glove expert, testified that this glove is an Aris leather light, extra large, identical in make and style to the glove at the murder scene, except this one's a black one, obviously. Nicole bought a black pair and a brown pair.
There's no -- by the way, there's no testimony that that isn't an Aris leather light. Mr. Simpson doesn't deny it. Mr. Simpson put on no evidence that that isn't such a glove.
He can't deny it. It's right there. Well, he could deny it, I guess. Now, show us 655.

(Exhibit 655 displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: It's another one with the black gloves.
Show us 646.

(Exhibit 646 displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Now, here's the brown gloves.
And Mr. Rubin, the glove expert, was able to say it's identical in make and style to the glove at the murder scene.
You're looking at gloves that were used by -- when Mr. Simpson killed Ron Goldman and Nicole. You're looking at them on his hands, ladies and gentlemen.
And when I asked him if you're innocent, Mr. Simpson, tell me where those gloves are, where are they, bring them to court, show us, you know what he said. I have no idea. Quote, I have no idea.
No idea.
You're going to hear a little bit from Mr. Baker, I guess, about well, these gloves didn't fit him, they're not his gloves. You know, he didn't have Mr. Simpson try them on here, but he did show you a video from the criminal case.
Our expert, Mr. Rubin, said that those gloves have shrunk.
In the first place, they were purchased back in 1990. Mr. Simpson is trying them on in court four, five years later.
They shrunk from use in rain and exposure to the elements.
Mr. Rubin also pointed out, because he was there in court, that when those gloves were taken out to put on, they were all crumpled up, they had not been refurbished, which is what you would do when you put on a pair of gloves that's been sitting around for a long time, especially a pair that's been encrusted in blood.
I think you saw Mr. Rubin here on the stand, refurbishing the glove.
And also Mr. Rubin pointed out how there was a requirement in the criminal case that Mr. Simpson put on latex gloves underneath these gloves and that altered the fit.
Of course he wasn't wearing latex gloves on June 12.
And lastly, and you could tell, I don't have to tell you, you saw him try those gloves on, on that video, this wasn't a guy anxious to show anyone that those gloves fit. He was grimacing and trying to get them on in front of the jury there.
It's like trying to put a pair of pants on a crying baby, or something, a pair of gloves on a crying baby.
He had his hands, fingers out, and wasn't making it real easy.
Those were his gloves, got them right there, they were not his gloves, he -- did he tell you where they are and he can't, he said, "I have no idea."
Okay, Steve.

(Mr. Foster removes photo from Elmo.)

Let's talk about those Bruno Magli shoes.
Pretty interesting piece of evidence, I'd say.
Mr. Simpson can say all that he wants, or his lawyer will say quite a bit about contamination of blood, planting of blood, LAPD not doing their job, can't trust the blood evidence, got to throw it all out.
You're going to hear all that stuff, okay.
None of it is true.
The blood evidence is the single most incriminating evidence in the case. It's his blood.
He was there.
He did it.
But I'll tell you one thing. They can't make that argument, even that lame argument, they can't make about these shoe prints.
They can't argue that the shoe prints are planted. They can't argue that the sole was planted. They have no argument about planting of shoe prints. They have no contamination argument about shoe prints.
This is one of the single most crucial pieces of evidence in this case. And can you imagine that O.J. Simpson
last week didn't say one word about it. Not one word.
Heismann Trophy. But no Bruno Magli.
These shoe prints were discovered immediately when the police arrived after midnight on June 13, and they were fresh and they were leading away from the crime scene.
It was obviously that it was the person taking the back gate to escape detection, to not go out the front so he wouldn't be seen. And we'll talk about that a little more later on.
But when he got in his Bronco to speed away, he didn't ride in front of the murder scene, he drove the opposite direction and then turned to go back home again.
He did not want to be seen.
And he had to get home to save his alibi.
We put on the stand the testimony of FBI Special Agent William Bodziak. He is one of the most renown experts anywhere on footwear images. He's been with the FBI for 23 years.
And Mr. Medvene put on that testimony.
His opinion, ladies and gentlemen, that the killer wore Bruno Magli shoe print size 12, is totally unchallenged, totally undisputed. The defense concedes that point. Mr. Baker said it in his opening statement: "We agree the killer wore size 12 Bruno Magli shoes."
There's not much talk about it.
The question is -- the only question is did Mr. Simpson have Bruno Magli shoes, size 12. That's really it.
And while I'm on this, let me say something else.
That's the photo taken by Harry Scull, ladies and gentlemen, and before Mr. Baker and O.J. Simpson and the rest of the defense team knew that 30 more photos were going to emerge, he stood up, told this jury, both Mr. Baker and Mr. Simpson, "We agree that the shoes in that photo are Bruno Magli shoes."
Agent Bodziak got on the stand, and he not only testified that that's a Bruno Magli Lorenzo unique Silga sole size 12, he testified so is that (indicating to photo).
They didn't challenge his testimony, they agreed with it, that is a Bruno Magli size 12 Lorenzo, and so is that.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. There's been no testimony that the photo in the Scull photo, the photo (sic) in Scull photo is a size 12.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: Their position, ladies and gentlemen, taken back at the beginning of this trial, before they knew there was going to be more photos that would come to light, was that this photo is a phony. That's what Mr. Baker said, it's not real, it's doctored, and we will prove it.
So by his own reasoning, if that photo is real, O.J. Simpson is the killer. The shoes are on his feet. If that photo is real, O.J. Simpson is the killer. That's it. It's the end of the ball game. There's nothing more to talk about.
Not only that photo. The 30 new photographs of him at that same game, if those photos are real, O.J. Simpson's the killer. If those photos are real.
We had those negatives in court here.
Did you see the defense call an expert to talk about those 30 new photographs? Did you see them try to challenge those 30 new photographs? Did you hear anybody come on the witness stand for the defense and say those 30 photographs of him wearing those shoes are phonies too?
Did you get that testimony?
I didn't hear it.
It didn't happen. There is no such testimony.
Bodziak testified that the shoes in the Flammer photographs are Bruno Magli shoes of the same characteristics of those shoes. They're the same characteristics of those shoes. It's the same pair of shoes. It's either that, or he had two pair of Bruno Magli shoes, size 12, and put two different pairs on in the game. They're not saying that though it's one pair. And they did not call anybody to say that the 30 photos are a fake. Nobody.
They did call somebody to say that this photo was a fake, and we'll talk about that guy and what he said. But you didn't hear him come back -- not even him, you didn't hear that guy come back and talk about the Flammer photos. Not even he could get himself on this stand and say, you know what, I think all 31 are fakes, every one's a fake.
And of course you all remember that one of the pictures Mr. Flammer took of Mr. Simpson wearing the shoes was actually published in the newspaper eight months before the murders. So how could it be a fake? It's not possible.
While I'm on the subject of the shoes, ask yourselves this: If O.J. Simpson were innocent, ladies and gentlemen, why would he deny owning those shoes. Why wouldn't he -- why didn't he say he owned them, of course I had those shoes, they're in the picture, here's 30 more pictures, of course I had those shoes, but I'm not the killer, I didn't do it.
Why is he going to take to his grave that he didn't own those shoes, that he didn't wear those shoes? 'Cause he knows those are the shoes he wore when he killed my client's son in a blind rage, and when he killed the mother of his children in a blind rage. He knows he wore those shoes.
We'll never see those shoes. We don't know what he did with them. We don't know where he hid them, how he destroyed them. We'll never see them, but they're on his feet and they are the murder shoes.
There's no doubt about that.
They can talk all they want about police conspiracies, LAPD frame-ups, all these wild ideas, and they will try to insult your intelligence by giving you crazy claims of frame-ups and conspiracies.
What are they going to do about this evidence? This doesn't involve the Los Angeles Police Department.
What are they going to say? Oh, because they were selling pictures.
So if the pictures are a fraud, why didn't they bring anybody in to say they were a fraud? Why didn't they bring somebody in on those Flammer photos?
Just because somebody sells something -- everybody in this case has sold something. You've heard Mr. Baker ask witness after witness about books and videos and television.
That's one of the unfortunate things about this case that's become such a big media thing.
The fact that somebody is a professional photographer -- two people who are professional photographers, that's how they made their money, would sell photographs, does that mean the photographs aren't real? Of course not. When they're published eight months before the murders, how can it be? It's impossible.
Can you bring in the Bronco board.
While we're waiting for that board, the next significant place besides Bundy, to summarize Bundy: We have O.J. Simpson basically in all the clothes he wore to kill, hat, gloves, sweatsuit, shoes, we'll talk about the socks, Nicole's blood and his blood splashed on them, got the whole thing.

(Large board entitled "Bronco Evidence" is displayed.)

Why is there blood in O.J. Simpson's car? Think about that one. Why is it there? There is blood in O.J. Simpson's car the night of the murders. Why is there any blood? Is there any blood in your car that night, my car? Why is there blood in his car that night?
First of all, this car was not parked where it's parked almost every single time he parks it. He parks this car on Ashford, not Rockingham, right where that mailbox is. He gets out of his car, he walks up to Ashford, he jiggles the gates open, he goes inside the front door. It's the shortest distance for him to park and go inside, and that's what he does all the time. Especially if he were going out of town, he would never park in some strange place.
He told the police he normally parks on Rockingham.
We've had witnesses testify here that he normally parks on -- excuse me.
He told the police he normally parks on Ashford.
And we had other witnesses come in here and say the same thing.
Even his housekeeper, Gigi Guarin, testified he usually parks on Ashford.
And remember Dale St. John, his limousine driver, the guy who wasn't available on the night of June 12 and so he got Alan Park to sub for him. Dale St. John said he picked up O.J. Simpson over 100 times, over 100 times, and never saw that Bronco or Mr. Simpson's vehicles on Rockingham, they were on Ashford.
Remember the testimony of the neighbor, Charles Cale. He testified that he had taken a walk that night from 9 o'clock -- excuse me -- 9:30, 9:45. He lives down the street on Rockingham. He said he has a perfect view of Rockingham. He never sees O.J. Simpson's car parked on Rockingham. It's always parked on Ashford.
So why is it parked on Rockingham on this night? On this night, the night of the murders, why is it parked on Rockingham, where it's never parked. Why does it have blood in it, which is -- usually an automobile doesn't have, when he came home, when he returned from the murders, rushing like hell, before that limousine driver left, because if that limousine driver left, there goes any alibi. He had to get home before that limo driver left, catch that plane to go to the airport.
And that limo driver was on the Ashford driveway parked and looking in, wondering why nobody is home.
Mr. Simpson knew that, and he had to pull around the other way, park on Rockingham and get onto his property, and that's why the car's parked on Rockingham, and no other reason, ladies and gentlemen.
It's obvious.

Now, do you recall I asked Mr. Simpson about this parking on Rockingham and he had this convoluted explanation about his dog Chachi.
It's really easy to blame things on dogs. They can't testify. You can blame things on people who are dead, as he has repeatedly. They can't testify either.
And he said oh, I parked on Rockingham because, you know, I liked to watch the dog when I get out and then the gate closes and I run back in. All this stuff about the dogs running out.
Well, the dog never runs out. How many witnesses did I have to call to the stand to show that the dog never runs out, this old lame arthritic dog. Couldn't get that dog to move. In fact, we showed you a photograph of the Ashford gate wide open, wide open, strange man taking pictures there, and the dog's not going anywhere, the dog's sitting there, and he ain't moving, okay. That's Chachi.
Well, this is just something Mr. Simpson invented because he had to have an explanation why he parked on Rockingham.
Now, in terms of the blood in his car when the police arrived on the morning of the 13th, to go over to Mr. Simpson's house, you heard testimony from police detectives, they saw the blood in the car early on the morning of the 13th, including Lange talked about it and we had Donald Tippin talk about it, Daniel Gonzalez talked about it, Detective Astin, I think his name is, he talked about it. They saw blood outside of the Bronco and inside the Bronco, by looking in with a flashlight, especially when it got a little lighter on the morning of June 13.
Now, let me explain something to you. That blood could not have been planted, right, because Mr. Simpson didn't give his blood to the police until 2:30, 3 o'clock that afternoon -- actually it was 3:30.
So how did the blood get in there?
It could not have been planted. You understand it could not have been. They didn't have any of his blood.
And I asked Mr. Simpson when he sat right here (indicating to witness stand), about that blood in that car and asked whether he bled in that car the night before, whether he would admit to that. He said no, no, no, I did not bleed in that car, I did not bleed in that car.
He has no innocent explanation for the blood in that car. None. No innocent explanation for why there was blood in the car the next morning. Zero.
Now, you'll hear -- maybe they'll talk about it when Mr. Baker gets up, but Mr. Simpson has this story where he goes in to get his cell phone at the end of the night, at 11 o'clock, before he runs off to the airport. He's now changed the story to say cell phone accessories, but we're going to talk about that later on. Goes in to get his cell phone, okay, and he opens the door, limo's ready to take off, car's on Rockingham, goes in, and he said he reached in with his right hand to get the cell phone -- or whatever it was he said, windbreaker -- he never put his left hand in the car.
And I went through, very carefully, the movements in the Bronco.
When he went to get his things out, he didn't get in and close the door, which you wouldn't do to take something out; you go in -- open the door, you reach in.
You try to say he might have gotten in because it's a high car. But basically, he said, I don't think I did. And I certainly didn't close the door. And I reached in with my right hand, and I didn't touch the knob where you pull the lights out, headlights. I didn't touch the inside notch of the door handle; I didn't touch those places.
Okay. So he has no explanation about how blood got right there, for example. (Indicating.)
How do you get blood inside that notch?
How do you get blood in there if you're just reaching in and grabbing something or closing the door?
You'd never get your left hand in there unless you're in the car, door closed, and you're going to open the door to get out. That's the only way blood can get in there.
That's his blood, ladies and gentlemen, right in that notch there, number 23.
That blood was in his car from when the police came on the 13th, and it was collected the next day.
Blood there, (indicating) right where the headlight knob is.
How do you get blood there? Left hand, left finger maybe. Left hand, left finger maybe.
I asked Mr. Simpson: Suppose you had just -- suppose you had cuts on these fingers here. Could you have -- would your finger have made contact with this inside notch area?
And he had to say it would have.
And that is, of course, what happened when he came back from Bundy and he opened the door to get out. He put blood here, (indicating) on his left finger -- he put blood there, (indicating) and he put blood there. (Indicating.)
Now, item 31 on that -- on that board --
First of all, let me mention that the DNA analysis done on -- on the -- this blood here, 23, (indicating) that blood, I think that's --
Is that 24?

MR. LAMBERT: (Nods affirmatively.)

MR. PETROCELLI: And some of the other stains, DNA analysis, Gary Sims?

MR. LAMBERT: (Nods affirmatively.)

MR. PETROCELLI: That's O.J. Simpson's blood, again, not contested, not challenged. That's his DNA; that's not someone else's blood; that's Simpson's blood right there (indicating) and right there (indicating), here, too, 34. (Indicating.)
Number 31, is that -- that's Ron Goldman's blood, ladies and gentlemen.
DNA analysis of item 31, performed both by Collin Yamauchi of SID and Gary Sims, and both independently, confirmed that that blood, 31, is Ron Goldman's blood.
Now, how does Ron Goldman's blood get in O.J. Simpson's car?
Do you really need to ask it over and over again.
No contamination is responsible for that blood drop. That was the testimony of Dr. Brad Popovich. There's no possible explanation -- no innocent explanation. The only explanation is that Mr. Simpson got Mr. Goldman's blood on him when he murdered him; and he got it on his car, and that's why it's there.
And finally, on this Bronco, item 33, this area right here on the floor, where the emergency brake is (indicating), that, ladies and gentlemen, is the blood of Nicole. Again, DNA analysis confirms that.
No challenge by the defense. They don't have any contrary evidence.
That is Nicole Brown's blood on O.J. Simpson's carpet in his car.
Mr. Bodziak testified that there were certain lines, an outer line and inner line, parallel lines, that make this stain area consistent with a shoe print, consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe print, Silga sole. That was his testimony.
We know what happened. We know that Mr. Simpson, with these shoes or shoes just like this --
For the record, I'm holding up what?

MR. FOSTER: 395.

(Mr. Petrocelli displays Exhibit 395, Bruno Magli shoes, to the jury.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Exhibit 395, which is a sample of a Bruno Magli -- different color -- same color or different? Different -- Silga sole, Lorenzo.
And Mr. Bodziak testified that the shoe -- shoe print in that car in Nicole's blood is consistent with this -- with these Bruno Magli shoes.
So, Mr. Simpson stepped in Nicole's blood, still on his shoes, stepped there and left that, left that stain. (Indicating.)
Now, they can't claim, by the way, that this blood was planted, either; because on June 14, that whole piece of carpet, that entire piece of carpet was actually removed from the car, on the morning of June 14, by the criminalist. And they wrapped it up tightly in paper and they put it in a freezer at SID, Serology. And that's where it stayed.
There's been no evidence that anybody went -- ever went in there and took it out and did anything to it.
Zero evidence of that.
And then sometime later, it was taken out -- I think on September 1 -- and Greg Matheson clipped off some fibers that had the blood on it, right over here (indicating) -- In fact, that's his hand doing it, right here, clipping off the fibers from the -- from the blood.
They sent that blood out to be tested. They labeled those bloody fibers 293, the carpet itself being 33. And DNA analysis confirmed that that blood on that carpet in O.J. Simpson's car was Nicole's blood.
Not even Dr. Gerdes said that that was contaminated. No evidence of contamination. So that's undisputed, ladies and gentlemen. You have Nicole Brown's blood in O.J. Simpson's Bronco the night of the murders.
How did it get there?
No one is -- no innocent explanation. He doesn't tell us; he doesn't have it. He's guilty.
Finally, on the physical evidence, we go to Rockingham, Mr. Simpson's home. And basically what we have at Rockingham, ladies and gentlemen -- we have a couple things.
We have blood on the outside the driveway area, leading up to the front door.
We have blood drops inside the front door, on the hardwood floor, there in the foyer.
We have some blood drops in Mr. Simpson's bathroom, right off his bedroom.
We have blood in the shower.
We have blood on the cable, from the back wall behind Kato Kaelin's room.
We have the glove at Rockingham, behind Kaelin's room.
And the glove I'll talk about separately. It is loaded with evidence, the glove.
And then we also have a pair of socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom with some dried, splashed blood.
Donald Thompson testified, ladies and gentlemen -- that's that very large, 6-foot 6 officer -- that he was there early in the morning at Rockingham, around 8 o'clock or so, and he saw these blood drops. And he testified about them. And bear in mind these blood drops could not have been planted, right? They didn't have O.J. Simpson's blood; they couldn't have planted any of these blood drops. They had no blood to plant. So they can't tell you that blood is planted.
So what's O.J. Simpson's blood doing dripped all over his driveway?
And why is it in his house?
And he had no explanation. Zero.
No innocent explanation, I should say.
Could you put up the next one.

(Exhibit displayed on the Elmo screen.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Again with various DNA tests that were done by the various labs, all labs agree -- in other words, you can't just say SID somehow comes up with all the wrong results, can't just blame it on the LAPD labs. Separate, independent testing was done by Gary Sims and by Robin Cotton. And they always, always, in this case, came up with the same results.
Okay. That's very important. Everybody had the same results.
All of these results, of all this blood evidence on the outside of the property and on the inside of the property of these various locations, all confirm to be O.J. Simpson's blood, his DNA. His blood.
No defense experts came in here in court to tell you otherwise.
The defense has admitted that these blood results showed O.J. Simpson's blood. They don't dispute that.
And again, how could it be that there's blood in his house the night of the murders?
Now, let's go to the Rockingham glove. The testimony in this case was that at about 10:51 p.m., Kato Kaelin heard a loud crashing sound against his wall. And you all know where his wall is; it's over here. (Indicating.)
And we are able to fix that time now because of Allan Park's cell-phone records, which I'll talk about a little later on. But we know that sound against the wall, which Mr. Kaelin thought sounded like someone hitting against the wall -- hoped it would be an earthquake, because he was, frankly, frightened if it wasn't an earthquake -- right where he heard those sounds, the next morning, when he told that to the police officers, a glove was found.
A glove.
And that glove, of course, was the glove that matched the Bundy glove, brown Aris leather, size extra large, number 70263, stitched right in cutter number 359, sequence control number 9, the glove expert Rubin said it matches exactly the glove found at Bundy.
And we know Mr. Simpson owns those gloves.
Can you put up the Rockingham glove board.

(Board entitled Rockingham Glove Results displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Now, this Rockingham glove, when it was taken into the lab and analyzed, as I said, it was chock full of evidence. It had blood on it; it had hair on it; it had fiber on it.
This shows the blood that the glove had on it. (Indicating.)
Three people -- all the blood in this case comes down to three people: OJ Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman. No better example than this glove right here. Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ Simpson. Blood mixtures. Some of them have individual stains, blood all over this right-handed glove which held the knife. And had blood sort of caked onto it.
And DNA analysis confirmed this is Simpson's blood, this is Nicole's blood, Ron's blood. No debate about that. None whatsoever.
In addition to the blood on the glove, we also have head hair matching Nicole and Ron. So we have strands of Nicole Brown Simpson's blood and blond hair, and traces of Ronald Goldman's dark hair on these gloves.
They may try to talk to you later on about planting a glove, which is completely preposterous. And this --
Just ask Mr. Baker when he asks, in your mind -- when Mr. Baker tries to talk to you about planting of this glove, ask in your mind, did anybody ever see a second glove at Bundy? Was there ever a second glove at Bundy to plant?
How can there be planting of a glove at Rockingham unless someone goes to Bundy and sees two gloves? And, without knowing whose gloves they are, whether they fit Mr. Simpson, whether Mr. Simpson had an alibi -- whether he was in front of a thousand people, making a speech, or on national television, or on an airplane, or anywhere else -- without knowing any of that, going to pick it up and go plant it on his property?
Okay. Well, that's just silly. It's just silly.
Beyond being silly, no one saw a second glove at Bundy. The first officers to arrive, these young patrolmen, not even detectives, Robert Riske Michael Terrazas -- and Mr. Medvene examined them -- they looked around. And then David Rossi came next. They never saw a second glove.
These people were surveying the crime scene while Mark Fuhrman was sleeping in bed.
There was no second glove there to plant. The second glove was where Mr. Simpson dropped it, at Rockingham.
And when he dropped it -- and it was absolutely dark, by the way, in that back alley, no lighting. Kato Kaelin was too frightened, even, to walk down. So when someone was back there that night, he couldn't see anything.
It had Nicole's hair and it had Ron's hair on it.
Who put that hair on it?
It also had some Negroid limb hair, as opposed to head hair. And it also had blue-black cotton fibers that, we submit, are consistent with the sweat suit. I've talked about that before. It had the same fiber on this glove, that matched the fiber on the sock, that matched the fiber on Ron's shirt, meaning they were all contacted by one person, meaning OJ Simpson.
And if that were not enough, the glove also has those rare carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco.
It's got everything on it, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a glove that belonged to Simpson.
It's a glove that he used to hold the knife in his right hand.
It's the glove that has the victims' blood on it.
It's the glove that has his blood on it.
It's a glove that has the victims' hair on it.
It's a glove that has fibers from his clothing on it.
It's a glove that has fibers from his car, when he dropped it -- he dropped it at his house.
And it could not have been planted and it was not planted.
And there's no evidence that that glove was anywhere else, other than the back of Rockingham, where it was found.

THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli.

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Noon recess, ladies and gentlemen.
I remind you, don't talk about the argument in this case or the evidence or anything connected with this case until the case is finally given to you.
Okay. See you at 1:30.

(At 11:55 a.m., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon.

JURORS: Good afternoon.

MR. PETROCELLI: Little cooler. Before we left for lunch we were talking about gloves, and I had one final point I wanted to say.

(Exhibit is displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: As you can see from this results board, this glove was tested and found to have Mr. Simpson's blood on it -- various locations.
Now, that is further absolute proof that this glove could not have been planted, 'cause if this glove was at Bundy, left by another killer, how would it have OJ Simpson's blood on it?
The fact that it has OJ Simpson's blood on it, in and of itself shows it could not have been planted.
I want to turn to the socks now.
Joe, you can take that front board down. Thank you.
Just to clarify that last point. Since Mr. Simpson's blood, as I mentioned several times before, wasn't available until later on in the day, until 3:30 in the afternoon on the 13th, there wasn't any blood available to them to put on the glove, to then plant at Bundy. That's what I meant in case I was a little unclear.
Now, turning to the socks. These socks were collected off of Mr. Simpson's bedroom floor on the afternoon of June 13, on that Monday, by the criminalists.
The socks were tested by the DNA laboratories and found to contain various spatters of blood on them.
Nicole Brown Simpson's blood was found on both socks; both of them.
OJ Simpson's blood was found on the toe and on the heel of one of the socks.
Again, DNA tests confirmed this is Simpson's blood, this is Nicole's blood.
What is it doing on his socks?
What is Nicole's blood doing on OJ Simpson's socks, ladies and gentlemen?
Why is his blood on his socks?
And his blood appears on the socks, by the way, in the toe and heal area where you might get blood on if you were taking your socks off with a finger that had some blood coming out of it, a cut finger.
The defense expert, John Gerdes, didn't have anything to say about contamination in regard to these socks. There's no evidence at all that that blood could have gotten on there by any theory of contamination.
And, of course, Mr. Simpson has zero explanation for why his blood is on his socks and why Nicole's blood is on his socks. Again, absolute evidence of his guilt. Blood of the victim and blood of himself on his socks.
Now, in desperation, the defense tries to say, well, that blood was planted, the socks were planted on the floor. Excuse me. And they went and put on the testimony of this videographer, Willie Ford, from the Los Angeles Police Department, to show that there weren't any socks on the rug when he filmed with his video.
Well, then we questioned Mr. Ford. And he explained that the socks had already been collected --

MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- by the time he went in there and filmed --

MR. BAKER: I want a ruling.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- went in there --

MR. BAKER: I want the Court to rule on my objection. That's incorrect.

THE COURT: Approach the bench.

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

MR. BAKER: That question was objected to and the Court sustained that objection because there was obviously no foundation that Willie Ford was there before he went in and videotaped.

MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Ford testified that by the time he went and videotaped in that room, Your Honor, the collection of the socks and the evidenced occurred already. Mr. Gelblum asked the most questions.

(Mr. Gelblum displays computer screen to the Court.)

(Court reviews computer screen.)

MR. BAKER: That's true, but no socks --

MR. PETROCELLI: Keep going. "He just left but he just finished collecting the evidence."

MR. P. BAKER: The objection was sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: No.

MR. BAKER: What page?

MR. P. BAKER: 219.

MR. BAKER: 219.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's in the record, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Show me the objection.

MR. PETROCELLI: How does it overcome this question and answer? So the socks weren't in there because they had already been picked up? Answer yes.

MR. BAKER: Okay. Pick up.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. P. BAKER: Says -- this is page 219, it says:
(Mr. P. Baker read a portion of the transcript of the testimony of Willie Ford.)
"The socks weren't there because they had already been picked up. Objection, calls for speculation argumentative."

MR. PETROCELLI: He answered it already.

THE COURT: You may argue inference from this answer, the objection with regards to -- because the socks were already picked up are you attributing to testimony of Mr. Ford?

MR. PETROCELLI: Can I quote that answer there, Your Honor, which was prior in time to this answer.

MR. P. BAKER: That's 219.

MR. BAKER: You just had that. That's the question that was objected to.

MR. PETROCELLI: And I just showed it to you.

MR. P. BAKER: Go above.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. And I just showed it to you up above.

MR. BAKER: No, you didn't.

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, I did.
Look. He asked it again, and it was when he asked it the third time it was objected to, Your Honor.
We have two answers in here, Your Honor, in the record.

THE COURT: You may argue his testimony with regards to Mr. Fung having already been there and collected the evidence, and you may not argue that Mr. Ford testified that Fung had picked up the socks. You may argue the inferences from Mr. Ford's testimony.

MR. PETROCELLI: Tell me -- But Mr. Ford wasn't there when Mr. Fung picked up the socks.
When Mr. Ford went in to film the video, okay.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PETROCELLI: His understanding that the evidence was already collected. That's what he said.

THE COURT: You may argue that, but you may not argue that Ford said he picked up the socks.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. And also that his purpose was there to pick -- film after the collection of evidence.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: Yeah.

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

THE COURT: Are you ready?

THE REPORTER: I'm ready.

THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, from time to time objections have been raised by the defense during Mr. Petrocelli's closing argument to you. And it might occur that during the defense's argument, the plaintiff might raise some objections.
This has been a long trial and there are, at times, differences as to how each side perceived what the testimony was, and so we may have conferences up here to iron out those differences.
You're not to be concerned with any objections made. You're only to be concerned with the argument that is actually presented, and orders of the Court, whatever the Court's ruling is, on excluding any portion of it.
We've had a bench conference here. We've informed counsel that counsel may argue the logical inferences from the testimony of Mr. Ford.
That portion of Mr. Ford's -- Mr. Petrocelli's argument that Mr. Ford said that the socks were picked up, that portion itself is stricken and you're to disregard that.
Okay. You may proceed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thanks, Your Honor. Thanks for the clarification.
Mr. Ford testified that his purpose in going to Rockingham was to film after the evidence had been collected to make sure that nothing in Rockingham was taken or stolen after the police and the criminalists were finished.
And he testified that his job was to go film various places, including Mr. Simpson's bedroom, after the evidence was collected.
When he went into the bedroom to film the bedroom, you saw from the video that there were no socks there. Okay. That's the video that was played for you.
And the reason why there were no socks there, ladies and gentlemen, is because the socks had already been picked up by the criminalist.
Okay. There's nothing sinister about that. The criminalists pick up the evidence, they take it to the laboratory for analysis.
And the gentleman came in and videotaped the house to make sure there wasn't any claim that the police had damaged things or ransacked things.
That video doesn't prove anything else. It doesn't prove that the socks were planted or anything like that.
Now, the defense also argues that blood on the socks was planted. And they base this argument -- because they say that when the folks at SID looked at the socks, I believe it was on June 25, they didn't see blood.
And then when they examined them later on, on August 4, they saw blood. So they said there's blood that must have been put on those socks. Otherwise they would have seen it the first time.
Well, the testimony that you heard in court -- the testimony that you heard in court from the people at SID, people like Greg Matheson, is that when those socks were looked at for the first time on June 25, they were not examined for blood. They were inventoried; took them out, looked at them briefly. Said none obvious, in reference to whether there was blood on it, and made a notation, none obvious. Then made another notation, to be examined later on. That is, to be examined more closely for blood.
The socks were then put away, never looked at again until August 4. On August 4, Collin Yamauchi testified that he took the socks out and did the first real inspection of the socks, looked up at the light, he examined them closely, did some presumptive tests, and found blood.
Well, that's the explanation for that.
Nothing sinister.
Again, no planting of any blood.
There wasn't any proof, by the way, in addition to what I just told you, that anybody would have had access to those socks to plant blood on them.
Who would have done it?
Did they identify anybody that went and took blood and put them on the socks. They were in the freezer at serology.
They didn't show you that there was any blood planted on them.
They didn't show you that someone did that.
They're just saying it, taking advantage of the fact that it wasn't observed until August 4, and that's it, and nothing more than that.
Okay.
I'd like to go now -- you can take that down -- to a different subject.
I've spent some time this morning talking about blood and blood evidence because it's so crucial to this case.
You know when someone leaves their blood at the scene of a murder, that's usually the end of the ball game, and that person did it.
Now, if Mr. Simpson did it, as we believe the proof shows, and if he left blood there, which we believe the proof shows, then one would expect there to be some injury to Mr. Simpson, something cut, something abraded, gouged, whatever, but someplace where that blood came from.
And in fact, when Mr. Simpson returned from Chicago the next day and went down to talk to the police, he had cuts or marks or gouges, whatever you want to call them, but he had injuries. Where? Left hand. Left hand. That's where the blood was dropped, to the left of various shoe prints. He had injuries to his left hand.
Do you know what kind of an extraordinary coincidence it would be for O.J. Simpson's ex-wife to be murdered by a killer who bled from the left hand and he has a cut on the left hand and he didn't do it? And he got that cut that night, at the time she's being murdered.
So when he came back from Chicago, he had a big problem. Big problem. Besides what he knew was the truth inside. He could always hide that. I've heard he was an actor. He could always hide that. But he couldn't hide this, could he (indicating to his own hand)? He couldn't hide this. This is a big problem. What's he going to say (holding up and indicating to his own hand)?
Obvious sign of guilt.
Big problem.
So when he came back to Los Angeles the next day, he's talking to the police, the police tell him about, well, you know, O.J., we got your blood at Rockingham and we got your blood on the car and on the driveway. You got a cut. How did you get the cut?
Did he say, oh, I broke it on a glass in Chicago? Did he say that? No. What did he say?
He told the police no less than five times, ladies and gentlemen, because he had no choice, he told the police no less than five times that he cut himself before he went to Chicago, in Los Angeles, he cut himself. He had to admit he cut himself. Why did he have to admit it? The police -- he didn't want to admit it. Because they told him they found blood dripped all over his house. So he had to admit he cut himself. How's he going to explain why the blood's there? So when the police pressed him, okay, how did you cut it at your house, let me tell you what he said.
Can you put page 23 on the Elmo, please. Steve.

(Page 23 is displayed on Elmo.)

Mr. Simpson's statement to the police -- can you back down a little bit more, come on down, other way (indicating to Elmo).

(Elmo is adjusted.)

They're asking him when he cut it.

"A week ago, no."
"So it's since then?"
"Oh, I'm pretty sure, yeah."
"Yeah, just last night, last night's the night of the murders."
"Somewhere last night you cut it?"
"Yeah, yeah."
"Somewhere after the recital?"
"Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house."
"After the recital?"
"Yeah."
"What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?"
"I have no idea, man."

Now, what kind of person says they have no idea how they cut themselves hours before.
Come on. Let's get real.
Who says they have no idea how they cut themselves an hour before when they're being interviewed concerning the death of his ex-wife.
Obviously a guilty man says he has no idea because he does not want to admit how he did it.
And the only reason he was asked to talk about this at all is because he can't hide the cuts. He was able to hide some of them, by the way, between his fingers, which he never showed to anybody. You'll see when he takes the photograph, he keeps his fingers together and he hid the one inside the fourth finger.
But he wasn't able to hide the one on the outside of the middle finger.
Now, is this the only evidence that Mr. Simpson cut himself that night?
Do you remember Skip Taft, his friend of 27 years, his business associate, his lawyer. Do you remember when I had him on the witness stand here and he told me -- I asked him, didn't you see that fourth cut that Mr. Simpson had the day at the police station on June 13? You saw it there, didn't you? 'Cause Mr. Taft had gone to the police station with Mr. Simpson. And Mr. Taft said no, I didn't.
And then I pointed out to him, what are you talking about, look what you said in your deposition.
And I pulled out the deposition.
He testified in crystal clear terms that he saw the fourth cut on Mr. Simpson's -- the cut on Mr. Simpson's fourth finger that day while he was being interviewed by the police -- in the office while they were waiting to take him in for the interview. He was with Howard Weitzman and Mr. Simpson, and he saw that other cut in addition to the cut on his middle finger.
By the time he came into court to testify, he knew Mr. Simpson had said he only had one cut, and he knew he had a big problem, so he went to bat for his buddy and lied under oath.
That's Skip Taft.
Michael Baden -- do you remember him? That was the defense expert witness who was the pathologist.
Michael Baden came into Los Angeles the week of the murders and met with Mr. Simpson and some other defense experts on Friday, June 17, at the home of Robert Kardashian, and they took a bunch of pictures of Mr. Simpson.
He was supposed to be readying himself for arrest.
And Michael Baden asked Mr. Simpson -- you heard him on the stand when Mr. Medvene examined him.
Michael Baden asked Mr. Simpson how he got these cuts, where he got the cut, and here is what Mr. Baden said:

"Q. Now, is it accurate, sir, that after examining Mr. Simpson, he told you he received certain of those marks on his hand while he was in Los Angeles on June the 12th, preparing for his trip to Chicago?"
"A. Yes."
"And he told you, did he not, sir, that he wasn't quite sure how he cut himself?"
"A. Yes."

So Mr. Simpson told Michael Baden that he cut himself in Los Angeles and -- but wouldn't tell him how, said he didn't know.
Now, on top of this testimony of Mr. Simpson and what Mr. Baden said, we also have photographs.
Steve, can we put up the photographs.
First put up the exhibit -- what's this? 172?

MR. FOSTER: 171.

(Exhibit 171 is displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Even though Mr. Simpson only talks about one cut, there's the second cut there, right there, maybe even a third.
Dr. Spitz says these really aren't cuts, these are fingernail gouges. These are victims trying to unclaw his fingers.
Mr. Simpson was asked on this witness stand, okay, tell us how you got these cuts? You told the police you got them in L.A. before you left for Chicago. And you heard me examine him for some time about those cuts.
And then what did he do? He said, I don't know how I cut myself in L.A. In fact, I don't think I cut myself in L.A. And then he denied cutting himself in L.A., he denied it on the witness stand.
Even though we have all this other evidence and these photographs, he denied it.
He said, oh, I just saw a little bit of blood on my pinkie and on the kitchen counter. That's the only blood I saw before I went off to Chicago. And I really cut myself in Chicago. Forget what I told the police, I was wrong, I was assuming things.
Why is he assuming things? The last time in the world you'd be assuming anything.
So then I said, okay, let's say you cut it in Chicago, as you now want to say. How did you cut it in Chicago? Tell us exactly how you did it.
And he couldn't tell us.
I said, did you -- he said something about a glass.
I said, did you throw the glass against the mirror, did you throw it on the floor?
No.
Did you throw it in the shower?
No.
Did you throw it in the sink?
No.
How did you cut yourself in Chicago?
I don't know. All of the sudden there was some glass and I was sweeping glass into a sink, and all this convoluted stuff, which made zero sense. Scooping broken glass into a sink.
First of all, how does he get that cut sweeping broken glass into a sink?
He had no credible explanation for this -- for these injuries to his finger. None. None.
And the reason is because he sustained these injuries while he was murdering two people. That's the only reason he has those injuries on his finger. That's why to this day he cannot tell you how he got those injuries.
And did Mr. Baker ask him? Did he try to set the record straight when he testified a week or so ago. No, he did not, ladies and gentlemen. He had every chance to explain it all to you.
Even though I tried to get it out of him for about a half-hour on this stand. Got nowhere.
I don't know.
Mysterious cuts.
Now, show the pictures taken on the 15th and the 17th.
This is a cut on the inside of his fourth finger as Dr. Spitz says appear to him to be fingernail gouges.
Mr. Simpson swears to this day that he did not have that cut when he left for Los Angeles -- when he left Los Angeles for Chicago. He swears to this day he did not have that cut in Chicago, that he did not get that cut breaking any glass. 'Cause, obviously, he wouldn't -- you wouldn't get such a cut like that, if it is a cut.
And so then I said, okay, tell us where you got that injury then. If not in L.A. and if not in Chicago, how did you get that one?
I don't know.
Another "I don't know."
Then he -- he then had the audacity to mention something about wrestling with his 6-year-old son, a 50-pound boy, maybe he did it to him.
Can you believe that?
Mr. Simpson was examined by Dr. Huizenga on the 15th of June. He was examined again by Dr. Huizenga on the 17th of June. Dr. Baden examined him on the 17th of June.
The testimony was there were three cuts and seven abrasions on the left hand and one cut on the right hand.
He, to this day, ladies and gentlemen, has never given any of us, and you're the only ones that count, he's never given any of you a single explanation for any of these injuries. Not one. Not one.
What kind of man would be unable to tell you how he got 11 or 12 injuries to his hands, not be able to tell you how he got a single one? What kind of man? A guilty man. No other kind of man.
Okay.
We're now going to go to a different subject.
I think I've reviewed in sufficient detail for all of you the physical evidence. I've talked about all the blood evidence, the gloves, the shoes, the hair, the fiber, the cuts, the socks, the Bronco, blood in his house. The list goes on.
And it all points to him and no one else. Nobody else. Just him. Just him. Because he did it. That's the only explanation why it all points to him. Because he did it.
Now, what's his alibi? Let's talk about that. Does he have one?
These murders occurred, ladies and gentlemen, we know between 10 o'clock p.m. and 10:55 p.m. That's the -- you know that Nicole was still alive at 10 o'clock on June 12. We know that Ron Goldman was still alive.
If you remember the testimony at the very beginning of the case -- I know it's a long time. It's not really in dispute, so I won't dwell on it, but Nicole received -- Nicole called Mezzaluna when she found out her mother left her glasses there, called the restaurant and asked Ron to drop them off.
And Ron left the restaurant on his way to go meet some friends shortly before 10 o'clock. He left in his waiter uniform. He went home and changed first.
And then he drove over, parked his car on Dorothy and walked up to the front gate. So we know it had to be sometime after 10 o'clock because he didn't leave Mezaluna until 9:50, at 10 to 10.
It would have taken him time to go home and change and do whatever he has to do and then get in the car, drive over there, walk up to the front door -- walk up to the front gate, excuse me, and as you know, he never made it past that front gate. Never got past the front gate.
The envelope with Judy Brown's glasses, was dropped next to him on the ground where his body lay.
He never got past that front gate to deliver those glasses.
He was confronted, attacked and killed right there in that tiny area right past the front gate, no more than a four-by-six tiny caged area.
At 10:55, by the way, is the time when one of the neighbors, a man named Steven Schwab, testified that he saw on the corner of Bundy and Dorothy, Nicole's Akita, the dog named Kato, and it had blood on it.
So we know that the murders were over by then because this dog had blood on it and was walking outside of the property and that's at 10:55.
In fact, another witness named Louis Karpf saw the dog around 10:50 in the middle of the street.
So that's the absolute outside time.
We know that the murders were over by 10:50, 10:55.
We also heard from a man named Robert Heidstra. He's a man that lives in the neighborhood and he's a dog lover. Basically his life is washing cars and walking dogs. And he was walking around the block that night and he heard sounds -- heard the sounds of Nicole's dog, and he recognized Nicole's dog because he was familiar with the dog. And it was a very agitated sound. You'll recall his testimony. Not a kind of sound where the dog might be barking at a stranger, but a very agitated sound. And he heard that sound, that very loud and insistent barking dog at around 10:30, 10:35.
Remember that testimony?
And then instead of walking by Nicole's condominium, he switched directions 'cause he was afraid his dogs might run into the Akita. It was obviously very agitated.
So he went back and decided to cut across an alley way, and when he was halfway across, he heard -- he heard the sounds, the young male voice saying, hey, hey, hey, hey, followed by a deep, darker voice which he was unable to decifer. Then he heard a gate clanking. Then he heard nothing more.
Then he walked to the end of the alley, stood there for a while, waiting for his dog to do its business.
He heard the sound of hey, hey, hey between 10:35, 10:40, that area.
And remember he didn't have a watch on.
These are people giving estimates of the time. We're not talking about precise times here.
If every one of you looked at your watch right now, possibly would have a different time on it, might be off by one or two minutes, maybe five or six minutes.
So he just gave the best estimate he could. Thought it was 10:30 or so, 10:35, when he heard the agitated dog. He thought it was maybe 10:35, 10:40, when he heard hey, hey, hey.
Now, when he's on the other end of the alley, just standing there, looking down toward the corner of Dorothy and Bundy where there's a street lamp, he saw a car come out of the dark from Dorothy, approach Bundy and then make a right, going away from the scene of the murder, and he testified that that car looked like a Bronco, a white Bronco.
And so, the evidence strongly suggests that was OJ Simpson's Bronco.
That was OJ Simpson fleeing from two murders he had just committed, not wanting to drive in front of the condo where two bodies lay, made a right on Bundy, cut around the block, and went up around up to his house.
We put a witness that took the same route, not driving as fast as you can do it, four minutes, easily. It's that close, no traffic that time of night.
And Mr. Heidstra testified that he believes he saw that Bronco around 10:40, 10:45, at the very latest.
10:45, at the very latest.
That's the general picture of what was happening at Bundy during that time.
Now, where is OJ Simpson, ladies and gentlemen, during that time? Where is he between 10 o'clock and 10:45, when these murders occurred? Where is he?
Well, we asked him. He said he was home, of course.
But all the evidence in this case, ladies and gentlemen, tells us OJ Simpson was not home at Rockingham between 10:00 and 10:45. He was not there. We know he was not there. He was lying. Lying, lying, lying. And he got caught, and he got caught, and he got caught, and he got caught.
Like to go through why we know he was not there?
First of all, we know that Mr. Simpson returned to the property after these murders, around 10:51.
How do we know that? Because that's when he banged into the wall behind Kato Kaelin's house.
Kato Kaelin was on the telephone. He was frightened. He got off the phone. He went to check what was going on. He ran into the limo driver; and, because we now have the limo driver's cell-phone records, we were now able to figure out more precisely when Mr. Kaelin heard these sounds.
And Mr. Kaelin has been very clear on this. In fact, his testimony has never, ever wavered about when he heard those sounds.
Going back to the very first interview he gave in this case to OJ Simpson's lawyer, Robert Shapiro. Okay. Where he told Mr. Shapiro that he heard those sounds, and within three minutes or so, he was out in the front, checking to see what happened, about three minutes after hearing those sounds. And when he came out in the front, that's when the limousine driver, Alan Parks saw him. And we know from Alan Parks' phone records, that Alan Parks saw him at 10:54.
So, we know -- we know that Kaelin heard those sounds at 10:51. And even without ever looking at a clock, okay? Listen, he's been extremely accurate in all the testimony and interviews he's given.
OJ Simpson gets on his property at 10:51, bumps into, or crashes into, or runs into this wall, where it's extremely dark and no light, drops a glove, comes back up the alley to where his car is parked in the driveway, puts a bag there, a bag never again seen to this day. And then he makes a bee-line inside his front door.
And that's when Alan Parks sees him for the first time. And that is 10:55. So we know he's home around 10:51, and he's actually seen at 10:55.
But where was he before then?
Well, let's go back a little bit.
Mr. Simpson said he went to McDonald's with Kato Kaelin to get a hamburger.
We know, from Kato Kaelin's phone records, that Mr. Simpson and he left about 12 minutes after 9 o'clock and returned by about 9:35.
Mr. Kaelin went in his room and made a long-distance call at 9:37. By that time, he was already in his room and back from McDonald's.
Mr. Kaelin testified that when he got out of that Bentley in the driveway, he turned as though he were going into the house to talk to Mr. Simpson while he ate his dinner, and Mr. Simpson never left the Bentley: Stood there, never left. Just stood there. And for that reason, Mr. Kaelin thought better and decided just to walk right around to his house, to his guest house, and mind his own business and enjoy the night without Mr. Simpson.
Now, that's the last time anybody saw OJ Simpson, 9:35 p.m., until he was seen again at 10:55.
We asked Mr. Simpson whether he could identify anybody who he saw or spoke to between 9:35 and 10:55. And he said he cannot. He knows of no such person.
Even though, as Mr. Baker told you, this guy telephones people all the time: No telephone calls during this time, either, except a cell-phone call, which we're going to get to.
He's an avid telephoner, Mr. Baker says, and Mr. Simpson said on the stand, but no telephone calls, no contact with anybody.
All of a sudden, there's a big hole in the night.
When Mr. Simpson was interviewed the next day by the police, they asked him what he did after the recital, ladies and gentlemen. And he told the police that after the recital, he got in his car and he drove over to Paula Barbieri's.
Paula Barbieri, by that time, was a woman he was starting to date again. He must have said that three or four times in his police statement, that he was driving over to Paula's house, and he was calling her on the way, and that she was not home.
Now, his phone is in the Bronco. He said he used his Bronco to drive to Paula Barbieri's house. He said he used his Bronco to make a cell-phone call as he was going.
Well, the only cell-phone call that we have from Mr. Simpson's records is a call at 10:03 p.m. So we know that Mr. Simpson was on his way someplace at 10:03 p.m. in the Bronco, and he -- that he was not at home.
He tried to lie to the police and tell them that he had been going over to Paula's house earlier, like 7 o'clock, because he wanted to tell the police he was home later, when the murders occurred.
What he got trapped by, his cell-phone records, ladies and gentlemen, because they showed that the only time he made a phone call was at 10:03 from his cell phone.
When I confronted Mr. Simpson with all of that, he had no explanation. He said, oh, he was just wrong again, assuming things.
And then, for the first time, when Mr. Baker asked him about this, he said, oh, you know what? I called Paula on the way to her house on Saturday night. I was confusing Saturday and Sunday.
Saturday was June 11.
Now, this is another lie to cover. Another lie.
The reason why this is a lie, you recall he went to Paula's house to pick her up Saturday night to take her to some fancy event, but he told the police, I was calling Paula and Paula wasn't there.
Well, Paula was there Saturday night. Paula was home. He picked her up, and they went out. So we know that he wasn't talking about Saturday night.
That's just another lie. He's lying to you to cover what he did.
Can you put up on the Elmo, page 8.
Excuse me. Page 9.

(Transcript displayed on the Elmo screen.)

MR. PETROCELLI: I just want to make sure you see this. Can you focus it.

MR. FOSTER: I'm trying to.

MR. PETROCELLI: Right there.
Where did you go from there?
Home, and got in my car for a while, tried to -- tried to find my girlfriend for a while.
Came back to the house.
Okay.
Go to page 9.

(Mr. Foster adjusts the Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Keep going.
Then -- okay. Home.
This is after the recital. And then I called Paula, as I was going to her house, and Paula wasn't home.
Now, we know this wasn't Saturday night, because Paula was home, so it was Sunday night. And we know that. Okay. He --
Keep scrolling up there, Steve.

(Mr. Foster adjusts document on the Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Go to page 12.

(Mr. Foster adjusts document on the Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Like I say, I came home. I got in my car. I was going to see my girlfriend. I was calling her, and she wasn't around.
Again he says it.
Go to page 13.

(Mr. Foster adjusts document on the Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: So you drove the Bronco?
My phone was in the Bronco and -- because the Bronco is what I drive; I'd rather drive it than any other car. And I was going over there. I called her a couple of times and she wasn't there. And she had left a message. And then I checked my messages, and she had left me a message.
Now, we're going to talk about this a little later. This is another lie he tries now to deny, that he picked up this message where Paula ended their relationship. He wants to make -- paint the picture that he wasn't upset that night. But, of course, he did pick up the message, because he said it right here. And I also showed him a phone record, a computer record, and he even denies that.
So he called Paula Barbieri as he was going over there.
Now, it's -- the cell phone record shows us it's at 10:03.
Now, turn to page -- one second.
Page 15, Steve, at the end of page 15.

(Mr. Foster adjusts document on the Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: This is further proof, ladies and gentlemen, that Mr. Simpson made this call at 10:03 from inside his Bronco, out on the road someplace.
He told the police that the very last thing he did before he left for the airport was to go to his Bronco and get his phone out of the Bronco. This is around 11:05, 10 after 11:00. Okay.
So if the phone is in the Bronco at 11 o'clock, it's still there at 10 o'clock, which meant he was in the Bronco at 10 o'clock.
And look what he says.
The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was, went and got my phone out of the Bronco.
Okay.
Do you see that?
Last thing I did was get my phone out of the Bronco.
So that proves the phone was in the Bronco at 11:00, and it is was in the Bronco at 10 o'clock. And at 10 o'clock, we have a telephone call.
Can you get the board out that's exhibit 2216.

(Exhibit 2216 displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Now, these are his calls on June 12, 1994.
And by the way, local calls are not available to us -- local telephone records, I should say, because they were lost. There's no evidence in this case anybody ever was able to retrieve Mr. Simpson's local telephone calls, for example, from his house to Nicole's house. We don't know about local phone calls, so we don't know how many calls he made that night to her.
We'll never know because he's not telling us, and Nicole is dead and she can't tell us what really happened.
All we are able to do is reconstruct, to some extent, with his cell-phone records and long-distance records and other things that show up on computer records.
The only cell-phone call that Mr. Simpson made that evening after the recital was 10:03 p.m, as you see right here.
He said, well, I made this phone call from my driveway.
Well, we know it wasn't from his driveway. He was in his Bronco, because he told the police he was in his Bronco. That's why.
And no other -- on no other occasion during that time -- entire weekend, did he make any phone calls from his cell phone while he was walking around. Every other time he used that cell phone, he was in his Bronco. So, of course, it was in his Bronco at 10:03.
This is critical because it destroys his alibi. That's why he's lying about it.
Now, we know he's lying for some other reasons, as well.
He claimed his Bronco was parked the whole time on Rockingham, from about 7:00 to 9 o'clock, all the way through the rest of the night, and it never moved. So it would have been there for anybody to see, right next to the curb, 360 North Rockingham, right where it's painted on the curb. That's what he said.
Okay. We brought you two witnesses. One, Charles Cahill, who testified that between 9:30 and 9:45, he came for a walk, and he was able to look right in that location where Mr. Simpson said his car was parked; he did not see any Bronco 9:30 to 9:45. So I guess he must be lying or mistaken.
Alan Park is a real problem for Mr. Simpson. See, Mr. Simpson didn't know there was going to be a new limo driver that night.
See, murderers always make mistakes.
He figured his normal driver would be coming over around quarter to 11:00, Dale St. John, and Dale St. John was picking (sic) a little league team, an all-star team, and we have Alan Park show up at 10:23.
And Alan Park drives up at 10:23 looking for the address, 360 North Rockingham, never been here before, wants to make sure -- this guy's a big shot; I don't wants to screw this up -- got there early, drove up, looking outside the window, puts it up --
Steve, what's this exhibit?

MR. FOSTER: 191.

(Exhibit 191 is displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: 191.
Drove right past here slowly, saw the curb. This is the right place.
Back up, Steve.
This is now 10:23, when Mr. Simpson says the car is right there.
Alan Park testified there was no car there. If you believe Alan Park, it's another reason why Mr. Simpson is guilty.
He says that car was there, and Alan Park is just lying or wrong. All these people got to be lying or wrong. I'll see a pattern here. 50, 60 people have to be lying or mistaken.
Alan Park drove past here at 10:23 p.m. It was early; went around the corner, parked, smoked a cigarette, wanted to figure out -- now, it's about time to get into the property. Which way should I go?
So what he did is, he got back in his car and drove back around this way (indicating) to check out this driveway, to see if he should use this driveway or the other driveway. And he drove past here (indicating) at 10:39, 10:40 p.m.
No Bronco.
How could he have missed it? Look at that thing. It's huge. How could he have missed it?
There's no car there at 10:39, 10:40.
Now, if that were not enough --
Can you bring out Parks' phone records?

(Mr. Foster displays board entitled Calls Made by Alan Park, June 12, '94.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah. You can take that one down.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

MR. PETROCELLI: If that were not enough to prove Mr. Simpson was not home, Alan Park then dutifully pulls up to Rockingham, pulls up to the Ashford gate, and gets out of his car to start buzzing Mr. Simpson in that little telephone outside the Ashford gate. He begins at 10:40 to 10:43. He's buzzing, buzzing, buzzing, buzzing. Nobody's home; nobody answered the phone. No one's home.
What does he do? He's confused. What's going on? Why isn't Mr. Simpson home? He gets -- gets in his car and starts to make a phone call.
The car is on; he said the radio is on. He starts to make phone calls to find out where's Mr. Simpson. He calls Dale St. John -- calls his mother to get his number. And you can see the various attempts he made to get in touch with somebody because Mr. Simpson's not home.
He testified that he started calling at 10:40 to 10:43, and then again 10:44 to 10:46. In between these various phone calls, he goes back out and tries again.
And then, finally, at 10:50, he rings. No answer last time. He rang -- was in between this 10:49:53 call and this 10:50:39 call. There's about 30, 40 seconds. Got back out, rang the bell again. Still no answer. Comes back in, and finally gets a call from his boss at 10:52. And by the time -- he's on the phone now. He's telling his boss at 10:52, look, nobody's home; what should I do? And there's some discussion.
Then, at 10:54 he sees Kaelin walk by him. At 10:55, he sees Mr. Simpson walk by him, walk into the front door area, all dark clothing, and he says, okay, he's home, and he gets off the phone.
Now, if OJ Simpson was really home, as he said, why didn't he answer -- why didn't he answer the phone? Why didn't he let Mr. Park in? Why didn't he let the limo driver in?
Well, he didn't let him in because he wasn't home.
But what did he say? He says, well, I was in the shower; I didn't want to get out. And I thought it was my regular driver, Dale, and he knows how to let himself in.
Well, they put Dale St.John on the stand: Went to pick up Mr. Simpson 100 times.
You ever let yourself in?
No.
Did you know how to let yourself in?
No.
He said, well, I didn't want to let him in because I thought the dog might get out, because that dog runs out all the time.
I put all those witnesses on the stand to say the dog never runs out.
So these were all lies to cover up the fact that he was not home.
He has -- he has no alibi, ladies and gentlemen. OJ Simpson is not home.
One other thing on this point:
At 10:51, we hear those thumps in the wall, something crashing into the wall.
Has Mr. Baker of the defense ever explained to you what those noises were from? They weren't OJ Simpson causing those noises. Have you ever gotten a single explanation from the defense about what those noises are?
No, you haven't.
There isn't any other explanation, and you will never hear it.
Is this a good time, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion.

(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.
We were talking about the crashes against the side of Mr. Kaelin's wall.
I demonstrated to you that they occurred at 10:51 when Mr. Simpson returned to the property.
You heard one witness whose testimony was read in from the criminal case, Rachel Ferrara. She didn't actually show up in person here. She said -- she estimated that those sounds on the wall occurred at 10:40. Rachel Ferrara was a woman on the telephone with Kato Kaelin when the sounds came crashing against the wall.
We also read from Mrs. Ferrara's testimony that she didn't look at any watch or any clock and it was an estimate, and it was based purely on things that Mr. Kaelin was telling her based on his estimates, and he never looked at the clock. So we're dealing with an estimate of 10:40, in fact, by Ms. Ferrara.
Kaelin says it was about 10:50 and, in fact, he was very close to it. It was about 10:51. So that's when those sounds occur. That's Mr. Simpson returning.
Again, the defense has never offered a single explanation for those sounds. If it isn't Mr. Simpson, then who is it?
One final point. I want to pick up on this 10:03 phone call.
Can you put up the board, Joe.
Here, Steve, put this on the Elmo.
You have, at the bottom of page 15 -- You may recall, when I was examining Mr. Simpson about his statement to the police just hours after Nicole's murder, where he told the police that he went to the Bronco right before he left for the airport to get his phone, on the witness stand he said, well, I didn't really mean phone, I meant phone accessories. That's another story that he told now.
And you have to understand, Mr. Simpson said between then and now he has become incredibly familiar with all the evidence in this case.
He knows what everybody has testified to, what everybody has said, witness statements. He testified on the stand that he spent months reviewing discovery materials. Now, he's had a chance to review phone records. So he knows everything now. And he's in a position, now, to try to lie, to fabricate an explanation to meet all of the evidence that he now understands exists against him.
This is a classic example of that.
Obviously, he's talking about the phone, not phone accessories, not a cell phone case, not a battery charger, not anything else.
And I said, well, what do you mean, you didn't say anything about accessories.
He says said, yes, I did, look -- well, whatever that is. He says that's what he meant.
The officer had said, uh-hum, and Simpson said, well, whatever that is, obviously referring to that. Now Simpson says oh, no, I meant phone accessories, not phone.
Okay. Turn the page.

The very next question was, okay, where's the phone now? In my bag.
Does he say anything about phone accessories there? Battery chargers or anything else?
You see, this is crucial because he's got to get the phone out of the Bronco. If the phone is in the Bronco at 10:03, he's not at home, and that destroys his alibi. That's why we have all these lies, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, just to make the final point on this, OJ Simpson was questioned by Michael Baden, this expert pathologist that they paid $100,000 in this case, who testified for Mr. Simpson.
He testified that when he asked Mr. Simpson how he cut his hand when he was examining his hand and fingers on June 17th -- now that's four, five days after this police statement. You're going to hear Mr. Baker tell you Mr. Simpson was confused and tired and mixing things up and distraught, and that's why he made mistake after mistake after mistake in this police statement.
Well, now it's the next Friday, he had four days to think about everything, and he tells Michael Baden -- this is what Michael Baden testified.
Simpson told him he rummaged for his car phone. He was looking for his cell phone when he cut his finger.
So four days after this statement he tells Michael Baden, when asked how he cut his finger, I was looking for my car phone, rummaging for my car phone. Referring to the Bronco. Referring to going to the Bronco to get out his car phone.
Once again, proving that this was in -- the car phone was in the Bronco at 10:03. You see, Mr. Simpson didn't have these cell phone records then, didn't know what they were going to say.
These were calls that were incomplete. Maybe he was hoping they'd never even show up on the records.
So we have it -- we have it on the 13th and on the 17th that he told his people that he was getting his car phone out of the Bronco, ladies and gentlemen. It was in the Bronco at 11 o'clock.
And he made that phone call driving someplace, looking for Paula. He had picked up a message that she had left him. He was enraged, outraged, and he ended up over at Nicole's where he killed two people.
Now, these murders occurred around 10:30 p.m., in that neighborhood.
Did Mr. Simpson have enough time to commit these murders, drive back to Rockingham, and crash into a wall at 10:51? Did he have 25 minutes to do all this? Could it be done?
You heard a lot of testimony in this case, particularly from people like Dr. Baden, and on our side from a man named Dr. Werner Spitz, about the nature of the wounds, and about how long these murders might have taken.
Of course, nobody knows for a fact because they were not there.
Let's use a little bit of common sense here. OJ Simpson was a man in a state of total rage, armed with a 6-inch knife. He's a powerful man, over six feet, 200 pounds, played one of the most violent sports in American sports; and not only played it, played it well, excelled at it. He told you how great he was. In fact, he might have been one of the greatest running backs of all time. This is a man of extraordinary strength and power.
And here he is with a knife, enraged beyond belief, out of control. Think how much out of control a person has to be to do this.
He's up against a woman, 5' 5", 5' 6", 120 pounds, and he has the extraordinary audacity to say she was one of the most well-conditioned women that I know. Can you believe that?
Nicole died in about 15 seconds.
All those wounds were delivered in rapid fire succession. And she died immediately from a gaping cut to her throat, and she bled profusely out on the ground. There was no struggle. Maybe -- maybe enough to get her hand, fingernails perhaps, in his hands.
Ronald Goldman came upon this, didn't have any idea what was happening, thrust into this tiny caged area. You saw Dr. Spitz and Mr. Medvene demonstrate it in an area no bigger than this area right here (indicating). With a big tree there (indicating). Not able to move his arms. Somebody with a knife like this (indicating), and he's there with his hands trying to ward off the knife.
How long you think that lasted? What did he have? 30, 40 knife wounds?
How long do you think it took Mr. Simpson to deliver those? 30 seconds, 60 seconds.
Dr. Spitz said possibly a minute.
They put on this testimony of Henry Lee. He did this fancy demonstration of how blood was spattered all over the place.
The great Henry Lee.
Blood was spattered all over this caged area, and there was a hole, and there was this, and the pager was dropped, and the envelope was dropped.
And he tried to pretend like this was a 30, 40, 50-minute battle between two titans looking at all this evidence all over the place; there's blood here, there's blood there, there's blood on the fence.
And then when Mr. Medvene finally asked him, give us the bottom line, Dr. Lee, how long do you think this took, in your opinion? You weren't there, how long do you think this took? And Dr. Henry Lee said, at least one minute, anything above a minute he doesn't know.
So Dr. Lee agrees with Dr. Spitz.
About a minute.
That's all he can say to any degree of scientific certainty.
And of course, it's common sense.
Could you imagine that a round of boxing -- professional boxing match, two well-conditioned athletes, equally matched, going at each other, throwing hundreds of blows. You know what one round is? Three minutes.
Ron Goldman went a round of heavyweight boxing with O.J. Simpson? Come on. Who's buying that.
This whole idea about how this was a long struggle -- the only reason, ladies and gentlemen, that we're hearing about this is because they want to try to come up with an argument that this thing took so long that OJ Simpson couldn't have done it, he couldn't have been engaged in a murder at 10:30 and home by 10:51 because it took 10, 15, 20 minutes. That's the only reason.
He sat down and figured out, you know, how do we come up with an argument here. Well, let's say the struggle took 20 minutes, 15 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever. Then we can argue that he didn't do it 'cause he didn't have enough time.
Of course, he had enough time.
Then they bring out the $100,000 man, Dr. Baden. And after all the fancy medical jargon, and all the opinions about the order of wounds, and this is difficult to deal with, but the neck wound, the aorta wounds, the chest wound, what does Dr. Baden say when it's all said and done?
Two to three minutes, Ron Goldman would have collapsed onto the ground. Two to three minutes, Ron Goldman would have collapsed on the ground.
But then, because Dr. Baden is paid $100,000, he says, but I think there were some more blows, maybe five, ten minutes later.
What are you saying, Dr. Baden? Ron Goldman was slashed down to the ground and then the killer went and had a cup of coffee, smoked a cigarette, made a phone call, came back, and then delivered the last blow or two?
Does that make any sense?
It's ridiculous. And he knows better.
The struggle took a minute, two minutes, three minutes. And it was over fast and furious.
Remember, this is not a cold, calculated, professionally planned killing. This is a rage killing.
Look at those wounds. Does that look like a professional killer? Or does that look like someone who's just out of control, in a blind rage, such deeply aroused emotions, killing with a knife, up close, personal?
And even if you want to engage in the fantasy and assume it took ten minutes, OJ Simpson still had enough time. He still had enough time. He still had enough time to speed away at 10:40, 10:45, drive the four minutes to Rockingham, get out of his car, go on to the property, and run inside.
Now, what happened, ladies and gentlemen, when Mr. Simpson finally did return? What happened?
First of all, let me explain something to you.
The law does not require us to prove each and every detail about what happened that night.
We can't tell you exactly which victim he encountered first, whether he had an argument there, what blows were delivered, the order of the blows. We don't know.
He knows and he's not telling and he will take this to his grave.
The law does not require us to know those things or prove those things.
Nor do we have to give you a murder weapon. Because he hid it somewhere, disposed of it, and we don't know where, and he's not telling us.
Nor do we have to tell you what he did with any clothing that might have been bloody.
We know there's a lot of clothing missing; there's no sweat suit, there's no shoes. Can't account for those.
The gloves he dropped, and the hat. We have those.
We don't have to know those details. The law doesn't require us to know. And we don't know. Nor do we know exactly how he got on to his property that night, ladies and gentlemen. We don't know if he climbed the fence.
And there is an opening back there, if you wanted to go that way, in the foliage. Or if you want to use the Rockingham gate, which you cannot see from the Ashford gate, especially if you're Allan Park in a limousine, talking on a phone, looking straight ahead, and not looking down towards the Rockingham gate, clear on the other side of the property with shrubbery and play equipment in between.
He had no way to see what was happening at the Rockingham gate. Mr. Simpson could have easily opened the gate with his key and gotten in that way.
And we see some blood drops along the driveway there. We don't know exactly why he went down that side of the house, what he was going to do back there, or whether he was on the way back.
We'll never know the answers to all those questions, and we don't need to.
All we need to do is prove to you that he did it. And we know he did it 'cause every single piece of evidence tells us he did it.
And there isn't anything telling us he didn't do it. Nothing.
Now, when he came back to that property, Allan Park saw him.
You can take that down (indicating to board).
You want to give me a map of the property (indicating to assistant).

(Map of 360 North Rockingham displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Allan Park saw him coming into the house. Alan Park gets off the phone. Okay, he's home now.
He waited to be buzzed in.
Does Mr. Simpson buzz him in?
No, he never lets him in.
Alan Park gets out of the car. This is all the testimony that you heard from him. He gets out of the car, calls Mr. Simpson back.
Finally, there's an answer. Mr. Simpson answers and he said, sorry, he overslept, just got out of the shower.
Now he denies he said he overslept.
But why would Alan Park make up any lies? Why would he lie about anything? He has no ax to grind. He doesn't have anything against OJ Simpson. Why would he lie about anything?
There's only one person in this whole case who has any reason to lie about anything. He's got every reason to lie. That's the man sitting in the courtroom here.
So Alan Park says, okay. Mr. Simpson says he overslept, he'll be right down.
Does he let him in even then?
To Alan Park's astonishment, he's not even let in then by Mr. Simpson.
Why isn't Mr. Simpson letting Alan Park in? Ask yourself. Why isn't he letting this guy -- why is he making him wait outside?
It's not this thing about the dog, which is what Mr. Simpson says, he doesn't want the dog to get out.
You have that picture (indicating to Mr. Foster).
Mr. Simpson says he didn't want to let Park in 'cause the dog would get out.
Here's the gate wide open. Is that dog moving? That dog's not going anywhere (indicating to photo).
So that's another reason, ladies and gentlemen, is when Mr. Simpson darted across the driveway, he dropped a bag behind that Bentley, maybe shoes, maybe a knife, maybe clothing. He dropped a bag there and he didn't want Park to come into the property while it was unsecured and perhaps go over and pick up that bag. And that's why he didn't let him in.
And then finally, Mr. Simpson comes downstairs out of breath. And by this time Kato Kaelin had walked by. It was Mr. Kaelin, after all, who let Mr. Park in.
Mr. Kaelin's out there looking for who made these noises back there. To his bewilderment, he sees a limo driver out here, and he lets the driver in.
Now, Mr. Simpson doesn't know that 'cause he's scrambling to get his stuff together.
Kaelin lets Park in. Park drives in. Kaelin's here.
Simpson comes downstairs.
And then Kaelin goes to offer to pick up this bag which he sees behind the Bentley. And Simpson says no, no, no, I'll get it, and he overtakes Kaelin who's about to get it. And he goes and gets it himself.
He puts that bag in the back seat of the limousine when he goes and leaves the property.
At the airport, he takes that bag and he puts it in his big golf bag. And Mr. Baker demonstrated to you how big that golf bag is. And you can put things in there, that travel bag.
Now, the last time that bag was seen, that bag behind the Bentley, was when it was put into that golf travel bag at the airport. It has never been seen again.
And Mr. Simpson produced that bag in court. Or he says it's this bag.
This was the bag he said (indicating to bag). This was the bag behind the Bentley. This was the bag he was running to get. The bag with all the new tags on it. Someone made a mistake and forgot to take them off.
Well, we showed this bag to Kato Kaelin and we showed it to Alan Park, and we said is this the bag that evening that you went to get, that Mr. Simpson took into the back seat, that Mr. Simpson put in a golf bag?
They had no reason to lie about anything.
They said, no, it is not. This is not the bag.
This is a ringer bag.
I don't know where the other bag is and we'll he never know.
Mr. Simpson got caught a couple times in lying about his activities when he came downstairs to get in this limousine, and when he was going into the property.
He told this psychiatrist that was working on the defense team, Lenore Walker, back in February of 1995, about his actions and movements that night.
Now, why Lenore Walker, who's a domestic violence counselor, is talking to Mr. Simpson about movements that night, escapes me.
But I asked Mr. Simpson that, and he said -- and he slipped, we were trying to figure out the evening.
Figure out the evening.
Well, back in February of 1995, he told Lenore Walker that when he came downstairs from taking a shower, he walked clear over to this car while Alan Park was still out there and got some golf shoes out of the car and then brought them here to the house.
Now, why did he say that?
Because Mr. Simpson had already heard the testimony of Alan Park in a preliminary hearing that he saw Mr. Simpson go from like the Bentley to the front door where he was standing in -- waiting in the car for Simpson to let him in, saw him go right across the driveway from the Bentley to the front door. And so Mr. Simpson had to come up with a reason why he went out to the Bentley, so he said he was there to get shoes.
He didn't want to admit, of course, that he was coming back from a murder.
Now, when Alan Park testified at the criminal trial, after this meeting Mr. Simpson had with his psychologist, Alan Park drew an X like right around here, around under the W and the A, as literally the first spot he picked up Mr. Simpson walking -- walking into the house, he said he didn't put it here, he didn't put it here, he didn't put it near the Bentley, but he put it here. So he had sort of a slightly different perspective in that testimony.
Now, when Mr. Simpson testified in this case, instead of telling us that he took a shower, came downstairs, went to the Bentley, walked in from the Bentley inside his house, and that's when Alan Park saw him, Mr. Simpson changed his story, 'cause he didn't have to say he went to the Bentley any more, he now only had to come up with the reason why he went this far, rather than this far.
And this looks less guilty, being out here, than it does out here, in the middle of the night, when you're supposed to be getting ready.
So now he changed this story and said, well, I was only coming down to drop some stuff near the golf bag, then I went back inside. It was when I went back inside when Alan Park saw me, not when I was returning from a murder. I was dropping something off between these benches and going back inside.
So originally he went out to the Bentley. Now he changed his story. He only went as far as these benches.
The story changed as he studied the facts, tailored his testimony to what other witnesses were saying. As the other witnesses changed their story, he changed his story with it.
That's what liars do.
Did Mr. Simpson show any genuine concern for this prowler, by the way, when Kaelin told him, look, OJ, there's somebody back there I think, let's go look, I heard these sounds, was it an earthquake? Couldn't have been an earthquake. Nobody felt an earthquake.
Mr. Simpson never asked him to call the security, asked about looking out for his daughter who was coming home that night. He showed no interest in whether there was a prowler on the property because he knew there was no prowler.
Now, he's a very clever guy, a very shrewd guy, very smart guy, but he made mistakes along the way, and finally and eventually they catch up with you.
A good example of this is this golf bag. Okay, this golf bag that Mr. Simpson is so obsessed with.
He gets to Chicago, and his golf bag goes off with Mr. Merrill, a guy he never met before who was picking him up at the airport.
Couple of hours later, Mr. Simpson learns from the police that Nicole was murdered. And he was distraught. Instead of calling for a cab immediately and leaving, he calls Merrill, not once, not twice, not three times, get back here and pick me up and get me to the airport.
This guy lives 30 minutes, 40 minutes away in the suburbs.
You trying to tell me you can't get a cab in 45 minutes?
The second time, Mr. Merrill said, you know, Mr. Simpson, I'm not making good progress, you might consider taking alternative transportation.
No, I want you to come here. He insisted.
As it turned out, Mr. Simpson had to get on that flight. Merrill didn't make it. The golf bag followed on the next flight.
Mr. Simpson comes back to Los Angeles.
Now, the next day is Tuesday, June 14, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Simpson goes to his office that morning.
He hasn't even seen his children. They have just lost their mother. Think about that. They just lost their mother. Wouldn't he want to come back and run into their arms? The first thing anybody would do.
Would you worry about collecting yourself first, as he claims, or would you immediately run to be with them, to protect them, to comfort them.
He didn't see them until Tuesday afternoon.
Then the next day they were gone again.
Now, I am not saying this man does not love his children. I am saying this man was so obsessed and immersed with the guilt of what he did, he was trying to scramble every which way to cover his tracks.
There was no time to be with his children.
He was huddling with lawyers.
And when he was huddling with lawyers, Tuesday, June 14, he asked one of them to take him to the airport to go get his golf clubs.
Now, why would a guy who just lost the mother of his children, who possibly never in his life went to the airport to pick anything up -- this is a man who uses limousines and messengers and has servants. He's going to go pick up his golf clubs.
So when I asked him about that, he denied that under oath: I did not ask anyone to pick up my golf clubs. I was out with my lawyer and friend, Robert Kardashian, we were just driving around and happened to be near the airport, and I said, hey, let's stop by and get my golf clubs, why don't we, we're near by.
That's his story, if that makes any sense to you.
But Mr. Kardashian, whose deposition testimony we read in court to you, said he asked me in his office Tuesday morning to go pick up the golf clubs and I said okay and I did.
And the two of them drove off.
Directly impeached by his own lawyer.
Now, we don't know what's in the golf bag. Maybe trace evidence, maybe some blood drops from the night before that he might have been concerned someone could date and figure out when he put the blood on (sic).
Who knows.

MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. There's absolutely no evidence of this.

MR. PETROCELLI: It is not --

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: It is not the conduct, ladies and gentlemen, of an innocent man.
An innocent man doesn't go get his golf clubs before he sees his children.
There's another curious suspicious fact here, ladies and gentlemen.
When he left that airport -- that hotel in Chicago, he was wearing a blue jean outfit, the same outfit he wore when he went to Los Angeles -- excuse me -- when he went to Chicago the night before, blue jean outfit and top.
The man who drove him from the Chicago O'Hare Hotel to the Chicago airport described this blue jean outfit. The man that he sat next to on the plane for four hours -- and by the way, he took notes, this guy. His name is Mark Partridge. We read his testimony.
He said Mr. Simpson had a blue jean outfit on, no socks and kind of loafer shoes.
Mr. Simpson shows up at Rockingham -- gets off that plane and goes to Rockingham, and he's in a completely different outfit now. He's got sneakers, he's got black pants and a white shirt.
Where are the blue jeans?
He had them on on the airplane. He gets off the airplane wearing blue jeans. Where are they? Where's the blue jean outfit? What happened from the time he got off the airplane at LAX until the time he got to Rockingham an hour later?
Now, I asked him all these questions, and of course he said, I didn't have blue jeans on, I had another outfit, I had on the outfit you saw me with when I arrived at Rockingham, I put that outfit on in my hotel room and I never changed.
Well, why did two witnesses say he had a different outfit? Two witnesses who have no reason to lie. In fact, they're your witnesses. You called them. Raymond Kilduff. Mark Partridge. Blue jean outfit.
Where's the blue jeans? They're missing.
Maybe got blood on them. Who knows?
Why's he lying about all these things, ladies and gentlemen?
Why is he lying about the golf clubs? There's nothing suspicious or incriminating about it. Why is he lying?
Why is he lying about the clothing?
Why is he lying about all these things?
Why's he on an airplane, overheard by this man Partridge, his witness, say to the very first man he called on that airplane, Skip Taft, I can't talk now.
Does that sound like something an innocent man would say?
Why is he talking -- why is he telling Partridge all about his love of Nicole, getting into detail. This is a perfect stranger.
Is he trying to convince somebody on the airplane that he's an innocent man.
Why does he know details about the murders? Why did he start talking about two victims in a garden.
How did he know about the garden? There was no testimony anybody told him about the garden.
In fact, he said just the opposite. Nobody would tell him anything. He kept asking. They wouldn't tell him anything.
Made a few mistakes, I guess.
And finally on this subject of his conduct after the murders -- a couple more points, actually.
One is, on the evening of the 13th, when he went back to his house again, instead of being with his children, he had a whole bunch of people there, sort of all looking at the TV screen, three TV's going on at once. I guess doing a little damage control.
And Kato Kaelin comes back that night. They asked him to come back. They specifically asked him to come back. Howard Weitzman and Mr. Simpson made a telephone call to Mr. Kaelin.
He came -- comes back to Rockingham on the evening of Monday, June 13, and he gets in there. A few minutes later, he's in the kitchen alone with OJ Simpson. And OJ Simpson says to Kato Kaelin, you saw me go in the house after McDonald's, didn't you, Kato?
No, I didn't, OJ, I didn't see you go in the house.
That's what Kato Kaelin testified to. Simpson trying to make an alibi, obviously.
Now, later that week, Mr. Simpson was informed, Friday, to be specific, that he was going to be arrested for a double murder, murdering Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
And Mr. Simpson took off. He fled. He split with his good buddy, Al Cowlings. And he claims he was suicidal and he was going to Nicole's grave to kill himself.
Well, let me talk a little bit about that.
First of all, why is it that he only leaves the moment he's going to be arrested? Why didn't he go the night before? Why didn't he kill himself on Tuesday, or on Wednesday, or on Thursday? Why Friday, when the police are on their way to get him?
That's number one.
Number two, why does he have a passport and money and a disguise? Why did he have anything, except maybe a gun if he wanted to kill himself? Why did he go and grab a bag to go into the car to go kill himself?
He says, well, it had some pictures in there.
Why didn't he just take the pictures out? Why did he take the whole bag?
Why is there a passport in there? He says it's always in there.
Well, we read you the testimony of his girlfriend, Ms. Barbieri, who spent nights there with him that week, and she said, no, I saw the passport on the bedside table.
So that means Mr. Simpson had to take it off the bedside table and put it in his bag.
Something he denies.
Who knows what he was going to do, but is this the conduct of an innocent man? Does an innocent man flee?
Maybe Mr. Simpson didn't know what he was going to do. But he knew one thing. He knew if he stuck around and the police got there, he'd be going to jail and he might never get out, he might spend the rest of his life in jail for killing two people. That's what he knew. And that's why he took off. Because he didn't know what else to do. He had run out of time and that's why he split.
Now he comes here and says, no, I was going to kill myself over the loss of Nicole. The very same Nicole that he said he didn't want to have anything to do with. Did you hear him talk for four hours? He didn't want to have anything to do with Nicole any more. She was out of his life. He didn't like what she was up to, so he got out of the mix, as he likes to say.
He dumped her. She didn't dump me. He's real big about that. You heard him go on and on about that.
So he claims to have rejected this woman as early as May 10. Yet he's going to kill himself now because she's dead.
He's going to orphan his two small children. He's going to orphan -- he's got four children. He's going to orphan two of them to go kill himself. Who does that? What kind of innocent man does that? Not even 50 years old, everything to live for. Does that make any sense?
Whether he's fleeing the police, whether he's going to pull the trigger, whatever he's doing, it shows one thing, that he is not innocent, but he's guilty of killing two people. That's what it shows.
And this suicide note, what kind of suicide note is that, ladies and gentlemen?
There's not one word of sorrow expressed in that note for Nicole. Is that extraordinary or what?
Who signs a suicide note with a happy face?
Did you see that note?
It's signed "OJ," with a smiling "O." Does that show you how obsessed he is with his image.
Now, he's going to come in here and tell us all about police frame-ups and conspiracies and fraudulent photos.
And I read you the transcript of the telephone call that he had with Detective Tom Lange, a man who Mr. Simpson accuses of perjury now and felonies and conspiring to frame him, planting of evidence, lying, getting other police officers to lie.
And you know who Tom Lange is? Tom Lange is the man who saved OJ Simpson's life. That's who Tom Lange is.
Tom Lange is the man who pleaded with Mr. Simpson while he was in that Bronco, apparently with a gun, pleaded with him not to kill himself, not to pull the trigger, throw the gun out, don't hurt yourself, and got him to drive, finally, home.
And but for Tom Lange of the Los Angeles Police Department, OJ Simpson might not be here today.
And do you know what OJ Simpson said to Tom Lange?
Did he say in outrage, why did you frame me? Why did you conspire against me? Why did you plant evidence? Why is my blood there? How did that glove get there? Why aren't you out looking for the real killer who did this to my Nicole? Did he say any of that? He did not.
What did he say? I'm sorry that I did this to the police department. Hey, you've been a good guy, too, man. Thank you. Let me tell you, I know you're doing your job, you've been honest with me right from the beginning, I appreciate that.
That's what he said to Tom Lange.
And then perhaps he came as close as he ever will to accepting responsibility for what he did in murdering two people, two innocent people, when he said to Tom Lange, I'm the only one that deserves it.
And that's in the transcript before you.
I'm the only one that deserves it.
Is it conceivable that an innocent man would ever utter those words?
Is this a good time, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I'll see counsel at bench.

THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter, Judge?

THE COURT: No.

(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)

THE BAILIFF: Quiet, please. Quiet.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to turn to a different subject now.
We've shown you with overwhelming evidence, physical evidence and other evidence, that Mr. Simpson, to a certainty, committed these murders, ladies and gentlemen. The physical evidence cannot be explained as absolutely conclusive and overwhelming.
We talked about his guilty conduct afterwards, his lies, his opportunity to commit the murders.
Now I would like to discuss a little bit about motive.
What is motive?
You talk about motive, you usually talk about why did somebody do it, what was their reason, did they have a reason.
Let me make clear that under the law, we don't have to prove motive. We have no legal requirements to prove motive.
We can stop right now.
But I'm going to talk a little bit about motive for a couple of reasons.
Number one, you're going to hear a lot about motive from Mr. Simpson. He's going to talk to you about that he never had a motive, and we heard a lot from him on the witness stand about he had no animosity towards Nicole and there was nothing going on between them and he would have no reason to harm her.
The other reason is because there was a motive here and there was evidence of motive, and we think we should get out all the information on the table for you, ladies and gentlemen, so you'll have the benefit of it all, so you should know what was happening in the relationship between this man and Nicole Brown Simpson in the last weeks and days of her life that caused this man to do what he did to her.
Now, we don't know all the -- we don't know the whole story and we never will. In any relationship, two people are involved. One of them is dead and is not here to tell her side of the story. And the other one is not telling the truth.
But even so, we have a pretty clear picture of what was happening in this relationship near the end and why this man was driven to lose control one night, snap, and do what he did.
And I'd like to talk to you a little bit about that.
You have to understand, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Simpson's relationship with Nicole from day one was always a turbulent relationship. This was one of those classic love-hate relationships. Can't live with her. Can't live without her.
He told the police on June 13, when they asked him about his relationship with Nicole, he said, it was always a problem relationship.
Those are his words.
I've always had problems with her. Our relationship has been a problem relationship.
And we gave you a flavor of that as best as we could, about how she could press his buttons and he could press her buttons.
And when he got upset in this relationship, what did he do? He hit her. He lashed out and hit her. And he hit her time and time again, ladies and gentlemen.
This goes on in the privacy of one's home, and there are not normally witnesses to these things.
And, of course, when one of them gets beaten to death and the other one's not telling the truth, it's almost impossible to know the full depth of what happened. But we saw a few glimpses of it. We had a few witnesses who managed to see things in public, the one woman, India Allen, who saw Mr. Simpson slap Nicole in the parking lot. Another time, she got slapped on the beach.
And, of course, in 1989, it was so bad, the police came out. I'm not going to get into those details with you. Mr. Kelly's going to tell you about those details.
I just want you to have the picture. This was a relationship characterized by violence when Mr. Simpson lost control and got upset. Not all the times did he hit Nicole, but if he didn't hit Nicole, he hit something else: Take a baseball bat to a windshield, knock down a door. This is a guy who lashes out with his hands when he loses control.
And when he lost control on the evening of June 12 and lashed out, he had a knife in his hand. And that's why Nicole is not with us. That's why Ron Goldman is not with us.
This was a yo-yo relationship for Mr. Simpson. Nicole left him. She was heartbroken. You'll hear a little bit more about that from Mr. Kelly.
Some of her private writings will show her state of mind, the depth of her feelings.
She left Mr. Simpson in early 1992, and he was heartbroken, and he tried everything he could to get her back, to prevent her from leaving, including walking over to her house at night when she was with other men, saw Nicole one night -- went over to the house uninvited and looked into a window for ten seconds, knowing she was with another man, having seen them at a restaurant.
This is how obsessed he was with trying to get her back.
Finally, he moves on and gets involved with this woman named Paula Barbieri. Nicole has moved on in her life.
And wouldn't you know it, the following year -- now we're into 1993 -- after the divorce, Nicole wants to try to put her family back together.
That's not atypical of a woman in her situation, is it? Father of her two children, a man that, in some ways, she could never stop loving, despite all the pain and all the hurt.
She had some therapy. She figured maybe this can work again for the benefit of the family. And she went back to Mr. Simpson and asked him if they could put their relationship back together. And after a couple of months, they agreed they would do so.
And they started a one-year trial period of dating one another again, in the hopes of maybe they'd get remarried, move back in, and be a happy family, maybe for the first time ever.
And that one-year reconciliation attempt, until -- roughly from about May of 1993 to May of 1994, even that one-year period had its ups and downs, even when both sides or both parties were trying to put it together, even though it was difficult.
Even then, the police had to come out. They came out on October 25, 1993, when Nicole called 911 because Mr. Simpson was, once again, enraged at her and out of control.
Now, he didn't kill her that night; he killed her eight months later. He didn't kill her that night. Of course, she was on the phone right away, and had protection, she had a 911 operator. Kato Kaelin was in the house. He had to control himself. And ultimately, the police came out, and he did.
But he kicked the door down and broke it.
You heard Nicole's trembling voice on the 911 tape, how afraid she was.
And Mr. Simpson said no, she wasn't; she wasn't afraid at all; she was lying.
By the way, you heard the tape of the officer who tried to keep it low profile: We don't want to make a big deal out of this, OJ; we want to keep this down, quiet. They bent over backwards, the police department, to their fault, to protect this guy.
He never had a negative experience in his life with the Los Angeles Police Department, except for this one guy in 1989 that came out to the house when Nicole got beaten. He came out there, and Mr. Simpson got into an argument. Outside that argument with that one officer, he never had a negative experience with anybody of the Los Angeles Police Department. They had a rosey relationship with him; they adored him; they were at his house getting autographs, memorabilia signed. He was the All-American guy.
And he wants you now to believe that they framed him.
So they let this incident blow over.
And Nicole and OJ Simpson, around the beginning of 1994, things started working out. And you heard Mr. Simpson say that in April of 1994, he had such a great weekend with Nicole in Cabo San Lucas, where they vacationed, and back in Los Angeles, that he decided that this might work out after all. Nicole might be able to now move back; we'll get remarried -- that's the idea here -- and be a family again.
And he even went so far as to call up Nicole's mother, Judy Brown, and tell her that: You know, Judy, I think your daughter and I are going to make it this time. I think it's now going to work.
Just -- just when he's feeling that way, feeling that good, ready to have Nicole move back in with him, ready to be a family again, what happens? The yo-yo. All of a sudden, Nicole didn't want to commit to him anymore.
He can't get any positive response from her.
Who knows what was going through her mind? She was obviously having difficulty making this last, final commitment to this man to move back in his house, and marry him. And so relations began to get strained.
Mr. Simpson says of Nicole, one day she was nice, the next day she wasn't. They'd go out, she was great; the next time, she wasn't.
He, of course, blames it all on her, like there's something wrong with her. He even said she was going have a nervous breakdown. It's all her fault. It's all her weird problems, not my fault. I'm normal. Something's wrong with Nicole.
That's his spin on everything.
Of course, Nicole got double pneumonia. Maybe that's why she was shaking one night when they were supposed to go out.
But he puts his whole spin on this, that this was all Nicole's not -- not being grounded in reality anymore, just losing it. That's what he would like you to understand and believe.
In reality, Nicole did not want to commit to this man just when he wanted that commitment, and he could not accept it.
That's what was happening near the end of this relationship.
You have to understand something in this area of motive. Mr. Simpson likes to talk about it a lot; he spent a good part of his testimony talking about it. You know why?
Because he can say anything he wants. He can say anything he wants and does say anything he wants.
She is not here to tell her side of the story.
He can lie, lie, lie, lie. And he does.
It's a little harder with physical evidence: With blood, with hair, with fiber, with shoes. But in this motive issue, you know, it feels good: Hey, I can sell this story.
This relationship deteriorated near the end because Nicole Brown Simpson did not want to commit to this man again.
And he retaliated.
He retaliated, ladies and gentlemen. He was angry he was upset. What did he do?
He tried to force the issue. He goes up to her house on the 22nd of May, after they had held this picnic over at their home, and he was upset with Nicole cause she had come to the house that day with close to two or three hundred people. She was acting like she's his wife, went upstairs and slept in his room, and -- like everything is normal.
And he couldn't handle this, either. You're in or you're out. Either you're in or you're out. And he forced Nicole to make a decision that night when he went over to her house on May 22.
Nicole said, I'm out.
How do we know she said that?
She wrote it down. She wrote what her state of mind was.
"We've officially will split up," she wrote in her diary.
She gave OJ Simpson back very expensive earrings, expensive bracelet. That was it. May 22, 1994.
Three weeks later, she is dead.
What does OJ Simpson do after this day, May 22?
Meanwhile, by the way, seeing things aren't going too well with Nicole, he calls up his old flame, Paula Barbieri, tries to bring her back into his life, maybe as a security blanket or something, but there's a problem: He broke Paula's heart when he left her to go back with Nicole when they tried to reconcile. Now he's trying to bring Paula back in, and she doesn't want to be back in unless Mr. Simpson is finally, once and for all, free of Nicole.
And guess what? He's not.
You heard how they went off to Palm Springs. And May 28, May 29, a couple weeks before Nicole's death -- you heard that testimony -- they had a fight, and Paula left.
Mr. Simpson said it was about golf.
I put on the witness stand here, a woman named Donna Estes, a friend of Mr. Simpson's. She had no reason to come in here and lie. She said Mr. Simpson -- said Paula and he fought over Nicole. Paula asked him point blank, do you still love Nicole? Simpson said yes, I do.
She left.
He talked about Nicole all night at dinner to this Donna Estes, his friend, and he talked all day on the golf course about Nicole to his other friend, Jackie Cooper he plays golf with and tennis with.
Hey, these are his friends; these aren't my friends; these aren't Nicole's friends. These are his friends. They came in here and they testified under oath -- they had nothing to lie about -- they said all he was talking about at Palm Springs that Memorial Day weekend was Nicole, Nicole, Nicole.
And he told you just the opposite: He wasn't talking about her at all, because he doesn't want you to think that he had any kind of lingering bond, any kind of emotional attachment. He wants to you think that he severed it -- he severed it early in May, so that you won't believe he had any animosity and motive. That's why you're hearing this story. He knows what's he's doing.
When Nicole gave him back that bracelet and those earrings and said that was it, what did Mr. Simpson do?
Well, he resorted to a little economic leverage. He wrote a letter -- dictated a harsh letter to Nicole, telling her that she had to -- she was going to get in trouble with the IRS unless she paid 70, 80 thousand dollars, which was all she had in a savings account.
Why is he doing that?
And he writes it to -- gives it to his lawyer, and guess what?
Put that Skip Taft thing up.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

What do you think his lawyers said when he got that letter? (Indicating to Elmo screen.)
Mr. Taft got -- Mr. Simpson drafted the letter to Nicole May 26, 1994.
Now, four days after this official break-up on May 22, Mr. Taft, Skip -- you remember him -- "made changes you wanted, but did not get, revengeful." Took Mr. Simpson's harsh letter and changed it, made sure it wasn't revengeful.
Now, of every single world in the English language, why is Mr. Taft picking out the word "revengeful"?
Why is revenge even mentioned in this letter?
Well, it's obvious why. Because Mr. Simpson's initial letter must have smacked of hatred and revenge, retaliation. And Mr. Taft toned it down.
And by the way, when he toned it down, Mr. Simpson wasn't satisfied, and he had it beefed up again.
And the final version of that letter went out on June 6, 1994, telling Nicole that she had to change her address; that she could be getting in trouble from misleading the IRS. He knew how Nicole would feel about that.
He knew. He knew how she was feeling. And he delivered on a threat by sending that letter.
He tried to tell you on the witness stand that there was, in his words, no animosity between Nicole and him near the end.
Now, why did he say that in response to Mr. Baker's questions?
Because he doesn't want to you think he had any kind of a reason to be upset with Nicole. He said no animosity.
Well, you want to see what Nicole's state of mind was? Put up the diary entry, 6/3.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Her last written words -- First of all, put up -- put up May 22. May 22, 1994.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

MR. PETROCELLI: What exhibit is this?

MR. FOSTER: 735.

MR. PETROCELLI: Exhibit 735. And you should take a very close look at these. These are the words that Nicole left behind. And these words, like so many other things, speak from the grave. Mr. Simpson can say all he wants, but these are Nicole's words, not his.
And she says in here, "We've officially split, May 22, 1994." Goes on to talk about the arrangement for the children.
The reason is, Nicole thought they could be civil about this and still deal with their children, as a loving father and a loving mother would, despite their inability to reconcile.
And she's even encouraging him to be with the children there.
And then she talks about a blow-up on May 28 or thereabouts, with Cora Fischman. And let's go to June 3.

(Indicating to Elmo.)
(Mr. Foster adjusts Elmo.)

June 3, nine days before her murder, OJ Simpson says no animosity. Three days after this letter -- after this entry, OJ sends this IRS letter. Can you get the IRS letter out.

(Mr. Foster complies, displays document on Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: OJ came to pick up the kids -- this is a Friday night -- 8:30 p.m. They wanted to stay home because I let them organize sleep-overs. At last minute, thought daddy wasn't coming. Told OJ I'd drop them off first thing in the morning. He said okay.
Then, quote, "You hung up on me last night. You're going to pay for this, bitch. You're withholding money from IRS. You're going to jail, you fucking cunt. You think you can do any fucking thing you want. You've got it coming. I've already talked to my lawyers about this, bitch."
Go ahead, Steve.

(Mr. Foster adjusts the document on the Elmo screen.)

MR. PETROCELLI: "They'll get you for tax evasion, bitch. I'll see to it. You're not going to have a fucking dime left, bitch," et cetera.
"This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend, Allegra was being dropped off. They may have already walked into the house. I'm not sure if they heard all or any of this. I just turned around and walked away."
This is OJ Simpson's -- OJ Simpson's response to this when I asked him on the witness stand, ladies and gentlemen, was that everything in these two pages was true, except what Nicole recounted on that June 3 entry. Everything else is true, but the things she said about OJ Simpson, he says, are not true.
And he said, to use his words, they are a pack of lies.
Imagine saying that of the mother of your children as she lays in her grave: A pack of lies.
And following through on his threat, sure enough, June 6, three days later, he sends this letter, where he tells Nicole how he cannot take part in any course of action that might intentionally or whatever -- what's the purpose of sending that letter?
Because of the change in our circumstances or -- obviously referring to the fact that they're not going to be together again; that's the change in their circumstances: They're not going to be together again, so I'll show you.
And you heard the testimony of one of Mr. Simpson's good friends. A real reluctant guy came in here, named Ron Fischman, a doctor.
He said when Nicole got this letter, she was devastated and crying in his kitchen, and she said, can you believe he would do this to the mother of his children? Could you believe he could do this to his children?
And the rest of that week, Nicole wanted nothing more -- this was the last straw for her -- she wanted nothing to do with this guy, and there was no contact anymore. Not because he was avoiding her, because she wouldn't have anything to do with him, who would go so far to retaliate against her by sending letter like that, that forced her to either come up with the -- all the money she had or move out of her apartment -- her condo.
Those were the two choices. She had to come up with 70, 80 thousand dollars or move out, because he wrote this letter.
No contact that week. She wants nothing to do with him.
And tomorrow morning, we'll talk about the recital. Your Honor. . .

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, 8:30 tomorrow morning. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.