Summations
O.J. Simpson
JANUARY 22, 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
| FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: | Daniel M. Petrocelli, ESQ., Thomas Lambert, ESQ., Peter Gelblum, ESQ., and Edward Medvene, ESQ., John Quinlan Kelly, ESQ. (Goldman) Michael A. Brewer, ESQ. (Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson) Paul F. Callan, ESQ. (Rufo) |
| FOR THE DEFENDANTS: | Robert C. Baker, ESQ., Melissa Bluestein, ESQ., Philip Baker, ESQ. Daniel Leonard, ESQ. Robert D. Blasier, ESQ. |
DEFENDANT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, Counsel, your wonderful support staff that has served us so ably, and Gina, and Erin, Tess, Vicky, they've made a grueling ordeal for all of the lawyers, my colleagues, my adversaries, and myself, something that we could endure for these months, and we thank you all.
And, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for being here. I know my adversaries have done that, but it is giving up something, it is giving up part of your lives, to spend four months here in the courtroom everyday, get picked up, get transported into the van, and be here, and be attentive and take notes.
It's your duty to do it as American citizens. There's no question about that.
But it is indeed, our thanks from all of us.
Now, you know, since the beginning of recorded time, human beings have sought a way to find justice in our country, before even the Constitution we adopted the English jury system. They've let it go a little bit because they don't try civil trials by jury, but we still do. You still, as jurors, get to decide the facts, filter it through the law, and more importantly, filter it through your own common sense.
So that it is, in fact, justice by the people. It is, in fact, a jury of peers of the persons that are litigating whatever happens to be the subject at issue.
Now, any one of us, all the people in the gallery, can go down to the first floor of this building, and for about $200, file a lawsuit, and they can charge somebody else, another human being, or a corporation, with malfeasance, doing something wrong, and seek to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions of dollars. That's an enormous privilege we have as citizens and non-citizens of this country.
But with that enormous and awesome privilege that is granted to us comes the burden of proof. And the burden of proof is that the person bringing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs, they must prove to you that they're entitled to your verdict. And they must do that to your satisfaction because they have this burden. They get to argue after myself and my colleague, Bob Blasier, sit down.
They get the last word, and so I want to discuss that with you right at the outset for a moment.
You'll recall, Mr. Petrocelli, in opening statement, told you in a very emotional fashion that this was Fred Goldman's last chance to fight for justice.
That's what he told you.
And then almost no sooner than those words had been spoken, then every witness who got on the stand, they attempted to limit their testimony so we have to bring them back.
Justice?
Why? Why didn't they want you to hear?
For example, why did Vannatter come up here to this witness stand and testify about one thing when they brought him on the stand? One thing.
And that was the blood that he put in an envelope, put it, he says, in a car, and took it to Rockingham.
That's all he testified about.
We had to bring him back.
He was the lead detective on the whole investigation. And similarly, it's very, very interesting, you've sat here, as you have for the last two days, and I have listened, I think, dutifully to the remarks of my adversaries, and I didn't hear one word about police malfeasance.
That has been in this case since before the criminal case even began trial.
Did you hear one word about it?
Did you hear one mention of EDTA?
We've had witness after witness come up here and talk about what the police did. We have cross-examined police officer after police officer, and I'll talk about that in a few minutes, and they contradict each other, and they lie, they lie from the witness stand, and you know, you've got to ask yourself when Mr. Blasier and I sit down, and Mr. Petrocelli gets up to rebut, are they attempting to sandbag the defendants?
Are they attempting to not -- ignore a huge, huge issue in the case so that they can get up, argue that issue knowing full well that I will not have the opportunity, nor will Mr. Blasier, to address you.
It's called sandbagging. It's an old art.
And if, in fact, Mr. Petrocelli gets up and starts talking about his version of why the police conduct is exemplary -- I mean, he's told you in this courtroom, he said there is absolutely no evidence of planting. He said there's no evidence of corruption. There is no evidence of tampering. There is nothing wrong with the evidence.
And we will demonstrate to you that there is an immense amount wrong with the evidence. And that's their burden of proof; they have to prove that evidence is reliable so you can base your verdict on it.
They talk about results of tests.
And as you know, what we talked about is contamination before the tests are ever done.
It doesn't matter if Mr. Petrocelli says that the blood was collected before Mr. Simpson's blood vial was even taken.
What did they do with that blood after they picked it up at Bundy?
That's the question that you're going to have to answer. That's the issue.
There are a lot of other issues and we'll take them one at a time.
Now, there are, ladies and gentlemen, an immense amount of people who want to see my client found responsible. They want to see you render a verdict that Mr. Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. And I'm not just including the plaintiffs. I'm including those people on either side. I'm including the media, because, ladies and gentlemen, if, in fact, you find him not responsible, the gravy train is over.
The case is over. It's not in the news everyday. It is gone.
And so I bring this up because I think it's important. I think it's important because if you have channel surfed at all, if you have even glanced at the headline, you might ask yourself, as I have when I have seen some of the nonsense that has been put out by the media, was I in the same courtroom with these people?
They're all intelligent.
MR. PETROCELLI: I object. This is all outside the record.
THE COURT: It's argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: By definition, it's outside the record.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
You have all told us that you will not allow the media to affect your judgment. And I have no reason to disbelieve you at all.
And you have also told us that you will listen with an open mind to police misconduct in this case. It is all over the place. And I will show it to you, and Mr. Blasier will show it to you, and we will demonstrate it for you.
We will not ignore it as Mr. Petrocelli, Kelly, and Brewer did. It's not going to go away because they don't want to talk about it. It's here. It's in this case.
And at the conclusion, we'll ask you if you think if that conduct is appropriate by certain members of LAPD.
And this, as has been said before by somebody a lot smarter than I am, to sit on this jury you can't be faint of heart, but it is your duty, it is your responsibility to listen to the evidence, to base your verdict on the evidence that you hear, the laws as the Judge gives it to you, and your common sense. What makes sense.
And we'll get into that.
Now, one of the things that you cannot -- anymore than you can put any media influence into your decision, you cannot put sympathy, passion, or prejudice into your verdict.
The Judge will instruct you that that is forbidden. That's not what we're here about.
And you have just been subjected to a ploy for your sympathy. You know, I was kind of amazed that Mr. Petrocelli had to bring up myself and my son. I was kind of amazed that he had to do that.
I can tell you this, ladies and gentlemen, I would have a terrible time if I lost him. But I wouldn't ever take $450,000 for a book, I wouldn't ever prosecute an innocent man. That would never happen.
Now, I think that you have gotten the flavor of this case over the four months. It's law enforcement versus O.J. Simpson. There's no doubt about it. They're linked at the hip, or any other place you want to join them.
You know, it is amazing to me because I've been doing this since 1971, and I've always believed in the justice system, and I've always respected the justice system, and I always felt that if you respect something, an entity or something, you will get that respect in return.
And then comes along this case, and I see where the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department give away thousands upon thousands of dollars of their services.
For what?
To assist a private litigant. To assist Mr. Goldman in getting a judgment against my client.
Is that fair?
Is that what this is all about? They have him pulled up in their suite across the street for days, and the FBI, they don't do civil cases. Bodziak comes out here twice. You and I pay for it. My client pays for it.
Is that fair?
No.
We have to go out -- we can't even get a police officer in this courtroom without subpoenaing him. They get a phone call from him; I'm ready, willing, and able to come over an sit in your suite and chat about this thing. That's Matheson, after Dennis Fung was on the line.
Is this a level playing field?
No. No, it's not a level playing field. The FBI and the LAPD don't want a level playing field.
And they've done a pretty good job of making everybody available that they can. I mean, think of it. Think. They could just -- for example, Deedrick comes in and testifies about hair and fiber evidence.
And Bob Blasier will get into that with you in some detail.
And he -- on examination by Dan Leonard, he says it is subjective and you have to maintain neutrality because you can taint the outcome.
And then Dan asked him, well, don't you have a photograph of Fred Goldman and Kim Goldman with your arms around them in your office?
Yes.
How did you know that? He wouldn't have disclosed that.
How do you know that? That's his question. And then the next question, as I recall, was any other family of a victim that you have ever had a photograph in your office of?
No.
But I'm independent, you know. I flew out here from Washington paying my bill. You, the taxpayers, are paying my bill, but I'm unbiased.
Well, you can call a stallion a cow, but you can't get milk from it. He can call himself unbiased, but it isn't so.
Now, I'm sure that you have seen some of the testimony, observed the witnesses, and observed their demeanor; the way they testify from this witness stand.
You can make your own judgments as to the credibility of these people, as to whether or not, ladies and gentlemen, the plaintiffs' attorneys have twisted, expanded the witnesses to fit within the story that they want to be fit.
For example, Dennis Fung, he was on the witness stand; he says, I don't even know if this is the glove that I picked up at Bundy.
Boy, within three days he was back here and his testimony was totally different.
Take Kato Kaelin. And we'll go through the chronology. Kato Kaelin testifies in the criminal trial 10:40 the thumps, solid at 10:40.
Rachel Ferrara, his girlfriend, on the phone with him, solid at 10:40, come in here, that doesn't fit their time line.
So Kato's been over there, and he now has a different version of not only the time of the thumps, but what the thumps were.
Preliminary hearing, grand jury, criminal trial (Mr. Baker knocks on witness stand with fist) -- here he says it's kind of a rolling thump, like a guy on his back hitting the wall. That's after he spent eight hours with Mr. Petrocelli.
I don't know, ladies and gentlemen, there's something -- as Henry Lee said, there's something wrong.
Now, this isn't -- this isn't a fight for justice.
It's a fight for money.
It's a fight for the verdict.
It's a fight for your verdict, and you're allowing and having Mr. Simpson transfer dollars to Mr. Goldman. That's what it's all about.
We'll talk about the other two plaintiffs in a few minutes.
But let's go back and discuss, if we can, a couple of enormous gaping holes in the plaintiffs' case.
And to hear Mr. Petrocelli talk about it, they have conclusively proved that OJ Simpson murdered those two people. I had to sit down. They don't need a preponderance of the evidence. They've produced it by 100 percent, there is no room for doubt. It is beyond reasonable doubt. We have conclusively proved that OJ Simpson is the killer.
Well, let's chat about that for a little bit.
Let's talk about motive.
You do not kill two human beings if you are OJ Simpson or Bob Baker or anybody else without motive. Doesn't happen.
Mr. Petrocelli gets up here and he says OJ Simpson was in a rage. He was in a blind rage.
But he didn't tell you why.
Kelly gets up here, does his bit on the character assassination, misrepresents some things that we'll go into, and tells you that it's a rage killing.
What caused the rage?
You've heard a couple of explanations. They are as fallacious as anything I have ever heard.
OJ was in a blinding rage that would cause him, after getting a hamburger with Kato Kaelin, to run down in his Bronco, after changing into dress socks and $300 shoes, and kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, in the biggest white elephant that's been made, the Ford Bronco.
Mr. Kelly -- or Mr. Petrocelli says he doesn't have an alibi. He wasn't seen. He wasn't seen between 9:30 to 10:55. And he does it with his righteous indignation, ladies and gentlemen. He wasn't seen, he wasn't seen in the Bronco, he wasn't seen on Bundy, he wasn't seen careening through Brentwood, he wasn't seen anywhere.
Now, which is more logical to assume?
He would, as a bachelor, not be seen while he's in his house. Or under the scenario they have, which we'll go into in detail, not be seen while careening at 60 miles an hour down San Vicente so he could get to his house because he knew he had a limo driver coming, and of course he was in such a blind rage that he had to kill his wife that night and he had to do it that night, knowing full well he was going to Chicago.
It doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't make any sense.
And you have to filter these facts through your common sense.
Now, let's think about what we've witnessed in the last four months in this case.
We have witnessed a character assassination. They want you to believe that OJ Simpson's a bad person.
Kelly talks about not knowing his client and would like to, and one of the greatest things about practicing law is knowing your client.
Well, I agree with that.
And I know my client very well.
Never happened.
MR. PETROCELLI: He's vouching, Your Honor. I admonish the jury.
MR. BAKER: We had all of that from him.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. There's a pending objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Now, how did they paint -- well, let me put it this way. How did they attempt to paint a picture that this man killed two people?
They attempted to paint the picture by bringing in five incidences which occurred in their scenario from 1983 to 1993. And each one of these incidences they want you to weigh as Mr. Simpson being a time bomb, ready to go off.
And let's talk about the India Allen thing. My god.
I mean, you know, if you want your 15 minutes of fame, ladies and gentlemen, be a witness in this case. You can get photographed going out of the hotel with these guys, you'll be photographed going back in. You'll be on national television. You can go on national television for the next two days.
And India Allen -- I mean, think about it in terms of realty. If, in fact, that had ever occurred outside a veterinary where she says OJ slapped Nicole, if that had ever occurred, didn't India Allen have some obligation to report that to the police?
She had witnessed an assault on another human being.
Why didn't she report it to the police?
There's no police report.
Why wasn't she at the criminal trial?
Oh, she says, I didn't think that -- by the time, you know, it came really to mind, I didn't think that the judge would let it in.
Give me a break.
And here's the woman who says I don't want publicity, I don't want publicity. I mean this woman wanted publicity more than anybody. I don't know how you pose that way -- with me it doesn't pay to advertise so I keep my clothes on -- I don't know how you could do that and then come into this court and say I didn't want publicity, and go right out on television.
And that's what happened.
And why would -- OJ says Nicole never wore a fur coat in the daytime. And that makes sense. Why wear a fur coat in the daytime. Why wear a headband? She said gold spandex. OJ says she didn't have gold spandex.
So that's their first incident.
I would suggest to you that's a non-event, or the police would have been notified and Mr. Simpson would have had some criminal penalty to pay, as well he should had he ever done it, but he did not.
But she did get her 15 minutes of fame.
And then, ladies and gentlemen, we move on to Mr. Aguilar.
Now, Mr. Aguilar is an interesting, interesting fellow.
He gave a police report in the criminal trial. Police report says July 3 or July 4, I think it was '87, '88 -- no, I'm sorry, '86, '87.
Didn't have a clear recollection of it.
Then he testifies in the custody hearing in Orange County.
Comes up here --
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Your Honor, not supposed to have references to that.
MR. BAKER: I think -- I disagree with that.
THE COURT: Counsel, we well refrain from any comments with regard to what was said in Orange County.
MR. BAKER: I won't.
Comes up here and has to testify differently from the statement that he gave the D.A. 'cause down there or the statement he says 3rd or 4th of July.
OJ Simpson isn't -- he's not in Laguna on the 3rd or 4th of July. He's not in Victoria Beach. He's running a softball tournament that he runs annually.
So they had to cover that some way so they had to move the date.
And it makes no sense.
The guy's in the water, but he hears stuff, and he sees stuff, and he doesn't see stuff, and it's a crowded beach, Victoria Beach, he said no, he heard Mr. Simpson he lived there and that never happened.
But that's here for one reason, and that's to make you, ladies and gentlemen, dislike this man so you'll render a verdict regardless of the evidence.
And think about it. Think about it for a minute.
Nicole ran every morning with Cora Fischman. She had some real good friends. And she was with these people all the time.
Where were they?
They didn't come in here and talk about stalking and hitting. You didn't see that.
If they can get Matheson and Fung to turn around, they can get any of her friends in this courtroom. And they're not here 'cause they wouldn't testify to what they want you to believe.
And let's talk a little bit about the -- well, I think we've got to talk certainly about the July 18, 1989 event, 'cause this is the linchpin of everything for the plaintiffs.
Now, keep in mind we are talking four and a half years before the murders took place.
But that is the linchpin.
They want to demonize OJ Simpson because of that event.
And they tell you he's in a smoldering rage and he is out of control and he can't be in control.
Let's go back and look at January 1, 1989 with reality and some reason.
You know, when I sat here for days and days and days, I thought this case, because of so much time spent on that, was about the January 1, '89 event. I didn't think it was about the July 12 murders. They've put on more evidence about the January 1, 1989 event than they did about the murders.
You have, for example, not heard one, one mention of how the crimes occurred in the area where they occurred.
You didn't hear that from him.
He has an obligation -- he says he doesn't. If he's going to prove to you that these murders took place and Mr. Simpson did it alone, they have an obligation to go through and tell you how those murders took place.
But they haven't.
Nor did they ever call a criminalist such as Henry Lee to do a crime scene reconstruction.
Never happened.
Now, July 1, '89 -- pardon me. I think I'm getting a little touch of the whatever. With our gray weather here, I think we live in Portland right now.
In any event, July 1, '89 -- I'm sorry, I keep saying July when it's January.
You usually correct me.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not going to correct you this time.
MR. BAKER: Fair enough.
January 1, 1989, they had gone to a New Year's Eve party. They both had too much to drink.
Nicole accuses OJ of buying Kathryn, her name is Allen now, Marcus Allen's wife, earrings.
He said get her on the phone, call her, I didn't buy them, Marcus bought them, I didn't buy them.
An argument ensues.
There's no excuse for it. I'm not here to condone physical violence among the same sex, much less the opposite sex, and I'm not here to tell you that it should have happened, nor is Mr. Simpson here to tell you it should have happened.
Wrestling ensued.
Did his hand come in contact with her face, or his arm or his elbow? Sure. Something did. Maybe it came in contact with the wall. Something happened. She got injured. She should not have gotten injured. There isn't any question about that.
He's not here to tell you that his actions were okay that night. They were not. They were out of line. And he knew they were out of line.
And he went downstairs and he was still mad.
Did he hit her? No. No.
You know, Mr. Simpson has told -- when the police were there the next day and he was discussing with Officer Ferrell, I believe, the same story as he told you here. From January 2 or 3, 1989, through his deposition, when he testified to his trial -- deposition testimony to his trial testimony --
MR. PETROCELLI: Did he say Ferrell? There was no testimony from Ferrell.
MR. BAKER: I think Mr. Simpson mentioned that.
MR. PETROCELLI: No testimony from that witness.
MR. BAKER: This is what OJ Simpson said to them. I didn't say Mr. Ferrell came in to court and testified to anything.
It's consistent.
Now, does he remember each event that occurred on January 1, 1989? No.
Nobody could. They were both a little inebriated.
But did he follow her outside? Did he push her down? Did she have mud on her sweats because he was outside? Did she fall when she left his bedroom? Yeah. That all happened. And did she wrestle with Mr. Simpson?
Yeah.
But did she have a chance? Absolutely not. Of course she didn't. He's a big, strong man. I will agree with that. That's one of the few things I agree with Mr. Petrocelli. There's no question he is strong, and he was strong in 1989.
And because he's strong, he owed her a higher degree of restraint than he exhibited on January 1, 1989. There can be no doubt about it.
And what did you hear from Mr. Simpson about that incident?
He was disappointed with himself.
Did he minimize it on national television? You bet. Of course he did. I mean he makes his money in being a personality. There's no question about that. We've never dodged that issue in this courtroom. That's what he does.
Did he take procedures to ensure it never happened again? Yeah, he did. He immediately went to counseling. He had his attorney draw up a document that would absolutely wipe out -- vitiate his prenuptial agreement. Could have been worth $5 million. Was never exercised.
He did that. He did that because he felt bad about the incident.
And they went on with life. They went on as a married couple.
And by then, as you're well aware, they had two children by that marriage. Sydney Brooke, born in October of 1985, and Justin, born in August of 1988. And you've heard testimony that their relationship got back together. They did reasonably well as a couple until OJ went back to New York for the 1991 football season.
Comes home, and she wants a separation, and OJ says, basically, no separation, we can get a divorce, because if in fact we get back together, we can cancel the divorce papers, and if we don't, we might as well get it behind us.
So that was the first time in OJ's life and relationship with Nicole that she had not been willing to make a commitment. She wanted to be separated but she did not want to be divorced.
And that kept her her name and it kept her having access to a lot of the benefits that Mr. Simpson enjoyed as a personality at the time.
But that didn't work out because he wanted to go forward and to get the divorce, which was in fact obtained.
And I'd like to talk to you about a few incidents and this blind rage that has no triggering event whatsoever, but just -- according to plaintiffs' version of events, occurred.
Their theory, as explained to you, was there was two possible explanations for this blind rage that caused Mr. Simpson to kill Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman on June 12, 1994. One is that she would not commit, and the other is that she was too possessive with the kids.
You've got to look at those two possible initiations of blind rage under a microscope and under the facts of this case.
And let's start first with what happened in 1992 when OJ gets home and they get separated.
And you heard OJ He was very candid about it. He loved her, he didn't want to lose her, and he pursued her and dated her -- attempted to.
I take it back. He didn't date her. He attempted to.
And so at the opening of the Trieste restaurant, April of 1992, he's there, she's there. They had a deal that one would leave if they went to a restaurant. But they both talked and said it's not necessary. And after the evening's over about 11:30, he goes to her house.
Mr. Kelly, who puts his own spin on everything, says he was snooping around.
He walked up the walkway. She is in the living room with the draperies to the front room wide open, lights on, performing oral sex on this man.
Now, I don't know as a man that you could experience anything quite that devastating. I don't know that there's much more that you could experience that would send most men into a blind rage.
But it didn't happen with OJ Simpson.
He turned, walked back out the gate and pushed the doorbell so that they could know -- whether they heard it or not, who knows -- that they were in full view of the world.
And then he had a conversation the next day with Nicole about it, and she apologized.
Doesn't sound like a man who gets totally out of control in a blind rage and is triggered by a non-event.
Now, I suggested to you in opening statement that Nicole and OJ were confidants. He talked to her. She talked to him. She talked about her men problems. She talked about her pregnancy.
And Mr. Kelly knows there are hospital records confirming that therapeutic --
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, out of the record, referring to things that don't exist and are not in the record.
MR. BAKER: They exist, and you know it.
MR. PETROCELLI: And he should be admonished.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: The jury should be admonished.
MR. BAKER: They --
THE COURT: Jury to disregard that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: You didn't hear anyone come into this courtroom and deny that she had that, except Kelly comes from New York, gets up here, and tells you that it's untrue.
Well, if it was untrue, you would have had somebody in here testifying to the fact that it was untrue. And nobody came in here to testify. And the reason they didn't is because it's true.
But I don't want to make a lot out of that issue.
Mr. Kelly -- Mr. Kelly comes in here and tells you, ladies and gentlemen, that O.J. Simpson -- and Petrocelli comes in here and tells you that O.J. Simpson is trashing Nicole Brown Simpson's name.
We didn't raise these issues. We didn't raise the issue of the incident of '84; we didn't raise the issue of '89. We didn't bring India Allen in here; we didn't bring Aguilar in here; we didn't raise those issues.
But Mr. Simpson has the right and the duty and the obligation to defend himself. And when they raise them, it comes from their mouth to say that Mr. Simpson is trashing Nicole.
It is preposterous. Might make a good sound bite, but it isn't -- it is not fact.
Now, there is simply no discernible motive for Mr. Simpson to have committed these murders.
Think back. And then I'm going to move to another subject about commitment.
She was uncommitted in '91; she was uncommitted on Thanksgiving of '92, when she wouldn't let O.J. have the kids. And then in '93 -- in '93, she --
Well, let's go back to Christmas of '92.
Christmas of '92 is when O.J., after she won't let him have the kids, called his lawyer, said, get an order so that I get my children. After he'd gone to all this trouble to be off on Thanksgiving day, a big day in pro football, she comes -- called up at the last minute, says, I'm not coming for the kids (sic).
He knows about her behavior and he knows how to correct it as it relates to him. And that is, go to a lawyer and get an order for the kids if she's going to try to stonewall with the kids. He knows how to do that; he's already done it. So he did it.
Now, a lot of people might be upset, might be bitter, might be angered at the fact that they had to go get an order, bring the attorneys into the case, get the court to sign to get his children back to New York for Christmas.
She called, upset -- upset she not going to be with the kids. What does O.J. do? He gets her a first-class ticket, come out -- out here and be with your children. That's why he is not this demonized person that they're attempting to paint now.
That's the first time she starts to try to get back to him.
And the March 1993 letter that she hand-delivers to O.J., I think, puts to rest -- this is a letter, ladies and gentlemen, unlike these diaries that you've heard; this is a letter that she wrote and gave to O.J.
Mr. Kelly puts up this Exhibit 732, says "redacted" all over it.
Did you see a date on that?
No date whatsoever. Don't have a clue when that was written.
But we know one thing: It was never given to Mr. Simpson.
We know something else: If there was ever a bicycle incident where there was severe injuries, and it was really a beating, the medical records would have been in this courtroom. We know that.
They weren't.
And we know that Nicole was making writings at an attempt, back in '92, to break the prenuptial agreement because of the letter O.J. had written in February of 1989.
And to her credit -- and I agree with Mr. Kelly, to her credit, she would not have anything to do with it when it came -- push came to shove. She gave her deposition. She didn't mention it when it came time for her to testify at trial. She didn't show up. She wouldn't testify and lie.
And in a -- that's an interesting, you know, divorce.
Well, I, fortunately, have not had the experience.
But that's an interesting time, from what I've learned from my friends and colleagues. That's a time when people really dislike each other and they find ways to dislike each other and they are at each other in ways that no one would have ever imagined at the time of their marital ceremony.
And O.J. and Nicole weren't that way.
Deposition: They'd go out to dinner when he's in the trial for the divorce; he takes her to dinner every night.
And animosity? I don't think so.
And she told him -- you heard him testify, she wouldn't testify to anything relative to any acts that didn't occur, because they didn't occur. And that wasn't her way.
And so, I just want you to understand -- and I'm sure you do -- that by March of 1993 -- we've gone through these incidents, and I may have missed the Mercedes back incident.
I want to talk about that. He is sitting on the back and tapping the hubcap. She is talking about getting married. Her friends are married, and she wants to talk about getting married. And when is the date? And she says, in essence, OJ, you're going to mess up the hubcaps on my car.
He says, I'll pay for it, flings the bat on the windshield, hits it, breaks -- puts a break -- crack in it.
She drives it for two months after that. And -- and he does pay for it. And guess what? A few months later, they're married: February 2, 1985.
But the plaintiffs wants to spin that incident to some violent rage. And who did they bring in here to help them? LAPD Sergeant Mark Day.
LAPD Sergeant Mark Day comes in and tells you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, under oath, under penalty of perjury, that they were dents in the top of that car, there were dents in the side of that car, there were dents in the hood of that car.
And, of course, that car was a convertible; there could be no dents in the top.
Everybody's got to have their 15 minutes of fame. And he came in and lied to you.
And that was simply -- that was simply not a big incident.
And I would be remiss if we didn't talk just briefly about the October 25, 1993 incident, but I first want to get through the letter of March of 1993, because I want you to understand, in the -- in Nicole's own words -- in Nicole's own words, what she thought.
Mr. Kelly told you that she was doing it for the kids. I want you to see what she had to say about that.
And that is, I think, 1161.
(Exhibit 1161 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. BAKER: If it is, it's the first one I've gotten right in four months.
Can you brighten it up a little, please.
(Indicating to Elmo screen.)
(Mr. P. Baker complies.)
MR. BAKER: (Reading:) I always knew that what was going on with us was about me. I just wasn't sure why it was about me, so I just blamed you. I'm the one who was controlling.
Move it up, Phil.
(Mr. P. Baker adjusts the document on the Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: (Reading:) I went through some of my -- some of -- I went through some sort of mid-life crisis, that thirties thing you called it. I never stopped loving you, I stopped liking myself, and lost total confidence in my relationship with you.
I want to be with you. I want to love you and cherish you and make you smile. I want to be the way we used to be. And I can see that we truly loved each other. A love I've never seen in any of our friends. OJ, I want to come home. I want to us to be together again. We can move anywhere, wherever you want. You can stay here. I just never want to leave your side again.
I know I love you and I know I'm in love with you, and I know I want to make love to you, and be with you forever.
She then accompanies this letter with tapes.
(Reading:) We want to come home. We'll be there tomorrow if you'd let us. OJ, you're my one and only true love. I'm sorry for the pain that I have caused you, and I'm sorry we let it die. Let me love you. Please let us be a family again and let me love you better than I ever have before. I'll love you forever and always. Me.
And lo and behold, a happy face.
That's so demonic when Mr. Simpson uses it.
That, I think, describes it all.
OJ was in a relationship with Paula Barbieri at the time, and his life was going quite well. He was doing well financially, had a girlfriend, played golf. He kind of had an idyllic life. And he said to his girlfriend and he said to his mother, that he had to get -- make a determination, if they could get back together, if they would get back together, and if they would be a family.
And so, rather than let her move in, as she wanted to do, the next day, he said: Look, what we'll do is, we'll try this for a year --
Because she said to him -- if you recall his testimony -- she said: Look, every time we get in an argument, you get up and leave.
He said, okay, we'll do it for year. If after a year it works, you and the kids can move in.
And so they tried it. They tried it for a year. And it was during that year that they had the October 25, 1993 incident.
And, you know, we didn't bring that incident up. I didn't talk about that incident. That incident, to me, sure, she was frightened -- I agree with you -- for part of the time.
Nobody who is frightened comes from the upstairs, telephone downstairs, to where the person they're frightened of, is.
That's what she did.
But she sure sounded frightened while she was upstairs.
And I didn't bring that up; Mr. Simpson didn't bring that up. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Petrocelli brought that up.
And then, when we say what that argument was all about, they say we're defaming the memory of Nicole Brown Simpson.
They know how to exclude it, never bring it up. We would never have mentioned it; that's for sure. But they brought it up. We had to respond.
And what was that all about? You heard hookers, drug use. You heard it all. That's on the tape. That's what upset him.
Now, his kids are there. He has a right to be upset about it.
She denied that it occurred. In the report of Paul Tippin, the detective, Kato Kaelin says, who lived with her, she did use drugs.
I'm not here to defame Nicole Brown Simpson; I'm here to allow to you have enough facts so that you can render a decision based upon the facts, not based upon whether or not the media gets mad at me because they think that I'm a bad guy because I mentioned the facts.
And so -- do you remember the Keith Zlomsowitch mentioned in that?
And Mr. Kelly says, well, that shows it never went away. That's April 1992. This was August of 1993. And Mr. Simpson is still upset, enraged about it.
Well, let's examine that. What was talked about during that conversation, discussion between Nicole and OJ Simpson was, she was upset about the fact that he had a picture of Paula Barbieri in the wedding frame that they had, and she was mad about it.
And he said what about -- mad about it you've got a picture of Keith Zlomsowitch with my son on his lap in your house. That's ridiculous to be upset about that; I never say anything about that.
And that's how the mention of Zlomsowitch came about. Not that he was livid, carried this grudge against Zlomsowitch, because there's not one bit of evidence that's true.
There's not one bit of evidence that he ever touched Nicole after January 1, 1989. That was even admitted by Mr. Kelly. It was in the Lally tape that was played. She said, you know, I don't think he'll ever hit me again. That's what was on there, just at the end, and that was -- that was played by them.
So when you put all of these incidents together, you have one incident -- one incident of physical violence, one, which Mr. Simpson will, to his final breath, be embarrassed and ashamed about.
And he should be.
That does not make Mr. Simpson a killer of anyone. And that's what the plaintiffs are trying to get you do to, take this quantum leap on motive, from what they call domestic violence, to the fact that he snapped for one of two reasons: She wouldn't give him the kids enough, and she wasn't committed to him. That's what they've told you.
If that turns someone into a double murderer, with the history that Mr. Simpson has had with this woman, that's incredible.
That doesn't pass the smell test. It absolutely is incredulous relative to your common sense.
Is this a good time, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
(Recess)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued)
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I want to move along from the October 1993, incident, but I first want tell you that, obviously, during that period of time -- and in other words, during the -- all during the heated argument you heard the names of various people that were professionals in this city, and it was upsetting for Mr. Simpson, and there can be little doubt about that, and I don't think that anyone who would hear about that at work, that his ex-wife, with the kids there, is having professional women into his house.
I mean, I wasn't out searching for this. Mr. Simpson wasn't trying to find out or seek out information about Nicole. He was on the set working when he was informed of this.
And I think his reaction is one that we would rather have no tapes for you to listen to. But I don't think his reaction, in view of that, is -- is so abhorrent. It would be better if they could talk without yelling. I'd say that about anybody.
But in any event, ladies and gentlemen, it wasn't Mr. Simpson who was trying to, in any way, shape, or form, disparage the memory of his ex-wife, the mother of his kids, who he always loved, and always thought was a great mother.
So let's move on in the chronology a little bit, into the spring of 1994.
In the spring of 1994, OJ was working. In early April, he and Nicole and some of her friends went to Cabo San Lucas.
They were down in Cabo and they had a great time. OJ called Juditha Brown, who he testified to you, is kind of his shrink during the months after the initial separation in 1992, and told her that he thought maybe I'd been wrong previously, that maybe everything will work out.
Then what happened?
He went back to LA, to Puerto Rico, to shoot a film. And he's calling her, and one day she's normal; she's the Nicole that he married, she's the Nicole that is the mother of his kids.
And the next day, the very next day, she's erratic, she's non -- she's angry, anxious, she is depressed.
And that he doesn't understand.
Why is this happening?
And he called with his concern to Judy, Judy Brown, and says, this is what's happening; she's one day great, the next day she's awful. What's going on here? You've got to do something. I'm out of town. You've got to do something.
And you heard him testify that Judy basically said, you know, I can't really talk to Nicole because if I criticize her, she hangs up on me.
And so nothing -- basically, nothing happened. And so in May of -- May 10, 1994, virtually one year after they'd entered into this agreement to attempt to reconcile, they split.
OJ goes down there; gets there 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning after getting off the set, experiencing a situation where he had been trapped by three cars trying to slow down his Bentley because, apparently, they thought they had an easy mark. And if you remember, he held up his cell phone, and they kind of fled. After that, he put a gun in the car.
And we'll talk about it later, because that is relative to the Nancy Ney thing, a little bit.
But in any event, ladies and gentlemen, he goes down there and tries to go out to dinner. And she's shaky, she's having, like a nervous breakdown, and he can't understand what is going on. She gets control of herself, they go out, and the next day they agree to break up.
And in virtually -- within three days, OJ Simpson, who is one of the most recognized human beings in the world, is with Paula Barbieri. And he is open about it. There's nothing to hide. He's not trying to camouflage anything. And he is dating her.
Now, Mr. Petrocelli would have you believe that the breakup didn't occur 'til May 22nd. And we'll get into that.
But let's first examine what you were told by Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly said to you -- he said that that month there was animosity, anger, there was friction. These two weren't getting along. It was palpable, whatever.
He tried to, through the words that he conveyed to you, assert that for the months before June 12, it was a war zone whenever Nicole Brown Simpson and OJ were in the same room.
And what could be further from the truth?
The evidence is unrefuted, but he ignores it. The evidence is that OJ comes back into town. Nicole gets sick for the first time in his -- in her life, he's known her 17 years. Who's over there taking her soup and flowers and tending to the kids?
OJ is.
There's no animosity there.
He's over there on her birthday. He gives her a present. Gives her a present.
You heard him explain that the bracelet he got for Paula, he ended up giving to Nicole because the kids said what can we give Nicole.
And the other present that OJ bought to give to Nicole was a lighter. And he didn't think it was appropriate for the kids to give her a lighter, so those were given to her.
And then on May 22nd, Nicole comes over to OJ's house at Rockingham. There were 400 people there. She's uninvited. But it's okay, it doesn't matter to him.
OJ is -- after he's been around with the people, he's in on the sofa that faces the television in his den, I guess you'd call it, the family room, whatever. And he is watching the NBA playoffs.
She comes in and, in front of everybody, puts her head on his lap. She then goes upstairs and climbs into his bed.
Now, that does not sound like somebody who's fearful or where there's a lot of animosity to me.
OJ also goes up there and says, look, I don't think this is terribly appropriate, and da, da, da, da, and whatever.
And she says, I want you to come over tonight and talk about this.
He goes over there that night, after the function at his house is over. And that may be the first time she recognized that it was, in fact, over.
But certainly OJ recognized that it was over on Mother's Day.
And what did she do?
She gives him back the bracelet 'cause it's nothing like anything he'd ever bought for her. She has an idea that probably wasn't bought for her. And she gives him back the earrings. And the earrings were as a result of she had some earrings stolen.
A check came -- went to OJ. OJ sent it on, or his secretary sent it on to Nicole. She cashed the check and kept the earrings.
OJ said one or the other. She gave back the earrings. And so OJ was going to give back to her on June 27, 1994. June 27th was the first day they dated back in 1977, so he didn't think that was too important of a situation.
Then you've got the plaintiffs attempting to assert that when OJ goes down on Memorial Day to play golf in the desert, that this can somehow be construed with I don't know what kind of maneuvering to some sort of obsession about Nicole. And you recall, he goes down there, he gets up early in the morning, plays golf, and Paula leaves. And the idea is that Paula left because OJ was asked by Paula if she ever loved him.
I didn't hear that testimony in this courtroom. Maybe I missed it. I'm not perfect any more than you are. I didn't hear that testimony.
If it occurred in this courtroom, I apologize to you.
But still, think about it.
OJ told you I loved her. I've always loved her. I still love her.
Paula asked him that, he'd answer to anyone. But that their relationship as a man and a woman had ended.
And so she left because OJ gets up and plays golf. And Paula was, I don't think there's any doubt about it, upset that he thought golf was more important than she was.
And they're, of course, right back together again the next week, even though she had left him and broken up with him.
And this nonsense about OJ being obsessed and talking at a dinner party about the end of the relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson and himself. He put a year in trying to get that back together.
Was he disappointed?
You bet.
Was he unhappy that he had put a year into this relationship and that it didn't workout?
He had said to her on May 10 at her parents' house in Laguna, on Mother's Day, look, if you go back to counseling, we'll try another three months, 'cause that's what she was in in March of 1993 when she wrote that letter and had her head on straight.
And she wouldn't do it.
Was he disappointed?
You bet.
Was he blinding -- blinded with rage?
No, of course, not.
You know, it's funny. Anybody can obtain witnesses in this case who will be anti-OJ. It's not difficult.
But think about it in a factual context.
Can you imagine anyone sitting down here and talking about only one topic at a dinner party. That's absurd.
And Jackie Cooper, who played golf with OJ, there was a guy who was going through a divorce at the time.
Are they going to talk about the experiences that OJ had?
Sure they are.
I mean, there was no obsession.
Certainly it's a stretch, a quantum leap, but it is part of an effort by the plaintiffs to demonize and to manufacture a motive for these killings that they cannot manufacture.
They can't get it. They can't get their arms around it because it doesn't exist.
So the next week OJ is, as I recall, in and out of town, and OJ said -- well, let's go back.
Let's go back. I apologize for the chronology.
But after the Labor Day weekend -- pardon me, Memorial Day weekend, May of 1994.
You see this note in the diary of Nicole, and it has all this awful language in it.
(Mr. Baker read a portion of Nicole Simpson's handwritten notes.)
Bitch, turn you into IRS.
MR. BAKER: There wasn't any testimony, as I recall, and again, I could be wrong, that OJ had any conversation with her until June 6, 1994.
The letter was hand-delivered.
Where did this come from?
I didn't hear any testimony that they talked about the IRS and the fact that there was going to be -- that OJ had requested her not to use his address before the letter was hand-delivered to her on June 6.
Where is that testimony?
How does that get into this, this hearsay document called a, quote, diary.
And why would anybody say that?
And if they said it, if anybody would use that kind of language, and anybody would be that hostile, why wouldn't you send the letter to IRS turning her in?
If he was going to be that awful to Nicole, why does he send her a letter saying quit using my address?
He doesn't say I'm going to turn you in to the IRS. He never said that at all. It doesn't gel, you know. It doesn't make sense.
And it's got to make sense for you to believe it, but even if you were supposed to believe it, under the Judge's instructions you're not to believe that it ever occurred, you're to believe that she was upset with OJ, her state of mind.
What relevance her state of mind had on June 3, I'm not sure, but that's the instruction.
That's the only thing you can use the June 3, 1994, diary for, is her state of mind; what she was feeling.
And if that has anything accurate to it at all, was certainly hot with OJ, there's no question about that.
And if she was hot with OJ, and if he ever said anything like that, which there is no evidence of, except for that document which is dated three days before the letter, he didn't do anything to follow through with what is in there.
Nothing.
And let's go on to the -- to June 6th and 7th. And the reason that I want to talk about that is because June 6th, as I understand it, the IRS letter is delivered.
Now, Mr. Kelly would have you believe that she had two options and that was it; pay the taxes or move.
Who says that?
Where did you hear that in the evidence?
I didn't hear that at all.
What the story was, and I've heard this from the witness stand, is that OJ Simpson had given her, to make her financially independent, his condominium in San Francisco that he kept when he retired from football in 1979; he had been a San Francisco 49er from '77 to '79. And he gave it to her, and it had no notes on it, it was free and clear, so that she would have income. And so under IRS rules it was income producing property.
And he wanted her to have income so that she wasn't dependent upon him, so that she wasn't being controlled by him by purse-strings. She had her own home. She didn't have to come and ask him for money. So she had rented it out.
She then had moved to Gretna Green and subsequently sold that condominium. Now, once she sold the condominium, she had -- and I'm not an IRS lawyer, I don't know anything about this but what you've heard, and that is she had a certain amount of time to reinvest that money or pay taxes on the difference between what that place cost and what it was sold for; the base versus what it was sold for. And that difference is taxable to her.
It is not taxable if she takes the money and buys another property of like kind, meaning another income producing property; and that other income producing property was the condo at 875 South Bundy, as long as it's rented out.
When it's not rented out it doesn't qualify to prolong, to abate, or stay the taxation of the difference from what OJ paid for the condo and what it was sold for.
So that was the dilemma.
What OJ said to her when they were talking, as you may recall, about this year's reconciliation, is look -- pardon me, you can use my address as your own, and you can do that as long as we're getting together because there's obviously no reason, if you move back in, to pay those taxes, and then rent out the property.
When it was clear that it had ended, OJ doesn't want any liability to pay the taxes, and he had told her -- and she had done it -- take the 70 or $80,000, put it in a separate account so if you have to pay it, you're not kicked out of your house, you have it free and clear; you don't have any IRS lien, you don't have any problems at all.
She'd done that.
So Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Kelly would have you demonize my client, OJ Simpson, because he wanted her to follow the law; he wanted her to pay the taxes that were due and owing.
Now, she had a lot of options. If she didn't want to do it she could have used her parents address in Laguna. She could have used any number of addresses she wanted as her residence address and keep fooling the IRS. She could have done that.
She didn't have to move.
She had the money. She could have written the IRS a check and had the house still free and clear on Bundy, and had no IRS problems whatsoever.
And she chose to do neither for the very short period of time that she survived after the 7th of June, 1994. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I mean -- and let's concentrate just a moment on the 7th of June, 1994, for two reasons: One, the 7th of June, 1994, is the date that Nicole is -- it is hot in here (indicating to juror) -- is the date that Nicole is over at Ron Fischman's house having just run with Cora, and he walked in, and she is hot. She has gotten a letter and she is mad at OJ Simpson.
Now, she wasn't crying. Mr. Petrocelli got up here and said she was crying. She wasn't crying. There's no testimony to that. Check your notes. Again, if I'm wrong, I'll apologize to you. I don't think so. No evidence of crying. He was trying to mislead you. And the reason he was trying to mislead you on that issue is because of the Nancy Ney correspondence dated the same day.
She was hot that day. But she wasn't worried about stalking. She wasn't afraid of OJ Simpson.
Ron Fischman didn't get on the stand and say there was any evidence whatsoever of her being afraid. Those two events occurred the same day.
Let's talk just briefly about the Nancy Ney correspondence form.
Mr. Petrocelli says with great bravado, there's no doubt that's Nicole Brown Simpson.
Well, I think there's a lot of doubt.
I think if you look at that form, which is not very well filled out, but has a couple of things that don't fit at all with Nicole, and one is an 8-year relationship.
At that point they had a 17-year relationship.
Doesn't know if he had guns.
She talked to him about the guns that he had carried since May 10, and was a little upset with him because he had them in the passenger part of the car, and made him put the guns in the trunk. She'd actually gone to a firing range and fired those guns.
She knew he had guns, and he had quite a few of them.
Why? Why would that be Nicole?
And isn't it amazing that after, after, after the murders, every paper in town, every television station, broadcast about the relationship of OJ and Nicole.
Are you telling me she had no information between the 12th and the 14th?
I mean, it was practically nonstop. She got no information from the media that she could put in her secondary note.
That's absurd. Of course, she did. And she could tailor it or -- not -- I'm not saying she tailored it, but I'm saying she had input of a lot of information.
And it wasn't Nicole.
Did you hear one witness, one friend of Nicole's, in this courtroom suggest that OJ Simpson was stalking her?
My god, OJ Simpson didn't have time to stalk her. He's running back to New York, he's going to board meetings, he's going hither and yonder to events.
He didn't have time, nor did he have the desire, nor did he have any rage, whatsoever. And so -- we know he was out of town, basically, the week of the 6th through the 10th. And we're certainly aware that he was back in Connecticut, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey, and then came home.
Paula picks him up at the airport on June 10. He spent the evening with her, got up early in the morning, played golf, which was his custom, played cards.
And on his way home he was going to -- heading to Paula's, called a couple of times and didn't reach her.
And I just got to break chronology a minute here to highlight one thing.
When OJ was with Vannatter and Lange, without his attorney, in Parker Center, being interviewed after he had a couple days of very little sleep, he made a mistake on the days. On a non-event, mind you, a non-event.
The non-event is -- what difference did it make if he was going to Paula's or not in the evening? He never said he was going to Paula's between the time he got a hamburger and the time the murders were committed. That's the crucial time.
It's a non-event.
And my two adversaries come up here and call my client a liar. They called him everything. They called him a liar for that.
Mr. Kelly, he gets up here and -- Judy Brown; do you remember how she was busted? Do you remember?
She gets on the witness stand and Mr. Kelly, in his most dramatic fashion, is talking about the week of the 12th, in a most dramatic fashion, and says did you ask OJ Simpson was he the killer?
I mean, by then every news media had already accused him of this. It is not exactly her first thought. And she says, he said I loved your daughter.
Do you mean that he didn't answer the question?
That's correct.
You mean he didn't deny it?
That's correct.
We put the tape on of Diane Sawyer. And instantly I (indicating Juditha Brown) asked him if he was responsible for the killing, and he said no, I loved your daughter.
Now, when Mr. Kelly characterizes a total change of position on an event of enormous significance, he says, well, in her mind -- in her mind, it was exactly the same.
How do we know that?
Is he testifying?
But that's not a lie? That's not a lie to you?
Anything my client says is a lie?
That's not even a mistake because in her mind it meant exactly -- I don't know about you, but no, as a precedent to, I love your daughter, is very significant.
And the reason he did it in a dramatic fashion is he wanted you to think it was significant because it was. The problem was it wasn't factual that's the problem.
We have the evening of the 11th, when OJ and Paula go to the fund raiser for the first lady of Israel. And we want to make that into some sort of an altercation. And we want to do that because it will link up somehow my client with the murders on June 12, and linkage is of course, gee, OJ was beside himself, he couldn't console himself, Paula had broken up with him, Nicole wouldn't talk to him.
That's the kind of issue we're talking about.
Well, think about it.
Basically the same thing that happened the week before, Memorial Day weekend. OJ did exactly the same thing. Got exactly the same result. She broke up with him then, too. He got up and played golf. He didn't stay with her Saturday night. He went home and he got up early and played golf.
And this message thing -- and then you can, through inflection, through volume of your voice, make something sound far more important than it could ever be.
I've been doing this a long time.
But let's talk about the message thing because that, quote, is the big lie.
Well, it's not a big lie at all. It's basically insignificant.
What OJ did, and what's in the notes of Ms. Walker is called Paula's answering machine, where she had on the answering machine a new message.
Did he pick up the message that she had broken up with him after that?
I don't know.
It's not a significant thing.
If you think for five seconds that because Paula broke up with him again, that caused him to murder two people other than Paula, I mean put that one together and make some sense out of it.
Mr. Petrocelli gets up before you as an amateur psychologist and tries to tell you what was in these people's minds.
That doesn't work.
Use your own common sense.
He attempts to make this into some kind of motive, and the reason they do is because there is no motive.
And so on the 12th, OJ gets up, does his usual, goes to Riviera Country Club, plays 18 holes.
Now we've got the great fight on the second tee of Riviera Country Club.
Now, I got to tell you, the first hole at Riviera is par 5.
You're going to have a little golf lesson. It's going to be short, but just a little bit.
Par 5, Baumgarten is great with a pitching wedge. That can save you a stroke. That's a good deal.
In golf, as you know, you want to get the lowest score, not the highest.
So he sculls his ball over the green, picks his ball up after it, and goes directly to the second tee, and doesn't wait for the rest of the group.
Now, you're supposed to wait for the rest of the group so that everybody can be quiet and you can concentrate.
He didn't do that. Hit the ball. Got mad at OJ because OJ was talking.
That is not an infrequent event, OJ talking, by the way.
In any event, he then goes down the fairway.
And obviously you're not supposed to go down the fairway until everybody hits because you're in the line of fire for golf balls, and these things, as we all know, aren't soft.
So OJ sculls a couple, hits a couple bad shots he made.
They have a few words at the next tee.
The third tee they're hugging and laughing and again, is this an event that you should have to listen to? Is this an event that turns somebody into a murderer? He's never seen him. He was tired. The man was physically tired.
I don't know about you, but I get a little irritated when I'm tired a lot easier than when I'm fully rested.
Non-event.
In any event, at the conclusion of the golf game, he plays some cards, goes back and talks to Kato a little bit. Kato wants him to call somebody, Tracy Adele, or something like that. There's a phone call on the board to Tracy Adele.
OJ is not distraught over anything. And then he goes to the recital.
Now, the recital is -- and how that has been described is really interesting and how they -- Mr. Kelly wants to get around the fact that OJ wasn't in a black mood at all. He's creative.
But what happened, OJ goes to the recital -- and in the week preceding, Mr. Kelly told you there was no communications, OJ testified that Nicole had gotten the tickets on the day of the 12th. There's documents, I think on his cell phone records, a four-minute call, because he called on the way back from the golf course at 2-something to try to get -- pick up Justin.
She says no, Justin's going to play with his cousins, and can you save some seats at the recital. OJ says, you know, it's real difficult for me to save seats because people want my autograph and stuff, it's awfully difficult to do because they're bolted seats but they're not reserved seats. He said I'll try to get my older son, Jason, to do that.
He gets there, and the seats are saved, and Nicole has saved him a seat, not in front of her, where her parents are, but there's two seats between them in the same row.
And Mr. Kelly would -- he characterized that as this noncommunication.
I mean they were communicating.
You recall that OJ had on the Memorial Day weekend just right after that recall that he was hosting this charity event for children with birth defects at Cedar Sinai Hospital and it had become Los Angeles's sports banquets. There wasn't a sports banquet here and that had been the sports banquets where professional athletes, go it's a night occasion.
And the year before they were in their -- in their period of trying to reconcile, OJ has his table, he says to Nicole, you fill the table. She fills a couple of seats with Faye Resnick and Christian Reichardt. And so he called Christian for the 1994 event. Faye wants to come. She tells OJ that they don't take sides in these issues, et cetera, and the next thing he gets is a very angry call from Nicole that he's trying to steal her friends.
And he says enough, enough. I don't want to be the problem solver. I don't want to be in these problems anymore. Enough. I'll do what I did between Christmas of 1992 and when she sent me the letter in March of 1993. I'll talk to her about the kids any time of the day or night but I will not discuss anything else with her.
And so he is keeping true to his word.
He goes to the recital, and he has a conversation at the end where he's laughing with Lou Brown, when he tells Lou Brown that, you know, I'm keeping away from your daughter, and Lou is laughing and OJ is laughing.
Now, if that hadn't occurred, if that hadn't occurred, he'd have been in here. He'd have testified that OJ was lying.
They brought people from everywhere.
Never happened.
The event occurred, and OJ then leaves the recital.
Judy says -- I think she admitted on the stand, she says, you know, asked him about dinner, and OJ didn't want to get in the mix.
Ron Fischman told him about Faye, and again he says I don't want to get in the mix, I want to be out of this.
But it is the conversation with Ron Fischman, that Faye and Christian Reichardt are splitting, that generates his calling Christian Reichardt at about 9 o'clock, telling Christian Reichardt that he's going to be back from Chicago on Wednesday, the 15th, and that he's going to have a date with Paula and he'll see if Paula, she has some good looking friends, can get a date for Christian Reichardt.
Is that a man who thinks he's broken up? Is that a man who's kind of out there with a blinded rage?
I think not.
And so OJ gets home from the recital and changes clothes, back into his golf clothes, black pants, Reeboks, and a white golf shirt.
And he's just kind of hanging around his house.
He brings his Bronco in from Ashford, off-loads the golf clubs because he knows he's got to take his clubs in the limo later that night, and sets his golf clubs down in the area between the benches out in front of the entranceway.
Then takes the Bronco and puts it out on the street and runs back in the gate before it closes.
And Mr. Petrocelli will tell you, no, Chachi never ran out in her life.
Chachi ran out all the time.
Sometimes it wasn't exactly a run, but she got out of the gate and she went around the neighborhood.
And he'd been called by the SPCA on it. If he hadn't been, there would be somebody from the SPCA telling you he hadn't been.
And so he was pretty conscious of this and everybody at the house was pretty conscious of that.
But in any event, he comes back in, goes into the house, and has a cell phone -- now, we have been talking about the cell phone like it is a cell phone anchored in the Bronco. That's what Mr. Petrocelli would love for you to believe, that this thing is bolted down, and when he makes a call from it, he's got to be in his Bronco.
And nothing could be further from the truth.
What it is, is a portable phone that has a device in both his Bentley and his Bronco to stick in there, use it as a car phone, and to take it out when he isn't in the car.
So -- the boss calls (indicating to note from Mr. Leonard), and he says it's time for a break.
What do you say?
THE COURT: If you're ready.
Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, you recall that there was a discussion about Ron Fischman and how he had seen OJ at the recital, and the testimony that was given to you is Ron Fischman "had never seen OJ like that." The rest of the story was not given to you because -- "he was tired."
They, I believe, were implying to you or attempting to imply to you that Ron Fischman had never seen him in a mood like that.
Check your notes. What was said was that he had never seen him that tired.
That's my recollection. Again, I could be wrong, but I tried to look it up.
And also, relative to Paula Barbieri, they took her deposition, you never heard one word from her about any fight that she and OJ Simpson had relative to whether or not Nicole and she would be at the recital. There's not a word.
But you heard it from the lawyers.
Check your notes.
It just didn't happen.
We're trying to manufacture motive and we can't. The uphill battle won't work.
And they got to have a motive because something had to have triggered OJ Simpson to do that if he were the killer.
But he isn't.
And I want to talk to you a little bit about -- I'm losing my voice, which is probably a blessing. You've been listening a long time. But I want to try to get through this, if I can, this evening.
I want to talk a little bit about a time line and then we're going to come back to Mr. Simpson at Rockingham, as well as go through the crime scene, which my worthy adversaries have not -- have not talked about in terms of the evidence that was in fact there, other than -- other than a glove and the hat. And we will certainly be discussing those in some detail.
But isn't it amazing, isn't it absolutely amazing, the theory that they're trying to link together and put together for your common sense, and the theory is, of course, OJ Simpson gets in a blind rage without it being triggered by anything, then he goes over to Bundy, brutally kills two people with a knife, and then he drops a glove underneath -- or a hat underneath the fence. I don't know how you drop a hat underneath. And he drops a glove that was, of course, moved.
And then he comes back to Rockingham.
And lo and behold, there's another glove in the most unlikely of areas, where there isn't any blood at all, no blood trail, no nothing, and there's no murder weapon, there's no clothes, there's no shoes.
So we have this bumbling idiot killing these people on Bundy and getting rid of all of the clothes, shoes and knife, and then dropping another glove.
And of course these are tight gloves, these are supposed to be real tight, because they don't fit Mr. Simpson. And how do you get a tight glove off? How do you get a tight glove off?
(Mr. Baker puts on glove.)
MR. BAKER: Did you see any scratches to Mr. Simpson when you went to pull this glove off? Did you see any scratches on any of the photos. You have to take it off like this (indicating removing glove). This 1 minute and 15 second struggle, did it ever happen? Of course it didn't.
But that's what they want you to buy for you to find him, my client, Orenthal James Simpson, responsible.
It makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense.
And you have an obligation to filter what they're trying to get you to buy through your own common sense, and it doesn't meet the smell test, it doesn't wash, because it's not logical.
And I want to talk a little bit about the time line.
I'm no poet, but obviously, if you don't have time, you most certainly could not commit the crime. No question about it.
I don't want that to be the mantra of this case, but I think it's true and we all know it's true. If he didn't have time, he couldn't have done it.
I don't care what they say about blood and fibers, and we'll talk about that evidence, Bob Blasier will talk about that because he knows far more about it than I do.
But let's talk about time.
Heidstra leaves his house out here on Dorothy, 10:15, and walks his dogs here, comes down Gorham, and it's right about here (indicating to map) at Bundy and Gorham, and he's there, ladies and gentlemen, 10:30 to 10:35.
So he has walked from his house east on Dorothy, north on Westfield and south down Gorham in approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
Now, when he gets to the corner of Bundy and Gorham, in that vicinity is when he has testified that he heard this dog barking that he recognized as the Akita. And he said it was a confused barking. Whatever that is.
But I want you to think about that dog and my client. My client bought that dog, my client knew that dog, my client the week before had been out chasing that dog, my client had that -- took that dog to his house.
Why, if OJ Simpson were there, would the dog be confused at all?
My dog, your dog, they know my smell when I walk in even when I've been away for a while.
Why would this dog be confused if in fact the killer was OJ Simpson?
The answer's clear.
It wouldn't. Wouldn't be barking for anything.
So then Mr. Heidstra goes down the alley, and when he gets about directly behind the house, he hears a voice, hey, hey, hey, about 10:35, so I guess it would be about 10:30 when he got to the -- maybe a little earlier, when he got over here, and he hears the hey, hey, hey, and he hears the metal gate slam.
And although it's never been stated in this courtroom, I assume that what the plaintiffs' theory is, is that the hey, hey, hey is Ron Goldman and the gate is the front gate at 875 South Bundy.
Because if it were the back gate, it's another 180 feet away, and maybe you don't hear it, whatever.
Now, Mr. Petrocelli -- although Mr. Heidstra testified that he hears the hey, hey, hey about 10:35, Mr. Petrocelli tells you that the murders occurred at 10:30.
Now, does that make sense?
That makes no sense at all, and it doesn't make sense because if he's saying hey, hey, hey, he's obviously alive and speaking.
What Mr. Petrocelli wants you to do is to believe that it's at 10:30, because it gives him more time to get Mr. Simpson back to Rockingham.
And that's crucial, because there is no time for Mr. Simpson to commit these murders.
Now, then, Mr. Heidstra was down the alley and is at the corner, right here at Dorothy, and he's there at 10:45. That's what he's testified to.
And his apartment is about 600, 700, whatever it is, feet, up here. And he gets there, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he gets to his apartment, the 11 o'clock news is on. So it's after 11. That's the only real clock -- that's the only real time piece we have.
Does it take him, to walk all the way around here, 20 minutes, and another 15 to walk from here to here?
I don't think so.
Maybe it only took him 10 minutes. Maybe five. But let's say 10.
That puts the time at 10:50.
Even if it's 10:45, there's no time, but at 10:50 it's absolutely unequivocally impossible, because we know Mr. Simpson is seen at 10:54.
And think about what Mr. Heidstra says.
He's another gentleman that's trying to sell a book, like the lead detectives in this case.
But in any event -- I guess they've already sold it. They get some money. We'll discuss that later.
So he says he was looking down Dorothy and he sees a car come out of the darkness, and the car, instead of going back up Bundy, turns south on Bundy.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we examined him a bit, and let's just put the background facts together.
Mr. Simpson, they have told you, is no fool. I would agree with that. He's not. He's a smart, capable human being.
He knows more than anybody, because he's talked to Kato, Kato's been told that he's catching this flight, he's got a limo picking him up, he's flying to Chicago, he's got a Hertz thing the next morning, he knows the limo's coming over there.
He also has been to this house many, many, many times. You heard his testimony. He slept over there a fair amount when he was in town. He's picked up his kids, he's picked up the dog, he's taken Nicole soup, he's taken her flowers.
He's lived in this area for 20 years. He knows every inch of the alleys, the roads, he knows their names.
And they're trying to tell you that he murdered these people, went down the north walkway, got into the biggest white elephant he could, drove down, and went the wrong way.
That's what you got to buy to believe this.
10:45 or 10:50. Sport utility vehicle. Now,
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, that's not the testimony. It was 10:40, 10:45. It's a misstatement.
THE COURT: Argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's misquoting Mr. Heidstra.
MR. BAKER: Well, just think of how long it would take to walk from here down to here, (indicating) even with your dogs. It's not going to take very long: Five, seven, ten minutes. That would make it 10:52, maybe, because at 11 o'clock, news comes on.
Why would O.J. Simpson, if he had done these heinous acts, go home the wrong way? Why would that happen? It wouldn't.
And, of course, Mr. Heidstra didn't know whether he came out of the alley.
If he is going to try to get home quickly, he'd turn a U-turn in the alley, or he'd turn right on Dorothy and go up Gretna Green and San Vicente, and however.
It makes no sense. It's just another thing of the plaintiffs that makes no sense, that they want to you buy into to make O.J. Simpson responsible for these killings.
And it can't be.
Because it makes no -- I mean, why would you -- why would you, if you were, you know, in a blind rage -- I don't want to make light of the death of two people, and I apologize -- but why would you, if you're in a blind rage -- you come back from a hamburger -- why would you change out of your Reeboks into expensive shoes?
Why would you put on dress socks?
Why would you put a hat on and gloves in June of 1994?
Is it a disguise?
Are you kidding me? Can you -- can you imagine O.J. Simpson with a knit hat on and gloves on, and then you got a black Bentley right there, so you take the white Bronco -- you're trying to disguise -- I mean, come on. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. And then you go home the wrong way, when you know you have a finite amount of time to get to where you have to be, your house, to be picked up.
And then Mr. Petrocelli has somebody get in the car, and, speeding 60 miles an hour down San Vicente, forget the transcript, as I recall, four minutes and 55 seconds from here back to Rockingham.
And it's five to six minutes if you drive reasonably.
And I think that's pretty interesting. If you had -- if you had just perpetrated these heinous acts, and you had bloody shoes, bloody hands, bloody clothes, a murder weapon, that's what you'd want to do with it?
I'd want to take this big white elephant called a Ford Bronco and I'd want to run it at 60 miles an hour so everybody would see it? I don't think so. I don't think so.
I think what you do is, you drive it in some sort of reasonable fashion so you wouldn't be pulled over for a ticket. And it would take you five to six minutes to get from 875 South Bundy to Rockingham. And let's -- and let's see where that gets us.
If it's at 10:50 that he actually saw the vehicle which he described as a Blazer, which is obviously much, much smaller than Mr. Simpson's Bronco, you'd -- and it was 10:50 -- because it takes ten minutes to get from the alley down to his house, and the news is on -- there's no chance, because O.J. Simpson's already been seen at 10:53.
MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: It's argument.
MR. BAKER: Then, ladies and gentlemen, if -- if, in fact, it was at 10:45 and he got there in five minutes, so it's 10:50 --
And, very interestingly, the plaintiffs haven't told you how he got in his property.
When Mr. Petrocelli was examining my client in November of last year, a few months ago, on this witness stand, he stood here; he looked at that clock and he waited until he had about four minutes. And then he asked Mr. Simpson, in dramatic a fashion as he could, and then you went over that fence and you dropped that glove, and you went down that south walkway, and you did that to disguise yourself after you had killed two people.
That's what he did.
And yet, today, he says, well, I don't know if he came in the -- or yesterday -- the Rockford [sic] gate or he went over the fence.
And, of course, you know why he says that. We'll get into that a little more, too. Because if Mr. Simpson had gone over the gate after creating this double homicide at 875 South Bundy, there's no way to explain the blood trail that Mr. Simpson says occurs when he goes out to get his telephone -- cell-phone accessories.
There's no way. There is absolutely no way to explain it, because there's no blood back in the south, where Mark Fuhrman says he found the glove.
We'll talk about that later, as well.
But so, he says, well, I don't have to prove that. I don't have to prove that. We proved conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt, to absolute certainty, that Mr. Simpson did this.
But he doesn't tell you how he gets in his own property, because he can't assimilate the fact that there's no blood in the south and the fact that there's blood in the driveway.
There's one other thing that's pretty interesting, and it's really interesting relative to time. Their theory is -- because they have no murder weapon, they have no eyewitness, they have no clothes, they have no shoes -- their theory is that Allan Park, who gets to Rockingham at about 10:20, smokes a cigarette, drives around to the other gate --
Should we put up the other one?
(Indicating to board.)
MR. LEONARD: This one? (Indicating.) MR. BAKER: Yeah.
(Board entitled 360 North Rockingham Avenue displayed.)
MR. BAKER: Drives around to the Rockingham gate, doesn't see a Bronco, drives back, goes over on Ashford --
By the way, do you recall that Allan Park testified that when he left with O.J., there's a car coming from north to south on Rockingham, and he had to let that car clear, and he still never saw this car?
Even under their theory, this white elephant would be there. And it's huge. But he didn't see this then, either.
And he also, as you recall -- and I'm just talking about his ability to recollect and to testify -- he also testified that there were two cars in the cut-out area.
And we know that there weren't two cars in the cut-out area. We know Arnelle didn't get home until after midnight on the 13th, and parked her car right behind the Bentley.
And finally, then, we know that there are very few golf clubs of the style that Mr. Simpson had that night, and he misidentified those, as well. And I'm not saying he did that on purpose, because I don't think he did that.
That's part of what you have to put into your common-sense approach to determining whether or not O.J. Simpson is responsible for these crimes.
Now, at 10:55, Park says he sees O.J. He says he sees him here. O.J. says he's here. And O.J. recalled this because he never went into the driveway.
Before he sees -- under their theory, before he sees O.J. Simpson, he sees this blond individual walk down and walk through here. And that is before he sees O.J. Simpson.
And you heard from Kato where he was going. He was going over here to the south side of the driveway to look down, because he had heard four thumps -- the three distinct thumps at approximately 10:40.
But even under their theory, if it's a couple minutes -- it's 10:50, whatever -- and O.J. Simpson had come over the wall, which is virtually impossible, because nobody saw any residue or anything, and was coming down here to walk around here.
Like Mr. Petrocelli asked him, said, isn't it true that's what you were doing, and you dropped that duffel bag or whatever it was, that little bag, so you could pick it up later -- which, of course, would be right in the vision of Allan Park -- so he'd go right out here (indicating) and he'd be right in the vision of Allan Park.
But what would happen if their theory had any validity?
Kato Kaelin would walk over here, and O.J. would be coming right down at him, right down at him. He'd be walking towards him.
Because I recall that then, Kato Kaelin went back and opened the gate, and they see O.J. over here. They would have been here at the same time.
(Indicating.)
And, of course, the theory kind of makes no sense, because then Kato goes back down there, recall, and he moves the gate again, now, if O.J.'s in a hurry -- remember that gate that's off the hinges -- O.J.'s in a hurry -- why in God's name would he take the time to put the gate back? Man, he's got to get moving if he was the killer.
It makes no sense because it doesn't work.
If they are to prove to you, ladies and gentlemen, that my client is the killer of two human beings, the evidence has got to mesh; it's got to fit; it's got to come together, in a sense, so that you, through your common sense, can believe it.
And, of course, it doesn't.
And what does make sense is that Mr. Simpson never left the house after he got back at 9:30 in the evening, with Kato Kaelin.
And let's -- let's just take a few minutes, if my voice can hold out for a little bit, and -- and talk about how their theory relative to demeanor works.
OJ Simpson, has been on, Kato Kaelin go toget a hamburger.
Kato Kaelin, before he decided that he, in his own right, would become a personality as a result of this case, testifies that OJ's tired; there's nothing wrong with his mood; his demeanor is fine.
The testimony changes a little bit on a few more talk shows, changes a little bit more.
What you can trust is that testimony he gives before, when he's first asked about it: There's nothing in OJ's demeanor that would give anyone the impression that he had done anything even comparable to these crimes.
And what about Allan Park?
No demonic, blind rage that he has become aware of in his ride, in -- admittedly, he had not known OJ Simpson, but there was nothing unusual about his demeanor.
I believe it was Michael Gladden at the airport: OJ was cordial; he was not in any way in a black mood, or grief-stricken, or depressed, or even angry.
Gets on the plane. Howard Bingham, Mohammed Ali's personal photographer, comes up to him, chats with him for a minute: Cordial, nothing unusual about OJ Simpson. He's known him a long time.
Wayne Stanfield, captain of the airplane, sits down next to him, has him sign an autograph. He doesn't notice anything -- he doesn't notice anything about his mood that would give rise to any type of remorse, depression, grief for killing two human beings.
Steve Valerie, we can forget Steve Valerie. Steve Valerie wanted to be on television.
But we do know all of these people.
Then we know Jim Merrill. And Jim Merrill is an interesting fellow in the demeanor.
Jim Merrill picks OJ up at the airport, at O'Hare, and meets him at gate. And they go down to baggage claim. When they get to baggage claim, OJ signs autographs, greets people, talks to people, is cordial, jovial. Fine. Notices nothing untoward. Takes him to the hotel, takes -- gets him to the hotel, and OJ goes into his room and goes sleep.
About two hours later, he gets a call from Detective Phillips. And Detective Phillips tells him his wife has been -- ex-wife has been killed. And the entire demeanor of OJ Simpson changes dramatically. Think about it.
I mean, first of all, up to that time -- and I'll do this in more detail -- nobody had seen -- none of those people had seen me cuts on OJ Simpson's hand, none of them.
I mean, Wayne Stanfield sat down next to him and he gave -- signed -- OJ took the thing with his hands. No cuts.
Mr. Petrocelli tried to minimize that; says, well, you weren't looking for cuts.
Look at the size of this man's hands.
Hold up your hand, OJ.
(Mr. Simpson complies hold up open hand.)
MR. BAKER: His hand's about an inch and a half bigger than mine. Big hand.
He wasn't doing anything to disguise it. Nobody said he was. There are no cuts.
But more importantly -- and I think Jim Merrill is the -- is the fellow that is most interesting -- interesting, as I say, on his -- by demeanor.
The reason I say that is, Mr. Petrocelli will say to you, and said to you, well, why is he calling Jim Merrill, who lives 45 minutes away?
Well, the answer is clear: OJ didn't know he was 45 minutes away. He had given him his number. And when Jim Merrill told -- tells him, go downstairs and get a cab because I'm stuck in traffic, that's exactly what he does.
After he cuts his hand in Chicago --
And by the way, although Mr. Petrocelli alluded to the fact that it's nowhere in the interview with LAPD, I will play it for you tomorrow, you will hear where he talks about cutting his hand in Chicago.
But Jim Merrill, in the phone call, talks about a totally different OJ Simpson. He's crying. He's grief-stricken. He didn't -- doesn't know what has happened.
He's beside himself. He's got to get to L.A. He won't tell him why and why not, because the cops had told him they hadn't released it to the mediaknow that there weren't two cars in the cut-out area. We know Arnelle didn't get home until after midnight on the 13th, and parked her car right behind the Bentley.
And finally, then, we know that there are very few golf clubs of the style that Mr. Simpson had that night, and he misidentified those, as well. And I'm not saying he did that on purpose, because I don't think he did that.
That's part of what you have to put into your common-sense approach to determining whether or not O.J. Simpson is responsible for these crimes.
Now, at 10:55, Park says he sees O.J. He says he sees him here. O.J. says he's here. And O.J. recalled this because he never went into the driveway.
Before he sees -- under their theory, before he sees O.J. Simpson, he sees this blond individual walk down and walk through here. And that is before he sees O.J. Simpson.
And you heard from Kato where he was going. He was going over here to the south side of the driveway to look down, because he had heard four thumps -- the three distinct thumps at approximately 10:40.
But even under their theory, if it's a couple minutes -- it's 10:50, whatever -- and O.J. Simpson had come over the wall, which is virtually impossible, because nobody saw any residue or anything, and was coming down here to walk around here.
Like Mr. Petrocelli asked him, said, isn't it true that's what you were doing, and you dropped that duffel bag or whatever it was, that little bag, so you could pick it up later -- which, of course, would be right in the vision of Allan Park -- so he'd go right out here (indicating) and he'd be right in the vision of Allan Park.
But what would happen if their theory had any validity?
Kato Kaelin would walk over here, and O.J. would be coming right down at him, right down at him. He'd be walking towards him.
Because I recall that then, Kato Kaelin went back and opened the gate, and they see O.J. over here. They would have been here at the same time.
(Indicating.)
And, of course, the theory kind of makes no sense, because then Kato goes back down there, recall, and he moves the gate again, now, if O.J.'s in a hurry -- remember that gate that's off the hinges -- O.J.'s in a hurry -- why in God's name would he take the time to put the gate back? Man, he's got to get moving if he was the killer.
It makes no sense because it doesn't work.
If they are to prove to you, ladies and gentlemen, that my client is the killer of two human beings, the evidence has got to mesh; it's got to fit; it's got to come together, in a sense, so that you, through your common sense, can believe it.
And, of course, it doesn't.
And what does make sense is that Mr. Simpson never left the house after he got back at 9:30 in the evening, with Kato Kaelin.
And let's -- let's just take a few minutes, if my voice can hold out for a little bit, and -- and talk about how their theory relative to demeanor works.
OJ Simpson, has been on, Kato Kaelin go to get a hamburger.
Kato Kaelin, before he decided that he, in his own right, would become a personality as a result of this case, testifies that OJ's tired; there's nothing wrong with his mood; his demeanor is fine.
The testimony changes a little bit on a few more talk shows, changes a little bit more.
What you can trust is that testimony he gives before, when he's first asked about it: There's nothing in OJ's demeanor that would give anyone the impression that he had done anything even comparable to these crimes.
And what about Allan Park?
No demonic, blind rage that he has become aware of in his ride, in -- admittedly, he had not known OJ Simpson, but there was nothing unusual about his demeanor.
I believe it was Michael Gladden at the airport: OJ was cordial; he was not in any way in a black mood, or grief-stricken, or depressed, or even angry.
Gets on the plane. Howard Bingham, Mohammed Ali's personal photographer, comes up to him, chats with him for a minute: Cordial, nothing unusual about OJ Simpson. He's known him a long time.
Wayne Stanfield, captain of the airplane, sits down next to him, has him sign an autograph. He doesn't notice anything -- he doesn't notice anything about his mood that would give rise to any type of remorse, depression, grief for killing two human beings.
Steve Valerie, we can forget Steve Valerie. Steve Valerie wanted to be on television.
But we do know all of these people.
Then we know Jim Merrill. And Jim Merrill is an interesting fellow in the demeanor.
Jim Merrill picks OJ up at the airport, at O'Hare, and meets him at gate. And they go down to baggage claim. When they get to baggage claim, OJ signs autographs, greets people, talks to people, is cordial, jovial. Fine. Notices nothing untoward. Takes him to the hotel, takes -- gets him to the hotel, and OJ goes into his room and goes sleep.
About two hours later, he gets a call from Detective Phillips. And Detective Phillips tells him his wife has been -- ex-wife has been killed. And the entire demeanor of OJ Simpson changes dramatically. Think about it.
I mean, first of all, up to that time -- and I'll do this in more detail -- nobody had seen -- none of those people had seen me cuts on OJ Simpson's hand, none of them.
I mean, Wayne Stanfield sat down next to him and he gave -- signed -- OJ took the thing with his hands. No cuts.
Mr. Petrocelli tried to minimize that; says, well, you weren't looking for cuts.
Look at the size of this man's hands.
Hold up your hand, OJ.
(Mr. Simpson complies hold up open hand.)
MR. BAKER: His hand's about an inch and a half bigger than mine. Big hand.
He wasn't doing anything to disguise it. Nobody said he was. There are no cuts.
But more importantly -- and I think Jim Merrill is the -- is the fellow that is most interesting -- interesting, as I say, on his -- by demeanor.
The reason I say that is, Mr. Petrocelli will say to you, and said to you, well, why is he calling Jim Merrill, who lives 45 minutes away?
Well, the answer is clear: OJ didn't know he was 45 minutes away. He had given him his number. And when Jim Merrill told -- tells him, go downstairs and get a cab because I'm stuck in traffic, that's exactly what he does.
After he cuts his hand in Chicago --
And by the way, although Mr. Petrocelli alluded to the fact that it's nowhere in the interview with LAPD, I will play it for you tomorrow, you will hear where he talks about cutting his hand in Chicago.
But Jim Merrill, in the phone call, talks about a totally different OJ Simpson. He's crying. He's grief-stricken. He didn't -- doesn't know what has happened.
He's beside himself. He's got to get to L.A. He won't tell him why and why not, because the cops had told him they hadn't released it to the media yet.
Well, whether they released it or not, it was out there.
And then you've got Kilduff. And Kilduff takes him to the airport in his car. When he gets in there, OJ is beside himself; he's just grief-stricken; he's in despair. He didn't know what to do.
How do you act, ladies and gentlemen, when someone you love has been murdered?
I've heard a lot about this, and I don't know the answer. I don't pretend to be a psychologist. I don't pretend to have omnipotent powers of mind-reading. I don't know. There is no rule book; there is no etiquette on how you act. You can't believe it.
And so OJ gets on the plane and he sits next to Mark Partridge.
And Mr. Petrocelli said to you, ladies and gentlemen, he said -- he told Skip Taft over the phone. He says, I can't talk right now.
And then he tells him his whole life story. Basically, OJ's beside himself. He doesn't know what to do.
One thing he did, though, ladies and gentlemen, as soon as the police told him they wanted him in L.A. and they wanted to question him, and after Arnelle -- Arnelle told him that, the police also told him that the children had gone out the back, and what had occurred had occurred in the front, and his kids were safe, and Arnelle had told him that there was another victim besides Nicole, after he had learned that, he --
And he made calls while he was in the hotel in Chicago. You've seen the phone records.
He called Bundy, talked to police there. He called Rockingham. He's calling Skip Taft; he was calling Kathy Randa; he was trying to get back to Los Angeles.
He wasn't trying to escape, ladies and gentlemen. He wasn't trying -- he had his passport with -- he always has his passport with him, and he always has a lot of cash -- he wasn't trying to escape; he was trying to get on the first plane he could.
And Kathy Randa had booked him on a 10 o'clock flight, first class, back to L.A.
And he was so concerned about his golf clubs -- what a red herring that is -- he was so concerned about his golf clubs, that, with Jim Merrill four or five minutes away, and a confirmed reservation at 10 o'clock, he just jumps in the car with Kilduff and goes to O'Hare to try to get back to Los Angeles as soon as he can.
That is not a sign of a guilty human being.
And with the Court's permission, I'll quit now, before I croak.
[...]
