O.J. Simpson

JANUARY 22, 1997


NO. SC031947


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)
Melissa Bluestein, ESQ.,
Philip Baker, ESQ.
Daniel Leonard, ESQ.
Robert D. Blasier, ESQ.


MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Good morning.

MR. PETROCELLI: Bear with us, it's been a long trial, there's a lot of evidence, and I'm working my way near the end. Okay.

MR. BAKER: Can you keep your voice up, sir. I can't hear you, Dan.

We were talking about, yesterday, before we left, the animosity and hostility between Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Simpson through the last week of Nicole's life. And I showed you the vile argument that was recorded in Nicole's last written words.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor, that's only been admitted for her state of mind and not for the truth of the argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Jury's been admonished to that again.

MR. PETROCELLI: Hadn't even finished my next sentence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Finish your next sentence.

MR. PETROCELLI: And I was about to say these written words of Nicole show you how she was feeling about this relationship at this point in her life, nine days before her death.
I showed you the letter that Mr. Simpson sent on June 6, three days after the June 3rd diary entry, all about the IRS, and that letter, on its face, in the words of Mr. Simpson, show acrimony and hostility, and not a relationship as -- hunky-dory is, I guess, the word that they like to use.
In addition, ladies and gentlemen, we have further evidence of Nicole's state of mind, what she believed, what she thought, what she feared around this time.
You heard the testimony of Nancy Ney from the battered women's shelter. And you heard what Nancy Ney said about Nicole's state of mind; how she feared her ex-husband. And there isn't any doubt that Nancy Ney was talking to Nicole Brown Simpson.
Can you put on the exhibit.
And focus it up, Steve, a little bit.
Ex-husband has been -- has been stalking. Has called police over eight times.
Do you remember the testimony of Officer Edwards in regard to the 1989 incident?
When he reported how Nicole told him in her sweats and brazier, hysterical, you guys never do anything, been out here eight times and you never do anything.
Low and behold, we have eight times here.
Length of relationship, eight years.
This is Nicole Brown Simpson and there's no question about it (indicating to document on Elmo).
Can you go down to the end. And go to the beginning.

(Elmo adjusted.)

Keep going, slowly.

(Elmo adjusted)

MR. PETROCELLI: Children, two.
And then she gave you other details in her other notes, further making clear that the person she was talking to was Nicole Brown Simpson.
Has been abusive for many years. Police called a lot, nothing much ever done.
Keep going (indicating to Elmo).
This is what Nicole was feeling.
What happened that week? Mr. Simpson went out of town, he missed his son's elementary school graduation, he had missed his daughter's communion.
He went out of town.
Did he have any conversation with Nicole that week? None.
Before he left town, he went over and saw the dog, to pick up the dog. He went inside to do something for his son. He ran into Nicole on two occasions.
Did he say a word to her? None.
Did she say a word to him? None.
These people were not talking to each other. They were at war with each other.
Don't believe when this man gets on the stand, with his ex-wife not here to defend herself, and let him tell you that he had no hostility toward her and she had no hostility toward him.
That is an absolute lie.
You heard testimony from Mr. Simpson himself, that he spoke to a friend in New York about his relationship with Nicole, how it had just broke up, and that he was upset, and they talked about the children.
And you heard Mr. Simpson say that he made a special trip to come all the way back from New York to go to this recital on Sunday, then he had to fly all the way back to Chicago.
And the reason he did that, is he knew how further angry Nicole would be with him if he missed that recital. Having missed several other events, and still hopeful in stopping the steady deterioration of this relationship, and he came all the way back for that event, all the way back from the East Coast only to have to fly to Chicago that night.
Now, we'll talk about what happened when he made such a -- in his mind, extraordinary, Herculean effort to be there for Nicole at the recital.
Mr. Simpson returns from this trip on Friday night, June 10th. He spends the evening with his friend, Paula Barbieri.
He gets up the next morning and he plays golf.
The next day he has a conversation -- excuse me, later that day he has a conversation, after golf, with Kato Kaelin; and he's talking about Nicole, he's talking about not being a family anymore, missing the kids, the white picket fence, the whole image that he wanted so desperately at this time in his life, to have his life back with Nicole.
You heard Mr. Kaelin describe those conversations on that Saturday afternoon. That evening he goes to this formal event with Ms. Barbieri, it's a formal dinner party, and they have a conversation about the recital, and here's another big lie Mr. Simpson tells.
At the end of that night, instead of going back to Rockingham and spending the evening together as they did the night before, Ms. Barbieri is taken home to her apartment on Wilshire. Mr. Simpson goes to Rockingham.
I asked Mr. Simpson, now, you and Paula fought about Nicole that night, didn't you?
You and she had an argument because she wanted to go to the recital and you wouldn't take her?
She wanted to go to the recital, because once and for all, you're having broken her heart a year ago when you left her for Nicole, then you tried to bring her back in again, into your life, when things were bad for Nicole.
Once and for all, she put her foot down, and she said to you, I'm either going to be with you with Nicole there, or I'm not going to be in your life at all. You have to make a choice here.
That's the conversation that happened, and he said, no, you can't come. I don't want you there.
And he goes home alone and she goes home alone. And how do we know that conversation occurred, and how do we know that they fought once again over Nicole? And remember, they had fought a week or two ago about Nicole when Paula left Palm Springs over the Memorial Day weekend because Mr. Simpson told her he still loved Nicole. We heard that from Donna Estes.
How do we know they fought on the evening of June 11, and why does Mr. Simpson lie about it?
Well, we know they fought because the very next morning he went on the golf course, as he does every morning, and he almost had a fist fight with his good friend, Craig Baumgarten, who testified in court.
Now, this is one of his closest friends. And he testified, first of all, that he had never seen Mr. Simpson get that angry before.
They'd known each other a long time. That's how raw Mr. Simpson's feelings were.
And secondly, Mr. Baumgartener (sic), under oath, had to admit Mr. Simpson told him about having an argument with Paula about the recital.
His own friend came in court and said they had an argument the night before about Paula. And Mr. Simpson, with a straight face, is trying to tell you, no, they didn't discuss it at all.
And then when Mr. Simpson spoke to this psychologist, this domestic violence psychologist, back in 1995, he even told her -- he even told her that Paula was upset because she couldn't go to the recital.
Do you have those notes (indicating to Mr. Foster).

(Typed notes from Lenore Walker displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson possibly never believed these notes would ever show up. He said he thought that Paula wanted to be -- to go there, but he thought it was not appropriate.
Is there another reference, Steve?
That's a different one. We'll get to that.
It's even in his notes.
It was not appropriate. He didn't want Paula to go. He told her. They fought about it. He told his friend Craig Baumgarten about it.
What happens the next morning?
7 o'clock in the morning -- we played you the videotape of Ms. Barbieri's deposition. She left a long message on Mr. Simpson's machine, his voice-mail, on his cell phone, breaking up with him; that's it, it's over. And she also testified she went out of town and didn't tell him where she was going.
Just left.
She had had it. She wasn't going to have her heart broken again.
And she also testified that she got several messages from Mr. Simpson that day, that she checked in from Las Vegas where she ended up going.
At least three messages from him, acknowledging her message breaking up with him.
Now comes another big lie.
Mr. Simpson tells us, with a straight face, he never picked up that message from Paula.
This avid telephoner, he never picked up that message.
Can you believe that?
Well, we asked him.
He sat there with a straight face and said, no, I didn't pick it up. And he wants you to believe he didn't pick it up because he knows how much of an effect that hearing that message had on him, and he knows what it did to his state of mind.
See, we can't get inside his mind 'cause only he knows.
He knows what's important and he knows what he doesn't want to tell you. And that's one thing he doesn't want to tell you; that he picked up that message.
But we know he picked it up.
We know from at least three places that he picked it up. He was caught in this big lie at least three places.
No. 1, he told the police the next day he picked it up when he came back from Chicago.
You have that, Steve. Page 13.
Want to put that on the Elmo.
(Portion of Mr. Simpson's
statement to police on June 13, 1994, displayed on Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: This is his statement to the police hours after Nicole's death and about 24 hours or so after he picked up this message. Less than that.

(Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of Mr. Simpson's statement to police on June 13, 1994.)

(Lenore Walker's notes displayed on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Lenore Walker's notes. The notes he probably believed would never come out.
This is a private discussion between his domestic violence counselor while Mr. Simpson was in jail. The woman he hired to help him in his defense.

(Mr. Petrocelli is referring to Lenore Walker's notes.)

He called Paula when he got home from the recital. She was not home, call forward on car phone. That's his voice-mail. That's where Paula said she left the message.
He listened to the message on Paula's -- phone message from Paula. It was a whole long message about golf and didn't see you. He wasn't sure in Arizona or Las Vegas if angry with. He was listening to her phone message when Kato goes by in the house, and Kato testified that he came by to see Mr. Simpson after Mr. Simpson came back from the recital.
Somewhere between 6:30 and 7 o'clock p.m., Mr. Kaelin walks in, apparently while Mr. Simpson is picking up this message. So we know Mr. Simpson picked up this message.
If that were not enough -- put on the last exhibit, Steve. Telephone computer record.

(Telephone computer log displayed on the Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Where's the 1856. 6:56. Right when Kaelin is in the house after the recital. 6:56. There you have it. Mr. Simpson's phone number. Paula's number.
How could it be any closer?
So he's lying about picking up the message.
After he came back from golf, Mr. Simpson called Nicole on the way back from the Bronco -- in his Bronco, on the way back from the golf course, and there's a cell phone record.
Can you get out the cell phone board.

(Cell phone record board displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: 2:18 to 2:22 p.m.
We don't know everything that was said in that conversation on the afternoon of the 12th.
Mr. Simpson did tell us a few things. He said he offered to take Justin, his little boy, off Nicole's hands so she could get Sydney ready for the recital. And Nicole said, no, that Justin's cousins were over there, they were going to play. I suspect there was a little more said in that conversation.
But the bottom line is this: Mr. Simpson called up and wanted his son, and Nicole says, no. That call is 2:18 to 2:22 to Nicole.
As you can see, he's constantly trying to get in touch with Paula all throughout the day, into the evening. Talked about 10:03, while he's in the Bronco driving someplace, possibly looking for Paula, probably going to Nicole's in his Bronco, as we saw yesterday. Not at home.
Mr. Simpson goes to this recital, ladies and gentlemen, about 5 o'clock p.m., not a particularly pleasant experience for him. He had come all the way back from the East Coast to be there.
Was he able to sit and enjoy his family?
Was he invited to go to dinner with them?
Was he included as part of the family?
Did he have any contact with Nicole?
Did they talk?
Did they kiss?
Did they embrace?
Was there obvious hostility and animosity?
Mr. Simpson barely had a moment to see his daughter. Nicole had left the recital immediately when it was over and taken Sydney with her, and I suggest to you that this just contributed to Mr. Simpson's anger; that in his view, Nicole was not even letting him see his daughter.
In his view.
And the next day, what did he tell the police?
Quote: (Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of Mr. Simpson's statement to police on June 13, 1994.)
Nicole took kids away from recital so quick.
So quick. That's what he told the police the next day when the police were asking him about this. She took the kids away so quick.
Got a picture taken of him and his daughter taken at that recital.
Did Nicole take that picture?
No. That was a picture taken by a friend, Ron Fischman, or his wife, Cora Fischman.
You were shown a video of Mr. Simpson smiling at the end of this recital.
Let me say a few things about that video.
First of all, that video captures the last 30 seconds of what was a two-hour event for Mr. Simpson, from 5 to 6:30, probably an hour and a half.
You're seeing the last 30 seconds when he's saying good-bye. And they want you to say see, he's not in a smoldering rage.
They want you to believe that man's in a smoldering rage.
Well, if he were in a smoldering rage, then I'm sure he wouldn't be showing it to everybody out in the front of a school.
When people are upset inside, and burning up, and confused, and anger is building, they don't grow fangs and hair. That's the image they want you to think you see here. This monster. Monster.
I suggest to you that far more accurate of Mr. Simpson's mood and demeanor at that recital is not 30 seconds from a video where they're in front of a lot of people -- and here's the guy who all the time is smiling in front of people.
He even puts a smile on a suicide note.
If he puts a smile on a suicide note, he's going to smile in front of people.
His good friend, a fellow he spent the weekend talking to, Ronald Fischman, who testified here when Mr. Brewer questioned him, Ronald Fischman said, quote:
(Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of the transcript from the civil trial testimony of Ronald Fischman, examined by Mr. Brewer.)

So people who knew him knew something was bothering this man and things were not going well.
And indeed, when he was asked about the recital by the police the next day, he said, look, we have problems, always had problems. Problem relationship.
When Mr. Simpson returns from that recital, he returns alone, while his family goes to dinner just a short distance away.
He picks up this message, and who knows what kind of impact that had on his state of mind at that time, but we know one thing, it had such a profound impact that he will lie to you in the face of absolute records and notes from his own therapist or counselor and statements from his own friends.
It was that important an element, what happened to him that night, that ultimately made him lose control at 10 o'clock or 10:30, that he wants to lie in the face of black-and-white records.
When he got home from that recital -- you heard Mr. Kaelin, who bumped into him, who said that Mr. Simpson told him Nicole was playing, quote, hardball, end of quotes, with him in regard to the children.
And I suspect Nicole was playing a little hardball with him because Mr. Simpson was playing some big time hardball with her.
Writing her a letter, he gave her two options, come up with all your savings and give it to the government right now or move out of the house with the children. Those were the two options she had.
So I suspect he was playing a little hardball.
After he picked up this message, Mr. Simpson then, as you can see, made some other phone calls.
7:32, he called Gretchen Stockdale, another name from the past, a woman he had known, and he leaves a message saying that he's -- hey, Gretchen, it's O.J., I'm unattached for the first time in my life, or words to that effect.
But right after he gets a message from Paula dumping him, Nicole doesn't want to have anything to do with him, he's trying to get in touch with somebody, make some connection, have somebody, gets an answering machine, and he says he's unattached for the first time in his life.
I guess that further shows us that he's lying about not having received Paula's message.
And then he makes more phone calls, and then we get to 9 o'clock.
You can see how incessantly he's trying to get in touch with Paula. By the way, at 8:55 -- can you put that up -- he called his message machine again, retrieved a phone call from Paula. 8:55.
Can you show the numbers?
Not only 6:56, but 8:55, two times.
God knows what went through his mind when he hung up on that phone call.
Then he calls Nicole immediately, he said, at 9 o'clock. We don't see phone calls from him to Nicole because we don't have local phone call records. We don't know how many times he called her. We don't know how long they spoke.
The only thing we have, ladies and gentlemen, the only thing we have to tell us what contact he had with her is him. Nothing else, just his words.
So what does he say about the 9 o'clock phone call? Oh, he just called to congratulate Sydney and say let's go to Knott's Berry Farm.
He said he had absolutely no conversation with Nicole at all, no argument, nothing. In fact, they didn't talk, he said. He said, can I speak to Sydney, is she asleep, or words to that effect. Sydney takes the phone. And he hangs up after he speaks to his daughter and that's the end of the call.
That's what he says. There's nobody here to contradict that.
But I tell you that even accepting that version of the conversation, that doesn't sound like things are all too well.
How about how is dinner? How did the kids enjoy dinner? How was the family? What did your mom have to say? Where'd you guys go to eat? Wasn't that recital terrific? Wasn't Sydney wonderful at the recital? Wasn't she beautiful? Did you see how she danced? Did you take any pictures? Do you have any video? How about all those things?
None of that was said.
Isn't that normal conversation between two people, even if -- even if their romantic relationship has come to an end. Wouldn't that be normal conversation?
Mr. Simpson will probably never tell us what happened in that conversation, nor will he ever tell us what happened in the next hour and a half.
But I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, and there's absolutely no question about this, next time he saw Nicole Brown Simpson after he hung up that phone, he had a knife to her throat. That's the next time he saw her. He had a knife in his hand.
And who can imagine the words of hatred, revenge, that he last spoke to her.
Who can imagine?
Rage. Words of rage.
In the end, it all comes down to this: There's blood, there's hair, there's fibers, there's cuts, there's sweatsuits, there's hats, there's no alibi, there's plenty of time, and there's motive.
And that's on our side of the scale.
What's on his side?
His word that he didn't do it, his credibility, his truth telling.
This is what's on his side.
Did he tell the truth to you?
He's lied to you about everything important in this case, covered his tracks and hid his guilt.
The Judge will read you a jury instruction that states as follows. Forgive me for reading it.
A witness willfully false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.
Is to be distrusted.
You may reject the entire testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely on a material point unless from all of the evidence you believe that the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars.
What this means is that if you believe O.J. Simpson lied to you on just one important point, and that's what the word material is, you can reject his entire testimony.
In fact, if you believe that he was willfully false in one part of his testimony, you are obligated to distrust his testimony in other parts.
We have a case here where this man has been willfully false in all parts of his testimony.
Can you bring out the board, Joe.

(Exhibit board is displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Apart from the physical evidence that tells us he is lying, for him to be innocent and for him to be believed, you have to disbelieve all of them.
Either Simpson is lying or all of these witnesses and documents are lying or mistaken or faked.
All these people, all these writings, all these photographs, they either have to be fraudulent, lying, altered, mistaken. Bottom line, they all have to be wrong, and only he is right.
And here's the man who told you that he never, ever even attempted to tell a lie about anything important. A man who wrote in his autobiography, quote, I am a pretty effective liar, end of quotes. And then tried to disavow it. First by saying he didn't read it, and then by saying it was a joke.
I'm not going to take the time to go through this in the interests of saving time.
You've heard all these witnesses. You've seen all these documents in one form or another.
These people have to be wrong.
Whether it be Nicole's diaries, Nicole herself --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to that, Your Honor. That's improper argument. That goes -- only goes to her state of mind.

THE COURT: You'll get your chance to argue.

MR. PETROCELLI: As to her state of mind, Mr. Baker.
These photos all have to be false, police all have to be liars, mistaken about everything they did.
His own counselor, Lenore Walker, she's wrong, all those things she wrote in her notes, they're wrong.
Medical records of Nicole's '89 beating, wrong.
People who witnessed domestic violence incidents, wrong.
GTE telephone records showing he picked up the message, wrong.
His good friend, Jackie Cooper, about obsessing about Nicole, wrong.
His lawyer, Skip Taft, who saw the cut on his fourth finger the day when he came back from Chicago, wrong. And then he agreed to lie for Mr. Simpson.
His lawyer friend of, what, 20, 30 years, Robert Kardashian, wrong. Lied. He lied. He lied when he said Simpson asked him to go get the golf clubs. That was a lie.
Everybody. I don't want to take the time.
And Orenthal James Simpson, I guess he's got to be a liar, too, because he told us how mistaken he was when he told the police all those things that he now wants to recant, all the things in the police statement, all the times he said he cut his finger in Los Angeles. I was wrong. I was assuming.
When he said he was driving over to Paula's after the recital. I was wrong, that wasn't Sunday, that was Saturday.
When he said he picked up Paula's message. Oh, I was wrong about that, too, I didn't pick it up.
So I guess he's a liar.
Can you bring out the next board.

(A demonstrative board containing of Flammer and Scull photos is displayed.)

MR. PETROCELLI: And then if all that's not enough, this is just a good illustration of how a liar gets trapped in his lies.
As you heard in Court, I took this man's deposition early in 1996, at a time he believed it would never surface, a photograph of him wearing the murder shoes. February 1996, January 1996, at a time when he believed there would never surface a photograph, he felt confident, because none had come to light.
And so I asked him in his deposition about those Bruno Magli shoes, and he was emphatic. I would never wear those "ugly ass shoes." He was emphatic. Left no room, no room for doubt. I would never wear them.
Then a couple months later, a young photographer finds a photograph among his many, many photographs of O.J. Simpson over the years, young kid, 25 years old, Harry Scull, and guess what, a couple months later, he's wearing the shoes.
He's got a problem now, doesn't he? What's he going to do? How does he get out of this one?
That picture came out in about March or April.
Well, maybe I could say those are not Bruno Magli. That's not going to work. They're going to get an expert. You know what, you can see the sole on that shoe. That is not going to work. Think of something else.
Hum, what else is there?
That's a Bruno Magli. That sure looks like me. I was at that game. Those are my clothes.
I got it. The picture's a fake, it's a fraud. Okay. Let's work on that one.
So what does he do?
Better get somebody in here to say that's a fraud. Scour the country. Let's get the -- let's find a photographic expert, top guy. Hey, there's this guy used to work at the FBI named Jerry Richards, let's call him up.

MR. BAKER: There's no evidence of this, Your Honor. He's just making this up.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: Who did he bring in here?
Who did he bring in here?
He had the wherewithal, the motivation, the resources, to hire the best person in the world to come in here and tell you that picture was a -- picture is a fake. And I'm telling the truth.
He has the best lawyers in this courtroom. He could have hired the best experts.
He brought in a guy named Groden, I think, Robert Groden. You heard Robert Groden. What did Robert Groden say?
Well, first of all, Robert Groden never testified as an expert before, ever, in court. Never. First time.
His occupation is writing about the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy; and even so, sold autopsy pictures of a deceased president to the tabloids.
He was working giving guided tours of the Kennedy assassination, complete with sounds of bullets firing, peddling videos in Dealey Plaza.
And this guy comes in here 2,000 bucks a day -- that's why he came in here; they paid him $2,000 a day -- gets up on this stand, tells us that picture's a phony.
That's what he did. Hey, that picture's a phony.
By it's why he didn't show you that picture was a phony; he told you that picture was a phony. He said, the frame -- that frame was longer than the others; it had a suspicious blue line; it was out alignment; it had a false edge; and it had some strange marks on it. That's what he said.
Okay. We'll have to deal with that now because we've got this expert on the stand. So we bring in a man named Gerry Richards, a true experts witness.
Who is Gerry Richards? He used to work for the FBI for a lot of years, headed up their photo lab, held high positions in numerous professional photographic organizations.
This man was not only -- Robert Groden was not only not a member of those organizations, he never heard of them. He never heard of these professional organizations.
And Gerry Richards didn't tell you; Gerry Richards showed you the key frame is exactly the same length as the other frames. Many frames had blue lines because they were typical of scratches.
He showed you; he didn't tell you.
Several sets of frames were out of alignment because of a perfectly natural movement of the film in the camera. And this so-called false edge was merely the --
He wants to get this right, my partner. Mr. Gelblum handled this, as you will remember.
Underexposed photograph of the lines of the football field, complete with the red, white, and blue marks on the 20-yard line, nothing suspicious if you know what you're doing.
Robert Groden didn't even know, when he used his own Xerox machine to blow up the negative, to try to measure it, and that when it blows up three or four times, it distorts in dimensions and proportions. He didn't even know that.
So that's the guy they come in here with and tell you -- and base their whole case on that picture's a fraud.
And remember what I said earlier.
We have evidence, after evidence, after evidence, after evidence. You can find this man liable on the basis of one blood drop at Bundy. You don't need anything more than that.
But they rest their whole case on that picture being a phony.
If you think that picture is real, if you believe Gerry Richards over Robert Groden, he is guilty; he is the killer. And he's got nowhere to run anymore. (Indicating to Mr. Simpson.)

And if that were not enough, even during this trial, we have 30 more pictures that a photographer has undeveloped in his basement in Buffalo, where Mr. Simpson worked a lot of years. And they'll try to tell you, oh, how suspicious it is that these photos are emerging; how suspicious is this? Where were they two and a half years ago?
Well, do you think all this is suspicious?
These are people that know Mr. Simpson. He identified some of them.
You think all these pictures are frauds?
So now, when we confronted him with these photographs -- and understand something: He took this witness stand in his own defense, with his whole case riding on this one point; his case, not ours, his case, his whole case riding on this one point. Did his lawyer ask him a single question about these photographs?
What's more telling than that?
Not even his lawyer would ask him.
Did he ask him a single question?
No. I had to ask him.
I walked up here and asked him about those photographs. And maybe for the first time in life, I guess he realized he was out of room to run.
Yeah, I was there. Those -- That's me. Those are people I know. Those are my clothes, not my shoes.
Not my shoes.
Wait a minute, Mr. Simpson.
Can you reach that for me, because I can't.
(Indicating to Joe.)
(Joe removes magazine from demonstrative display board)

Well, wait a minute. This came out in the newspaper, November 1993. How could this be a fake, wearing the shoes?
And we put on Mr. Bodziak, who testified these are Bruno Magli shoes. And you've heard him testify these are, in effect, the same shoes in the Scull photo. They have the same class characteristics. That was his testimony.
When we tried to cross-examine him, that's what happened.
These are the same class characteristics as the Scull photo.
These are the same shoes, ladies and gentlemen.
Come on. It's like that Groucho Marx story: He's in bed with another woman and his wife walks in, and he bolts up and says, "Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
This is it for him. This is it.
And not even Robert Groden was called back to dispute these pictures.
Not even Robert Groden.
Are you going to believe O.J. Simpson?
We now come to the final remarks I'm going make to you today. And for me, this is the most difficult area.
We're going to talk very, very briefly about my client, Fred Goldman, my client's loss, the loss of his son.
And you will be called upon, if you agree Mr. Simpson is liable for the death of Ronald Goldman -- there will be no question that he is -- you will be asked to compensate Mr. Goldman for his loss.
And I don't need to tell you that there is no amount of money that could ever compensate Fred Goldman for the loss of his son. We cannot put a value on human life. You do not put a price on human life, when there is a loss of life.
There can never be true justice for Fred Goldman. There can never be true justice for anyone.
True justice would be to see Ron Goldman walk through those doors right now, or Nicole Brown Simpson, playing with her children. That's true justice.
That will never happen. They're gone forever.
There's nothing I can do; there's nothing you can do; there's nothing this good judge can do; and there's nothing that man can do (pointing to Mr. Simpson) to bring these people back.
All you have in your power to do is to bring about some small measure of justice by recognizing the incalculable loss my client has suffered, and to require the man who is responsible for this to pay for this, to pay for the loss he caused this man.
I would like to talk to you -- say a few words about that loss.
I think we would agree, whatever your ethnic, racial, cultural background is, there isn't any loss greater than a parent losing a child.
That loss is no less if a child grows into a young man.
We don't have to look beyond this courtroom. In fact, we don't have to look beyond counsel's table to see the love and the pride that a father has for his grown man -- for his grown child, his grown son. You've seen that right here in this courtroom.
And that is the love and pride that Fred Goldman will have only in memory. In memory, in his heart, and his soul.
He will never see the beaming look of satisfaction on Ron's face as Ron might have ushered him through his restaurant.
He will never sit down with Ron at a Fourth of July barbecue or Passover Seder, or a birthday party.
He will never share the joy of running off to the hospital to see his grandchild, perhaps his first grandchild, a baby that Ron wanted to name Dakota, if you remember.
He will never see again the smile on his son's face. You will never see any tears in his eyes (indicating to Mr. Goldman).
Fred has lost all of that and infinitely more forever, and his life will never be the same.
His life will never be the same.
I can't, you can't, give him back his son. All you can do is make Mr. Simpson pay for what he did.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor. That's not the law in this state.

MR. PETROCELLI: You can make --

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: You can make Mr. Simpson compensate my client, that man, that grieving man, for what he has suffered: The loss of companionship, support, love, and affection that he enjoyed with his son; gone forever, ladies and gentlemen.
And I am not going to tell you, or even suggest to you how much you should award him.
I'm just going to leave it up to your good judgment.
I'd like to play for you one more time, one of Fred Goldman's last treasures that he has, he will always have to remember his son by.
Can you play it, Steve.
(Videotape played.)

MR. PETROCELLI: There was a sixteenth-century poet, named Guillaume Du Bartas, who best expressed a relationship between a father and son in a few simple words. Let me read them to you.

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Mr. Kelly.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Good morning.


MR. KELLY: I also want to thank you for the time and attention you've given this case, and looking at all the notebooks each of you have is a testimonial to all the time and effort you've put in on this case.
And we all understand that it's been an extraordinary sacrifice for all of you, it's been a lot of hard work, not only in the courtroom, but to avoid this outside the courtroom, too, which called for a certain amount of effort. And we just all appreciate your time and your effort, at this point.
Now, the first thing I want to reiterate right now is the fact that we will never know with certainty, nor are we required to prove, what exactly caused Mr. Simpson to kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman that night.
To wantonly and maliciously kill someone, to take someone's life, this errant behavior, in and of itself, defies human sensibility.
Unless Mr. Simpson tells us, which he hasn't up to this point, we'll never know what twisted his state of mind to act in that manner that night.
What we do ask of you is for you to use your collective human experiences and common sense to weigh certain evidence you have here before you, and make certain determinations.
What I want to talk to you about is the evidence regarding who Mr. Simpson was, who Nicole Brown Simpson was, and the nature of that relationship over a course of many years, because that also holds a lot of answers to this case.
I would suggest, that during the course of this trial, the defense has staked out the position that Mr. Simpson loved Nicole, that he was not capable of killing her, and would never be capable of killing her with two children sleeping upstairs.
What we believe the evidence demonstrates is not only that he was capable of killing her, but Nicole believed he was capable of killing her, even with children sleeping upstairs.
Now, during opening statements, and when Mr. Simpson testified, himself, you heard a certain quote, and I think it went something like this:
Fame is a vapor, popularity is an accident, money takes wings, but only one thing endures, and that's character.
And we agree that character endures.
Whether it's good character or bad character, it endures.
And we've learned a lot about Mr. Simpson's character; we know it was formidable, we know it was complex, and we also know it was frightening.
And we've seen occasions when a sick, twisted mind would trigger the fury of an animal and the actions of a coward.

And Mr. Simpson is a coward.
You've heard about the public Mr. Simpson, the polished veneer.
I mean, how many times are you going to hear about the fact he won a Heismann Trophy, he shattered professional football rushing records, he was a spokesman for corporate America, and a commentator for the networks.
But, ladies and gentlemen, winning the Heismann Trophy doesn't give you a license to kill.
You also heard about the private Mr. Simpson. You've seen and you've heard that he would not always control his rage, his temper, during the course of this relationship with Nicole; he battered her.
And you've seen and heard from Nicole herself, that she lived in fear of him.
He did not treat Nicole the way he expected the world to treat him.
When we revisit this evidence, we are not in any way suggesting simply that what happened on June 12, 1994, was an instance of abuse that escalated to murder. Nor are we trying to tell you simply that since he had hit her on previous occasions, he killed her that night.
Rather, what we believe the evidence shows is that Nicole was the subject of violent outbursts from this man, outbursts, and on occasion he could not control regardless of what the circumstances were or who was there.
Before I get there, I want to address one other thing.
When Mr. Simpson was on the stand, and I think this says a lot about his character and the kind of man Mr. Simpson is, he told you people after he had separated from Nicole, when she had left him, that Nicole came to him and indicated she was pregnant.
This was never corroborated by anybody or anything and had nothing to do with this case, but I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that if that had ever been true, the last person in the world Nicole would have told was this man.
And if he had ever found out, this man would never, ever, have let that go. This man had a mind like Krazy Glue, and he didn't let go of things. They stuck.
He also told you about the time he was shamelessly peeping into Nicole's window late at night, sneaking around, looking in.
What does he tell you? The next day, he said, I shook the guy's hand. After that I'd see him, I'd talk to him about his golf.
If you listen to that 1993 tape, October '93, 18 months later and that man exploded about that incident. Exploded.
And the only reason Mr. Simpson talked about these things on the stand, ladies and gentlemen, is to cheapen Nicole's life in front of you people.
To talk about the murdered mother of his children, the mother that he murdered; that one purpose, to cheapen her life.
Don't buy it.
Nicole was precious. She was a gem. She was a total package.
And to Mr. Simpson, she was the Heismann Trophy of women. But just like that trophy, an object to him.
She was a great mother. You've heard that from everybody. She was a great daughter. She was a great sister. She was a great friend. She was beautiful. She was happy. And she was healthy.
She was everything Mr. Simpson was not. She was private. She was caring. She was sensitive.
And during the two incidences where the police got involved prior to the murders, the one thing you'll hear is that Nicole's only concern was the fact that these two children, Sydney and Justin, were in the house.
And diametrically opposed to Nicole's concern about those two children in the house, was Mr. Simpson. His only concern was him and him and more him.
And one of the hardest things to understand and learn about, probably, is a relationship between a man and woman, husband and wife. That's been part of the exercise here.
But at different times both Nicole and Mr. Simpson have given us insight into this relationship. Both of them, at different times, both of them in a sense, both of them at unguarded moments.
Mr. Simpson, on June 13, 1994, when he was talking to the police, he stated it's always been a problem relationship.
And Nicole, when she was talking to the police on October 25, 1993, after things had calmed down there a little bit, she says we haven't communicated in 15 years.
One thing Nicole and Mr. Simpson agreed upon, contrary to Mr. Simpson's testimony on the stand here, was the relationship was less than perfect.
With regard to some of these incidences; first of all, you heard that, back in 1983, from India Allen, she was at Dr. Shipp's animal hospital, and Nicole was there, she was there, and her two-seater Mercedes, the white one.
India Allen testified how she was bringing the two chows out to the car, walking along with her, and Mr. Simpson pulled up in his dark-colored Rolls Royce, at that time, and India Allen described Nicole; spandex, fur coat, headband, sunglasses.
With all due respect to my client, you couldn't make up an outfit like that.
But in any event, she described Mr. Simpson's demeanor and his appearance as he pulled up in that car and parked sideways to Nicole's car.
And she described how he approached the car; his anger, his clinched fist, how he grabbed the fur coat, struggled with her, and slapped her, slapped her in public with other people standing there, knocking her sunglasses off and her headband off, right there in the middle of the day.
India Allen testified other people were there. Someone was loading dog food into the car at the same time. She remembered clearly. She told the story many times over the years to her family. For years. She remembered it so clearly because of the celebrity status of Mr. Simpson.
And what did Mr. Simpson tell you on the stand?
That it couldn't have happened.
Because of Nicole's headband, because of the fur coat, and because of her spandex.
He said she only wore a headband when she played tennis.
You all heard that Nicole was a fitness freak. She has spandex on. She wants to keep the hair out of her eyes just like when you play tennis, you wear a headband.
With regard to the fur coat, he didn't deny she owned one. He learned his lesson with the pictures. Obviously, he just said she would only wear it in cold weather like in Colorado and places.
It's interesting when you hear what predicated this argument and ultimately this physical fight, was that coat, that he didn't want her wearing it.
And finally, and most remarkably, Mr. Simpson said that Nicole didn't own gold spandex.
What I find so remarkable about this is he can't remember his own designer shoes in 1993, but he remembers what color spandex she owned in 1983.
Next we hear in '84 where Mark Day of Westec Company is called to the Rockingham residence. He arrives there; Nicole's upset, there's a bat, there's damage to the car, there's a cracked windshield.
Mr. Simpson doesn't deny any of this happening. He just says it happened during a normal conversation.
Well, I would suggest that Mr. Simpson with a bat in his hand and a cracked windshield could be quite menacing.
And there would be only one reason Nicole would call for security, and that was because she was frightened.
Mr. Simpson said I pay for everything around Rockingham regardless of who broke it or what it was, so I don't know why, in this instance, she would call security to make sure he paid for this.
She called for one reason only.
In 1986 -- and you'll remember that Mr. Simpson testified specifically that between 1985 and 1987 their relationship was great.
In 1986 you heard that Mr. Aguilar was walking along the beach; Victoria Beach. This is a man who knew Mr. Simpson from his days at USC, knew very well who he was, familiar with him, saw him on the beach that day.
You heard Nicole and Mr. Simpson engaged in conversation. And the next thing he sees is that same lighting quick right hand across Nicole's face. The same right hand that India Allen had witnessed three years ago. And that right hand, this time, drops Nicole like a stone to the sand.
Now, try to imagine the humiliation of being struck in public, of lying in the sand, ears ringing, eyes tearing, with your husband standing over you, eight inches taller, 100 pounds heavier.
This is a reflection of the relationship.
This should let you think about Nicole's state of mind with regard to this.
Simpson said -- he told us this long story about playing golf in the morning and putting chairs out on the beach and everything else.
Then he went on to say specifically that he was not down in Victoria Beach on July 3, 1987, he was not down in Victoria Beach on July 1, 1986, but he never, ever, mentioned July 28th.
You can have that checked back and read back, if you want, ladies and gentlemen.
Just ignores that day which is around the time Mr. Aguilar testified that this incident happened.
Now, at this time, this '85 to '87 period, is when Mr. Simpson, as I said, said the relationship was great.
As you recall, Sydney was born October of '85. In '87, Justin hadn't been born yet.
Now, contrary to how Mr. Simpson said the relationship was -- I'd like you to look at something that reflects on how Nicole saw the relationship at that time.
Steve, 732A.
(Exhibit 732A displayed on Elmo.)

MR. BAKER: I object to her -- the phraseology, this is not for the truth.

THE COURT: Overruled.
(Mr. Kelly read a portion from Ms. Simpson's diary.)
"There was also that time before Justin, and a few months after Sydney, I felt really good about myself getting back into shape.
You beat the holy hell out of me and we lied at the X-ray lab and said I fell off a bike. Remember!??"

MR. KELLY: Exclamation point, question mark, question mark.
Mr. Simpson and Nicole were sharing a dirty little secret.
(Indicating to Mr. Simpson.)
MR. KELLY: You can take that down, Steve.
I'd like to go to 1989.
If you could play that tape, please.

(911 tape played.)

MR. KELLY: Well lost our audio, Judge.
(Pause for tape to be played.)

MR. KELLY: Okay, Steve, that's fine.
Now, you heard the testimony of Sharon Gilbert, who is on the other end of that call, although it's not clearly audible to you.
What she told you was that she could hear someone being hit at that time.
And what she transmitted was.
(Counsel displayed board entitled 1989 Computer Printout of Police Log.)

MR. KELLY: So you people would never think this was some sort of fabrication, she brought into the courtroom to testify to at that time, female being beaten at location, could be heard over the phone.
That call was changed to a high priority. And it was Police Officer Edwards who went over there. And when he arrived -- he told you exactly what he saw on his arrival there that day.
And when he pulled up, about that time, Nicole Simpson came running out of some bushes from the house. She was wearing only a bra and sweat-type pants, and she had mud down the right side of the pants. She ran to a driveway, to a post containing the gate release button. She collapsed on the post and pushed the button hard several times.
She was yelling during this time, he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me. As she said this, the gate opened, and she ran out to me. She grabbed me and hung on to it (sic) as she cried nervously and repeated, he's going to kill me.
At this time, when Officer Edwards first saw her, she had a lump over her right eye, she had abrasions on her face, she had a split lip, and she had finger marks on her throat.
Steve, do you have No. 4, please.
(Photograph displayed.)

MR. KELLY: That's what he saw that morning.
If you throw up No. 9, Steve.
This is one of the photos from Nicole's safety deposit box, as you recall.
Same injuries, massive bruise under her right arm also.
That was from wrestling.
Now -- you can take that down, Steve.
He's going to kill me.
That's in and of itself sort of an everyday expression, often used, and I'd agree with you people with that. I say it in terms of you've been dealing with kids to parents' going to kill me if I get home too late, things like that.
But in this instance, I would suggest to you it was more than that.
This wasn't hysteria, the movement of Nicole, this was not just her present state of mind at that particular time. On reflection, and after that, she felt the same way.
Steve, if I could see 732, please.
(Exhibit 732 displayed on Elmo)
Could you move it up. Move the top of the page, Steve.

So as opposed to Mr. Simpson saying he would never be capable or have the state of mind to kill Nicole, Nicole's state of mind was such that she had no doubt that he had the capability of killing her.
Now, after Edwards arrived there in '89, Simpson came out to the car that Nicole had gotten into, and what did he go out there for? He certainly wasn't contrite about the injuries to Nicole. Certainly wasn't accepting responsibility at that time. Nor was he concerned about Nicole. Didn't even ask about her. Nor was he concerned about the kids in the house.
What did he tell Edwards, though? And what did he tell you on the stand? He told Edwards at that time that it was a family matter, that if you beat your wife in the house with the kids in the house and you stay behind closed doors, it's a family matter, no matter what you do, how you do it or when you do it.
He then sent his housekeeper out to try to fetch Nicole since he couldn't get her out of the car himself. When that didn't work, he was told he was going to be arrested for spousal battery.
Mr. Simpson denies that he was ever told that or knew that he was going to be arrested or the cops were looking for him.
But what does Al Cowlings tell you? He comes in here and directly contradicts Mr. Simpson.
This is his best friend since they were about 8 years old. Mr. Cowlings.
He tells how Mr. Simpson switched cars at Schwartz's house and came back because he said the cops were looking for him.
Cowlings told you how Simpson parked that car around the corner so he wouldn't be seen by the cops.
Mr. Cowlings told you how Mr. Simpson told him how he had climbed over a fence, snuck through the backyard to get into the house, and later when he asked Mr. Cowlings to drive him back there again, Mr. Cowlings told you how Mr. Simpson instructed him to take a particular route back to avoid the cops.
When they saw a cop car, they took off again.
This is a man who is hiding from the cops, and more importantly, he was lying to you people when he testified about that incident.
Now, I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind that Mr. Simpson not only hit but battered Nicole on that night in 1989.
I think the photos speak for themselves.
Nicole told Edwards that Mr. Simpson had hit her, kicked her and pulled her hair.
A.C. Cowlings came in here and testified that Nicole had told him that Simpson had hit her and pulled her hair.
You can look at the medical records from that night, the night Mr. Cowlings took her to the hospital, and she told the intake people that she had been hit around the face by fist and open hands and assaulted by her husband.
And even in 1993, in October, on the tape, you hear her allude to this assault again.
Now, what's most interesting about that night, and I mentioned earlier, is that when Mr. Simpson lost it, he couldn't control himself. Didn't matter who was there or what the circumstances.
And on that particular night, Mr. Simpson wanted to represent to you that this was just a wrestling match in his bedroom. It ended when he got her out of the room.
But you heard how he not only got her out of his bed and then got her out of his room, he followed her downstairs out of his house across his courtyard into his maid's room, and attacked her in there and chased her out of there, too.
And that was even in Lenore Walker's notes, once again his own expert, in talking to her, he admitted to all these things.
And when Nicole got out of the room, she was left outside, cold, shivering, half naked, frightened, beaten, battered, muddy, outside the house.
And who was upstairs? The children.
Mr. Simpson would love you to believe that he would never do anything, anything like that, with the children around.
But they were right there in his house.
No one recognized the uncontrollable rage Nicole could evoke from Mr. Simpson more than Mr. Simpson himself.
And you people have seen the agreement that he signed, Nicole signed, about eight months later, that he referred to as a governor. A governor. Something to help him control his own rage.
And the reason that that governor was necessary and the substance of that governor was necessary was Mr. Simpson's own recognition of his own state of mind.
And what he knew and what he recognized was that he could not control himself out of love and respect for Nicole, he could not control himself out of love and respect for his children being present when he lost it.
What he recognized was the only thing that could help him control himself was his possessions. Fear of losing his worldly possessions, part of them, were the only things that he felt could help him control his rage.
Now, it's interesting, I think Mr. Baker alluded to it earlier, that when they put a price tag of about $5 million, this would be worth to Nicole if he violated this again, $5 million.
Now, all the writings you will see from Nicole, or every time you will hear Nicole's voice in this courtroom, it was either before this governor was put into effect or after Mr. Simpson and Nicole were divorced.
So there's absolutely no possibility, no motive for fabrication in terms of any time you ever see Nicole's writings or you hear her voice. The one thing Nicole Brown Simpson never did, ever, for even $5 million, was to try to fabricate a lie or say something that wasn't true.
Now, on January 2, 1992, three years after this, Nicole tells Mr. Simpson that she wants to separate and move out.
And you heard Mr. Simpson say that he was caught off guard, that he was devastated.
Now, here's a man who's slapped, repeatedly hit his wife in public, driven her to the ground, humiliated her, here's a man who totally humiliated her in '89 in this police situation and what they witnessed at this time, what she had to go through publicly after this incident, he's caught off guard.
But in any event, he indicates he tries to get her back for three or four months, falls on deaf ears, and they're divorced.
Now, we also talked about how Nicole flew out to New York in -- Christmas in 1992. I'm sure you people remember that testimony. How she called, she wanted to be out there with the kids and they had a great time, and she wanted to speak to him afterwards.
Well, I would suggest to you people that Nicole did love Mr. Simpson at one time. And for the sake of the kids -- just like when you lose a loved one or you're separated for a long time, you tend to remember the good times and forget the bad. I'm sure over that Christmas time, she saw a part of Mr. Simpson she had loved for so many years, and she did want to get back.
But you will hear on the Lally tape, the '93 tape, that it wasn't quite as Mr. Simpson represented. It wasn't just that she was desperate for him. She says it was for the sake of the children.
I would suggest it's quite normal for any woman with children who's been married for a number of years to want to try to put things aside again, start over again, for the sake of the children.
But the one thing she does not do is move back in.
Now we fast forward a little bit and we get to October of 1993.
Do you recall at this time Simpson was over at the house that night with Nicole --

MR. BAKER: I object. This is cumulative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELLY: Simpson's over at the house that night on October 25, 1993, and he just leaves, there's no explosion at that time, nothing, he just walks out of the house.
But subsequently, during phone calls that night on October 25, 1993, Nicole leaves the phone off the hook.
Mr. Simpson is being ignored by Nicole.
So what does he do? He gets in his car, he drives over there, leaves the car in the middle of the street, lights on.
He was being ignored. Just like at the recital on June 12, 1994. He was being ignored.
Now, the other thing Mr. Simpson told you on the stand, even in the face of that 911 tape from 1993, is that Nicole wasn't frightened.
Do you have that tape, Steve.
(Audiotape is played.)

MR. KELLY: That's it, Steve.
(Audiotape is halted.)
"The kids are upstairs sleeping and I don't want anything to happen."
This is a woman who's known this man for 16 years. She's gone from being a child to being a woman with him. She's had two children with him. She spent all of her intimate moments with him.
But the one thing that she knows eight months before these murders, children upstairs in the house or no children upstairs in the house, nothing will deter this man, and she knows it's not going to make any difference when he snaps, just like in 1989 when the kids were in the house, whether they're there that night. And she knows it's not even a consideration.
And she's frightened.
And she tells us that she's frightened later on.
And I'm sure Mr. Baker will probably play the rest of the tape where Nicole calms down, but keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, the 911 operator tells her to hang on to the phone till the cops get there. That's her umbilical cord. That's her lifeline.
And Kato shows up also.
Now, one other thing Mr. Petrocelli touched on, also in terms of our ability to try this case, is the fact that the one thing Mr. Baker's been able to do is put his client on the stand and explain things. And we haven't had that opportunity. And he's been able to say, O.J., tell us this, Juice, what about that.
And we haven't been able to do that.
And one of the really, I think, interesting parts of even being an attorney is learning your client. And, you know, I can talk to Lou and I can talk to Judy and find out what kind of daughter Nicole was. Or I can talk to her sisters and find out what kind of sister she was. Or I can talk to friends and find out what kind of friend she was. And everybody's been able to say what kind of great mother she was.
But I don't have Nick.
And I'd love to be able to say, Nick, they're saying things about you. Nick, they said that in 1993, when you made that phone call, you weren't frightened. Tell us about that. Or, Nick, they're saying, without you here to respond, that you're running around with hookers, drug users. What do you have to say about that? Or, Nick, they're saying that Mr. Simpson would never have that state of mind, never have that capability to kill you. What do you have to say about that, Nick?
Tell the jurors.
Now, fortunately in this instance, she can tell you.
Steve, can you put up the picture first.
(Photo is displayed.)

MR. KELLY: Bring it up close.
Nick (indicating to Elmo screen), my client.
First of all, I want her in her own words to tell you people whether she was frightened, whether she was scared, that night of October 25, 1993.
Steve, can you play that, please.
(Audiotape is played.)

MR. KELLY: "You're scared of him?" "Yes."
What more would you want.
She tells you right there, from as close as we can get to her, that she was scared that night.
The next thing you heard a lot about, whether it was Mr. Baker in his opening statement or Mr. Simpson with his rambling testimony on the stand, was, in his demented imagination, these things about her running around with hookers, Heidi Fleiss, drug users.
Well, Nicole, I want to know what you have to say about that.
(Audiotape is played.)

MR. KELLY: "I don't know any of these people, I don't hang around with them, they're not my friends."
She's telling you that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and in that tape she's telling you eight months before the murders about those allegations regarding her.
The last thing I want to ask my client about is this fact of whether she, in her state of mind, believed that Mr. Simpson was capable of taking her life.

MR. BAKER: Objection, relevance, there's no testimony. I wasn't on --

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BAKER: I object on the grounds that it's irrelevant for state of mind.

THE COURT: I'll see counsel.

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

THE COURT: It would appear inappropriate to offer her state of mind as to Mr. Simpson's intentions. Sustained.

MR. KELLY: As to the relationship, Your Honor, this is -- Your Honor, that's why this whole tape was admitted into evidence -- I'm playing one more excerpt.

THE COURT: Excuse me; that's not what you told the jury.

MR. KELLY: I'll ask that be stricken and just put it to her state of mind and her state of the relationship, eight months before the relationship --

THE COURT: I'll strike it as to that.

MR. PETROCELLI: I believe this tape came in under not the state-of-mind exception, I think this came in as spontaneous statements for the truth of the matter asserted, Your Honor. I don't think this tape came in for state of mind.
I'd have to go back and check, but I don't -- I don't think that's the record. I think this came in as -- under another exception to the hearsay rule for the truth of the matter asserted, and I don't think there's a state-of-mind issue here at all.

MR. BAKER: I don't think that it's relevant for anything, how it came, that it came in, a spontaneous declaration. It's not relevant to her state of mind, then it's not relevant to what happened June 1994. You have an eight-month period.

THE COURT: Her state of mind as to her belief that Simpson's going to kill her, I don't think that's appropriate. I'll sustain the objection.

MR. KELLY: As to the state of relationship, is that okay?

THE COURT: Do I have trouble speaking?

MR. KELLY: No, not at all.


MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if I could, one more moment, please.
Your Honor, this is a tape that was properly laid in foundation. It's material; it's relevant; it was offered.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, that's not the objection. The objection is that you are offering it for an improper purpose. You want to offer it for her state of mind and her fear, that's one thing; but you -- you're offering it to show Simpson's intent.

MR. KELLY: I'll rephrase the question.

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

MR. KELLY: Ladies and gentlemen, the next thing you will hear is an excerpt from a recording to reflect on what Nicole's state of mind was and her view of the relationship eight months before the murders.

(Audio tape played.)

MR. KELLY: That's all, Steve.

(Audio tape finishes playing.)

MR. KELLY: To will further corroborate what Nicole's state of mind was, to show what her view of the relationship was.
I also recall that after her death, it went to her -- they went to her safety deposit box, and in there, they found her writings and photographs of her taken in 1989. And she wanted you to know how she felt and what her view of this relationship was, if people needed to know some day.
Once again, as I said, the fact that she felt this way wasn't -- was in spite of, in addition, to the fact that those two children were sleeping upstairs that night too, eight months before the murders.
You can take the picture down, Steve.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

MR. KELLY: Now, you heard in November and December, 1993, Mr. Simpson was busy finishing a movie. Then, in December of '93, he went back to New York. And in January, February and March of 1994, he said he was away most of the time, in New York. He said when he was in L.A., he saw Nicole, but most of the time, he was gone.
And I just want to reiterate the fact, in April, again, when he made that phone call to the Browns, and he told them he thought it was going to work, I would suggest that that is when Nicole got cold feet, and what Mr. Simpson describes as erratic behavior was simply Nicole not wanting to talk to him, not wanting to be around him.
On the day before Mother's Day, when he drove down there, on May 7 -- and I described the tension in the Brown house. I would suggest it's because he was not wanted down there by Nicole.
And that night, when he was supposed to go out with Nicole, and she said she just can't do this, she just can't handle it, she wasn't having a nervous breakdown; she didn't want to be with the man anymore.
Simple as that.
Mr. Simpson, through his skewed view of the world, the world through O.J. Simpson, saw this as something totally different. He saw this behavior as bizarre, that this woman, who pulled him back into the relationship, didn't want him anymore.
And for that last month, Mr. Simpson was like a coiled spring.
And they were not talking, and they were not interacting.
And try as he may, Mr. Simpson can say that he was ignoring Nicole, but she wasn't sending him those musical tapes; she wasn't coming by with videos. There were no cookies to Rockingham, no pictures of the kids. She wasn't showing up at Riviera Country Club. She wasn't following him down to Palm Springs because she wanted to be with him.
And when he came by her house to pick up the dogs or look at computer games or anything that last couple weeks in June, she didn't even come out of her room or come out of the house, and they didn't exchange a word.
Don't let him tell you there was no animosity at that time.
With regard to the recital, that was covered in some detail by Mr. Petrocelli, I just want to make a couple comments.
I'm sure that Mr. Baker is going to play the infamous videotape again. And you know what? He can play it a hundred times to you people. But just keep a couple things in mind: That the tension wasn't between Mr. Simpson and Lou or Mr. Simpson and Judy or Mr. Simpson and Dennis: It was between he and Nicole. And you can play that video all night long, and every time, it's going to have the exact same ending. And that ending is a black Cherokee pulling up and Nicole Simpson not getting out or not saying goodbye, and Sydney not getting out of the car and not saying goodbye, and that car pulls away, and Mr. Simpson is left there, ignored and alone.
That's what that video tells you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
And it was the first time Nicole had publicly humiliated him. And Mr. Simpson had flown all the way back from New York, and she had made all the plans, and she had excluded him. She was in charge. And she was happy. And she wanted nothing to do with him. And he knew it.
Now, a couple other things just about that night, with regard to the time line, that window of opportunity between 9 o'clock and 10:45.
At 9 o'clock, we know that when Mr. Simpson had made a phone call and spoke to Sydney, he was home alone; the housekeeper wasn't coming back to Rockingham. He knew Nicole was home alone. He knew the kids were going to bed.
Consider this in the context of what the killer did that night.
He put on soft-soled shoes to move quietly -- rare designer soft-soled shoes -- to move quietly that night.
He wore a ski cap to avoid identification.
He wore rare designer gloves so he wouldn't leave fingerprints.
And he used a knife to so he could kill quietly.
But if the killer took all these measures to avoid detection -- shoes, the gloves, the hat, the knife -- why go out in a relatively early hour, at 10:30 at night, when the lights are still on and people are awake?
And there's only one reason, ladies and gentlemen, and that's because that killer had a plane to catch that night.
And if Ron Goldman had not shown up there when he did, Sydney and Justin would have come down the next morning and found their mother in a pool of blood, and Mr. Simpson was -- when Mr. Simpson was out playing golf.
Couple other things we talked about: Length of struggle. I think struggle is one of the biggest misnomers of this case. You heard Nicole received a blow to the brain with such velocity, that a bruise --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is cumulative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELLY: A blow to the brain that bruised it.
And Ron Goldman, relaxed, unsuspecting, finished with work, off to meet his friends, dropping off glasses, was ambushed in a pitch black area, pitch black.
And I won't repeat all the details. You people shouldn't have to listen to them: The knife, the savagery, the rage, the size of the area.
It wasn't a struggle; it was a slaughter.
And when the police arrived, that first officer on the scene -- and people know it, and I've got to say it again, and you've got to just keep telling yourselves that he saw the same thing that the next 15 police officers saw, also.
They saw Mr. Simpson's -- what they saw, his glove. And they saw his size 12 Bruno Magli, Lorenzo-style, Silga-soled footprints leading out there. They saw his blood there. They saw his blood on the back gate and the trace evidence from his clothes, his body, and his Bronco were all there and collected.
And don't think about a second glove ever being there or being transported anywhere, because when you hold that knife in your right hand, your gloved right hand, that glove -- that right-hand glove cannot even come off when you're holding the knife. You can lose the left glove; you're not going to lose the right.
No detective saw anything after 15 officers had been there.
When they headed to Rockingham, they didn't know if there was an eyewitness to the case, whether someone was going to confess to the murders, or Mr. Simpson had been in Europe for a year.
I don't want to keep going over the physical evidence. Mr. Petrocelli did a tremendous job on that.
The last thing I want to talk about is one of the last questions Mr. Baker asked Mr. Simpson when he was on the stand this last time.
And I think the question was, Mr. Simpson, have you ever told anybody that you were responsible for the death of Nicole?
And obviously, his answer was no.
And had it been yes, I don't think we'd be sitting here right now.
But what I want to do is put it in context of this conversation that Mr. Simpson had at the wake with Nicole's brother, [sic] Judy.
Now, you -- Judy, you heard, was very close to Nicole, and she understood Mr. Simpson, too. In fact, Mr. Simpson, himself, said she was like a shrink to him, and she was suspicious. As Mr. Simpson said, Judy got in his face, and asked him whether he had anything to do with these murders.
Now, Judy didn't know about any of the evidence in this case. She didn't know about hair, fiber, trace evidence, blood, anything.
What she did know, the only thing she knew of, was the nature of the relationship. And she asked him if he had anything to do with this.
And the one thing Judy wanted to be convinced of was whether this man, who Nicole had dedicated her life to, who was the father of her grandchildren, had not taken her baby from her.
And when Mr. Simpson had said, I loved your daughter, Judy, or -- no -- I loved your daughter, Judy, the response in Judy's mind was the same. She wanted to see indignation, outrage, hurt, out of Mr. Simpson. And when she didn't see it, when she didn't hear it --

MR. BAKER: There's no evidence of it, Your Honor.

MR. KELLY: -- and she didn't feel it --

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: -- the question was not answered in her mind.
And what you people have to do is now answer that question: Did he kill Nicole and did he kill Ron?
And you have to look at all of the evidence. And you can't rely on Mr. Simpson's testimony, because he's not to be trusted.
And you have to make this man understand -- understand things; that when you do things like -- you hop fences, you hide things in trash cans, or you run from the cops, or you peep in your wife's window late at night, without her knowing, you're a sneak. And when you look at a photograph of you in the killing shoes, and you say it's a fake, you're a liar.
And when you are unfaithful to your wife, you're a cheater.
And when you kick her, and when you hit her and you pull her hair, you're a batterer.
And when you slaughter two people in the primes of their lives, you're a killer.
And all Nicole and all Ron are asking you people to do is to assign that responsibility to a man who refuses to accept it.
Thank you.

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Mr. Brewer.

MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor.


MR. BREWER: Morning.

JURORS: Good morning.

MR. BREWER: It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to address you in this closing argument.
Like my brethren, my colleagues, before me, I'd like to extend the thanks of myself, my client, for yourselves on service on this jury. This is a part of citizenship. You come in, you dedicate yourself to perform functions as a juror. We've watched you. You've been attentive, you've been here every day, and for that we are deeply -- you have our deep gratitude.
Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Kelly have talked to you about the evidence.
I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the law and take you through what's called a special verdict form.
Steve, can you put that on the monitor.

(Special verdict form displayed on Elmo.)

MR. BREWER: Focus it a little bit.
Now, when it's all said and done, when you deliberate the evidence, and talk amongst yourselves, and decide the issues of fact, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, your verdict which you -- what you have say about this case will be contained on this special verdict.
And to start with, there are essentially three cases here.
There's a wrongful death case that is brought by the parents of Ron; Sharon Rufo, my client, who's Ron's mother, and Mr. Goldman, Ron's father.
There are two other cases; they're brought by really the victims themselves, Ron and Nicole.
But because they're dead, there has to be a legal entity. That's an estate.

MR. BAKER: I object. They are not brought by Ron and Nicole. That's a misstatement of the law because --

MR. BREWER: Can I finish? There has to be an estate in order for an action to be filed, and there are such estates filed in this action; one on behalf of Ronald Goldman, and Mr. Fred Goldman is the administer of that estate, and the estate for Nicole Brown Simpson, and her father, Louis Brown, is the administer for that estate.
Now, the wrongful death case basically asks you to find that Mr. Simpson, on June 12, 1994, willfully and wrongfully took the life of Ron Goldman.
The estate cases are going to ask you to make a finding that at that very same time, Mr. Simpson committed a battery.
Now, Steve, if you could put up the jury instruction on battery.

(Jury instructions displayed.)

MR. BREWER: Now, in a case where two people have been killed, it may seem a little bit odd that you're being asked to make a finding of battery. This is the legal definition, and I'll have these jury instructions -- the judge will read these instructions to you. This is the law that will govern this case.
You'll have an opportunity to have these back with you during the jury deliberations.
Essentially, what a battery is means the elements the defendant intentionally did an act which resulted in harmful contact with Ron's person.
No. 2, Ron did not consent to the contact, and 3, the harmful contact caused injury, damage, loss, or harm to Ron.
Just to simplify your analysis, I think the way you ought to approach this case is that the battery -- this legal definition is really what we are talking about -- is that the deaths of Ron and Nicole began with an attack upon their person. That's what the battery is.
The process of the attack was the battery. That led to their respective deaths. The death of Ron is the wrongful death action.
So if we go back to the special verdict form, Steve, if you would, please.

(Special verdict form displayed on Elmo.)

MR. BREWER: First question you've going to answer and this will walk you through all of the questions you that have address in this case.
If you could turn the page, please (indicating to Mr. Foster).
This is the first question you're going to be presented with after considering all of the evidence and all of the jury instructions.
"Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths of Ronald Goldman?"
Check either yes or no.
If you check no, then you'll see -- you will be given instructions with respect to which question you should go on to next.
If you check yes, then you go on to the next question.

(Elmo adjusted.)

MR. BREWER: You go to question No. 2. This is a question that relates to Ron's estate.
"Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Ronald Goldman?"
Now, if you answer question No. 1 yes, the logical conclusion is you're going to answer question No. 2 yes, because if he killed them, then certainly he committed the battery that eventually led to their deaths.
If you answer yes, which we believe the evidence compels you to do, to 1 and 2, then you're to go to question No. 3.

(Elmo adjusted.)

MR. BREWER: Question No. 3 is going to ask to you make a finding.
"Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you have based your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman?"
Again, you must answer that question yes or no.
You must indicate whether you believe, given the facts and the evidence from this case, whether Mr. Simpson, if you find that he killed Ronald Goldman --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to have to object. I apologize.
That's not correct. If they answer question No. 1, they don't answer that question at all, Your Honor, so -- he said you have to answer that question. That's -- he's misrepresenting the law to these people.

MR. BREWER: I indicated, Your Honor, that if they answered no, they follow the instructions. If they answer yes, they go to 2. If they answer yes, they go to 3.

THE COURT: Go ahead and argue.

MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor.
This is a question that you answer yes or no based upon your finding of the evidence.
If you answer yes to question 2, proceed to question 4. Okay.
Question 4: "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery of Ronald Goldman?"
You'll have a separate instruction that will define malice. I'll talk to you about that in a minute.
You have to answer this question yes or no.
There has to be a finding by you, based upon all of the evidence, whether you believe -- if you find Mr. Simpson is responsible for Ron Goldman's death, whether he acted with malice.
Move it up here, Steve, a bit, so we can see the bottom.

(Elmo adjusted.)

MR. BREWER: After you answer question 4, as it tells you right here, you will proceed to question 5.
Now, this question relates to Mr. Kelly's client, which is the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson.
The question you're going to have to answer there is the same question you answered with Mr. Goldman.
"Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"
You must answer that simply yes or no.
If you find that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the death of Ron and Nicole, this is a logical extension of that, you will find that he committed a battery.
If your answer -- it tells you right here. If your answer to No. 5 is yes, you proceed to question 6.
If your answer to question Nos. 1 and 5 are no, you proceed to date, sign, and return the verdict form.
If you answer question 6, you're going to have to make another finding with respect to Nicole Brown Simpson's claim.
"Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"
Again, it tells you right here, yes or no.
But you have to make a specific finding one way or the other if you are answering this question.
Scroll up a little bit, Steve.
If you answer yes to question 5, you're going to go to question 7.
Thank you.
You're going to have to answer -- "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"
You must answer this question. You must indicate yes or no. And if you answer yes, question number 1, then you go and answer yes, question number 8, and this will be the last question on the verdict form. And this will ask you to award damages against defendant Simpson in favor of plaintiffs Goldman and Ruffo in the aggregate, meaning a lump sum, as follows. And whatever you decide that amount is, you will enter it here.
You need not concern yourself with a specific award with respect to the battery claims by both of these estates. You simply have to make sure that you answer the questions if you find liability against Mr. Simpson, against the estates, on the questions that we showed you.
Now, if we can go back to question number 1, Steve, for a moment.

(Elmo is adjusted.)

MR. BREWER: You have to make a finding by a preponderance of the evidence, and -- so that's the legal standard, and in this case, the civil case, there's no presumption of innocence for a defendant. This is not a criminal case. We're not held to a criminal burden of proof or a criminal standard. And so what you have to do is, you have to find liability based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
Well, what does that mean?
You'll have an instruction -- Steve, put that up on the board, please.
The instruction you're going to have is that -- it says preponderance of the evidence means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it.
If evidence is so evenly balanced that you're unable to say that the evidence on either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the party who had the burden of proving it.
You should consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced it.
That doesn't go a long way to really help. It's a legal definition. Let me give you some terminology that we possibly use every day that you possibly used in this courtroom that will help you sort through the evidentiary issues.
Preponderance means the same thing as a probability.
Mr. Simpson probably is responsible. He probably did it. Those are the terms that I would use to reflect the preponderance standard.
Another way of representing it is, it's more likely than not that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole. Numerically expressed, 50.5 or 51 percent. That can reflect preponderance.
And if you find yourself saying, well, based upon the evidence, based upon everything we've seen and heard over the past four months, Mr. Simpson probably is responsible for these murders, then we have proved our case, we have proved his responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
Now, we went way beyond that in this case. We believe that we proved this case to a certainty without a doubt.
We had the choice of how we were going to present the evidence in this case. We could, in our view, have presented a fraction of the evidence, the blood evidence at Bundy, the shoe evidence, the evidence of Mr. Simpson's cuts on his hands that he can't explain, taken independently, in our view, those meet the legal burden that we're obligated to prove to you in order to prevail in this case, and we have gone well beyond that.
Now, another legal standard that you're going to be presented with as you read through the special verdict form is clear and convincing evidence.
Can you put that up, please?
There's two standards, and you're going to see that you're going to have to evaluate preponderance which we just talked about clear and convincing evidence.
Now, this is going to appear when you answer questions with respect to whether Mr. Simpson acted with malice and oppression. And it will say in the question itself, "clear and convincing evidence."
So what does that mean? How do you as jurors evaluate this evidence? How do you take that legal standard and apply it to the facts of this case.
I'll start with the instruction. Clear and convincing evidence means evidence of such convincing force that it demonstrates a contrast to the opposing evidence, a high probability of the truth of the facts for which it is offered as proof. Such evidence requires a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. You should consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced it.
The best I can represent this standard is if we start with a criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, up here, and we have a civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, right here, this one falls somewhere in the middle, it falls somewhere between preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal standard.
We believe that any of the evidence we presented during the course of this trial taken independently satisfies this standard as well. Taken collectively, all of the evidence you've heard from our side and from the defense over the past four months indicates, without a doubt, to a certainty that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the deaths of two young people, two young people.
When you're finished with this verdict form, the special verdict form, you should sign it, your foreperson will sign it, and it will be returned.
The last issue that you're going to have to decide when you go through the verdict form -- Steve, if you'll put up the next instruction.

(Elmo is adjusted.)

MR. BREWER: -- is you're going to be asked -- we read through it. What is oppression, what is malice, what does that mean as it's reflected in the special verdict form you're going to have? This is the legal definition of what malice means, oppression means, despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship and conscious disregard of that person's rights.
Malice means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to another or to despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others.
A person acts with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, which, when he is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, willfully and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences.
Despicable conduct is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.
This instruction will help you define and understand what the law means by malice and oppression, and those are questions that you're going to have to answer as you proceed through that special verdict form.
This is not a case of an accidental death. By no means was there any accidental or negligent actions here.
This is a willful, vicious, deliberate act of murder against two people.
If you find that Mr. Simpson is responsible, and if you find that we've met our burden by a preponderance and by clear and convincing evidence that he is responsible, you're going to find that he acted with oppression and malice.
The tragic murder, the vicious murder, the brutal murder of two people certainly satisfies any definition imaginable under the law as it relates to these two issues, malice and oppression.
Now, I'll say a few words about my client, Ron's mother.
28 years ago, on a warm summer day, in the early morning, Sharon Rufo gave birth to her first child and her only son.
On that day, a bond was created between a parent and a child, a mother and a son. That's an unbreakable bond. Many of us who have children can fully understand and appreciate the bond that I'm talking about.
And most of us -- certainly, all of us would understand that the bond between the parents and the child is based upon an absolute love for that child. It's based upon unconditional love. And it's a love that my client, Sharon, had for her son from the day of his birth to the day he was killed.
Now, my client, Sharon Rufo, will never see Ron Goldman again; she will never talk to him again; she will never have any relationship with him again.
Because the case is not really -- it is about what was, and it's also about what will never be.
And will never be --

MR. BAKER: Objection, Your Honor. That's not the law.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BREWER: And what will never be is the chance for Ron's mother, both of his parents to ever see, speak to, hug, love, touch, him again. A kiss on the cheek, a hug during the holidays, an "I love you," the comfort of a warm voice, a familiar voice. That's what we look for in family. That's what a parent looks to in a child and a child looks to in a parent. That's the essence of the loss that parents and Mrs. Rufo suffered as a result of the loss of her son.
I'd like to read to you, ladies and gentlemen, a poem.

I looked for a very long time for something to read to you that would have the meaning, so I could convey the feelings of Ron's mother to you. And I found that in her own words. She wrote it for me to read to you. I could not better express the loss that she feels with her son, and these are in the words I just read you, because these are her words.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, you will be given the opportunity to talk about this case among yourselves.
And shortly, Mr. Baker will get up here and talk to you, and there may be some rebuttal from our side.
And then the case will be entrusted in your hands; it will be given to you, for you to decide.
And this is a case, as my colleagues have told you ahead of me, that Mr. Simpson has not and will not take responsibility for his actions.
By your verdict, ladies and gentlemen, in this courtroom, you can do what needs to be done; that is, tell O.J. Simpson: Mr. Simpson, you killed two people, sir; you killed two people on June 12, 1994, two young people in the prime of their lives, who had everything to live for. And, sir, they did not deserve to die.
We're going to ask you to tell Mr. Simpson that with your verdict.
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume at 1:30.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.

THE BAILIFF: Ladies and gentlemen, we are still in session.
If you are going to remain, please be seated.
Quiet, please, until the jury leaves.


Return to Index