PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
SHARON RUFO, ET AL., )
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
VS. )NO. SC031947
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
_________________________________________)
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 21, 1996
VOLUME 46
REGINA D. CHAVEZ, CSR #8446
OFFICIAL REPORTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: DANIEL M. PETROCELLI ESQ.,
THOMAS LAMBERT, ESQ.,
PETER GELBLUM, ESQ., and
EDWARD MEDVENE, ESQ.
Firm: MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP
11377 West Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1663
For: Plaintiff Goldman
JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
330 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017-5090.
For: Plaintiff the Estate of
Nicole Brown Simpson
MICHAEL A. BREWER, ESQ.
Firm: HORNBERGER & CRISWELL
444 South Flower St.
Los Angeles, CA 90071.
For: Plaintiff Rufo
PAUL F. CALLAN, ESQ.
Firm: CALLAN, REGENSTREICH,
KOSTER & BRADY
One Whitehall St.
New York, NY 10004
For: Plaintiff Estate of.
Ronald L. Goldman
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ.,
MELISSA BLUESTEIN, ESQ., and
PHILIP BAKER, ESQ.
Firm: BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2650 Ocean Park Blvd., #300
Santa Monica, CA 90405-2936.
-and-
DANIEL LEONARD, ESQ. and
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQ.
Firm: BAILEY, FISHMAN & LEONARD.
6355 Riverside Blvd.
Suite 2-F
Sacramento, CA 95831
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997
8:53 AM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(PER COVER PAGE)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor.
MR. LAMBERT: He's with us. He's going to help
do the boards
(Indicating to individual sitting
next to Elmo screen).
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. BAKER: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning.
MR. BREWER: Good morning.
MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor.
MR. KELLY: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We have an amendment and motion by
counsel for plaintiff Rufo and --
MR. LEONARD: No objection.
THE COURT: Okay. Amendment to the complaint
and motion to strike or withdraw portions of the
complaint are granted.
In regards to the instructions, the
parties have submitted some additional proposed
instructions at the request of the Court.
With regards to the instructions that
concern presumptions, the defense has submitted two
instructions in that regard.
I will hear from the defendant.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I think there's just
a single instruction maybe on two pages.
If we had submitted an earlier
instruction, we withdraw it, but this is a -- it's a
two-page instruction.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LEONARD: First of all --
MR. BAKER: There's two --
MR. LEONARD: Oh, there is.
MR. BAKER: We submitted two.
MR. LEONARD: If it appears to be two, it
should be a single one, and the two paragraphs in the
second page are a continuation of the single
instruction on the first page.
Your Honor, first of all, I want to make
it clear to the Court that we have taken the position
in prior argument on instruction that the 664
instruction should not be given at all in the case, so
I don't want to waive that argument at all by virtue
of our filing a proposed instruction in the event that
Your Honor should decide that the 664 presumption is
applicable in this case.
Just briefly on that point, I think it
would be highly unfair and improper to give the
presumption in this case, for this reason:
As you know, early on in the case,
Your Honor limited our ability to gauge the witnesses'
performance of the various tests and or took in their
official duties by demonstrating what the standards
are, the protocols, the rules and regulations.
I can quote to you your own statement
made in the beginning of the case -- excuse me, during
the testimony of -- I believe it was Officer Riske in
which this issue came up; we were trying to
cross-examine Riske and Rossi and other officers about
what the proper procedures were as to the crime scene,
what the rules and regulations are, what the protocols
were, for instance, about setting up a perimeter and
so forth and so on.
And Your Honor said, among other things,
whether or not the police department did or did not
act within certain protocols of police investigation
or not, other than the facts that if they spoiled some
evidence or affected the evidence of the case, some of
the evidence being offered, all their shortcomings, in
the Court's opinion, do not go to the issue of
efficacy of plaintiffs' evidence, and I'm going to
continue to sustain objections thereon.
The problem now that we face is they want
both the benefit of the presumption, which as we put
in our instruction presumes not that various tests are
reliable, not that there wasn't planting, not that
there wasn't alteration, not that there was any
contamination, but as the Court stated in Davenport,
which is cited, the presumption of 664 is compliance
with statutory and regulatory standards.
And our only burden in a 664 situation is
to show that those statutory and regulatory standard
procedures or protocol guidelines were in any respect
not followed.
So how can we possibly do that now? Your
Honor has foreclosed our ability to do that, so in my
view it would be patently unfair to give this
instruction because we weren't permitted to get behind
the actions of the police officers, the criminalists,
and so forth, by showing, for instance, what the --
what the official protocol was for certain crime scene
activities, both by the police and criminalists, and
lab personnel as well.
So I don't think if -- In other words, if
they objected from the -- in the beginning to that and
Your Honor sustained their objection, how can they get
the benefit of this presumption?
We had no opportunity to rebut it, so I
think that the presumption shouldn't be given.
Also, I think there's been no evidence of
what the standards are that are presumed under 664.
So I don't know how this is supposed to
operate. If Your Honor is inclined to give the
instruction, we certainly think --
THE COURT: Let me -- hold on a second. Let me
hear a response from the plaintiffs.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the instructions that
you placed on the defense mainly went to whether
uncollected evidence, undone things, not -- not so
much what they did.
They were allowed -- you allowed them
complete and thorough examination of what was done in
this case.
The witnesses testified what they did,
how they did it. And that fully complies with 664,
because under 664 -- it certainly really cannot be
doubted that part of the duties of these police
officers is to refrain from planting or manufacturing
evidence.
It cannot be doubted that part of the
duties of a criminalist is to properly collect
evidence, part of the duties of a criminalist is to
properly test the evidence. Those duties certainly
come within the plain language of 664; their official
duty as regularly performed.
And you did not restrict the defense in
any way, shape, or form, from going into -- examining
in thoroughness and detail, and certainly beyond what
the plaintiffs thought was appropriate, every step
that they took in handling the actual evidence in this
case, which is, as you properly ruled repeatedly
throughout this trial, is the -- only the evidence in
this case is the only issue in this case, whether this
is handled -- is the Andrea Mazzola video which was
not videotape of her collecting evidence in this case,
but a demonstration the prosecution put together
before that was shown to the jury. They got to show
those. They got to see those procedures. There was
discussion about the procedures. There was thorough
discussion about what was done in this case.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just one more point.
That is -- that's an absolute bootstrap
argument when they say, surely, planting and
alteration and purpose for alteration of evidence are
presumed to not be part of official duty. But that's
the same thing as saying in a DUI case that the
reliability of the test is certainly presumed or that
the test was undertaken in a reliable fashion.
However, the Court said again --
Davenport says it's not the reliability of the test in
the DUI that's presumed, it's the fact that the
standards and regulations in administering the test
were followed. To the point where in Santos, Your
Honor, that's -- I'll give you the citation.
Santos versus Department of Motor
Vehicles at 5. Cal.Ap. 4th 537, 1992 case. There was
no -- The defense pierced the presumption simply by
showing that there was no time indicated as to when
the test was done, and the Court specifically said it
doesn't -- the defense doesn't have to rebut the
reliability of the test, they just have to show that
the rules or regulations were not followed in any
respect.
Now, how I put the question to you --
again, put yourself in our position, how were we
supposed to do that when we weren't permitted to even
establish what the rules and standards and protocols
were? How were we supposed to do that?
Now --
THE COURT: You want to respond to that
argument?
MR. GELBLUM: I mean, again, the Mazzola video,
they showed that.
THE COURT: You're not responding to his
argument.
MR. GELBLUM: They showed that as an example --
I believe the purpose in showing it was to show these
are their procedures to be followed.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. GELBLUM: I'm responding.
THE COURT: I want you to respond to my
question. My question is what is your response to
Mr. Leonard's last argument.
MR. GELBLUM: Well, I believe his last argument
was they weren't allowed to put on evidence of what
the procedure is.
THE COURT: What the standards were that in the
beneficiaries of the presumptions are seeking to -- or
should have followed.
MR. GELBLUM: My reference to the Mazzola video
is part of the response.
THE COURT: That's not very responsive.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay.
Well, the only procedure -- standard
we're talking about, and procedures that we're talking
about, in the instructions we've requested, is a very
broad standard which is thou shalt not plant
plaintiffs' evidence.
I don't know how anybody can argue that's
not part of standard procedures for the police
department. They're not supposed to plant or
manufacture evidence. Okay. Same thing with
collecting the evidence. They're supposed to collect
it properly. Same thing with tests, they're supposed
to conduct the tests properly.
I don't recall the defense coming in with
any attempt to talk, in fact, on the testing,
Your Honor, they answered the request for admissions,
they admitted the tests were done properly. They
absolutely admitted those tests were done properly.
They said there was some problem with the blood before
and this they admit the tests were done properly.
A lot of this evidence came in and was
allowed to come in.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'd like to respond
to the final point. That's absolutely not what we did
in response to request for admission.
Also, one final point. There's another
reason why this instruction shouldn't be given, and
that is that they're getting the benefit of both the
presumption and putting on a witness.
There's a case analogous called Coe
versus Southern Pacific Company, an old railroad case
from 1962. It involves due care by the railroad.
I'll give you the citation. It's
203 CalAp. 2, 509, 1962.
It's precisely the same issue except it
involved the presumption of due care by a railroad.
The Court says in the end -- it's a similar situation.
They put the engineer on to say that he was exercising
due care at the same time they wanted the presumption.
And the Court says you can't get both, you've got to
choose.
And that's what you should do in this
case, Your Honor. They can't have both. They can't.
And they also can't have the benefit of their
restrictive view of the case, and their objections
which were sustained by you, and at the same time get
the presumption. It's just not fair.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, number one, obviously
we had to put on evidence. We didn't know -- we still
don't know whether this instruction is going to be
given. We had to put on evidence. It's ludicrous to
say we can't have the presumption because we put on
evidence.
Secondly, I think that Mr. Leonard
greatly overstates the restrictions that they were
under. There were many, many cross-examinations,
questions by the defense, regarding proper procedures
and filling out the sheets for Andrea Mazzola. If
they were allowed to then -- if they fill out their
sheets, a lot of that wasn't allowed, you put limited
restrictions. There wasn't any lengthy questioning
whether they went in properly. There were a lot of
questions about whether they did something properly.
Properly means based against some standard or
procedure.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, if that's the case, I
can't imagine in any of these instances when we were
somehow allowed to get in the standards which were
never articulated. If the witnesses admitted they
didn't follow the standards, then we obviously have
proven that they didn't follow the standards in any
respect and then there's no need to give the
presumption now. End of matter.
THE COURT: Okay. Submitted.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: One last thing.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. GELBLUM: If as a -- as a backup, I guess,
if you're inclined to accept Mr. Leonard's position on
his last point, that can be solved by adding a
paragraph to the instruction regarding if performed by
a preponderance of the evidence, that standards were
not complied with. That would handle that issue.
THE COURT: Well, based upon the Court's
earlier ruling, which is actually based upon a motion
of plaintiff, I think the Court did preclude the
defendant from establishing standards on which the
presumption can be measured, as referred to in the
Davenport case, the Court is going to exclude all the
instructions as to presumptions.
There was one additional 14.50 that I
have in this group that I have marked as objected.
Did we continue the issue of measure of
damages last Friday?
MR. GELBLUM: Yeah. We agreed finally after
some discussion that we would go with 14.50 putting in
the names of the parties. That's what we submitted.
THE COURT: So the batch that we gave you to
work on over the weekend, that's the 14.50 that you
were offering?
MR. GELBLUM: No. We had -- we had combined
14.50 and 14.52.
THE COURT: That's what you're offering?
MR. GELBLUM: No. We're just offering straight
14.50. It says -- it has the number at the top. See
where it says 14.50 and 14.52, that really should say
just straight 14.50 with names put in as Your Honor
said we could, rather than saying deceased and heirs.
MR. BAKER: Well, you know --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BAKER: They don't need the one on Rufo
because Rufo is included in the redundant. At least
in the packet that they have favored me with, they
have.
MR. GELBLUM: There's two separate plaintiffs
there to give an aggregate. I assume they can
consider them separately and add them up together.
MR. BAKER: No, but look at your instruction.
You have two plaintiffs.
MR. GELBLUM: Right.
MR. BAKER: And then you go on the next one and
then have --
THE COURT: Okay. That's satisfactory.
MR. BAKER: And, Your Honor, I object to the
verdict form in its present form.
MR. GELBLUM: Before --
THE COURT: Let me finish with the
instructions.
MR. BAKER: Okay. I apologize. I thought you
said you were satisfied, meaning the instructions.
THE COURT: No, the 14.50.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: With regards to the instruction,
with regards to the proceeding in another county.
It's been tagged, the clerk informs me that you have
an objection to that one.
MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. GELBLUM: If I may explain, because I
submitted it, just what it is.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. GELBLUM: It tracks almost verbatim the
instruction that you gave the jury when we left on
vacation, except with -- I added the end, the judge in
that proceeding did not consider any evidence
regarding the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman, which I think is taken almost verbatim
from the opinion of the custody judge.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll give that.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I be heard?
Let me put on the record my objection to
it.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BAKER: This instruction, as stated, is not
true, that the issues and the ruling of the proceeding
have nothing to do with this case.
Six witnesses testified, and they
previewed those witnesses at the custody hearing and
brought them into this case.
And indeed, the circumstantial evidence
regarding the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ron Goldman were an issue and raised by the -- the
Browns in Orange County, No. 3, and the whole issue
down there was the relationship, but Alan Aguilar, Day
OJ Simpson, Judy Brown, all testified in that case.
So this is an inaccurate statement of
what occurred down there.
I don't think we ought to highlight that
proceeding.
THE COURT: That's the point of the
instruction, so that I'll highlight it.
I will give it.
MR. GELBLUM: A new instruction, Your Honor,
was one requested about Exhibit 732.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: That's in there. I don't know if
there's any objection to that.
MR. BAKER: Yes. I object to that. I object
to highlighting that. You've given them an
instruction that I objected to at the time, and I
object to this.
THE COURT: Okay. Admonished them at the time
and now they're getting an instruction.
MR. BAKER: I think you gave them an
instruction before and you're giving them a second
instruction.
THE COURT: Well, I'll stand on the record.
THE COURT: Okay.
State your objection to the verdict form.
MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor.
My objections to the verdict form are,
No. 1, it doesn't give adequate instructions to the
jury as to what they're to do relative to answering
questions. It isn't in the proper order, in terms of
the questions, and I will propose an alternative
verdict form.
For example, it reads -- question 1 is
"Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence the
defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the
death of Ronald Goldman?
Then it asks to award damages.
Then it goes to the issue of battery. It
doesn't suggest any damages at all, and it doesn't
tell them -- for example, at the end of question 1 it
says, if your answer is no, do not answer question 2.
It doesn't tell them where to proceed to
answer the questions, never gives them instructions
when they're to sign and return the verdict form.
And the questions relative to damages,
that should be at the conclusion like it is in every
other verdict form.
And the issue relative to the battery of
Nicole Brown Simpson should be question 3 rather than
6.
I will propose a new jury verdict form
tomorrow.
MR. BREWER: Your Honor, Mr. Baker and I
discussed early this morning the verdict form, and
rather than have both sides, why don't we muddle
through this form.
I think we can -- we started to do so
earlier, and we'll see if we can decide upon a special
verdict form. Have that to you sometime today.
Agreed?
MR. BAKER: Well, I don't know if we're going
to have it today.
MR. BREWER: We'll work on it today.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I request -- and I
know you've made your ruling, but may I request a -- I
understand that you have previously excluded Charlotte
Blasier from the courtroom.
Bob Blasier, as you are well aware, has
had some very serious back surgery. She is really his
attendant. And the infraction that she had relative
to when she was here earlier before the Christmas
break, I think was inadvertent, minor.
We would be most appreciative if she
could be in the courtroom for the remaining days while
Mr. Blasier is here and gives his final summation and
opinion, she will be there, and there is no objection
from the plaintiffs' counsel, we would appreciate your
consideration in that regard, sir.
THE COURT: Well, I think the considerations
that the Court had in making its order doesn't really
have anything to do with the plaintiff, it has to do
with maintenance of order in the Courtroom, and the
Court will not change its ruling.
Bring the jury in.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I request --
respectfully request that we take a break at the time
Judge Perez is taking a break. I'd like to ask to
bring this matter before him.
THE COURT: It's my courtroom, Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: I'm just making that as a
request.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard
the evidence in this case and now we're about to hear
closing arguments by the attorneys for each side.
I want to remind you that what the
attorneys argue to you, what they state to you at this
stage of the proceedings are not evidence. Whatever
they argue, whatever they refer to with regards to the
evidence, that it is their opinion as to what they
believe the evidence showed or did not show and how
they feel that the jury should rule with regards to
the nature of the evidence, and how the jury should
apply the law to that state of the evidence as they
perceive it.
Evidence is only that which you heard
from the witness stand and the graphic and other types
of evidence that we denote as evidence that we've
received in the trial.
You are the sole judges as to what the
evidence means and what it established, what it did
not establish.
You must not consider what the attorneys
state to you as the evidence.
The reason that the Court instructs you
every day not to allow any outside interference with
the evidence gathering process by jurors is precisely
to ensure that you do not go outside of the trial for
your information.
What you decide this case upon has to be
that which was received in the trial and you cannot
rely on any information received elsewhere.
So that is why you must not permit radio,
television, newspaper, magazine, or word of mouth
information about this case, that was not received in
the trial itself, to affect your judgment in any way.
When I tell you that the statements of
the attorneys do not constitute evidence and the
statements of what they say the law is is not what the
law is, it's not my intention to tell you to disregard
what the attorneys say. This is the last chance that
they have to directly talk to you about the case and
it's very important to both sides that you pay close
attention to what their views are of what the evidence
was and how you should apply the law to this case.
At the end of the case, after the
attorneys have argued to you, I will instruct you as
to what the law is that you will apply to the evidence
as you find it to be.
And I'll also be giving you a special
verdict form which you will fill out according to the
instructions that are directly on the instruction
forms themselves.
And in this fashion, you will be reaching
your decision in this case.
So at this time, Mr. Petrocelli, I will
invite you or Mr. Kelly or any other plaintiffs'
counsel to commence their opening portion of the
closing argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, defense counsel,
ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I first would like
to extend our appreciation to Your Honor and your
excellent staff. This has been a long trial and we
are greatly appreciative of the way that you have
conducted these proceedings.
But it is you, ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, to whom we owe the deepest debt of
gratitude. You have given up the last four months of
your lives at great personal sacrifice to be here and
to make a commitment to serve on this jury. You have
been here every day, taking notes, listening
attentively, focusing on all the evidence that has
come in, and for that we are extremely grateful. We
thank you.
We are here to determine responsibility
for the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown
Simpson. Two vital people who had most of their lives
ahead of them.
Here they are in life.
(Indicating to Elmo).
Steve.
By now, today, Ron Goldman would have
been 29 years old, and I think he would have had that
restaurant that he wanted to open shaped in the design
of an ankh, the Egyptian symbol for eternal life,
which Ron always wore around his neck and even had
tattooed on his shoulder.
You want to put the other picture up?
(Indicating to Elmo).
Nicole Brown Simpson would have been 37
years old.
Not on a day unlike today, I think she
would have, like she did every day, gotten up and
taken care of her children, feed them, take them to
school, karate lessons, dance lessons, bring them
home, feed them dinner, play with them, put them to
bed.
Okay.
Ron Goldman will never get to open his
restaurant, ladies and gentlemen.
And Nicole Brown Simpson will never see
her children grow up.
Because on a Sunday evening in 1994,
these two vital people, their lives came to a sudden
end in a few moments of uncontrollable rage.
Here they are in death (indicating to
Elmo).
I apologize for the photograph.
Nicole, as you can imagine, was helpless
at the hands of this enraged man, and she died within
moments of the gaping cut to her throat.
Ron Goldman, instead of running from
danger, tried to help a friend, but he too was
defenseless against this powerful man with a 6-inch
knife stabbing over and over and over again until Ron
collapsed to the ground and died with his eyes still
open.
Now, had Ron lived, ladies and gentlemen,
he'd have been on this witness stand and he would have
relived what happened that night and he would have
told us what he saw.
MR. BAKER: I object. This is improper
evidence.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Overruled. It's argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: But that is why Ron Goldman
was killed. So he could not tell you what he saw that
evening.
But even though Ron and Nicole's voices
will not be heard in this courtroom, they will not be
on that stand, their last struggling moments to stay
alive, ladies and gentlemen, provided us the key
evidence necessary to identify their killer.
They managed to get a glove pulled off, a
hat to drop off, they managed to dig nails into the
left hand of this man, cause other injuries to his
hand, forcing him to drop his blood next to their
bodies as he tried to get away.
And by their blood, they forced him to
step, step, step as he walked to the back, leaving
shoe prints that are just like fingerprints in this
case that tell us who did this, who did this
unspeakable tragedy.
So these crucial pieces of evidence after
all are the voices of Ron and Nicole speaking to us
from their graves, telling us, telling all of you,
that there is a killer in this courtroom (indicating
to Mr. Simpson.)
That is the man who attacked them, who
confronted them, and who killed them on that Sunday
evening in June. The defendant, Orenthal Simpson.
You heard his voice on the witness stand,
ladies and gentlemen. You heard his voice on the
witness stand. He took the stand about a week or so
ago, about one full day in his defense.
Now, by that time, we the plaintiffs had
presented overwhelming and highly incriminating
evidence that Mr. Simpson committed these murders on
June 12.
We did not merely prove that he did these
things by a preponderance of the evidence, which, as
you will hear later on as the Judge will instruct you,
is the burden of proof that we have to meet in this
case.
We didn't prove it merely by clear and
convincing evidence, which is yet another burden of
proof.
We didn't prove it merely by proof beyond
a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof
that applies in criminal cases.
We proved it to a certainty. We proved
it beyond any doubt.
So what did Mr. Simpson say about all
this evidence when he took the stand?
What did his fine lawyer, Mr. Baker, ask
him about?
Did Mr. Simpson explain why his blood and
his DNA were found dripped on the ground near the two
victims. Did he talk about that?
Did he explain why his glove was found
next to these two murdered people? Did he explain
that?
Did he explain why his other glove was
found back at his house? Did he talk about that?
Did he explain why his hat, his knit cap,
was at the murder scene? Why it had his head hairs in
it? Why it had his clothing fibers? Did he explain
any of that? Not one word.
Did he explain why his blood was in his
car that night? Did he explain why Ron Goldman's
blood was in his car that night? Why Nicole's blood
was in his car that night? Did he say anything about
this?
Did he talk about why his blood, O.J.
Simpson's blood, was dripped on the driveway of his
property that night? In his foyer? Up in his
bathroom right next to his bedroom? Did he talk about
that?
Did he explain why his socks had his
blood, why his socks had Nicole's blood on them, on
both socks? Not one word did you hear when we waited
to hear.
Did he talk about what happened to those
brown Aris leather light gloves, size extra large,
that we saw him wearing in those photos of him at the
football games? The ones that are identical to the
murder gloves.
Now, if they are not the murder gloves,
as he says, why didn't he bring them to court? Why
didn't he bring them here and say here are my gloves.
I am innocent. Did he say any of that? Did he talk
about that?
Did he say anything about the 30
photographs, over 30 photographs in fact, of him
wearing those "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes that he
swore to you, under oath on that witness stand, that
he never owned and never wore? Did he talk about
those photos?
No, he didn't.
Did he explain, by the way, how one of
those photos could be a fake if it was published eight
months before the murders in a Buffalo sports
newspaper? Did you hear anything about that?
You didn't hear a word.
If those were not the shoes he was really
wearing, as he said, did he come here that day and
bring his shoes that he did wear that day at the
football game? Did he bring them to court? Did he
show them to you? Did he say here are the shoes I was
wearing; I wasn't wearing those ugly ass shoes. I was
wearing these shoes. Did he bring those shoes here to
show them to you to prove his innocence?
How about a photograph. Did he produce a
single photograph?
This guy's got to be one of the most
photographed people in the world, perhaps. Sitting
there on a side line, with thousands of cameras,
television cameras.
Did he bring a photograph wearing the
shoes he claims he was really wearing?
Not one.
Did he explain to you how he could cut
himself the night of the murders between 10 and 11, at
the time these murders occurred, on his left finger,
and yet not know how?
"I don't know how I cut myself."
Did he even talk about that?
Did he explain to you last week how he
could cut himself so badly in Chicago, he claims so
bad as to leave a permanent scar on that finger, and
yet not know how he did it?
Did he talk about that?
This was his chance to tell us what the
answers were. Confronted with all this evidence,
highly incriminating, conclusively incriminating
evidence, pointing right at him, and what did he
choose to say, what did he choose to tell you, ladies
and gentlemen of the jury?
Well, he talked about his accomplishments
as a football player. How he won the Heismann trophy.
Ran 2,003 yards in one NFL season. How he broke
records and received awards. We heard all about that.
We heard about his work for Hertz,
Chevrolet, the jobs as a broadcaster, as an actor.
He dropped some names of famous people he
socialized with. I'm sure you remember that.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and people like that.
Talked and talked and talked about golf.
A lot about golf.
And he went to great lengths, ladies and
gentlemen, to talk about his character. Remember how
he was asked, and you heard Mr. Baker say in his
opening statement about this Hall of Fame speech,
about how a guy's character will always endure.
Well, you heard about that.
We heard about how he always tries to
help others.
We heard that he still goes to his mother
for advice.
And then he talked of his honesty, and he
told us, looking you straight in the eye, right here,
and said, I have never, ever attempted to tell a lie
about anything important in my life.
Now, we heard him say that.
He talked about Nicole, too, of course.
About how he tried to be a good husband to her. About
how he was a good father to their children. And about
how he would never harm her.
These are the things Mr. Baker asked him
about and these are the things he spoke about.
The bottom line here, ladies and
gentlemen, is that they would like you to believe that
that handsome man with the charming smile, the
expensive suit, who's lived the life of fame,
celebrity and fortune, and who claims to be dedicated
to his family, flawless in character, incapable of
telling a lie, that that man could not possibly be
responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman.
But it is that very same sense of
superiority, ladies and gentlemen, that Mr. Simpson
has attained that explains why he has absolutely no
sense of responsibility for his actions or his
obligation to tell the truth or for anything else.
He'll talk about responsibility.
Can you put the picture up?
(Photo is displayed on Elmo.)
What kind of man, ladies and gentlemen,
confronted with this bruised and battered picture of
Nicole, says, I take full responsibility for causing
all those injuries, but I didn't hit her, I didn't
strike her, I didn't slap her, I didn't do anything
wrong, I was just defending myself, I was just trying
to get her out of my bedroom.
What kind of man, who has shared a
bedroom with his wife for 10 years, calls it my
bedroom, my house, my property, me.
What kind of man takes a baseball bat to
his wife's car, right in front of her, and then says
he was not upset, he was not out of control, he was
not in a state of rage, and she wasn't upset at all,
not the slightest, even though she went to call the
police for help.
What kind of man kicks open a door so
hard as to break it in pieces and then says it was
just a reflex, and actually went on to blame it on his
kids, saying they had broken it before.
What kind of man says his deceased
wife's, voice on a 911 tape, which we played in court,
what kind of man says his wife is lying on that tape
when she says she's afraid and when she says that he's
going to beat the shit out of her, to use her words.
What kind of man says his deceased wife is lying when
you heard her voice trembling on that tape.
What kind of man says cheating on your
wife isn't a lie, which is what he said.
What kind of man says that his wife's
most private writings about her feelings and
attitudes, in fact her last written words, which I
will show you later on, are a, quote, pack of lies,
end of quotes.
What kind of man, when shown 30
photographs of him wearing those Bruno Magli shoes,
looks you straight in the eye with a straight face and
says that's me, it's my head, that's my jacket, that's
my tie, that's my shirt, those are my arms, that's my
hands, that's my belt, pants, not my shoes, those are
people I know that I'm taking pictures with, but no,
not my shoes, I wasn't wearing those shoes. What kind
of man says that to you with a straight face?
What kind of man says that virtually
every other person in this case who testified on the
stand against him is either lying or mistaken, and
he's right.
What kind of man would try to ruin the
lives of innocent people just doing their jobs,
accusing them of fabricating evidence, planting
evidence, committing perjury, just to protect himself.
And what kind of man comes into court and
looks you straight in the eye and says I never lied
about anything important in my life, and then lied
about everything important in this case.
Well, let me tell you what kind of man
says those things, ladies and gentlemen.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
it out.
You can take that down, Steve (indicating
to Elmo).
A guilty man. A guilty man. A man with
no remorse. A man with no conscience.
This man is so obsessed with trying to
salvage his image and protect himself that he'll come
into this courtroom, knowing the whole world is
watching, and he will smear the name and reputation of
the mother of his children while she rests in her
grave.
This is a man, ladies and gentlemen, who
I submit to you has lied and lied and lied to you
about every important fact in this case.
Every one.
Did you notice, by the way, how Mr. Baker
referred to Mr. Simpson on the witness stand as O.J.
and Juice, even though every other witness was
addressed by his or her formal name?
We all know Mr. Baker is a very
experienced lawyer, and I'm sure that was no accident.
O.J. Simpson has been marketing,
manufacturing, packaging and selling his image to the
American public for over 30 years.
And know what they tried to do in this
courtroom, he and his defense team, to sell you an
image, O.J., Juice, an image, a personality.
I even asked him, are you an actor? He
says no, I'm a personality.
Now, we are not here, though, in this
important trial to be sold anything and we're not here
to talk about O.J. and Juice and talk about images.
We're here to talk about a man named
Simpson, a deeply flawed man named Simpson, and what
he did on June 12, 1994.
And in the final analysis, that's what
this case is all about, ladies and gentlemen. It's
about fixing responsibility for the deaths of these
two innocent victims.
And we would all agree that in this
society we all have to accept responsibility, we all
have to be accountable for what we do. All of you
folks, you are responsible in your lives, to your
families, at your jobs, on this jury. You get up
every morning, you come here, you listen, you
concentrate, you focus, you take notes.
If you break the rules, you know there
are consequences such as being discharged from the
jury.
You understand your responsibility. You
accept it.
Now, those are the rules that we all have
to abide by. Those rules don't change, ladies and
gentlemen, if a person has won the Heismann trophy or
has broken football records.
You all agreed when this case began that
you would treat Mr. Simpson by the same standards and
responsibility, the same rules as anybody, as you
would want to be treated, and I have no doubt that you
will do so.
And I submit to you that when you judge
Mr. Simpson by the same rules, by the same standards
of responsibility that you would judge any other
person, what you saw in this courtroom, what you heard
in this courtroom, can only lead you to conclude,
ladies and gentlemen, that this man is responsible for
killing two people on June 12, that he's utterly
incapable of accepting responsibility for his actions,
that he can not and will not tell the truth either.
Therefore it is up to you, all of you, to
fix responsibility on him for what he did for the sake
of the victims, their families, and for some small
measure of justice.
Now, I'd like to begin by looking at the
most incriminating of the evidence that we have
presented to you. And that's the evidence that was
found at 875 South Bundy, which is of course where
Nicole lived, where the murders occurred, as we know.
To summarize, ladies and gentlemen, at
Bundy we have a substantial amount of blood evidence,
DNA evidence matching Mr. Simpson's DNA.
We have his shoe prints, those unique
shoe prints, one of a kind, size 12 Bruno Magli shoes,
leading away from the bodies to the back.
These are the shoes that Mr. Simpson
owned, wore, and lied to you about, as you saw from
the photos and his testimony.
We also have a single Aris leather light
brown glove, extra large, found at the scene between
the bodies, and of course Mr. Simpson owned such a
glove, as you saw from the photos.
We have hair and fiber evidence at Bundy.
We have head hairs of Mr. Simpson in a hat just like
hats that he owned. We have blue-black -- dark
blue-black cotton fibers found on Mr. Goldman's shirt
which matched fibers found on Mr. Simpson's socks in
his bedroom and on the glove that he dropped at his
home in Rockingham, the same blue-black cotton fiber
matching, meaning that he was the common source, the
messenger between all three of these places.
We also had this rare unique carpet fiber
that was found at Bundy, and it was -- and it matched
the carpet fiber in Mr. Simpson's Bronco: You have
blood; you have shoes, you have hair and fiber; you
have everything that you need.
Now, I'm going to put up a board in a
second and go over this evidence in a little more
detail, but I want to mention a few things, a few sort
of obvious observations.
Bundy is the home of Nicole Brown
Simpson. These murders didn't occur at -- in a dark
alley or parking lot or convenience store; they
occurred right at her home, not far from her front
door, which was left wide open, with the lights on
inside, you'll remember the testimony. There's no
evidence of a burglary here, robbery, vandalism, or
rape, or any kind of sexual assault. We're not
dealing with any of that here.
Nothing on the victims' person: Their
jewelry, their personal effects, nothing was taken;
nothing was removed; nothing inside the home was
touched or disturbed; nothing was stolen; nothing was
ransacked. Nicole had a very expensive Ferrari out in
the garage, another car out there, a Jeep Cherokee.
None of that was touched.
The children were upstairs, asleep in
their bedrooms, unharmed. There's no evidence that
anybody touched or tried to hurt those children.
There's no evidence that Nicole was
expecting anyone, either.
Ron Goldman went there at the very last
minute, when he was asked by Nicole, right before
10 o'clock, to drop off a pair of glasses.
Nobody knew Ron Goldman was going to
Nicole's condominium on his way to meet some friends;
only he knew, Nicole knew, and Karen Crawford, who
worked at Mezzaluna. She knew when she took the call
from Nicole and saw Ron leave.
So it is very clear that Nicole Brown
Simpson was the target of this attack. By someone who
knew she would be home and someone who knew where she
lived.
It's not a gunshot killing. We're
talking about a killing by a knife, up close, by a
person, obviously from these wounds, in a state of
rage, a rage killing.
And all these signs, ladies and gentlemen
point directly to a person who knew Nicole, knew where
to find her, and had no reason to go to her house that
night except to confront her, and had no reason to
expect Ron Goldman, who showed up unexpectedly.
There's no such person other than
O.J. Simpson, ladies and gentlemen. And all the
physical evidence proves that it was him.
Can we put out the Bundy board.
(Exhibit referred to was displayed
on the Elmo screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to go over this
evidence in a little bit of detail, because this is
the most critical evidence in the case (indicating to
board displayed on the Elmo screen), all at Bundy, all
where the murders occurred.
What we have, of course, are the blood
drops that were leaving the scene of the -- of where
the bodies were found, going out towards the alley
(indicating), and then one drop right over here on the
other side of the rear (indicating), indicate -- we
have the blood drops on the rear gate, as the killer
bled a few drops as he went through that gate.
These blood drops (indicating), of
course, are on the left side of the shoe prints.
They're on the left side of the shoe prints,
indicating that the person who dropped this blood was
injured on his left side, such as a left finger or
left hand.
We have the shoe prints. Of course,
it's unique prints made in Nicole's blood.
What you need to understand, ladies and
gentlemen, is, that shoe made that footprint, that is
a perfect match -- and there's not any testimony in
this case disputing that; nobody challenges that --
that shoe made that shoe print. If he's wearing that
shoe, he did it.
Those are the gloves identical to one of
the gloves found here. A left glove was found here,
and the right glove was found at Rockingham, gloves
identical to these two gloves which you see
Mr. Simpson wearing.
And indeed, if these are not the murder
gloves, he could have and should have brought those
gloves to court. And he didn't.
You have here a hat just like the hat
Mr. Simpson has at his house, the one that was
recovered from his bedroom by the police, just like
that one. In that hat, we had various hair and fiber
evidence, which I will go over with you.
And, of course, we have the cuts from the
left finger -- left fingers, dropping blood on the
left side of the shoe prints.
So, you see, it's all here, ladies and
gentlemen.
There are some fibers here -- there's
some blue-black cotton fibers that were found on
Mr. Goldman's shirt, matching fiber found on the sock
in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, and another one on the glove
at Rockingham: The same blue-black cotton fiber
which, we submit to you, is consistent with a
blue-black cotton sweat suit, which we have proved to
you that Mr. Simpson owned at the time.
MR. BAKER: I object. There's been no
testimony of blue-black anything.
MR. PETROCELLI: There has, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson owned a sweat suit
at the time. I'll go over that with you in a bit.
He tried to lie to you, to say he didn't have one,
until we called in witnesses to impeach him. And
we'll go over that.
So, we have his gloves, his hat, the
sweat suit, his shoes, his cuts, his blood, his hair,
his fibers. It's all here; it's all at Bundy.
Now, let me talk to you a little bit
about the blood evidence, because it obviously is so
crucial and it is so incriminating, and I just want to
discuss it briefly.
I won't do it justice. Mr. Lambert put
on that evidence through our expert witnesses; and let
me go over just a little bit with you.
The five blood drops that you have there
that left a trail to the left of shoe prints, were
tested by three different laboratories: The
Los Angeles Police Department's Scientific
Investigation Division, the California Department of
Justice, and the Cellmark Laboratory back east, where
Dr. Robin Cotton works. Gary Sims works for the
Department of Justice. And you heard from Collin
Yamauchi, from the LAPD's lab, the SID lab.
All three labs tested these blood drops.
And all three got the very same results; there's no
differences in the results. All three separate labs,
acting independently, got the same results. And all
three labs found that these blood drops matched
Mr. Simpson's DNA pattern. Okay.
They tested these blood drops at 12
different genetic markers: The DQ Alpha location,
D1S80, five polymarker locations, and five RFLP
locations. All -- at all 12 of these genetic markers
or locations where the DNA was tested, the DNA pattern
matched Mr. Simpson at all 12.
Now, this alone, ladies and gentlemen, is
conclusive proof that that's his blood.
We'll bring out the frequency board in a
minute.
But at a minimum -- at a minimum, now --
only one out of a 170 million people in the world
would have these DNA patterns. And O.J. Simpson is
one of them.
The defense in this case -- it's
important you understand this -- they don't contest
these results; they don't contest that these DNA test
results matched Mr. Simpson's blood.
Do you remember when Mr. Lambert read to
you something called Defendant's Responses to Request
for Admissions? I don't know if it was very exciting,
but he sat here and read to you -- those were the
defense's admissions to his -- those blood-test
results. And they're conclusive on this issue.
And they establish that those blood drops
are Mr. Simpson's blood. And you have to accept that.
They don't contest it.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. That's
improper. That isn't what we admitted to.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Understand something: All the
defense can say -- they can say is -- they haven't
presented any evidence -- all they can say is that if
you get around these test results, showing his blood
is at -- the evidence, these blood drops had to have
been planted or somehow contaminated.
And if you don't buy into any of that,
and his blood's there, and he did it, unless they can
prove to you how his blood got in those labs.
There hasn't been one, not one iota of
evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that any of those
blood drops were planted.
In the first place, as you'll remember
from the police testimony and the criminalists, these
blood drops were collected on the morning of June 13
at Bundy, when Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola went out
there.
Mr. Simpson didn't even give his blood to
the Los Angeles Police Department until 3:30 in the
afternoon that same day, after all the blood in this
case was collected.
So they didn't have his blood to go to
Bundy and start dropping blood drops. They didn't
have it. He didn't give them his blood until 3:30.
And these were all collected beforehand.
So they could not have been planted
there.
And remember the testimony that the blood
drops were fresh when they were found, that was given
by Dennis Fung, it was still reddish in color? And
his testimony is unrefuted about that.
And, Mr. Simpson, of course, gave you no
explanation how his blood could have gotten there
innocently. He had no innocent explanation for why
his blood was at Bundy.
In fact, he had no innocent explanation
for any of this evidence, nothing. He had no innocent
explanation for anything.
He tries to also say, ladies and
gentlemen, that why the blood -- these test results
showed my blood was because there was a contamination
in the lab.
He tried to ask a lot of questions
of witnesses about that.
First of all, as we proved from the
experts, when blood is contaminated, it doesn't turn
somebody's blood into O.J. Simpson's blood. So just
saying contamination didn't mean much; his blood just
didn't show up because there's some contamination
involved.
Moreover, you heard the evidence from
Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark, Gary Sims of DOJ,
Brad -- Dr. Brad Popovich. There isn't any evidence
of any contamination. None. They reviewed the work
in this case.
Dr. Popovich reviewed all blood work in
this case, and said there's no evidence of any
contamination. None. The test results are reliable,
they're accurate, and they're unaffected by
contamination. Those were his words.
And he came on the stand and he gave that
testimony just last week. And he reviewed all the
work in this case, unaffected by contamination.
There's no evidence of contamination in this case.
I'm going to talk to you a little bit
later on about why we have these arguments of -- about
conspiracy and planting and contamination. And I'm
going to show you how these arguments were born.
But let me just tell you something:
There isn't any evidence to support any of this stuff.
Their expert, Dr. John Gerdes -- this was
the guy they put on the witness stand -- he's the guy
that represents mainly rapists and murderers if you
recall. He's the guy -- he testifies for them, I
should say. He's the guy who said -- tried to say
there was some contamination, but finally had to
concede that if there was contamination, it would have
showed up on the substrate controls.
Throughout this whole process of
collecting blood evidence, there were these control
swatches taken every step of the way of collection and
testing.
If there's any contamination, if
Mr. Simpson's blood is somehow accidentally being put
on the various blood swatches in this case, it would
also show up on these control swatches. And every
single one of these control swatches, their expert had
to admit in the end, was completely free of
contamination. Zero contamination on any control
swatches. And that's really the end of discussion
about contamination.
If Mr. Simpson's blood is not on the
control swatches, there's no contamination.
Blood stain 52, by the way, that one
Robin -- Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark testified --
that's the one right outside the back gate -- on that
stain alone, she was able to obtain what she called a
5-probe RFLP match, which means she tested the DNA at
five different locations. That's a very, very
significant match under this RFLP test. And in the
entire population, the number of people who could have
had this 5-probe RFLP match is somewhere between one
out of every 170 million and one out of every 2.2
billion.
And Mr. Simpson is such a person who has
that 5-probe match. That blood stain alone, number
52, is sufficient to show Mr. Simpson is responsible
for these murders.
He has no innocent explanation why his
blood and his DNA were found at Bundy right after the
murders.
Now, on the back gate -- you heard a lot
of testimony about the blood on the back gate. Gary
Sims, from the Department of Justice, tested the
back-gate blood, and he did a 9-probe RFLP match on
that back-gate stain. And he found that it matched
Simpson's DNA pattern.
A 9-probe match -- I'll show you the
frequencies. And they're very, very high.
Again, their expert, Dr. Gerdes, admitted
that that result could not be the result of
contamination. That 9-probe match could not have come
about by contamination. It's conclusive proof that
Simpson's blood is on the back gate.
They don't really quarrel with that.
What they say is, it was planted there.
Let me explain something about this
back-gate planting argument, okay?
If blood evidence at Bundy was checked on
the morning of June 13, and these three stains on the
back gate were overlooked and they were not collected
until July 3 -- the criminalists, Dennis Fung and
Andrea Mazzola, did not go here and here and here to
pick up stains; they just didn't do it. However, we
know they were -- they were not planted, because four
or five police officers, who we brought in here to
testify, said they saw blood on the back gate. They
saw blood, these blood stains on the back gate when
they came to the crime scene, to either secure it or
to investigate it.
In fact -- I know it's been a long trial
and it's hard to remember all this -- but the very
first officer on the scene, Robert Riske, one of the
first witnesses in our case, he saw the blood on the
back gate, and he wrote it down in his notes.
And it's right there in his notes, if you
want to take a look at it. And that's exhibit --
What's that, 833, Steve?
MR. FOSTER: Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: 833. Okay.
You want to bring out the results board
real fast? And I'll move on to the hair and fiber
evidence.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, is this a good place
for a break?
THE COURT: You want to take a break now?
MR. PETROCELLI: Let me get through the blood,
and then before we go to the next topic --
THE COURT: Okay.
(Board entitled Results of DNA
Analysis, Bundy Crime Scene,
Exhibit 833, displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Again, these are the blood
drops tested by the various labs. (Indicating.) It's
five Bundy stains, and then it's three back-gate
stains, and you'll see the labs, DOJ and Cellmark,
that did the various tests, and the matches that they
came up with.
This is Nicole (indicating). This is a
shoe print in Nicole Brown Simpson's blood
(indicating). This is why it comes up with Nicole
Brown. All the rest of them are O.J. Simpson.
No, the defense does not challenge these
results. They have had an expert who was around when
some of this testing was done. He didn't come in here
and testify.
They don't contest any of these results;
they agree with these results.
They have no evidence of contamination.
Dr. Popovich reviewed our experts' --
reviewed all this, and testified -- said no
contamination.
Dr. Henry Lee testified for the defense.
He said he had no problems about DNA in this case.
And you'll see the frequencies up there.
The defense did not challenge any of the frequencies,
either, ladies and gentlemen. They did not bring in a
geneticist, population geneticist or statistician.
The frequencies are undisputed. And they show that
this blood is all O.J. Simpson's blood.
This is a good place, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
Remember, during argument -- you cannot
discuss this case until the Court gives the case to
you, after instructions.
Don't talk about the argument among
yourselves, or the evidence.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: We're trying to cool down a
little here, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's very warm.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, thank you. Before the
break I described to you the overwhelming blood
evidence that incriminates Mr. Simpson.
I would now like to talk briefly about
what we call hair and fiber evidence.
You will remember we put on the witness
stand Douglas Deedrick from the FBI. He's the chief
of the hair and fibers unit. He's an undisputed
expert in hair and fiber analysis.
He testified that Mr. Simpson's defense
experts examined these hair and fiber materials as
well, and that he did not disagree with Mr. Deedrick's
conclusions.
And remember, the defense did not call
any expert witnesses to refute or disagree with what
Mr. Deedrick said about these hair and fiber matches.
So his testimony that there were matches is completely
unrefuted. Nobody disagrees with it.
Now, Agent Deedrick testified about the
head hairs found in that cap up there, the blue cap.
And he said that there were 12 head hairs found and
they matched Mr. Simpson's head hair. That alone is
very incriminating. Why is his head hair in that hat
right next to the victim's bodies.
Nine of the head hairs -- actually there
were twelve head hairs in all. Nine of them were
found actually inside the cap. What that means is
that those head hairs, according to Doug Deedrick,
likely came right off of Mr. Simpson's head when the
cap came off or when he was using the cap. Call that
a primary transfer. The fact that those head hairs
were inside the cap suggests that they didn't just
blow in there from some other source.
The defense liked to talk about the fact
that there was a blanket that was brought out from
Nicole's house to use for the bodies. Well, they
never proved that that blanket had any head hairs of
Mr. Simpson or any fibers or anything regarding
Mr. Simpson. And in fact, the testimony about that
blanket, as you will recall from Officer Thompson, was
that he examined it, it was clean and folded, and he
got it from a -- I think a linen closet upstairs.
That blanket is really irrelevant.
The head hairs, Mr. Simpson's, nine of
them, inside the hat. That shows direct physical
contact between Mr. Simpson and that cap.
Two -- yeah, two of these head hairs, by
the way, were actually intertwined in the fabric of
that cap, which shows that they had been there for
some time.
You'll recall Mr. Deedrick's testimony;
not something that could have just, again, blown in
there, but they had been in there some time.
Two of Mr. Simpson's head hairs
intertwined in the cap indicating that that cap was on
his head.
We showed you pictures or a picture, I
believe, when I cross-examined Mr. Simpson back in
November, of a hat just like that hat, the knit cap,
that was recovered from his bedroom by the police
right after the murders. So we know that Mr. Simpson
had knit caps like that.
In addition, there was also a head hair
matching Mr. Simpson's head hair on Ron Goldman's
shirt. On his shirt there was also a limb hair found,
which Doug Deedrick found as a limb hair and as a
Negroid limb hair.
These hairs on Ron Goldman's shirt,
again, show that Mr. Simpson was in contact with Ron
Goldman. There isn't any innocent explanation, ladies
and gentlemen, for Mr. Simpson's hair to be on Ron
Goldman's shirt.
Mr. Simpson says he never met Ron
Goldman. Well, why is his hair on Ron Goldman's
shirt?
A few words about the carpet fiber
evidence. You will recall there was testimony that
there was a rare carpet fiber that was found on the
Bundy knit cap and also on the glove found at
Rockingham. This carpet fiber was this medium mocha
color which matched the same medium mocha color of the
fibers in Mr. Simpson's Bronco, his 1994 Bronco.
There was testimony that this carpet
fiber was produced by a company called Masland
Industries, who had an exclusive contract with Ford
beginning in May, 1993, that this particular type of
medium mocha color was only used in three types of
cars; one of which was a Ford Bronco.
Mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco was
manufactured in October of 1993, further indicating
that this rare carpet fiber came from his car.
And again, you have to think about it.
Now, you have carpet fibers from his
Bronco on that hat, and on the gloves at Rockingham.
Again, indicating that Mr. Simpson's car was in
contact with that hat and in contact with the glove at
Rockingham. Again, putting Mr. Simpson and no one
else right smack in the middle of all of this
evidence.
And finally, on fibers; we have 24
blue-black cotton fibers which Doug Deedrick said was
a kind of unique fiber, a bluish coloration when he
looked at it very close under a microscope. And
fibers of this type were found on Ron Goldman's shirt,
again, on Mr. Simpson's socks, and in his bedroom, and
on the glove dropped at Rockingham.
So you have matching blue-black fibers on
three objects; Ron Goldman's shirt, the glove that was
used in these murders found at Rockingham, and a pair
of socks, Mr. Simpson's socks.
Again, Mr. Simpson and no one else is the
common source between these three objects. He's the
messenger. He's the one who had contact with all
these things, ladies and gentlemen.
Nobody else.
Now, there was some testimony about a
sweat suit. I want to get into that right now.
And we suggest to you these blue-black
cotton fibers came from a sweat suit or sweat outfit
or sweat clothes that OJ Simpson was wearing on the
night of these murders.
You will recall when I first examined Mr.
Simpson on the witness stand, I asked him whether he
owned any dark sweat clothing as of June 12, 1994, he
said, no, he did not own a single piece of dark sweat
clothing. He gave that testimony on November 25.
I then showed him some photographs of him
wearing dark sweat clothing taken on May 25, May 26,
May 27, just a couple weeks before the murders, at his
house in the course of his filming an exercise video
for Playboy.
Can you put up the photo.
(Photograph displayed on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I showed these photos to
Mr. Simpson, and some other photos, and I said, well,
what about this sweat suit, didn't you have that as of
June 12? And he said I didn't keep it. I got to wear
those outfits and I returned them to the wardrobe
person. I didn't keep any of them, okay.
On December 4, couple of weeks later, we
called the wardrobe person Leslie Gardner, put her on
the stand, and she testified that Mr. Simpson did not
in fact -- did not in fact return any clothing to her.
She testified how she acquired some sweat
suit items, gave them to Mr. Simpson, he used them,
and to her knowledge, they were never returned,
certainly not to her. And she did not know that they
had been returned to anyone else.
Now, a week or so ago, Mr. Simpson
returned to the witness stand under the friendly
questioning of his lawyer, Mr. Baker. And he said,
you know, I've been thinking about this sweat suit
thing, and I did keep a sweat suit top, but it was a
cashmere top, okay. And I didn't keep anything else.
Did you keep any cotton outfits? No, I did not, just
this one cashmere top.
And he said cashmere, of course, because
cotton fibers were found near there, and he would like
you to believe that he didn't have any cotton fiber
outfits. He would like you to believe that he never
had, as of June 12, 1994, in his possession, in his
wardrobe, in his closet, any dark sweat suit made with
any cotton fibers.
So we then -- despite this change in
testimony now by him, we then called Ms. Gardner back,
if you will recall, on -- on January 14. And she
testified that she did, in fact, order a cashmere
sweat suit outfit for Mr. Simpson, but it was too
small, it didn't fit, and she returned it. She didn't
leave it with him, she didn't give it to him, she
returned it.
She then testified that the item that she
did give to Mr. Simpson, and that he did wear, were
cotton -- some cotton fleece items, okay, a black
cotton fleece zip-up front sweater.
Can you put that up.
(Photograph of OJ Simpson wearing
a sweat outfit displayed on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: She never got this back,
ladies and gentlemen. She never got this back.
This has cotton fibers. I think she
testified it's some kind of blend; some of the fibers
are cotton, the others are polyester.
O.J. Simpson, she said, never returned
that outfit to her. Despite what Mr. Simpson said on
the witness stand.
In addition, she said she gave
Mr. Simpson this outfit, which was taken at the time
of the video (indicating to photo in magazine), and
then published in this magazine. Again, a cotton
fleece-type pants, okay.
Neither this cotton-type pants or that
cotton top was ever returned to Ms. Gardner, or to
anyone else associated with the production, to the
best of her knowledge.
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. There's no
evidence it wasn't returned to anyone else.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: So, ladies and gentlemen, you
have to ask yourself, why is OJ Simpson so obviously
lying about this sweat suit? Why is he lying? Why is
he changing his story?
As we trap him, he changes again. We
trap him again, he changes it again.
Why is he lying? Why is he saying -- a
guy with all the clothing that he has, why is he
saying I never had a dark sweat suit as of June 12?
Why would he say such a thing?
Because he wore a dark sweat suit on
June 12 when he killed two people. That's why he's
saying such a thing. That's why he's lying to you.
Let's go to the gloves.
You heard the testimony of the former
executive of the Aris Isotoner Company, Richard Rubin.
And he testified that the glove found at Bundy was a
brown men's leather light extra large glove. It had
SKU number 70263.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. There was no
testimony from Richard Rubin about any numbers
whatsoever.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, there was, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: No, there wasn't.
THE COURT: Okay. Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. PETROCELLI: This is the cite I have, Your
Honor (indicating to document).
MR. BAKER: What page are you referring to?
MR. PETROCELLI: Look on page 82 -- 91,
November 6, 1996.
Do you have it?
MR. BAKER: We'll get it.
MR. PETROCELLI: Computer people are better at
it than I am.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 81 to 82. November 6.
THE COURT: Bring it up.
MR. PETROCELLI: Bring up the computer.
(Mr. Gelblum complies.)
(Court reviews transcript.)
MR. PETROCELLI: You have to page down, Your
Honor.
MR. BAKER: Style number.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's right there.
MR. BAKER: It's the style number.
MR. PETROCELLI: You said there were no
numbers, Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: No, no. I knew there was a style
number, not an individual number. But you're going to
try to tell this jury that that indicates that those
gloves -- you're --
MR. PETROCELLI: I absolutely am telling them.
That's absolutely what he testified. It's unrebutted.
You want to see it? It's page 93 to 94.
(Counsel and Court review
transcript on computer screen.)
MR. BAKER: 94, Phil.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's on page 93 to 94.
Can I get on with my argument now,
Your Honor?
MR. BAKER: Can you guys move it up to 93, 94.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is not helpful.
What's that? What's that number just --
there. Go back to where it said the number.
(Indicating to computer screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: See.
MR. BAKER: That's a style number.
MR. PETROCELLI: 70263, brown extra large.
MR. BAKER: I want a serial number.
MR. GELBLUM: That's in here.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's a cutter number, too,
Your Honor.
(Mr. Gelblum adjusts screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Cutter No. 359 the sequence
is 9. What exactly is the cutter number?
MR. BAKER: Wait. Wait. Back up.
(Indicating to computer screen.)
MR. BAKER: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can I get on with my argument?
Okay, thank you.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: As I was saying, Mr. Rubin,
the glove expert, and the only glove expert called in
the case -- by the way, they didn't call any glove
expert -- said that the number on this glove, 70263,
on this Bundy glove, it had a cutter number of 359 and
a sequence control number of 9. While I'm here, the
glove that he examined that was found at Rockingham
had the identical numbers.
And he said they are a pair.
And there is no doubt about it, and don't
let yourselves be fooled by all these hokus-pokus
photo games which the defense likes to play, trying to
say this is a hole. This is not a hole. This is not
what you see. We'll get into that.
Okay. But all that is designed to sort
of confuse and distract you from the real evidence.
That's real simple.
Okay. These are two matching gloves, and
the only glove expert that has testified has said so;
they have the same numbers, they're identical, they're
a pair, the Bundy glove and the Rockingham glove.
And these numbers, by the way, that he
testified about, he said on the stand they are
stenciled on the inside of the glove.
This isn't something that he is just
pulling out of air. These are in the glove itself,
these numbers.
Mr. Rubin explained that these particular
kind of gloves were manufactured by Aris Isotoner and
only sold exclusively to Bloomingdale's; a store where
Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson shopped during
the times they were in and lived in New York City.
Only Bloomingdale's, you could get these
gloves.
And furthermore, to show how rare these
gloves are, there were only 200 to 240 of these gloves
sold in the size and color in 1990 and 1991; only 200
to 240 pairs of these gloves.
Mr. Simpson himself had to admit that,
yes, Nicole did shop in Bloomingdale's, he shopped in
Bloomingdale's. But won't you know it, wouldn't you
come to expect that when I said and, of course, Nicole
would buy you gloves from time to time? Absolutely
not, she never bought me gloves. That's the one thing
she never bought, was a pair of those brown gloves.
And -- do you have that receipt, by the
way, Exhibit 390 (indicating to Mr. Foster).
(Exhibit 390 displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: We have a receipt here showing
Nicole purchasing two pair of Aris leather light extra
large gloves. That's Exhibit 390.
Mr. Simpson said she never bought him
gloves.
There's a receipt. They sold for $55 a
pair, 30 percent discount, that Nicole got when she
bought them on December 18, 1990.
Now, Mr. Simpson wore this black glove --
pair of black gloves, and a pair of brown gloves for
about three and a half years after they were bought
because we were able to see them in photographs. This
isn't a pair of gloves that he threw away after using
them for the first time.
He wore them at football games when he
worked there as an announcer, particularly in cold and
inclement weather, when it was raining, and he's seen
with an umbrella.
See him holding the microphone.
Particularly -- the right glove had a lot of wear and
tear to it, particularly in the palm area, it's a
little more worn out than the left glove.
These were his gloves. He's wearing
them.
Can you show the pictures.
(Exhibit No. 642 is displayed.)
MR. FOSTER: Yes.
643.
MR. PETROCELLI: 643.
MR. FOSTER: This is 660.
(Exhibits are displayed on Elmo)
MR. PETROCELLI: 660. This one was taken by
the way, January 15, 1994.
Stay on that for a second.
Mr. Rubin, our glove expert, testified
that this glove is an Aris leather light, extra large,
identical in make and style to the glove at the murder
scene, except this one's a black one, obviously.
Nicole bought a black pair and a brown pair.
There's no -- by the way, there's no
testimony that that isn't an Aris leather light.
Mr. Simpson doesn't deny it. Mr. Simpson put on no
evidence that that isn't such a glove.
He can't deny it. It's right there.
Well, he could deny it, I guess.
Now, show us 655.
(Exhibit 655 displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: It's another one with the
black gloves.
Show us 646.
(Exhibit 646 displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Now, here's the brown gloves.
And Mr. Rubin, the glove expert, was able
to say it's identical in make and style to the glove
at the murder scene.
You're looking at gloves that were used
by -- when Mr. Simpson killed Ron Goldman and Nicole.
You're looking at them on his hands, ladies and
gentlemen.
And when I asked him if you're innocent,
Mr. Simpson, tell me where those gloves are, where are
they, bring them to court, show us, you know what he
said. I have no idea. Quote, I have no idea.
No idea.
You're going to hear a little bit from
Mr. Baker, I guess, about well, these gloves didn't
fit him, they're not his gloves. You know, he didn't
have Mr. Simpson try them on here, but he did show you
a video from the criminal case.
Our expert, Mr. Rubin, said that those
gloves have shrunk.
In the first place, they were purchased
back in 1990. Mr. Simpson is trying them on in court
four, five years later.
They shrunk from use in rain and exposure
to the elements.
Mr. Rubin also pointed out, because he
was there in court, that when those gloves were taken
out to put on, they were all crumpled up, they had not
been refurbished, which is what you would do when you
put on a pair of gloves that's been sitting around for
a long time, especially a pair that's been encrusted
in blood.
I think you saw Mr. Rubin here on the
stand, refurbishing the glove.
And also Mr. Rubin pointed out how there
was a requirement in the criminal case that
Mr. Simpson put on latex gloves underneath these
gloves and that altered the fit.
Of course he wasn't wearing latex gloves
on June 12.
And lastly, and you could tell, I don't
have to tell you, you saw him try those gloves on, on
that video, this wasn't a guy anxious to show anyone
that those gloves fit. He was grimacing and trying to
get them on in front of the jury there.
It's like trying to put a pair of pants
on a crying baby, or something, a pair of gloves on a
crying baby.
He had his hands, fingers out, and wasn't
making it real easy.
Those were his gloves, got them right
there, they were not his gloves, he -- did he tell you
where they are and he can't, he said, "I have no
idea."
Okay, Steve.
(Mr. Foster removes photo from
Elmo.)
Let's talk about those Bruno Magli shoes.
Pretty interesting piece of evidence, I'd
say.
Mr. Simpson can say all that he wants, or
his lawyer will say quite a bit about contamination of
blood, planting of blood, LAPD not doing their job,
can't trust the blood evidence, got to throw it all
out.
You're going to hear all that stuff,
okay.
None of it is true.
The blood evidence is the single most
incriminating evidence in the case. It's his blood.
He was there.
He did it.
But I'll tell you one thing. They can't
make that argument, even that lame argument, they
can't make about these shoe prints.
They can't argue that the shoe prints are
planted. They can't argue that the sole was planted.
They have no argument about planting of shoe prints.
They have no contamination argument about shoe prints.
This is one of the single most crucial
pieces of evidence in this case.
And can you imagine that O.J. Simpson
last week didn't say one word about it. Not one word.
Heismann Trophy. But no Bruno Magli.
These shoe prints were discovered
immediately when the police arrived after midnight on
June 13, and they were fresh and they were leading
away from the crime scene.
It was obviously that it was the person
taking the back gate to escape detection, to not go
out the front so he wouldn't be seen. And we'll talk
about that a little more later on.
But when he got in his Bronco to speed
away, he didn't ride in front of the murder scene, he
drove the opposite direction and then turned to go
back home again.
He did not want to be seen.
And he had to get home to save his alibi.
We put on the stand the testimony of FBI
Special Agent William Bodziak. He is one of the most
renown experts anywhere on footwear images. He's been
with the FBI for 23 years.
And Mr. Medvene put on that testimony.
His opinion, ladies and gentlemen, that
the killer wore Bruno Magli shoe print size 12, is
totally unchallenged, totally undisputed. The defense
concedes that point. Mr. Baker said it in his opening
statement: "We agree the killer wore size 12 Bruno
Magli shoes."
There's not much talk about it.
The question is -- the only question is
did Mr. Simpson have Bruno Magli shoes, size 12.
That's really it.
And while I'm on this, let me say
something else.
That's the photo taken by Harry Scull,
ladies and gentlemen, and before Mr. Baker and
O.J. Simpson and the rest of the defense team knew
that 30 more photos were going to emerge, he stood up,
told this jury, both Mr. Baker and Mr. Simpson, "We
agree that the shoes in that photo are Bruno Magli
shoes."
Agent Bodziak got on the stand, and he
not only testified that that's a Bruno Magli Lorenzo
unique Silga sole size 12, he testified so is that
(indicating to photo).
They didn't challenge his testimony, they
agreed with it, that is a Bruno Magli size 12 Lorenzo,
and so is that.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. There's been
no testimony that the photo in the Scull photo, the
photo (sic) in Scull photo is a size 12.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Their position, ladies and
gentlemen, taken back at the beginning of this trial,
before they knew there was going to be more photos
that would come to light, was that this photo is a
phony. That's what Mr. Baker said, it's not real,
it's doctored, and we will prove it.
So by his own reasoning, if that photo is
real, O.J. Simpson is the killer. The shoes are on
his feet. If that photo is real, O.J. Simpson is the
killer. That's it. It's the end of the ball game.
There's nothing more to talk about.
Not only that photo. The 30 new
photographs of him at that same game, if those photos
are real, O.J. Simpson's the killer. If those photos
are real.
We had those negatives in court here.
Did you see the defense call an expert to
talk about those 30 new photographs? Did you see them
try to challenge those 30 new photographs? Did you
hear anybody come on the witness stand for the defense
and say those 30 photographs of him wearing those
shoes are phonies too?
Did you get that testimony?
I didn't hear it.
It didn't happen. There is no such
testimony.
Bodziak testified that the shoes in the
Flammer photographs are Bruno Magli shoes of the same
characteristics of those shoes. They're the same
characteristics of those shoes. It's the same pair of
shoes. It's either that, or he had two pair of Bruno
Magli shoes, size 12, and put two different pairs on
in the game. They're not saying that though it's one
pair. And they did not call anybody to say that the
30 photos are a fake. Nobody.
They did call somebody to say that this
photo was a fake, and we'll talk about that guy and
what he said. But you didn't hear him come back --
not even him, you didn't hear that guy come back and
talk about the Flammer photos. Not even he could get
himself on this stand and say, you know what, I think
all 31 are fakes, every one's a fake.
And of course you all remember that one
of the pictures Mr. Flammer took of Mr. Simpson
wearing the shoes was actually published in the
newspaper eight months before the murders. So how
could it be a fake? It's not possible.
While I'm on the subject of the shoes,
ask yourselves this: If O.J. Simpson were innocent,
ladies and gentlemen, why would he deny owning those
shoes. Why wouldn't he -- why didn't he say he owned
them, of course I had those shoes, they're in the
picture, here's 30 more pictures, of course I had
those shoes, but I'm not the killer, I didn't do it.
Why is he going to take to his grave that
he didn't own those shoes, that he didn't wear those
shoes? 'Cause he knows those are the shoes he wore
when he killed my client's son in a blind rage, and
when he killed the mother of his children in a blind
rage. He knows he wore those shoes.
We'll never see those shoes. We don't
know what he did with them. We don't know where he
hid them, how he destroyed them. We'll never see
them, but they're on his feet and they are the murder
shoes.
There's no doubt about that.
They can talk all they want about police
conspiracies, LAPD frame-ups, all these wild ideas,
and they will try to insult your intelligence by
giving you crazy claims of frame-ups and conspiracies.
What are they going to do about this
evidence? This doesn't involve the Los Angeles Police
Department.
What are they going to say? Oh, because
they were selling pictures.
So if the pictures are a fraud, why
didn't they bring anybody in to say they were a fraud?
Why didn't they bring somebody in on those Flammer
photos?
Just because somebody sells something --
everybody in this case has sold something. You've
heard Mr. Baker ask witness after witness about books
and videos and television.
That's one of the unfortunate things
about this case that's become such a big media thing.
The fact that somebody is a professional
photographer -- two people who are professional
photographers, that's how they made their money, would
sell photographs, does that mean the photographs
aren't real? Of course not. When they're published
eight months before the murders, how can it be? It's
impossible.
Can you bring in the Bronco board.
While we're waiting for that board, the
next significant place besides Bundy, to summarize
Bundy: We have O.J. Simpson basically in all the
clothes he wore to kill, hat, gloves, sweatsuit,
shoes, we'll talk about the socks, Nicole's blood and
his blood splashed on them, got the whole thing.
(Large board entitled "Bronco
Evidence" is displayed.)
Why is there blood in O.J. Simpson's car?
Think about that one. Why is it there? There is
blood in O.J. Simpson's car the night of the murders.
Why is there any blood? Is there any blood in your
car that night, my car? Why is there blood in his car
that night?
First of all, this car was not parked
where it's parked almost every single time he parks
it. He parks this car on Ashford, not Rockingham,
right where that mailbox is. He gets out of his car,
he walks up to Ashford, he jiggles the gates open, he
goes inside the front door. It's the shortest
distance for him to park and go inside, and that's
what he does all the time. Especially if he were
going out of town, he would never park in some strange
place.
He told the police he normally parks on
Rockingham.
We've had witnesses testify here that he
normally parks on -- excuse me.
He told the police he normally parks on
Ashford.
And we had other witnesses come in here
and say the same thing.
Even his housekeeper, Gigi Guarin,
testified he usually parks on Ashford.
And remember Dale St. John, his limousine
driver, the guy who wasn't available on the night of
June 12 and so he got Alan Park to sub for him. Dale
St. John said he picked up O.J. Simpson over 100
times, over 100 times, and never saw that Bronco or
Mr. Simpson's vehicles on Rockingham, they were on
Ashford.
Remember the testimony of the neighbor,
Charles Cale. He testified that he had taken a walk
that night from 9 o'clock -- excuse me -- 9:30, 9:45.
He lives down the street on Rockingham. He said he
has a perfect view of Rockingham. He never sees
O.J. Simpson's car parked on Rockingham. It's always
parked on Ashford.
So why is it parked on Rockingham on this
night? On this night, the night of the murders, why
is it parked on Rockingham, where it's never parked.
Why does it have blood in it, which is -- usually an
automobile doesn't have, when he came home, when he
returned from the murders, rushing like hell, before
that limousine driver left, because if that limousine
driver left, there goes any alibi. He had to get home
before that limo driver left, catch that plane to go
to the airport.
And that limo driver was on the Ashford
driveway parked and looking in, wondering why nobody
is home.
Mr. Simpson knew that, and he had to pull
around the other way, park on Rockingham and get onto
his property, and that's why the car's parked on
Rockingham, and no other reason, ladies and gentlemen.
It's obvious.
Now, do you recall I asked Mr. Simpson
about this parking on Rockingham and he had this
convoluted explanation about his dog Chachi.
It's really easy to blame things on dogs.
They can't testify. You can blame things on people
who are dead, as he has repeatedly. They can't
testify either.
And he said oh, I parked on Rockingham
because, you know, I liked to watch the dog when I get
out and then the gate closes and I run back in. All
this stuff about the dogs running out.
Well, the dog never runs out. How many
witnesses did I have to call to the stand to show that
the dog never runs out, this old lame arthritic dog.
Couldn't get that dog to move. In fact, we showed you
a photograph of the Ashford gate wide open, wide open,
strange man taking pictures there, and the dog's not
going anywhere, the dog's sitting there, and he ain't
moving, okay. That's Chachi.
Well, this is just something Mr. Simpson
invented because he had to have an explanation why he
parked on Rockingham.
Now, in terms of the blood in his car
when the police arrived on the morning of the 13th, to
go over to Mr. Simpson's house, you heard testimony
from police detectives, they saw the blood in the car
early on the morning of the 13th, including Lange
talked about it and we had Donald Tippin talk about
it, Daniel Gonzalez talked about it, Detective Astin,
I think his name is, he talked about it. They saw
blood outside of the Bronco and inside the Bronco, by
looking in with a flashlight, especially when it got a
little lighter on the morning of June 13.
Now, let me explain something to you.
That blood could not have been planted, right, because
Mr. Simpson didn't give his blood to the police until
2:30, 3 o'clock that afternoon -- actually it was
3:30.
So how did the blood get in there?
It could not have been planted. You
understand it could not have been. They didn't have
any of his blood.
And I asked Mr. Simpson when he sat right
here (indicating to witness stand), about that blood
in that car and asked whether he bled in that car the
night before, whether he would admit to that. He said
no, no, no, I did not bleed in that car, I did not
bleed in that car.
He has no innocent explanation for the
blood in that car. None. No innocent explanation for
why there was blood in the car the next morning.
Zero.
Now, you'll hear -- maybe they'll talk
about it when Mr. Baker gets up, but Mr. Simpson has
this story where he goes in to get his cell phone at
the end of the night, at 11 o'clock, before he runs
off to the airport. He's now changed the story to say
cell phone accessories, but we're going to talk about
that later on. Goes in to get his cell phone, okay,
and he opens the door, limo's ready to take off, car's
on Rockingham, goes in, and he said he reached in with
his right hand to get the cell phone -- or whatever it
was he said, windbreaker -- he never put his left hand
in the car.
And I went through, very carefully, the
movements in the Bronco.
When he went to get his things out, he
didn't get in and close the door, which you wouldn't
do to take something out; you go in -- open the door,
you reach in.
You try to say he might have gotten in
because it's a high car. But basically, he said, I
don't think I did. And I certainly didn't close the
door. And I reached in with my right hand, and I
didn't touch the knob where you pull the lights out,
headlights. I didn't touch the inside notch of the
door handle; I didn't touch those places.
Okay. So he has no explanation about how
blood got right there, for example. (Indicating.)
How do you get blood inside that notch?
How do you get blood in there if you're
just reaching in and grabbing something or closing the
door?
You'd never get your left hand in there
unless you're in the car, door closed, and you're
going to open the door to get out. That's the only
way blood can get in there.
That's his blood, ladies and gentlemen,
right in that notch there, number 23.
That blood was in his car from when the
police came on the 13th, and it was collected the next
day.
Blood there, (indicating) right where the
headlight knob is.
How do you get blood there? Left hand,
left finger maybe. Left hand, left finger maybe.
I asked Mr. Simpson: Suppose you had
just -- suppose you had cuts on these fingers here.
Could you have -- would your finger have made contact
with this inside notch area?
And he had to say it would have.
And that is, of course, what happened
when he came back from Bundy and he opened the door to
get out. He put blood here, (indicating) on his left
finger -- he put blood there, (indicating) and he put
blood there. (Indicating.)
Now, item 31 on that -- on that board --
First of all, let me mention that the DNA
analysis done on -- on the -- this blood here, 23,
(indicating) that blood, I think that's --
Is that 24?
MR. LAMBERT: (Nods affirmatively.)
MR. PETROCELLI: And some of the other stains,
DNA analysis, Gary Sims?
MR. LAMBERT: (Nods affirmatively.)
MR. PETROCELLI: That's O.J. Simpson's blood,
again, not contested, not challenged. That's his DNA;
that's not someone else's blood; that's Simpson's
blood right there (indicating) and right there
(indicating), here, too, 34. (Indicating.)
Number 31, is that -- that's
Ron Goldman's blood, ladies and gentlemen.
DNA analysis of item 31, performed both
by Collin Yamauchi of SID and Gary Sims, and both
independently, confirmed that that blood, 31, is Ron
Goldman's blood.
Now, how does Ron Goldman's blood get in
O.J. Simpson's car?
Do you really need to ask it over and
over again.
No contamination is responsible for that
blood drop. That was the testimony of Dr. Brad
Popovich. There's no possible explanation -- no
innocent explanation. The only explanation is that
Mr. Simpson got Mr. Goldman's blood on him when he
murdered him; and he got it on his car, and that's why
it's there.
And finally, on this Bronco, item 33,
this area right here on the floor, where the emergency
brake is (indicating), that, ladies and gentlemen, is
the blood of Nicole. Again, DNA analysis confirms
that.
No challenge by the defense. They don't
have any contrary evidence.
That is Nicole Brown's blood on
O.J. Simpson's carpet in his car.
Mr. Bodziak testified that there were
certain lines, an outer line and inner line, parallel
lines, that make this stain area consistent with a
shoe print, consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe
print, Silga sole. That was his testimony.
We know what happened. We know that
Mr. Simpson, with these shoes or shoes just like
this --
For the record, I'm holding up what?
MR. FOSTER: 395.
(Mr. Petrocelli displays Exhibit
395, Bruno Magli shoes, to the
jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Exhibit 395, which is a sample
of a Bruno Magli -- different color -- same color or
different? Different -- Silga sole, Lorenzo.
And Mr. Bodziak testified that the
shoe -- shoe print in that car in Nicole's blood is
consistent with this -- with these Bruno Magli shoes.
So, Mr. Simpson stepped in Nicole's
blood, still on his shoes, stepped there and left
that, left that stain. (Indicating.)
Now, they can't claim, by the way, that
this blood was planted, either; because on June 14,
that whole piece of carpet, that entire piece of
carpet was actually removed from the car, on the
morning of June 14, by the criminalist. And they
wrapped it up tightly in paper and they put it in a
freezer at SID, Serology. And that's where it stayed.
There's been no evidence that anybody
went -- ever went in there and took it out and did
anything to it.
Zero evidence of that.
And then sometime later, it was taken
out -- I think on September 1 -- and Greg Matheson
clipped off some fibers that had the blood on it,
right over here (indicating) -- In fact, that's his
hand doing it, right here, clipping off the fibers
from the -- from the blood.
They sent that blood out to be tested.
They labeled those bloody fibers 293, the carpet
itself being 33. And DNA analysis confirmed that that
blood on that carpet in O.J. Simpson's car was
Nicole's blood.
Not even Dr. Gerdes said that that was
contaminated. No evidence of contamination. So
that's undisputed, ladies and gentlemen. You have
Nicole Brown's blood in O.J. Simpson's Bronco the
night of the murders.
How did it get there?
No one is -- no innocent explanation. He
doesn't tell us; he doesn't have it. He's guilty.
Finally, on the physical evidence, we go
to Rockingham, Mr. Simpson's home. And basically what
we have at Rockingham, ladies and gentlemen -- we have
a couple things.
We have blood on the outside the driveway
area, leading up to the front door.
We have blood drops inside the front
door, on the hardwood floor, there in the foyer.
We have some blood drops in Mr. Simpson's
bathroom, right off his bedroom.
We have blood in the shower.
We have blood on the cable, from the back
wall behind Kato Kaelin's room.
We have the glove at Rockingham, behind
Kaelin's room.
And the glove I'll talk about separately.
It is loaded with evidence, the glove.
And then we also have a pair of socks in
Mr. Simpson's bedroom with some dried, splashed blood.
Donald Thompson testified, ladies and
gentlemen -- that's that very large, 6-foot 6
officer -- that he was there early in the morning at
Rockingham, around 8 o'clock or so, and he saw these
blood drops. And he testified about them. And bear
in mind these blood drops could not have been planted,
right? They didn't have O.J. Simpson's blood; they
couldn't have planted any of these blood drops.
They had no blood to plant. So they can't tell you
that blood is planted.
So what's O.J. Simpson's blood doing
dripped all over his driveway?
And why is it in his house?
And he had no explanation. Zero.
No innocent explanation, I should say.
Could you put up the next one.
(Exhibit displayed on the Elmo
screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Again with various DNA tests
that were done by the various labs, all labs agree --
in other words, you can't just say SID somehow comes
up with all the wrong results, can't just blame it on
the LAPD labs. Separate, independent testing was done
by Gary Sims and by Robin Cotton. And they always,
always, in this case, came up with the same results.
Okay. That's very important. Everybody
had the same results.
All of these results, of all this blood
evidence on the outside of the property and on the
inside of the property of these various locations, all
confirm to be O.J. Simpson's blood, his DNA. His
blood.
No defense experts came in here in court
to tell you otherwise.
The defense has admitted that these blood
results showed O.J. Simpson's blood. They don't
dispute that.
And again, how could it be that there's
blood in his house the night of the murders?
Now, let's go to the Rockingham glove.
The testimony in this case was that at
about 10:51 p.m., Kato Kaelin heard a loud crashing
sound against his wall. And you all know where his
wall is; it's over here. (Indicating.)
And we are able to fix that time now
because of Allan Park's cell-phone records, which I'll
talk about a little later on. But we know that sound
against the wall, which Mr. Kaelin thought sounded
like someone hitting against the wall -- hoped it
would be an earthquake, because he was, frankly,
frightened if it wasn't an earthquake -- right where
he heard those sounds, the next morning, when he told
that to the police officers, a glove was found.
A glove.
And that glove, of course, was the glove
that matched the Bundy glove, brown Aris leather, size
extra large, number 70263, stitched right in cutter
number 359, sequence control number 9, the glove
expert Rubin said it matches exactly the glove found
at Bundy.
And we know Mr. Simpson owns those
gloves.
Can you put up the Rockingham glove
board.
(Board entitled Rockingham Glove
Results displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Now, this Rockingham glove,
when it was taken into the lab and analyzed, as I
said, it was chock full of evidence. It had blood on
it; it had hair on it; it had fiber on it.
This shows the blood that the glove had
on it. (Indicating.)
Three people -- all the blood in this
case comes down to three people: OJ Simpson,
Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman. No better
example than this glove right here. Ronald Goldman
and Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ Simpson. Blood mixtures.
Some of them have individual stains, blood all over
this right-handed glove which held the knife.
And had blood sort of caked onto it.
And DNA analysis confirmed this is
Simpson's blood, this is Nicole's blood, Ron's blood.
No debate about that. None whatsoever.
In addition to the blood on the glove, we
also have head hair matching Nicole and Ron. So we
have strands of Nicole Brown Simpson's blood and blond
hair, and traces of Ronald Goldman's dark hair on
these gloves.
They may try to talk to you later on
about planting a glove, which is completely
preposterous. And this --
Just ask Mr. Baker when he asks, in your
mind -- when Mr. Baker tries to talk to you about
planting of this glove, ask in your mind, did anybody
ever see a second glove at Bundy? Was there ever a
second glove at Bundy to plant?
How can there be planting of a glove at
Rockingham unless someone goes to Bundy and sees two
gloves? And, without knowing whose gloves they are,
whether they fit Mr. Simpson, whether Mr. Simpson had
an alibi -- whether he was in front of a thousand
people, making a speech, or on national television, or
on an airplane, or anywhere else -- without knowing
any of that, going to pick it up and go plant it on
his property?
Okay. Well, that's just silly. It's
just silly.
Beyond being silly, no one saw a second
glove at Bundy. The first officers to arrive, these
young patrolmen, not even detectives, Robert Riske
Michael Terrazas -- and Mr. Medvene examined them --
they looked around. And then David Rossi came next.
They never saw a second glove.
These people were surveying the crime
scene while Mark Fuhrman was sleeping in bed.
There was no second glove there to plant.
The second glove was where Mr. Simpson dropped it, at
Rockingham.
And when he dropped it -- and it was
absolutely dark, by the way, in that back alley, no
lighting. Kato Kaelin was too frightened, even, to
walk down. So when someone was back there that night,
he couldn't see anything.
It had Nicole's hair and it had Ron's
hair on it.
Who put that hair on it?
It also had some Negroid limb hair, as
opposed to head hair. And it also had blue-black
cotton fibers that, we submit, are consistent with the
sweat suit. I've talked about that before. It had
the same fiber on this glove, that matched the fiber
on the sock, that matched the fiber on Ron's shirt,
meaning they were all contacted by one person, meaning
OJ Simpson.
And if that were not enough, the glove
also has those rare carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's
Bronco.
It's got everything on it, ladies and
gentlemen.
It's a glove that belonged to Simpson.
It's a glove that he used to hold the
knife in his right hand.
It's the glove that has the victims'
blood on it.
It's the glove that has his blood on it.
It's a glove that has the victims' hair
on it.
It's a glove that has fibers from his
clothing on it.
It's a glove that has fibers from his
car, when he dropped it -- he dropped it at his house.
And it could not have been planted and it
was not planted.
And there's no evidence that that glove
was anywhere else, other than the back of Rockingham,
where it was found.
THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Noon recess, ladies and
gentlemen.
I remind you, don't talk about the
argument in this case or the evidence or anything
connected with this case until the case is finally
given to you.
Okay. See you at 1:30.
(At 11:55 a.m., a luncheon recess
was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the
same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997
1:40 PM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
Rufo versus Simpson
(The following proceedings were
held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Counsel had a chance to look at the
changes proposed by the defense verdict form?
MR. BREWER: Yes. We would like to use the
original verdict form that we submitted. We think
it's clear, concise, and basically, allows the jury to
follow the instructions and the issues that we have.
Mr. Baker is -- he believes that it's
inconsistent for the jury to find liability or not to
find liability relative in a wrongful death case, and
proceed on to the question that relates to battery.
In theory, I guess the jury would come
back and say there isn't a wrongful death, find for
the defense on wrongful death, but still go on to the
battery, and have to answer those questions.
MR. BAKER: You mean the two separate causes of
action.
THE COURT: It seems to me the proposal by the
defense is much more logical than your argument.
MR. BREWER: Well, in a practical sense it is
because, obviously, if they come back with defense on
wrongful death, it's unlikely they'll find a battery.
There are, none the less, two causes of
action; one for wrongful death, one for battery. Our
verdict form allows the jury to answer each of those
questions separately. That's the basis on which we
would like the Court to use our verdict.
THE COURT: Tell me why the defense would not
be entitled to a directed verdict if they came back
with a no on question No. 1.
MR. BREWER: Well, you know, they possibly
could be entitled to a directed verdict, but it would
depend upon the factual determinations that the jury
makes.
I mean, I agree with the Court that in
the very practical sense if they find for the defense
on wrongful death it is very unlikely they are going
to proceed and find for the plaintiffs on battery.
However, there are two separate cases
here in the sense that there's a wrongful death case
on behalf of Mr. Goldman and Ms. Rufo, and there's a
separate survivorship action on behalf of the estate
of Ron Goldman.
Our verdict form just treats those
separately. That's all it asks the jury to do is
analyze each of those separately.
If they find for defense on one,
logically, they'll find for defense on the other.
THE COURT: Any other plaintiffs counsel want
to comment before I rule?
MR. GELBLUM: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I think question No. 1 is
determinative of what the jury is going to proceed to
your subsequent questions, it would appear to me the
proposal of the defense is more logical and less
likely to mislead the jury.
MR. BREWER: Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: I do. I'm sorry. I did have a
thought in terms of --
THE COURT: You know, when I -- when I ask you
to comment, I would like a commen