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 27, 1997
VOLUME 49
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; MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1997
8:52 AM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(PER COVER PAGE)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
ALL COUNSEL: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued)
MR. BAKER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. BAKER: I apologize to you for taking so
long. And I apologize to you because this flu hangs
on a long time and I still have it. But we'll get
through this.
One of the things that has required us to
take a little longer than we anticipated is I
certainly hadn't anticipated that Mr. Petrocelli would
get up here last week and tell you -- and say to you
that there was no -- absolutely no evidence of
planting, there was no evidence of contamination, and
there was absolutely no evidence of tampering.
Because he says it, it doesn't make it
so.
There's evidence all over the place.
It's been demonstrated to you. And we will go through
it a little bit more as the morning wears on.
Just the same, when he says there's
absolute proof to a moral certainty that OJ Simpson
committed these murders, it doesn't make it so.
It's his rhetoric that is, I would
suggest to you, hollow, and we are going to
demonstrate that for you.
The thing that is amazing to me is that
in a day and a half, the plaintiffs never touched upon
the crime scene at all.
They didn't tell you how these people met
their demise, they didn't tell you about what the
police did. They totally ignored it as if this never
occurred, as if it didn't happen, as if what we do is
we go from the fact that the bodies were found at
12:10 on June 13, 1994, and we go directly to
Cellmark, SID, lab tests, and that's all the
information you need to know to determine whether or
not Mr. Simpson committed these murders.
I want to -- pardon me.
I want to talk about what happened the
night of June 13 as it relates to the Los Angeles
Police Department, what they did, and equally
importantly, what they didn't do, and how they went
about justifying their conduct on the night of
June 13, 1994.
Now, what we do know about that night is
we know that Ron Goldman was contacted after Karen
Crawford was called by Nicole Brown Simpson at around
10 o'clock. And we know that Nicole and Ron had at
least friendships before June -- June 12, 1994. He
had her phone number, and she, of course, after she
talked to the manager, Karen Crawford, had asked to
talk to Ron Goldman there at the Mezzaluna.
And then what happened?
Well -- I am really dry. Can you get me
some water.
Pardon me.
So what we know happens is that Ron
Goldman goes to his house, presumably showers, changes
clothes, comes over to 875 South Bundy.
And the other thing that we know is he's
got the envelope, and he's got the glasses. We know
that once he gets there, the buzzer on the front gate
doesn't work. We know that from Lange's notes,
because Lange went and tested it, and determined that
it didn't work, and put it in his notes. And so this
would necessitate Nicole coming out, opening the gate,
and allowing Ron Goldman in the front gate.
So now we have both of the victims at the
front gate. When she opens it he comes in with the
envelope, and the glasses contained in that envelope.
Now, what happens after that at the front
gate, where it swings open, we have showed you the
blood smears, and we'll put that picture back up on
the Elmo.
(Board entitled Blood Stains From
Closed-In Area at Bundy.)
(Photograph displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: Vertical or parallel line pattern
on the gate post, and interestingly enough, the hat
underneath, almost as if it's placed there, underneath
the rail of the fence.
How does it get there without any dirt on
it?
How does it get there without being
kicked?
Do you recall Werner Spitz up here on the
stand, looking like he was a rocket, trying to kick
his legs saying how it kicked underneath there.
Ladies and gentlemen, that virtually
looks like it was placed there.
And then, of course, you've got the glove
at the initial stage, the shoe print right there is
within six or so inches of the front gate. And we
know that there are no Pautauqua shoe prints at all on
the walkway. And we remember the Pautauqua shoe
prints are the shoe prints of Ron Goldman.
Now, what does that tell us in trying to
reconstruct what went on that night of June 12, 1994?
Well, one thing we know is that Nicole
Brown Simpson was killed first, because if she wasn't
killed first, you'd have Chautauqua shoe prints in the
blood on the walkway.
And there are absolutely none.
So she is killed.
Let's examine that for just a moment.
Werner Spitz testified to you that it
took 15 seconds for her to be killed.
15 seconds.
Now, he did some pretty interesting
physical maneuvers up here to try to justify to you
that that death could have occurred in 15 seconds.
You will recall that there are four
vertical knife marks on the left side of the neck of
the body of Nicole brown Simpson, with the blunt part
of the knife up, and the sharp part of the knife down,
and I hate to remind you of this, but it's important,
and those went in a vertical line down the left side
of her neck. The perpetrator, the assailant, whoever
it was was in front of Nicole Brown Simpson -- and
that took some time. And that took some time.
At the same time, concurrent with that
happening, Ron Goldman had to have been inside the
closed-in area, and he had to have been in there
because we know the glasses are there, and he brought
the glasses.
Then the assailant gets behind Nicole
Brown Simpson and does the final, heinous act of
putting a knife through both jugular veins. Her
carotid arteries. I apologize. Through both carotid
arteries.
Then what happens?
The carotids are very close to the heart.
Blood is going everywhere.
And superimposed upon all this
information that we have is the information that we
absolutely know, that it's quiet and sounds can be
heard. And we know that because we know that
Mr. Heidstra, at 10:40, was directly opposite the
condominium of Nicole in the alley, and he heard the
hey, hey, hey, and that's all he heard.
He didn't hear any other voices at all.
He didn't hear any screams.
He didn't hear any shrieks.
He didn't hear any cries for help.
And nobody else did.
You'll recall, relating to the noise,
that after the bodies are discovered at 12:10, LAPD
gets people -- police officers, and they door-knock.
They door-knock up and down Bundy.
Not one person heard a scream.
Not one person heard a cry for help.
Not one person heard any kind of noise,
except for barking dogs.
So we have -- we know that it took some
period of time for Nicole to be killed.
And we know that Ron Goldman was there
when it occurred.
And we know that not a sound was emitted.
And as Dr. Baden said to you from the
witness stand, that to me says there had to be at
least two assailants.
How could you keep them quiet?
How could you keep -- how can you keep
Ron Goldman off of a single assailant? If it's
OJ Simpson or the biggest football player who played
in the Super Bowl yesterday?
How can you keep him from beating on him,
from trying to inhibit him from doing this horrible,
horrible thing?
The answer is clear.
It couldn't if, in fact, there was any
truth in the accusation that one person did this and
it was OJ Simpson, of what Simpson would have looked
like -- I mean Ron Goldman if his back was turned to
him while he was gouging with a knife Nicole's neck.
He have had body blows to his back. He would have had
a choke hold around his neck. He would have had -- he
would have had whatever.
People would have done one of two things:
They would have run out of that gate to get help, or
they would have had a horrendous assault on this
single assailant.
And Mr. Simpson had not a bruise on his
body. Nothing. Not a bruise. Not one mark on his
body.
The plaintiffs tried to assert that this
mark underneath his right -- on his biceps of the
right arm, was some sort of a bruise.
That's been part of his physique since
his football playing days. And believe me, that's a
long time ago.
And let's be very clear. The reason --
the reason Werner Spitz is here and testifying that
it's a minute and 15 seconds is because they have to
have an absolute quick double murder because there's
no time -- there's simply no time for Mr. Simpson or
anybody else to commit these crimes, given when
Mr. Simpson was seen.
So they've got to make them virtually
instantly occur. And the point of that is the more
you do that, the more you make them quick, the more I
would suggest to you it would appear it would have to
be a professional killer or professional killers.
Not somebody who's in an uninitiated
blind rage as they want to you believe.
Let's examine further the crime scene,
because it has been ignored by the police, but it
can't be ignored in arriving at your decision, which
is to arrive at the truth. Not a sympathetic version
of reality painted by the plaintiffs.
And we're going to get into that in a
little bit.
We know that there was blood spatters all
around the closed-in or caged-in area.
Have we got that other one that shows the
Bundy as well?
Once you get by the gate, and you have
blood spatters at 3 feet, and LAPD took no pictures
higher than that, we don't know if there are blood
spatters higher than that or not.
We certainly know that Ron Goldman was
upright for a period of time. He stepped into blood
and dirt which is all in the caged-in area, because
there's not a shoe print of his on the walkway.
We know that there are an immense amount
of -- of physical evidence that indicates how long
this struggle took once Ron Goldman was the target to
be killed.
Blood smears at different locations. And
we have them all over.
(Counsel indicates to board
entitled Blood Stains From
Closed-In Area at Bundy.)
MR. BAKER: Blood drops at different locations.
His blood spatters at different locations.
You've got Ron Goldman's shirt where
there were buttons yanked off, buttons pulled off, and
the thread still on, indicating that a struggle took
place, and he was grabbed and his shirt pulled.
The evidence that he was upright at least
three minutes after his jugular vein was cut, the left
jugular vein, that he was upright. And, of course, he
was upright because you have blood here, the pool of
blood down in this area, on the back, on the north
side, that he had to be basically upright for that
blood to have pooled there. He was there a long
period of time.
The cut on his boot.
Remember the cut on his boot where he had
a -- it was a fresh cut on the toe of the boot,
indicating that he was kicking around the knife?
The hole that was dug. Now, that's a
pretty good size hole. Both Lange, Spitz, and Lee,
agreed that that was a product of the struggle.
Now, that takes some period of time.
That dirt isn't soft.
Werner Spitz says it's soft.
Dr. Lee says I was out there, that was an
area that took a while to dig.
And, of course, it's right where the
blood is pooled beeper is found, we have the keys
found at a different area.
And ladies and gentlemen, we have 30
wounds in the body of Ron Goldman.
30 wounds.
Including wounds, defensive, to his
hands, including bruises to his knuckles.
Now, where on Mr. Simpson are the results
of him inflicting punishment upon his assailant?
It's not there.
Doesn't exist.
Doesn't exist because Mr. Simpson,
OJ Simpson, didn't do it.
You've glove, got vegetation with blood
on it. You have indications that this took a fair
amount of time now.
Now, Werner Spitz, interestingly enough,
said, well, I know it took a minute and 15 seconds.
When we started to cross-examine
Werner Spitz, did you notice how he then started
testifying I'm not a criminalist, I'm a forensic
pathologist.
On direct examination he could stand up
here and he could show you exactly what happened, and
he could demonstrate with absolutely no hesitation
about how these murders occurred, about where everyone
was standing.
And all of the sudden, when you start to
get into the details, when you start to press him,
then he was a criminalist.
He didn't do the crime scene
reconstruction because his testimony doesn't fit.
It doesn't make any sense.
Sure, if nobody was fighting back, and a
hole wasn't dug, if blood spatters weren't everywhere,
if blood hadn't pooled, you could probably inflict
those wounds in a minute and 15 seconds.
But you couldn't when you have two young
people who are fighting back.
So how long did it take?
Well, we know a couple of things; we know
that the assailants weren't in too big of a hurry.
They walk.
(Board entitled Blood Drops at
Bundy June 13, 1994 displayed.)
MR. BAKER: We'll have the shoe print board
here in a minute.
They walked back up towards the front
door, turned around, and there are steps going back
towards the bodies.
They were not rushing through the murder
of these two individuals.
You heard Bodziak say -- well, that he
had testified in the criminal trial, and it was his
belief that the -- let's put that one up. You can
leave that one up, too -- that the assailant or
assailants had walked back into the bushes to perhaps
not be seen, towards -- from the front of house, there
are steps going down here (indicating), shoe prints
going back down here, there are shoe prints over by
the bodies, and there's a shoe print four feet in
front of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson; four feet
in front or east towards Bundy.
There's 23 sets of unidentified --
unidentified shoe prints. There's a shoe print that
was found by Henry Lee, back here, a parallel line
pattern that was found after the LAPD had already
allowed the scene to be run amuck by the media and
Looky-loos.
And Mr. Medvene would have you believe
that Dr. Henry Lee cannot tell whether or not that
print was put on subsequent to the murders.
And, of course, Henry Lee is a very
honest man. He said I can't tell if it was put on
after the murder scene was released.
But what he did tell you, and what he
did -- put the overlay -- that that is a shoe print,
that was positive for blood, the whole scene had been
washed down, they had missed that, that was positive
for blood.
So was it a shoe print that just happened
to be there as a result of somebody having blood on
their feet after the murders, or did it, in fact,
occur during the murders?
Were there two assailants?
And does it make more sense that there
were two assailants?
MR. BAKER: Phil, have you got that?
(Photo is displayed on Elmo.)
MR. P. BAKER: That one?
MR. BAKER: I want to zero in on the shoe --
zero in on the shoe prints.
(Elmo is adjusted)
MR. BAKER: We know that, although Bodziak
wouldn't agree to this one as a shoe print, this is
four feet in front of the body of Nicole Brown
Simpson, precisely the same shoe prints as he has
identified as being Bruno Magli.
Now, what is -- these assailants were in
such a hurry to get out in a minute and 15 seconds,
what is the assailant doing four feet in front of the
body of Nicole Brown Simpson, and towards Bundy?
And, ladies and gentlemen, there is --
then there is another photo that turns up, and that
photo turns up after the criminal trial and it has --
shows seven blood drops out on the walkway in an area
where a dog has gone.
The prosecution in the criminal case did
not -- can you zero in on these (indicating to Elmo).
Over here.
There's blood -- oops, up a little bit,
please.
These blood drops -- the prosecution
cropped the photo. That photo was never in existence
during the criminal trial. It was. But it wasn't in
the hands of the defense.
And there's seven blood drops, vertical
blood drops, going the same direction that the dog
went, same exact direction that the dog went, south on
Bundy.
No efforts to ever take any of -- any
smears from any of those blood drops, no efforts to
determine what is the significance of this by the
LAPD.
But this indicates to you, ladies and
gentlemen, that the assailant was dropping blood out
on the sidewalk.
This crime -- these heinous crimes took
time. They weren't accomplished in a minute and 15
seconds. They were accomplished in 10 to 15 minutes.
And why can't the plaintiffs agree with
that? Because if the plaintiffs agreed with what is
reasonable, they have eliminated OJ Simpson as the
perpetrator, and God knows, they don't want to do it,
the LAPD never wanted to do it.
They had their man. They had the big
fish from basically the initial reporting of these
crimes. They had the big fish, and the big fish was
OJ Simpson.
Keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, the
LAPD and the District Attorney's office, this is the
same duo, this is the same duo that couldn't win the
McMartin case after a year and a half. This is the
same duo that couldn't win the first Menendez case,
even though they had a confession.
And this case they were going to win.
They were going to get OJ Simpson and they were going
to get a conviction.
And let's examine what happened at 12:10
on the night of -- or early morning hours of June 13,
1994.
At that time, Riske discovers the -- and
Rossi are there at the scene. Riske goes in, as was
indicated to you by Bob Blasier, picks up a phone and
destroys any last number dialed.
And then what happened?
This becomes a cause celebre. Everyone
in West L.A. division has to come by 875 South Bundy.
Everybody in the LAPD has got to be a part of this
double homicide involving -- involving the ex-wife of
OJ Simpson.
There's one man that wants to be, more
than anybody, the linchpin of that case, and that's
somebody who you've, I'm sure, now felt there has been
an effort to keep out of this trial. Mark Fuhrman.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Violates the Court's order.
THE COURT: Jury to disregard that comment.
MR. PETROCELLI: In bad faith. And he knows
better.
MR. BAKER: I know the truth.
MR. PETROCELLI: You know better.
MR. BAKER: 12:10, 12:10 in the morning,
Fuhrman and Phillips arrive, and they're the lead
detectives from West L.A., and they walk through, they
see the glove, they -- does Fuhrman see more than one
glove? Is there another glove over back by the body
of Ron Goldman that later ends up at
360 North Rockingham?
You bet.
After they arrive, they are the
detectives on the scene from -- approximately from
2:10 to 2:45, and they are then notified at 2:45 that
robbery/homicide division is taking over, and
robbery/homicide division is Lange and Vannatter and
that's the downtown group, and they then stand down.
They cannot do any investigation, they
cannot do any detective work. They then are relived
of all of their duties.
This Fuhrman had to get in his car and
drive home.
And what happens from 2:45 to 4:00?
Nobody seems to know the whereabouts of Mark Fuhrman.
We know his jacket was off at one point.
We know Spangler says it was on at one point and we
know that Lange and Vannatter say it was off at one
point at Rockingham.
We also know that by 4 o'clock in the
morning, still absolutely no detective work has been
done on this crime scene whatsoever. Nobody has done
anything. This is a double homicide. There are 25
LAPD detectives, sergeants and officers at the scene,
including all the brass. They're standing outside.
Not one sole is doing any detective work.
Why not? Why, in a crime scene that's
rich in evidence, are they doing nothing?
So then -- so what then occurs?
Vannatter gets there about 4:10 and he
takes a walk-through, and he walks through and he
determines that, yes, there is a double homicide,
which has been known since 12:10, and what then
happened?
Lange comes about 4:25 and he makes the
same interesting revelation, that this is a double
homicide, that there's a hat and glove that they see
and that there's two bodies and there's an immense
amount of blood.
And what do they then do?
This is the most incredulous thing I have
ever heard.
Then they decide, with 25 -- with 25 LAPD
officers, administrators, sergeants, detectives, they
decide that the four lead people -- the four lead
people are going to go to Rockingham, that is the two
lead detectives who had the job of doing detective
work from 2:10 to 2:45, Detectives Phillips and
Fuhrman, they're going to go, and the two now lead
detectives from robbery/homicide division, Lange and
Vannatter, are going to leave this crime, rich -- this
evidence-rich crime scene, 875 South Bundy, and they
are going to go to 360 North Rockingham.
Isn't that incredible?
And think of the reasons they gave for
their having to leave this crime scene and go to
Rockingham.
One was personal notification. And you
heard Phillips testify. Well, we like to personally
notify people of the death of a loved one.
And that sounds very good and it makes a
lot of sense, it's very considerate and it's very
compassionate.
So they -- do you think any of the 21
people at LAPD who were at 875 South Bundy could have
gone to 360 North Rockingham, so that they could have
investigated that crime scene? You think one person
could have?
And if they're so damn interested in
personal notification, why is it they didn't notify
Fred Goldman until 5 o'clock in the afternoon on the
13th?
And then the LAPD didn't even do it. It
was -- it was the county coroner's office.
Does that tell you how interested they
are in personal notification?
And then the second reason. Second
reason is we wanted Fuhrman and Phillips because we
may need help with the kids, OJ may need help with the
kids. That's what they testified to.
I agree with you. That makes no sense at
all.
And of course once they get over there,
did they give OJ any help with the kids? Did they
give Arnelle, who was there, any help with the kids?
Absolutely not. She had to call A.C. Cowlings, and he
helped her.
LAPD did nothing.
And I think you can interpret and I think
that you're bright people and I think you understand
that was absolute pretextual nonsense as to why they
went to Rockingham.
They went to Rockingham for one reason,
and one reason alone, and that was the big fish was
OJ Simpson. He was a suspect. He was always a
suspect. And he was the only suspect.
And anybody who doesn't believe that
believes in the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.
Because they went over there with one
idea in mind, and that is to get evidence and to get
OJ Simpson.
So let's follow it through.
They get over there -- two cars, they get
over there about 5 minutes after 5 in the morning.
And what do they do?
The rogue Fuhrman's wandering off on his
own, and he finds that little-bitty speck above the
left door handle and says, why, that must be human
blood.
He didn't know if it was human blood.
They didn't know what it was.
And they say that the Bronco is parked at
such an angle that it's just unusual, it's weird.
Well, I've seen it in the pictures. It's
parked about 4 to 5 inches at an angle, which doesn't
look weird to me at all. But interestingly enough,
interestingly enough, Astin testified that it was 2 to
3 feet out in the street. 2 to 3 feet out in the
street. Which might make some degree of sense when OJ
pulled it out after dropping off his golf clubs, he
went around and got in his car before the gate was
closed.
Did somebody move this? Did somebody
move this vehicle?
Certainly that does not appear anything
close to 2 to 3 feet.
But at any rate, there is absolutely no
reason to go over the wall.
Happened as a conversation with six
police officers. Fuhrman, Phillips, Lange, Vannatter,
Gonzalez, Lange and Astin. They're all there.
Gonzalez and Astin, as you recall, are in the
black-and-white.
Everybody agrees that, gosh golly, gee
whiz, there could be something heinous going on
inside. It could be an extreme situation in
360 North Rockingham.
And so they decide that they are
justified in going over the wall onto Mr. Simpson's
property.
One officer won't go along with it.
Astin. He wouldn't say it didn't occur. He wouldn't
say -- he's standing right there. He says, I didn't
hear no evil, I didn't hear the conversation.
And who goes over the wall?
Fuhrman.
Again, the same gentleman, who is the
only one to find justification for going over the
wall.
Fuhrman.
Fuhrman goes over the wall after they've
made telephone calls, nobody's answered the phone,
they've heard the phone ring from outside the gate.
They know nobody's going to answer the phone.
They go in, they ring on the door bell,
and lo and behold, nobody comes to the door. What a
shock. Nobody answered the phone. Nobody's going to
come to the door.
They wander around the back of -- they
come in after Fuhrman climbs the wall, they come in,
go to the entrance.
As I say, nobody answers the door, which
is not exactly a news flash.
And then they go down around the north
path and around -- Phillips goes back, checking this
door, the back door on the east side, and they go and
knock on Kato Kaelin's door.
Now, think about it. Two minutes before
they went over the wall, they were concerned -- at
least they want you to believe they were concerned
about criminal activity, that this crime scene was
linked with the 875 South Bundy crime scene and that
they were worried about Mr. Simpson, he could be dying
inside, bleeding to death. Not one of them pulls
their side arm. Not one of them.
And they go around and they get to Kato's
room and they knock on the door. Kato comes to the
door. First thing Kato says, and Vannatter's standing
right there, "Did OJ's plane go down?"
And of course the significance of that
will become apparent momentarily.
The other three go down to Arnelle's
room, get Arnelle, and they leave Fuhrman with Kato
Kaelin, and he goes inside and he looks at Kato's
clothes, into the bathroom, and he goes and chats with
him about -- does a drug test on Kato, Kato Kaelin,
wants to know what he's been doing, because, even
though Vannatter has testified here in this courtroom
that OJ Simpson wasn't a suspect when they went over
the wall, OJ Simpson was no more a suspect than Bob
Shapiro, one of his lawyers, Kato Kaelin was a
suspect, they didn't even know who he was.
I mean it's absolute nonsense.
So they go down, they get Arnelle,
Arnelle gets clothed, and they tell you that they all
go in this door. Every officer tells you they go in
that door. And why? There isn't even a key lock on
it. When in truth and in fact, they couldn't have
gone in that door. It was locked. Kato Kaelin had
set the alarm from the night before.
And they go out the north pathway and
they come around and they go in the front entrance.
The reason they told you, they want --
and lied to you on the witness stand, and Phillips did
it, Vannatter did it, and Lange did it, and the reason
they did it is because, you'll recall, they want you
to believe that OJ Simpson never asked about what
happened and they want you to believe that they have
already called OJ Simpson inside the house before
Arnelle had ever been told what was going on.
And it just isn't true.
Because Arnelle comes out of the driveway
to get her address book to find out exactly where OJ
is. She knows her dad's out of town. She doesn't
know exactly where he is. She knows Kathy Randa will,
in fact, know exactly where he is.
And so she says, I'm scared, you've got
to tell me what's going on. And they do. They say,
did you know Nicole? Of course she knew Nicole.
She's been murdered along with another victim. And
she breaks down. That's viewed by Officer Daniel
Gonzalez and it's heard by him and he puts it in a
report.
And then they go back in and they call
Kathy Randa. They find out the exact whereabouts of
OJ Simpson and they call him and, he, ladies and
gentlemen, is given the phone from Arnelle and asked,
what is going on, what is happening. And she tells
him. And they didn't want you to know that.
Do you remember Phillips right here on
the witness stand, he testifies to you, he testifies,
he never asked, he never asked what was wrong.
And what is that meant to convey to you?
Consciousness of guilt. That he already knows what
went on.
In fact, he didn't know what went on, and
he asked.
And it's even in Phillips's report.
And Dan Leonard said, did you try to
mislead the jury by leaving this out? You put it in
your report. Did you try to just mislead the ladies
and gentlemen of the jury?
Of course he did.
So then what occurs? I mean, think about
it, ladies and gentlemen: This is where they have
just told you they want you to believe that they,
truthfully, in their heart of hearts, believe that
there was something going on in this house, and they
let Arnelle walk in the door first; they let Arnelle
lead them into the maid's room. Not one of them has
their sidearm drawn.
I mean, it is absolute, unadulterated
nonsense.
They say they never went upstairs. No,
we didn't go upstairs. They're all by themselves,
with the exception of Arnelle and Kato, who are being
taken care of, in a couple rooms. They've never been
upstairs to view -- to see whether anybody was up
there injured. Of course they didn't, because they
didn't believe anybody was up there.
And then, Fuhrman, who had been
interrogating Kato Kaelin, all of a sudden says, I'm
not going to interrogate him anymore; you do it,
Vanatter. I'm going to go look around.
Now, here we have, according to their
version of events -- that is, the LAPD's version of
events -- we have this -- again, a possible linkage to
a crime scene, could be murderers, criminals on the
premises -- what does Fuhrman do? He doesn't ask for
backup. He doesn't ask for anybody to go with him.
He doesn't ask for somebody to be right at his side,
and his partner to be there in case they meet up
against somebody with a -- armed or somebody with a
knife. No. He wanders off all by himself.
And what does he find? He finds a glove
back by the air conditioner.
Phil, you want to put up the picture of
Fuhrman pointing to the glove?
(Mr. P. Baker displays photograph
on the Elmo screen.)
That discovery can only be viewed in
context of this picture.
With the hat underneath Mark Fuhrman
pointing at the glove -- it's at night; it's before
they ever went back -- ever went to Rockingham.
You heard Rokahr, the photographer, 40
years, that was taken at night.
Why -- why would there be one picture out
of all the pictures taken at 875 South Bundy,
Mark Fuhrman within a couple inches of the glove, and
he just happens to find another glove that matches it
at Rockingham, linking the two crime scenes.
I believe in serendipity, ladies and
gentlemen, this is not serendipity.
Mark Fuhrman is the only person that
is -- that is shown in any photograph, whatsoever,
pointing to any piece of evidence. And it's a piece
of evidence that he's pointing to before there is any
linkage to Rockingham whatsoever.
Now, the plaintiffs brought in somebody
who said this: Well, gosh, golly. Rokahr and I were
sitting in a car. She never even saw Fuhrman. And
Rokahr is a photographer of 40 years. If he had seen
this exact scene at night, he would have been in this
court telling you he had made a mistake.
They twisted everybody else, why not
Rokahr? He would have been in this courtroom.
But, in fact, he took that picture at
night. And it is so telling, it's unbelievable. So
what happens?
To get back to 306 North Rockingham,
Fuhrman sees this -- and I suggest to you it's a glove
that he sees because he has planted it there earlier,
or at the same time that he accidentally discovered
it, one or the other.
That glove is wet, it's moist, it's
tacky. It has absolutely no insect activity on it,
and it has not one -- not one blood spot around it
anywhere.
If, in fact, that had been dropped by
OJ Simpson at 10:50 the night before, it would have
been dry, not wet, not tacky, and have insect activity
all over it. It had none of the above.
And isn't it strange, ladies and
gentlemen, that there is not a blood drop around it?
Here you have this bloody glove that's -- that's got
blood all over it, not a piece -- piece, a drop, a
scintilla, a minute speck of blood on a leaf, on the
concrete, on nothing. And, interestingly --
interestingly, with their theory -- theory of him
coming over the Cyclone Fence and running into the
wall and hitting the wall three times at 10:51,
instead of at 10:40, as Kato earlier testified to.
There is not any residue, any hole in the shrubbery
about him coming through.
In fact, Vannatter said, I looked and I
didn't see any. And Phillips said I didn't look.
Can you imagine this? They have all seen
a glove at Bundy; every one of them took the
walk-through and saw the glove -- that's what they
testified to -- now they see a glove at Rockingham,
sitting out in the middle of a small concrete walkway
on the side of somebody's house, and they don't look
to see if there is any residue from somebody coming
over that way.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's absolutely
not credible.
Phillips said, I didn't look. And then
he said -- he said, I didn't have any glasses on.
A detective without his glasses on.
That's a pretty interesting concept. I mean, he's
there to do detective work.
And Lange said, I didn't get closer than
six or eight feet; I didn't look.
And we didn't have the benefit of
Fuhrman's testimony here.
One thing we do know: There is not one
iota of evidence that anybody came over that wall.
There's absolutely nothing to indicate, actually, at
the Cyclone Fence. There's nothing that indicates
that the hedge, which is incredibly grown, was broken
in any regard whatsoever. It just isn't there, so it
couldn't have occurred.
How does this glove get back here if it
isn't planted?
That's planted evidence; there's no
question about it. That's planted evidence, for one
reason, to link 875 south Bundy and
360 North Rockingham. And it's done by Fuhrman. And
there's no question about it.
You think of the blood drops on the
driveway that go towards Mr. Simpson's front
entranceway. How do you do this, ladies and
gentlemen?
Under their theory of the case, how does
it work?
We know that we -- we cut ourselves, we
bleed more at the beginning. So we have five drops at
Bundy, we have eleven drops at Rockingham, not one of
them down this 180 feet or 30 feet or whatever. There
is not a single blood drop. And then of course, the
blood drops stop in the foyer; they don't go up the
stairs, they don't go into the bedroom, they don't go
into the bathroom. There is no such thing.
Does he bleed and not bleed at will?
It doesn't fit, ladies and gentlemen.
The evidence doesn't mesh at all. It doesn't mesh any
more than the fact that in the closed-in area at
Bundy, you have no blood of OJ Simpson.
You have no prints of OJ Simpson.
What you have is, you have blood
transfers from Nicole Brown Simpson to Ron Goldman.
There's her blood on his clothing and his blood on her
clothing, so they were together. But there is no
blood of Mr. Simpson's in that area.
There is no blood of Mr. Simpson's that
goes up into his bathroom. There is no blood that
goes up the stairs. I guess if you were to use their
theory, he can turn on and off the ability to bleed or
not to bleed.
But one thing we do know for sure: That,
after the glove was discovered, Fuhrman, who already
knows it's a match -- he's planted the glove; he's put
it there -- he gets in his vehicle and he goes back to
875 South Bundy to determine whether or not it's a
match, and comes rights back and says it's a match.
And guess what? And he stays at
Rockingham all day.
The one guy that discovered virtually all
the evidence that's incriminating is Mark Fuhrman.
Where is he?
MR. PETROCELLI: Same objection: Improper
argument, violates the Court's order.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: We further know, ladies and
gentlemen -- we further are well aware that when they
left Bundy at 5 o'clock to come over for this
pretextual [sic] notion -- this pretextual helping
Mr. Simpson with his kids, that they never called the
coroner, they never called the criminalist; they
didn't do one thing to allow the 875 South Bundy crime
scene to be processed at all.
Do you think that's just happenstance?
Do you think that after five hours -- and
Vannatter gets on the stand and says, we were only
going to be there five minutes -- they're only going
to be there five minutes, why don't they call the
criminalist?
Why don't they call a coroner?
No. No.
Vannatter called the criminalist to
Rockingham. And he then, ladies and gentlemen, after
Fuhrman comes back to Rockingham, he allows the
criminalist and the coroner to be called. And then
Vannatter, the lead detective, the most senior,
detective 3 for this investigation, what does he do?
He leaves the scene and he has -- fills out an
affidavit, under penalty of perjury, to obtain a
search warrant for Simpson's estate, and he lies to
the judge.
Do you want to put that up, Phil?
(Mr. P. Baker displays document on
the Elmo screen.)
MR. BAKER: It says there appears to be what is
human blood -- later confirmed by Scientific
Investigation personnel -- to be human blood on the
door handle of the vehicle.
That never happened. To this day, that
has never happened. SID has never determined that
what appeared to be human blood on the door handle
was, in fact, human blood.
And then he says, it was determined that
Simpson left on an unexpected flight to Chicago during
the early morning hours of June 13, and he says by
interviewing Simpson's daughter and a friend, Brian
Kaelin.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is an
absolute fabrication, and Vannatter knew it when he
said it. He lied under penalty of perjury. And you
can disbelieve everything Vannatter said pursuant to
the instructions of this Court because -- think about
it for a second. If, in fact, he knows anything about
OJ Simpson's flight -- which he had to, because Kato
Kaelin says instantly, did OJ's plane go down -- he
knows that it's scheduled, and he knows that he was on
an American Airline flight, and he knows that OJ went
to Chicago on a Hertz outing, or he doesn't know he
got on an airplane at all.
Where did he ever come up with an
unexpected flight to Chicago? The fact is, it wasn't
unexpected; it was expected for weeks. And Vannatter
knew it. And Vannatter would do whatever it takes to
make OJ Simpson the target, the suspect, the only
suspect.
And think about it, ladies and gentlemen.
If you go through the investigative process in this
case, there was never any effort, not an iota of
effort to find anybody other than OJ Simpson as a
suspect.
Consider just Tallarino, the
roller-blader who roller-blades by at 9 o'clock and
sees a man in a suspicious pose right there where the
seven drops of blood were, right there at 875 at
9 o'clock. Lange goes out, interviews Tallarino, and
does absolutely nothing with it. Doesn't follow up,
doesn't do anything. Any lead that didn't lead to
OJ Simpson was discarded.
Think about the phone call to
Sergeant Merrin between 10:00 and 10:30.
The woman says, are you sitting on two
bodies in West L.A.?
Incredible stuff, isn't it? That's
before the murders had taken place. Somebody knew
those murders were going to take place. Some female
knew those murders were going to take place before
they ever happened, and LAPD does nothing. Because it
doesn't fit.
It can't be a rage killing. It can't be
a rage killing. Somebody knows it's going to take
place before they ever happen.
MR. BAKER: Is this a good point, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Okay.
Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or
express any opinions.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued)
MR. BAKER: Ladies and gentlemen, we left off
and before the break, and I wanted to take you back up
to where we are at Rockingham.
(Diagram of 360 North Rockingham
Avenue displayed.)
MR. BAKER: Vannatter leaves Rockingham. He
goes over to Bundy and gets the search warrant, based
upon the lies that I just showed you that he put in
the search warrant. Fuhrman remains at Rockingham.
And during this period of time, as we
know, LAPD Detective Ron Phillips called OJ Simpson in
Chicago, and told him that his ex-wife has been
murdered and they want him back in L.A. for
questioning.
Mr. Simpson then does whatever he can do
to get on the first plane that he can get on, and he
gets on a plane in about -- under an hour from the
hotel to the airport.
It's during that period of time that he
cuts the middle finger of his left hand. You've seen
the pictures in Chicago, you've seen the towel, you've
seen the glass in the sink, you've seen that.
And you have also seen that there is not
one person who saw a cut on his hand, either hand,
before the cut that he got in Chicago when he was
rushing around on the -- phone, and half they're
trying to piece together what had happened and trying
to get out of town.
So OJ Simpson flies back. He's met at
the airport by Skip Taft and Kathy Randa, and he goes
to Rockingham. At Rockingham he has his duffel bag
when he gets out of Skip's car and he goes into
Rockingham.
And that's all he has.
Kathy's got the Louis Vuitton bag. The
police won't even let her inside Mr. Simpson's place,
nor will they take the bag. So she's there with the
bag. Skip's car is locked, and subsequently that bag
is given to Bob Kardashian. The police absolutely
never asked for it.
Never asked for it at all.
It is subsequently brought to the
criminal trial along with the golf bag, along with the
bag that Mr. Simpson had golf balls in; not at the
request of the LAPD, not at the request of anybody
else, but the request of OJ Simpson.
He then goes into the compound.
Well, let me just back up one minute.
If any one of those items had any blood
in them at all, you would have heard about it. You
know they were tested by the LAPD, and you know there
was absolutely not one drop of blood in any of those
items, or it would have been in this case, in the
criminal case. You would have heard from the witness
stand.
You didn't because there was none.
So OJ Simpson gets into the compound.
Vannatter tells Thompson to cuff him.
Vannatter lied. He said he didn't tell
Thompson to handcuff him.
Thompson said, yes, he did. I wouldn't
have done it on my own. You can rest assured.
Why do you think Vannatter wanted OJ
handcuffed?
He wanted him handcuffed so he could take
the handcuffs off and be the good guy, and he could be
OJ's pal; and then we'll go down and we'll get a
statement from you, OJ, and oh, don't have to worry
about a lawyer, you don't have to worry about
anything, we just want to get through this.
Remember him saying that on the tape?
We just want to get through this and let
you go, OJ We just want to get through this.
This was their guy. This was their big
cahuna. This was the guy they wanted to blame for
this crime. And they were going to do it.
So they get the handcuffs off of OJ
Obviously, he agrees to go down to Parker
Center. He agrees to have a statement taken without
his attorneys being present; says I've got nothing to
hide.
This is not the consciousness of guilt,
ladies and gentlemen, this is the consciousness of
innocence.
What does he say?
Mr. Petrocelli indicated to you that he
never mentioned that he was cut in Chicago.
Phil, put that up. Page 158, I think.
MR. P. BAKER: You have the statement.
MR. BAKER: I thought you had one too, Phil.
Sorry.
(Document displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: Put it down.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: How did you do it in Chicago. Oh,
I broke a glass. It was -- I just was -- you had
what -- one of you guys had just called me. I was in
the bathroom. I kind of went bonkers for a little
bit. I cut it, it was cut before. I think I just
opened it.
Obviously, he isn't sure exactly where,
but he certainly mentioned that he has cut his hand in
Chicago and tells him. And he is certain that he has
had blood on his little finger when he's in his house
the night before, just before he's leaving.
Think about it, ladies and gentlemen.
When he has this blood on his finger
and -- he sees a drop of blood and he takes a paper
towel and wipes it off, think about it for an
instance. That's just after he's gotten back in from
getting his phone equipment out of the Bronco.
That is the only thing that makes any
sense to explain blood drops down the driveway,
exactly what Mr. Simpson was doing. He cut himself in
the Bronco and he dropped some blood coming down the
driveway.
It makes no sense, absolutely none, for
him coming over the Cyclone fence, going down the
south walkway, without any blood whatsoever, and then
all of the sudden, going -- being seen going in the
entranceway.
There's no blood.
None whatsoever.
And yet there is blood here, which is
fully explained by Mr. Simpson's cut -- going out just
before he's leaving to get his charging equipment out
of the Bronco.
I want to go back to Parker Center.
Back at Parker Center the interrogation
without Mr. Simpson's lawyers goes on.
And you heard Mr. Simpson tell you that
they stopped and started that tape before they ever
restarted it and tape-recorded it. And the point
being that they interrogated him first, then they
interrogated him again.
And he told them, ladies and gentlemen,
he told them, besides the cut, he said -- although
Vannatter and Lange testified he never asked what
happened, what went on, what was going on -- Phil, put
up page 23.
(Document displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: He said (reading:) You guys haven't
told me anything. I have no idea what happened. When
you said to my daughter -- said something to me today
that somebody else might have been involved, I have
absolutely no idea what happened. I don't know how,
why or what.
You guys haven't told me anything. Every
time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me
in a bit.
Vannatter says, well, we don't know a lot
of answers to those questions yet ourselves, OJ
Of course, they knew the answers to the
questions. They were lying to him because he was the
primary suspect.
But OJ had asked them, and asked them,
and asked them; and they wouldn't tell him.
Then they come in here and say it's
consciousness of guilt.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is a fraud.
He asked them.
They wouldn't admit it so that they could
use it in a courtroom to convict OJ Simpson.
It doesn't work then.
It's not going to work now.
Then they talk about blood.
Phil, you'll want to go up to the same
page. I guess it's down. I'm sorry.
Phil, you take mine. (indicating to
document.)
We got blood on and in your car. We
got blood in your house. It's sort of a problem.
OJ says, well, take my blood test and
we'll see.
Is that a guilty man?
Immediately they mention blood, he says
take my blood, we'll see.
And so, of course, they do, ladies and
gentlemen. They do take his blood.
And we're going to talk about that in a
minute.
One other thing. If he has such
knowledge that he had been to Nicole's house, he had
killed these two people in cold blood that evening,
and he was asked, as he was asked --I think page 22,
Phil -- about whether he had ever left any blood at
Nicole's house, what would he have said?
Sure. I'm over there, the dog and I, we
got in a scuffle, and I may have dropped some blood
someplace.
What did he say?
Do you recall having cut your finger last
time you were at Nicole's house.
"A. A week ago.
Yeah.
"A. No.
Now, he could have -- if he had been the
killer, wouldn't he have conformed his testimony --
wouldn't he have said, gee, I think I did cut my hand.
I was over there picking up the dog last week and I
cut my hand.
But no, he didn't. He said, no, I didn't
cut my hand, because he didn't cut his hand, and
because he wasn't the killer, and he wasn't over
there.
Now, let's chat just a little bit
about -- let's discuss what -- you can pull that down.
Let's discuss the -- oh, I'm sorry. One
more thing.
I apologize for going back, but page
15 -- I'm sorry, the --
MR. P. BAKER: 382?
MR. BAKER: Go to 31 on there.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. BAKER: When they're asking about how he
cut himself.
I didn't -- here's a man giving his
statement, had very few hours sleep, absolutely
distraught, and they ask him about the cuts.
Again, I wasn't aware -- wasn't aware
that I, you know, I was trying to get out of the
house. I didn't pay any attention to it.
I saw it when I was in the kitchen. I
grabbed a napkin or something that was there. Then I
didn't think about it after that.
That was -- that was last night after you
got home, after the recital when you were running
around.
That was last night when I was -- I don't
know what I was -- I was in and out of the car getting
junk out of the car. I was in the house.
I was throwing hangers and stuff in my
suitcase. I was doing my little crazy -- what I do.
I mean I do it. Everybody's ever picked me up says
that OJ's a whirlwind at the end, he's running, he's
grabbing things, and Vannatter says yeah.
And when they asked him about going to
the Bronco, he says, I went to the Bronco to get my
phone or whatever, that is, meaning, of course, the
phone apparatus, because he already had his phone, he
called at 10 o'clock at night right next to his
Bentley to Paula Barbieri and will you'll recall that
Mr. Petrocelli had said he was in his Bronco -- he was
in his Bronco when he made that 10:03 phone call to
Paula Barbieri.
And you know and I know that if he had
been in the car when that call was made at 10:03,
there would have been somebody on this witness stand
who would have said, I analyzed the sound from the
tape that was on Paula's answering machine when he
left the message --
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, zero evidence of
any tape being in evidence in this case. There is no
such tape and he knows it. And he is going way out of
bounds.
MR. BAKER: That's not true, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, make him point to
the evidence where there's such a tape. Make him
point to it.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
MR. PETROCELLI: Point to it.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter:)
(Reporter reads the record as
follows:)
. . . you'll recall that
Mr. Petrocelli had said he was in
his Bronco -- he was in his Bronco
when he made that 10:03 phone call
to Paula Barbieri.
MR. PETROCELLI: They didn't analyze anything
Let's stay within the record.
MR. P. BAKER: There was a tape made by Paula
Barbieri's answering machine. It was analyzed by the
LAPD and they couldn't identify whether there's a
Bronco.
MR. PETROCELLI: Shhh. Keep your voice down.
MR. P. BAKER: You're the one.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you control this guy, he's
trying to make an argument to the jury.
MR. BAKER: It's not your turn.
THE COURT: Excuse me, folks. Would you step
out in the hallway.
(Indicating to jurors.)
(Laughter from audience.)
(Jurors leave courtroom.)
(The following proceedings resume
at the bench:)
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: There is no such tape.
There's been no evidence of any tape.
He's referring to a tape in the possession of the
LAPD. There's never been a drop of evidence in this
case that they ever had a tape, that they ever
analyzed it. It's not true. And it's certainly not
in this record.
They are trying to imply to the jury that
there was a tape that the police looked at it, they
analyzed it, and they determined that the call didn't
come from the cell phone.
That's exactly what he's arguing.
I want this jury admonished.
MR. BAKER: Oh, be quiet.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's no evidence in this
record.
MR. P. BAKER: There is a tape that was made
from a 10:03 call left on Paula Barbieri's answering
machine. It was analyzed the by the LAPD. They
couldn't identify whether there were any car noises in
it. That information was leaked to CNN in October of
1994.
Mr. Petrocelli knows he gets on the stand
he doesn't want to cross-examine OJ Simpson about the
letter on 732 and it's only limited --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm hot.
THE COURT: What's the matter with you?
MR. P. BAKER: I'm hot. There's a portion in
this tape that was made, he knows it, that was leaked
to the LAPD. There was no Bronco sounds. That
evidence should be in front of the jury.
MR. PETROCELLI: Should be?
MR. P. BAKER: They talked about the other
evidence which --
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Where is such a tape?
MR. P. BAKER: The LAPD maintains the tape.
THE COURT: Was there a tape?
MR. PETROCELLI: To my knowledge -- excuse me,
let me answer the Judge's questions.
If there was such a tape, I'd be all over
that tape, and I'd bring it into Court, Your Honor. I
don't know about it.
But that's not the point. It's not in
evidence in this case.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PETROCELLI: And I want the jury
admonished.
MR. P. BAKER: If that's his standing I want
all the portions of 732 --
THE COURT: Okay. I'm ruling just on this
issue.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: I going to rule that there is no
tape in evidence.
Bring the jury back in.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
(Jurors resumed their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, this is the
end of the case. This is closing argument, and like
during the trial, even in the closing argument phase,
it is improper for attorneys to interject themselves
and make argument before you on questions that concern
whether or not something exists or does not exist.
That should be done out of your hearing because we
don't know at the point they're making the argument
whether or not there is or is not -- the particular
subject matter that is being debated, exists or does
not exist.
So I am admonishing both sides not to
make speaking objections and speaking argument. And
even at side bench you heard voices raised. That's
improper.
There are certain allowances I am making
because of the heat of the battle, but even making
allowances for the heat of the moment, the heat of the
battle, these are supposed to be lawyers who have been
in practice for a long time, or even a short time, and
it's totally inappropriate to carry on in that
fashion. It's getting evidence or argument before you
that ought not be before you.
So whatever you heard at the side bench
or from counsel table during the last interchange you
are to disregard it.
Everybody understand that?
JURORS: Yes, sir. Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. There was an objection made
with regards to Mr. Baker's argument about some tape.
There's been no evidence of any tape. You are to
disregard any argument regarding any tape with respect
to Ms. Barbieri.
Everybody understand that?
JURORS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BAKER: There's no evidence, but the
imagination of Mr. Petrocelli that OJ Simpson was in
his Bronco at 10:03 driving the vehicle.
There is testimony from OJ Simpson that
he was beside his car, in the area, hitting golf balls
out of his car and chipping golf balls, a few of them,
before he went out the gate, and around and back in
his front door.
That's the evidence.
His figment of his imagination that he
was in the Bronco is just that.
Now, let me go back to Parker Center and
to the afternoon of June 13, 1994.
Now, we know that Lange and Vannatter,
detectives of 40 plus years experience -- and they've
got their guy, they've got the suspect they want right
there, they've got OJ Simpson, and they've got a cut
on the middle finger of his left hand.
They questioned him about it. They then
take him downstairs at Parker Center, draw blood, and
have him photographed.
Now, Mr. Petrocelli would have you
believe that these experienced detectives of 40 plus
years didn't look at his hands.
They had tunnel vision.
They only looked at the cut on the hand
that they could see, in the middle of the left finger.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is
ridiculous and it's ludicrous.
They looked, as OJ said, at both of his
hands, turned them inside out and looked at them, and
inspected them, and there was one cut. One cut,
middle finger, on the joint.
You've seen the pictures. They posed
OJ Simpson for the pictures.
And the reason, of course, that he's got
to have more cuts on his hands is because he's got no
bruises.
If he's got no cuts, it's clear he didn't
do it. He's got to try to elevate you to believe that
these cuts were there.
It just makes no common sense.
It makes no more common sense that these
cuts were there than it makes for Werner Spitz to tell
you, ladies and gentlemen, of this jury, that none of
these are cuts; they are all -- every one of them are
fingernail gouges.
And it's one that's on the inside of his
hand that was there after he was arrested, the inside
of the ring finger of the left hand, which seems to go
from outward to inward.
In other words, it goes laterally, or the
same direction as the finger. And Werner Spitz
couldn't figure out how grabbing like this would have
(indicating) gouged that particular cut.
And the reason, of course, he couldn't,
is because it didn't happen that way. And the gouge
that is down here on the hand that Dr. Spitz says is
up here, and got totally confused -- but everything
according to him is a fingernail gouge mark, and it
just isn't so, he cut his hand, the middle finger of
his left hand, in Chicago.
You've seen the glass.
You've seen the bloody linen.
You've seen the towels.
And that's what happened.
And you also heard that that's what
occurred. When he walked out of the hotel and asked
to get a band-aid, when he's trying to get a cab in
his fervent efforts to try to get back to Los Angeles.
And I suggest to you, ladies and
gentlemen, the cuts as well as the bruises are a
problem that the plaintiffs' try to work around.
They can't get around it because
OJ Simpson simply is innocent.
At 3:30 they get the blood. They get 8
cc's of OJ Simpson's reference blood. Vannatter, who
we know has misrepresented the truth under oath on
this witness stand, and to a Judge to get a search
warrant, takes the blood.
He can book it right there. He can book
it in Parker Center.
He takes it. He can book it at SID which
is about a mile away.
He doesn't do either.
He testifies to you on the witness stand
that he takes the vial, takes it upstairs to where his
desk is, and gets an analyzed evidence envelope out of
his drawer and places it in his drawer and -- or in
the envelope, pardon me.
Wait a minute.
Did you ever take that envelope down to
Thano Peratis?
No.
It's got his signature.
Oh, well I guess I made a mistake. He
never seals it. Why not? Why doesn't he seal the
envelope leave it with Peratis or in the alternative
book it right there at Parker Center or take it to
S.I.D. and the reason is it's because he wants to take
blood out of it and does.
You know you can get Thano Peratis after
he's only done this for about 20 years because now
they've got a big hole in their case. There missing
30,000 nanograms of DNA. You can get him -- you can
twist him, come in and say gee whiz, it wasn't 7.9 to
8.1 as I testified under penalty of perjury on two
occasions. It was really only six and a half. And
low and behold, we are now not missing 30,000
nanograms of DNA.
Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't wash.
How could in one case all of this happen
if there wasn't some effort being made by Vannatter
and Fuhrman to frame OJ Simpson?
How could it have happened?
How could you have all of these problems;
missing blood?
How could it be that after the autopsy,
never happened before. Siglar testified never
happened before. Vannatter gets the reference vials
of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Never
happened before.
And lo and behold on those vials, unlike
the reference vial of OJ, there isn't even a semblance
of how much blood was in those vials.
And think of all of the items of evidence
from the coroner's office after the autopsies are done
60, 70, every one, every one of those items of
evidence is picked up by SID except the reference
vials of blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman
who's picked up by Vannatter.
Happenstance?
I don't think so.
Then what happens, ladies and gentlemen?
Then what happens?
In this case, as you all know, it seems
to be like a fine wine; the evidence seems to get
better as the case goes on, for the prosecution.
We have blood in the Bronco. We have a
lot of blood in the Bronco. We have blood at the most
amazing places. Back behind the console. We have
blood on the console. Drops on the console that turn
into smears, and nobody's been in it.
How does that happen?
It doesn't happen unless somebody smears
it.
How are blood drops on the side rail of
the driver's door of the Bronco seen by Daniel
Gonzalez unless he opens the door?
You absolutely can't see it.
You saw where the -- like every other car
door in, there's a little seal, it goes up, then
there's a little seal so that water doesn't come
directly into the automobile. Just like every other
automobile.
Absolutely can't be seen.
How does this all happen in this case?
And the socks, ladies and gentlemen,
isn't it absolutely incredulous that of the 32 pieces
of clothes found at Rockingham that purportedly
incriminate OJ Simpson, both of them are found, and
there isn't one blood drop on any surrounding area,
the Rockingham glove and the socks.
Isn't it incredulous? When you look at
those photos, there isn't one piece of clothing around
them. They sit like a sore thumb in the middle of
this rug, right in the middle of his bedroom, right
aft -- right aft of his bed. Didn't look like anybody
sat on that bed to me. And I think Bob Blasier proved
it to you. Those socks were planted after Willie Ford
had been in that room. He didn't see them.
How can you miss them?
He never saw them.
And think about the socks. If you look
at the recital tape, you'll see OJ isn't in any Bruno
Magli shoes. Goes home, changes, gets into Reeboks,
goes and gets a burger." Then he comes home and he
changes into Bruno Magli shoes. Give me a break. And
he changes into dress socks. And then these dress
socks, I mean that's what you want, I guess dress
socks and then these dress socks, ladies and
gentlemen, are planted.
And then to prove how much they're
planted, you look at June 22, 1994, when Baden and
Wolf are there. These are two criminalists. They
have been requested to look at the evidence for the
defense. And Vannatter's standing over them and he
won't let them take them out of the cellophane holder
that they're in. They look at them. They can't find
any blood. That's what they're looking for.
On the 29th, when three experienced
criminalists are looking, doing a blood search, those
aren't my words, those are their words, they're doing
a blood search on those socks, Colin Yamauchi,
Michelle Kestler and Greg Matheson, "None obvious."
Not any blood on those socks. We wouldn't have held
them up to the light, we're doing a blood search, and
we put them on dark carpet so we can see it or
something.
I mean, come on, it makes no sense.
Then, when they find them on August 14,
there is copious amounts of blood. It goes through
side 1 to side 2 to side 3, and then when it gets to
side 3, it is bonded in the fibers on side 3.
And I want to talk to you a little bit
about the EDTA that's found on those socks, but I
think first we've got to talk just a little bit about
more planted evidence. And that's the back gate.
Now, you went through with me when
Detective Lange was on the witness stand, and Lange
had notes of every blood drop down the walkway at
Bundy, he had notes on every one of them.
He even draws a picture of the gate and
indicates which way it opens.
Do you want to put that up, Phil.
Here we're going through the blood drops.
Down here he puts the gate. Finds not one drop of
blood on the gate. And the next thing we know,
July 3, 1994, there's blood drops on the gate, and,
ladies and gentlemen, they have more nanograms of DNA
than anything else except the socks.
Why is that?
That is because it's planted.
And so when the allegations of planting
come out, what happens?
You've seen the letter Rock Harmon writes
to Roger Martz at the FBI to do a test to determine if
in fact EDTA is on the samples of the back gate and
the socks.
This to me, ladies and gentlemen, is so
crucial, and I want to take my time and go through it
with you.
He says we want you to determine the
absence -- presence or absence of EDTA on the socks
and the back gate to refute the allegations of
planting.
So Roger Martz does that. He does a
test. And he finds EDTA on both samples.
That could only come from a purple-top
test tube.
This is obviously absolutely devastating
to the prosecution. It refutes what the prosecution
says.
So what does the FBI do?
Roger Martz said, I tested my own blood,
it came out with essentially the same reading.
But, contrary to FBI procedures, he
erases his computer run so nobody can come back and
look, and at the time that he -- that he says that,
the time he says that, no one knows that EDTA is
undetectable in the human blood.
Those tests haven't been devised yet.
So Martz believes he's got carte blanche
to say, I tested my own blood and it was about the
same levels. That, therefore, explains why there was
EDTA on the back gate and the socks. They're the same
levels, so it isn't planted, okay.
Now, think about it for a minute.
If he thought for one second there was
any possibility of ghosting or this cross-over effect
you heard Terry Lee testify to, if there was one
second that he thought that that was, in fact, the
reason for the reading of EDTA, what would he have
done?
He would have gone back and retested
those items or tested some other items, because he was
19 years in the laboratory, and he knew this wasn't
any cross-over effect, he knew that he had EDTA in
these samples. It was totally consistent with
planting, because there was EDTA from a purple-top
test tube, and both of those samples are dynamite
evidence and they had to get rid of it somehow.
Now, Mr. Petrocelli -- we got that thing
in opening -- there's a board in there, Phil.
This is what he told you in opening: A
man named Roger Martz, a scientist from the FBI, he
has a machine called a mass spectrometer, he can test
blood samples to see if it has EDTA. We will call
Mr. Martz. He will testify he examined the blood
taken from the socks and the blood taken from the back
gate to see if there was EDTA in there that could have
come from a reference sample that had EDTA in it, that
is, if there were high dosages or high concentrations.
Mr. Martz conducted these tests on his
machine and he determined conclusively, and will so
testify, that the blood on the back gate and on the
socks could not have come from an EDTA-treated test
tube, and therefore could not have been planted.
Where was he?
Mr. Lambert told you that he was going to
bring it.
Where was he?
He wouldn't come because of the fact that
now it is known that you can't have EDTA in your
blood. And so his second test relative to his blood
to try to explain away the planting is absolutely
invalid. And he knows it, and he wouldn't come
because he wouldn't come in here and testify to you
that a lab manager of 19 years got cross-over effect
or ghosting, that is, residue from the machine, EDTA
in the machine came out on the next test.
If these people were so confident that
EDTA wasn't in those samples, why didn't they test
everything?
Why?
They can get the FBI to jump through
hoops.
We can't get them to return a phone call.
Why didn't they test everything?
They didn't test everything because they
didn't want to know the answer. They figured that
they could get around this with you. They figured
they could get Dr. Terry Lee to come in here and tell
you, ladies and gentlemen, that it was ghosting, it
was a cross-over effect from the machine.
Remember what he put in his notes? I
thought it was very, very telling. We've got to find
a way to explain around it. That's basically what he
said.
And his way to explain around it was it
was left over in the machine.
Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in
this case is simply not trustworthy. It is not
trustworthy. It's not worthy of belief.
They had all the opportunity in the world
to do that.
They did not do it.
They wouldn't do it.
And think about -- think about the gloves
for a minute.
Mr. Petrocelli says, well, why didn't
they have OJ Simpson put on the gloves? You could see
they were too tight. You could see it on the video.
He could have had him put on the gloves. He didn't
ask him.
Those gloves are too tight. They
wouldn't have fallen off. They wouldn't have been
dropped.
You know, isn't it absolutely incredible
that they dropped one right at the beginning of the
crime scene so everybody can see it in Bundy.
And the hat stuck underneath the rail.
And doesn't it defy credulity that the other one just
happens to be at their number one suspect's house, in
an area where nobody would be, where it doesn't
belong.
But it links the crime scene.
Incredible.
And you didn't see any scratches on
OJ Simpson's hand. How can you pull those things off?
Do you think that some killer is going to be trying to
pull off gloves or is he going to be trying to attack.
How did they come off and fall at such convenient
places, to link a crime scene?
And, you know, I didn't -- I didn't have
Mr. Fung say that there were cuts on both of those
gloves. He said that. When I switched subjects to
the gloves, he said, well, there were cuts on them.
And then he said that the cut was underneath this
piece of stucco. And there is no cut underneath the
piece of stucco, the stucco's gone, there's no stucco,
there's no cut on the glove that's here.
You look at the wear difference.
You make your own decision.
But I'll tell you something, ladies and
gentlemen, the purported expert that they got in here
to testify that the gloves were solid, and that's
evidence that you ought to rely on, that man wanted to
be in this case more than anybody. I mean he flies
out here, he wants to be invited to the victory party,
he wants everybody's cards, he wants memorabilia from
the case.
He's not to be trusted.
But the gloves do not link crime scenes,
and the reason they don't is, it's clear, it's beyond
the pale, the Rockingham glove is planted. There's
just no question about it.
Now, you know, the contamination of the
evidence, Bob Blasier told you about that, and can you
imagine how every bit of evidence in this case, you
take item 5823, it's got a 1.3 allele, to them that's
cross-hybridization. I mean there's an explanation
for everything that went wrong.
And everything went wrong. And it went
wrong because somebody was playing with the evidence.
Think about it. OJ Simpson's reference
vial, Nicole Brown Simpson's reference vial, Ron
Goldman's reference vial, these are clean samples,
there is absolutely no way contamination can get into
those samples unless LAPD contaminates them.
And then you look at them, you have got
OJ Simpson's alleles in both Nicole Brown Simpson's
blood and Ron Goldman's blood.
How does this happen?
LAPD doesn't even have a manual at SID.
They really don't -- you know, they say the substrate
controls clear everything up.
That is our defense, we couldn't have
contaminated everything because the substrate controls
were all clean.
Now, isn't that incredible? Isn't that
absolutely unbelievable?
This is a lab that has no set rules at
all.
For example, brings OJ Simpson's
reference vial out as the first thing they work on,
spills that, doesn't wash the table with bleach,
doesn't change paper, doesn't know when they change
gloves.
This lab contaminated both reference
vials of blood, and we've told you, ladies and
gentlemen, once it's contaminated, it doesn't matter
who tests it. I don't care if the FBI tests it,
Cellmark tests it, Department of Justice tests it,
it's contaminated and it's going to remain
contaminated thereafter.
And the substrate controls that they say
all were clean, they were all perfect, there was
nothing on them whatsoever.
Now, can you imagine that?
You saw the tape of Mazzola, how she
collects samples. You saw on the board, if there was
one substrate control, it was meaning not unlike
diluted blood, and yet everything wasn't just without
any DNA, it was perfect. It was immaculate, as if it
had never been done, as if it had never been
accomplished at all, because it's their savior.
And, ladies and gentlemen, you can't
trust it. If you can't trust the messenger -- and
believe me, the messenger in this case -- we have one
messenger that came to testify. We have one messenger
that didn't.
The messenger that came to testify is
named Vannatter, and Vannatter is not to be trusted,
and he had all the blood. Every bit of it.
And if you can't trust the messenger, you
can't trust the message.
And then, ladies and gentlemen, and I'm
taking a lot of your time, and I apologize, it is
absolutely ridiculous to think that if Dennis Fung is
at SID and Phil Vannatter wants to get into SID and
wants Dennis Fung out of there and Dennis Fung is
going to hold his ground and protect the evidence of
the People, that's absolutely ridiculous to assume
that.
This evidence is contaminated, it's
tampered with and it's planted, it's not at all worthy
of belief, it's not at all worthy of belief to destroy
a human being's life, and that's what the LAPD and the
plaintiffs want to do in this case.
Now, one thing you ought to put in
perspective about the LAPD and the SID crime lab,
you've heard early on, within two days of these
murders, OJ Simpson makes available, at his cost,
Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael Baden, two renowned
criminalists -- one is a forensic pathologist, rather,
and Henry Lee, perhaps the most famous criminalist in
the world, is relied upon by the government of Taiwan,
by virtually every governor in the 50 states and by
the FBI.
Let the chips fall where they may. Look
at the evidence, examine the evidence, analyze the
evidence, and come to some conclusions.
And LAPD turns them away.
LAPD wouldn't even let Henry Lee in the
lab, wouldn't even give him a microscope that he can
see anything with.
Why? Why, if they have nothing to hide?
Why?
And the reason is, they have a lot to
hide.
This evidence was contaminated early on.
They knew it was contaminated early on. And they
didn't want anybody finding out about it.
They knew that they had tampered with,
contaminated, planted evidence.
If not, why not let your lab and all of
the evidence be exposed to the light of day?
Maybe they can tell you.
Now, I want to, just for a moment, talk
about reality, and it may seem somewhat harsh to do
this, but this is a lawsuit. I just want to talk a
little bit about the parties in this lawsuit.
Fred Goldman is obviously a party, and
you've heard that he has a wrongful death claim and a
battery claim, and the battery claim is the
springboard to try to get to the punitive damages
phase or the second phase of the trial against
OJ Simpson. He stipulated that there's $100 in
damages. That is the amount of clothing that Ron
Goldman was wearing.
MR. PETROCELLI: He has not stipulated to $100
in damages on all counts, Your Honor. That's
incorrect.
MR. BAKER: On the battery count.
And Mr. Petrocelli got up here and told
you in a very emotional appeal that Ron Goldman would
probably be opening his restaurant now and he would be
going into his restaurant.
Let's examine reality.
Fred Goldman, for reasons that he called
tough love, didn't help his son go through bankruptcy,
and he had to go through bankruptcy.
Ron Goldman wouldn't have a restaurant
now.
He'd be lucky to have a credit card.
Don't buy into this emotional idea,
because it isn't reality.
Mr. Petrocelli's well aware that
sympathy, passion and prejudice are not to be
considered, and yet he very dramatically wanted to
read a poem to invoke your sympathy.
That's not part of your deliberations.
I'd like to introduce Mr. Kelly to his
real client.
He got up here before you and said it was
Nicole.
His real client, ladies and gentlemen, as
was testified to correctly by Judy Brown on the
witness stand, is the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson.
The two beneficiaries and the only beneficiaries of
that estate are Justin Simpson and Sydney Brooke
Simpson, Mr. Simpson's children. Children who he just
got back.
That's who his real client is.
But he wanted to talk about Nicole and to
talk about sympathy.
And Sharon Rufo, Sharon Rufo hadn't seen
her son in about 12 to 14 years. She was -- and she
suffered a loss. I'm not saying she didn't.
First time in the history of my being in
a trial that a plaintiff hasn't got on the witness
stand and testified.
Sharon Rufo was here the other day. She
was here for final argument. She wasn't here to
testify, to tell you about her loss. She did that by
way of deposition.
She was here for opening statement. But
she didn't come to testify about what her loss was.
Hadn't had a phone call, talked to her
son in a couple of years.
Now, those are the parties, those are the
people suing OJ Simpson.
And it is interesting that -- you talk
about not helping your son through bankruptcy, not
getting him out of jail, and that's tough love.
And it's interesting that you vilify
OJ Simpson, Mr. Petrocelli does, for trying to get his
wife to pay her taxes so that his ex-wife -- her house
can never be taken away. That's something to be
vilified.
That's just what has happened.
What allows that to occur, ladies and
gentlemen, what allows that to occur is that the media
has told the world that it is politically correct to
be anti-OJ Simpson.
And you, ladies and gentlemen, are the
buffers, you are justice by the people, you have the
job of analyzing the evidence in this case and
weighing that evidence and whether it makes any common
sense, in determining whether or not OJ Simpson
committed these crimes.
And, you know, we talked about -- we
talked about the week after the 12th, OJ Simpson is
heavily medicated and he's at his friend Kardashian's
house and -- and he writes this suicide note.
And Mr. Petrocelli would have you
conclude that he was guilty, that he was trying to
escape.
And what I was able to conclude from
that, and you can as well, is, fortunately for
Mr. Petrocelli, he has never experienced the kind of
grief that Mr. Simpson was experiencing. It kind of
wraps around your skull and it presses on it and it's
an omnipresent headache and it drops to the pit of
your stomach and you're depressed and it comes in
waves and you don't know if will ever leave and you
don't know what to do and you don't know how to do it,
you don't know how to act, you don't know what to do
and you don't know if it will ever go away.
And then superimposed upon the grief from
losing his ex-wife is the media, convicting him in the
court of public opinion of killing two people that he
had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with.
And all of that has been brought onto
Mr. Simpson.
And so he says to his friend, take me to
Nicole, and they get in Al Cowlings' Bronco and they
go down to the cemetery, and they can't get in, and OJ
doesn't kill himself, thank God.
Mr. Petrocelli would have you believe
that it was Detective Lange who saved his life.
Detective Lange didn't even go upstairs
to see if he was bleeding to death when he was there
on the 13th.
Detective Lange didn't save his life at
all.
What saved his life were two things,
ladies and gentlemen: One is faith, and two is
innocence.
And that's what saved his life.
That was not a man trying to escape.
That was a man who was in total despair, who wanted to
end, as he told you, the pain.
And, fortunately, he didn't kill himself.
I want to just discuss two final points
and then -- you've indulged my speaking long enough.
On the issue of motive, which we have to
go back to because they simply haven't proved any
motive, and they've taken an immense amount of your
time, I want to remind you of one other thing relative
to that issue.
And that is, Nicole had close friends,
she ran with them every morning, she had nannies and
housekeepers all her life, you didn't see one of them
come in here and testify to these what they would have
you believe to be seriatim abuses.
And the reason that they didn't come in
here and testify is because they never occurred.
They got people who wanted their 15
minutes of fame. And we certainly would never deny
the '89 incident.
But that '89 incident does not, five and
a half years later, manifest itself into a double
murder, when there's absolutely no motivation.
And we have to go back and discuss
briefly -- briefly, the time line.
And we have to discuss that because
before -- before it was politically correct to -- to
be anti-OJ, Heidstra testified that at 10:40 is when
he was across the alley from Nicole's condo.
(Reading:)
Q. So that we're clear,
Mr. Heidstra, is there any doubt in your
mind that you were in that alley and was
walking parallel to Bundy on the night
of June 12, 1994?
A. No doubt. I'll never
forget that.
Q. Any doubt in your mind
that when you stopped behind the house,
it was approximately 10:40? Any doubt?
A. No, no doubt about it.
And so from 10:40, if it took to 10 or
15 minutes, that it obviously had to take to do these
heinous crimes -- you're at 10:50, 10:55, and another
six minutes, and you're at 11 o'clock, to get from
Bundy to Rockingham.
And, of course, OJ Simpson is seen, at
the latest, 10:54, 10:55, walking into his house,
after he came down and dropped his garment bag, after
he'd been upstairs and dropped his garment bag over
his golf bag.
And that's when he is seen. And there is
absolutely no time --
And, ladies and gentlemen, the car, the
Blazer-like vehicle that turned right on Bundy that
had no relationship to the crime one way or the other,
certainly, Mr. Simpson would never have gone that way.
And it was too early for the crimes to have ever been
completed.
There simply wasn't any time whatsoever
for him to do it, because we knew, according to the
plaintiffs' theory, giving them -- we knew at 10:40,
when you hear the "hey, hey, hey," Ron Goldman's
alive. The gate clangs, and he's alive.
There is no time, if it were Mr. Simpson,
for him to do it, go through all of that caged-in area
and tussle, keep Ron Goldman quiet while he allegedly
murders Nicole, keep himself away from Ron Goldman so
he doesn't get a bruise on him. Not while he's
murdering Nicole and not while he's in this horrific
struggle with Ron Goldman's life, without a bruise,
and then speed off in the wrong direction, with no
time to get to his house.
And then, ladies and gentlemen, follow
through with -- follow with me, and let's go through
it.
If he goes over the cyclone fence, and he
got -- allegedly changed clothes -- what, in God's
name, has he changed into? If his clothes are already
going into his bag, they're going to be placed into
the Bentley, what has he changed into, and where did
they go? Where would you leave the bag? In the
direct light of the parking lamps that were on of
Allan Park?
And how, in God's name, ladies and
gentlemen, did OJ Simpson, if he were the murderer,
come back from Bundy in this huge white elephant
called a Bronco, drive it up to Rockingham?
And Allan Park, who is extra vigilant,
tying to find OJ Simpson, never hears the noise of
that vehicle, never hears -- never sees any lights,
never hears a door slam, nothing.
How did it happen?
Well, it doesn't happen, because that car
was sitting there the whole time, because Mr. Simpson
had been upstairs, taking a shower.
And think about it. If he'd taken a
shower, and he had to take a shower after he came
back, they didn't find any blood in his plumbing, not
one drop in the sink, no.
They took away the plumbing in his house.
They did it in his wash room. They scoured the
sewers. They had every inch of the route from Bundy
to Rockingham scoured for clothing. They couldn't
find any.
Why not? Because Mr. Simpson is
innocent. He didn't do it.
How could he have possibly killed these
people and dropped all his stuff around, got rid of
the murder weapon, the shoes, the clothes -- kept the
socks, though, kept the socks -- and how could it have
happened?
It clearly didn't.
It clearly didn't.
And, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Petrocelli
has said to you, Mr. Goldman, Fred Goldman, can't get
his son back; he can't get his life back.
That's very true. He can't.
And that's sad, and that is something we
all feel for him.
You can't give him his son back. You
can't give Ron Goldman's life back.
But you can give back Mr. Simpson his
life.
He has been ridiculed. He has been tried
in the press. And it's only the jury -- it's only
justice by the people who will listen to the facts of
this case without an agenda -- without an agenda to
sell magazines, newspapers, or air time -- that can
render a verdict, like was done before, and give him
his life back, and give Justin and Sydney their dad
back.
Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen --
Yes?
MR. KELLY: If we can take a five-minute break,
I'll complete my part.
THE COURT: Five minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any
opinions.
(Recess.)
THE BAILIFF: Quiet in the audience.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
MR. KELLY: Thank you.
If it please the Court.
Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. KELLY: Right now, what I'm getting up here
for is to take part of what we call rebuttal; that is,
I just want to touch on some of the arguments that
Mr. Baker has made over the course of a couple days
here. And after I touch on these certain things in a
more general sense, Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Lambert
will be getting up and responding in kind to the
comments he made, and responding in some detail to
things he put out to you during the course of his
argument.
The first thing I want to touch upon is
the outrage that Mr. Baker expressed by the fact that
the first time around in our closing arguments, that
we, the plaintiffs, did not address the issue of
police malfeasance.
Then Mr. Baker went on to implore you
people to simply look at the evidence and use your
common sense. And the fact of the matter is that, if
you do look at the evidence and you use your common
sense, there is absolutely no indication of police
malfeasance.
What we did hear from Mr. Baker and his
cohorts, both during their cross-examination of a
number of witnesses and during their closing argument,
you heard a lot of what-ifs, could have beens, maybes,
possibles.
But that's not evidence.
You people know you are not to engage in
speculation, you are not to engage in conjecture, and
you are certainly not to engage in sheer fantasy.
And that's what the defense is asking you
to do.
Now, a couple other things with regard to
the Flammer photographs, which the defense claim was a
fake.
The other line in the sand they drew was
this issue of Vannatter, with the blood, that it is --
it has been planted. And they felt that because he
had handled Mr. Simpson's blood exemplar, and that he
had handled Nicole's blood exemplar, and he had
handled Ron's blood exemplar, that there was something
extraordinarily sinister and wrong with what he did.
And Mr. Baker then complained that while
we did, right up front -- we put Vannatter on the
stand and we took this issue head on. We wanted you
to see exactly when, and under what circumstances,
Mr. Vannatter came to be in possession of
Mr. Simpson's blood exemplar. And then we moved on.
And we wanted to let you know when, why. And when he
transported that blood in the evidence envelope,
straight out to Rockingham to Dennis Fung, and lo and
behold, you -- and people were treated to a video of
Detective Vannatter walking into Rockingham with that
vial in an evidence envelope in front of the entire
world.
Also, when he was on the stand, we put
the other issues right out there. You heard about
when he picked up Ron and Nicole's blood exemplars.
You saw the logbook, exactly when and under whose
supervision he signed out both of those blood
exemplars.
And only minutes later, you also saw the
logbook when he signed in and under whose supervision,
those blood exemplars at SID.
Now, Mr. Baker would prefer to talk about
Rockingham in terms of Mr. Vannatter in this jumping
over the wall to you people, till you people are
dizzy. But it has nothing to do with the case.
Couple other observations, also.
I will agree with Mr. Leonard that he is
a hard-headed Irishman, but even Mr. Leonard could not
look you right in the eye and say those 30 photos are
a fake. What he did was work around it, punch around
the edges. And he coined a catchy phrase. He said,
they came too late and they cost too much.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, they came
just in the nick of time, and those pictures are
priceless. They're priceless. And in their
evidentiary value to you, that you people, as
fact-finders of the case, get to consider and weigh
during your deliberations.
And Mr. Leonard, himself, after all that,
indicated that if you don't believe those photos are a
fake, then you're free to conclude that it was
Mr. Simpson who waded through those victims' blood
that night on Bundy. Because --
MR. BAKER: I object. That was not said at all
by Mr. Leonard.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Baker also urged you not to be
guided by sympathy, prejudice or passion. He said
we've subjected you to a ploy played upon your
sympathies.
Well, you know, ladies and gentlemen, we
have, and we have in a certain sense. We have in the
sense that this case and the facts of this case are
sad. They're very, very, very sad.
And it's a fact, it's a true -- true fact
that, when Sydney and Justin wake up in the middle of
the night, frightened, they won't have Nicole to hold
them. And when they're sick or they're lonely or
they're having trouble in school, it's a fact that she
won't be there to touch them or stroke their hair.
And Ron Goldman, what a great kid. It's
a fact that he was cut down in his prime, just trying
to protect this woman, this mother.
The only sympathy being sought in this
case is by the defense for Mr. Simpson, because in the
face of overwhelming evidence -- physical evidence,
forensic evidence, and testimonial evidence -- he's
asking you to simply feel -- feel that his client did
not commit these murders.
They want to you be blinded to the
evidence.
Another thing Mr. Baker commented upon
was that this courtroom was not a level playing field.
He wants to you believe that.
Well, Mr. Simpson had his battery of
talented lawyers in here. And they brought back any
witnesses they wanted. And they put up any experts
they wanted to challenge any part of our case.
Not the Flammer photos, mind you, but any
other part of their case that they wanted to
challenge, they wanted those experts in.
But I'll tell you: This courtroom is a
level playing field; it's only the score that's
lopsided right now.
Well, Mr. Baker addressed five specific
incidents that we presented where Mr. Simpson lost his
self-control, where sometimes he was physical, other
times simply frightening to Nicole.
He talked about '83, India Allen. That
wouldn't have happened because she would have called
the police. Well, I think we know by now what would
have happened -- the police came in here and testified
about that -- it would have been a conspiracy; it
would have been a frame-up. And this guy would have
been lying. Because in '84, Nicole did call security,
and Mark Day responded to the house, and he did come
in here. And he was lying.
In '86, on Victoria Beach, Aguilar was
lying.
And in '89, New Year's Eve morning,
Nicole was lying.
And in '93, the tapes are lying. The
tapes are lying when Nicole says she was scared.
Now, Mr. Baker did something else. He
alludes to the fact that we should have brought in
Nicole's friends or housekeepers or people to talk
about other incidents.
Now, just a little aside. If you people
haven't figured out by now, I'm from New York, and
Mr. Baker sort of, I think, suggested that in itself
had some sinister connotations. Yeah, I'm from New
York. I grew up in the midwest. And we had a saying
there. The saying was, you can't ride the same horse
going in two different directions.
That's what Mr. Baker wants to do: He
wants to tell you two different things out of each
side of his mouth.
On the one hand, he wants to say you
should have brought in every witness you had, every
piece of evidence you had; you should have brought in
one more witness.
But no matter how many witnesses we
brought in, how much proof, he says they were lying;
they wanted their 15 minutes of fame; it was a
frame-up; it was a conspiracy.
Now, if we wanted to start with Nicole's
friends that certainly where we would manufacture
witnesses if we wanted to.
But it also will suggest that if
Mr. Baker was so confident that Nicole's friends
wouldn't say these things, these were other people he
could have brought in. He knew how to do that. He
knew how to do it, just the way we knew how to do it.
But what did we do? We didn't bring in
Nicole's friends; we brought in Mr. Simpson's very
best friend, his life-long friend. And what did he
tell you? He wasn't lying. He told you that Nicole
had told him -- this is Al Cowlings I'm talking
about -- Al Cowlings got on the stand and finally
admitted -- finally admitted that Nicole had told him
that Simpson had hit her and pulled her hair.
So, once again, either Mr. Cowlings,
Simpson's best friend, is lying about that, too, or
Nicole was lying, and that it never happened.
And by the way, about these --
everybody -- how everybody gets on the stand and lies.
You even heard how Judy Brown was, in Mr. Baker's
words, busted. She was busted. The mother of her
murdered child being referred to as being busted.
I think that speaks volumes of the
defense's attitude in this case.
But what we did, ladies and gentlemen,
is, we presented you with the most unbiased witnesses
you could hear from: Mr. Simpson's closest friend,
Nicole, in her writings, in her letters, in her
diaries, in her tapes. And from her photographs.
Now, importantly Mr. Baker keeps
referring to the lack of a motive here. And
Mr. Petrocelli is going to address that in some detail
in the future, too. But what I think Mr. Baker was
trying to say is, what we have here is the absence of
a good reason to kill, and that this presumes that
there was a logical mind inside the head of someone
who committed a most illogical act.
He's saying there should be some sort of
cause and effect.
Well, I'll tell you, we've heard of many
times where Mr. Simpson was moved to violence, was
moved to frightening actions, with no reason
whatsoever.
In '83, he slapped Nicole in the face.
Did he have a good reason?
In '84, he cracked her windshield. Did
he have a good reason?
In '86, he slapped her in the face. Did
he give you a good reason?
In '89, he beat and battered her. Did he
give you a good reason?
And in '93, he scared her; he frightened
her. Did he give you a good reason? No, he did not.
In '93, Nicole was scared. Scared to
death.
And for good reason.
Keep in mind that as of June 12, 1994,
Nicole was rejecting Mr. Simpson. She was keeping the
kids away from him at the recital. She publicly
embarrassed him in front of family and in front of
friends.
Now, I'm not saying that you would -- I'm
not saying that he would -- you know, I'm saying --
nor am I saying that anybody would kill for that
reason.
But the bottom line is here, ladies and
gentlemen. You heard it was a problem relationship
with the history of violence; that Mr. Simpson was
emotionally entangled with this woman; he was angry at
her. He had a reason to be angry at her, in his mind,
and he had the opportunity to kill. And lo and
behold, Nicole was found dead.
And he wants us to give you a reason.
When, since the beginning of time, has a
man killed a woman with a good reason?
When, since the beginning of time, has a
husband killed a wife or an ex-husband killed an
ex-wife and had a good reason?
There's not a scintilla of evidence that
Nicole had any problem relationship with anybody else,
that anybody else was violent towards her, that
anybody else was angry with her.
And there's only one person that she
feared, and that fear was escalating, right up to the
last days of her life.
The person she feared, the person that
caused her to call a shelter, was Mr. Simpson.
Now, one other thing. I'm a little
surprised Mr. Baker brought it up. But like he said,
we can't tip-toe around these things; we have to
address them. This was about this cause of action, my
client -- Mr. Baker indicated that he wanted to
introduce me to my client.
Well, just a little bit about that.
You'll hear from the Court that this is what we call a
survival action, meaning that if Nicole survived the
battery that night, she would have had the right to
bring this action herself.
Mr. Baker's right: His client murdered
my client. She didn't survive, so she's not my client
right now.
That sort of reminds me of that old story
about the young man who's getting ready to be
sentenced for the murder of his parents, and he's
standing before the judge, and when asked if there's
anything else to say, the one thing he comes up with
is, Judge, be lenient with me; I killed my parents,
but forgive me. I'm now an orphan.
That's basically what Mr. Baker was
saying.
The estate brought the action; the
children are the beneficiaries.
Since the beginning of time, one of
nature's most lasting lessons has been that a mother
protects her young.
In life, Nicole couldn't do enough to
love, protect and cherish these kids.
And she went one step further, though:
She made provisions in the event she died or was
killed --
MR. BAKER: I'll object. This is not rebuttal;
this is outside the scope.
MR. KELLY: He brought it up. He talked about
the cause of action. I have a right to explain a
little. He mentioned the kids and the estate. And
I'll be done in a minute.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this isn't evidence,
Your Honor.
MR. KELLY: The estate is Nicole's legacy.
It's her final effort to protect these children.
These children will never kiss their
mother goodnight again.
Mother's Day will only mean putting
flowers on Nicole's grave.
And all we're asking you now is for you
to give Nicole that eternal comfort, let her rest in
peace, knowing that her children are provided for in
this one small way. Just bring these children under
Nicole's wing; let them be protected by an angel.
Thank you very much.
THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or
express any opinion about the case.
(At 11:58 a.m., a recess was taken
until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1997
1:40 PM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, relative to the
rebuttal argument, there's a couple boards in the back
that the plaintiffs apparently intends to use, and it
says "Simpson says," and then it has certain lines in
there put in quote marks.
These are not what Mr. Simpson said.
There has been no testimony in all of the thousands of
pages that Mr. Simpson said these things.
They are trying to essentially, I guess,
put these words in his mouth.
I would object to any new boards
whatsoever in their rebuttal argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's completely appropriate,
Your Honor, a board listing his defense, his argument,
and there's no way anybody could ever think he said
those things. I will make it absolutely clear he
didn't say those things.
Those are his seven points. I would
never tell a lie, et cetera, the things that he said
that we're going to run through in our rebuttal.
THE COURT: All right. As long as you make it
clear.
MR. PETROCELLI: Absolutely.
THE COURT: There's not quotations from any
testimony or any other source.
MR. PETROCELLI: Will do.
MR. BAKER: One other thing, Your Honor.
I would object to Mr. Lambert arguing.
He didn't argue at the beginning. And it seems to me
in the rules that we have from September of 1996, that
only one person can argue that did the argument in the
opening argument.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier argued.
MR. BAKER: I know. He argued in our argument.
This is rebuttal.
THE COURT: It's rebuttal, I assume, to
Mr. Blasier.
You may resume.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
Good afternoon everyone.
JURORS: Good afternoon.