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 28, 1997
VOLUME 50
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
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
80 80
169 80
205 80
333 80
714 81
715 81
1828 81
1830 81
1916 81
1918 81
1925 82
2061 82
2274 82
2290 82
90 82
103 82
109 82
200 82
202 83
212 83
239 83
259 83
382 83
383 83
384 83
385 84
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
718 84
1993 84
1994 84
1995 84
1996 84
1997 84
1998 85
2001 85
2002 85
2016 85
2017 85
2018 85
2019 86
2111 86
2287 86
2288 86
2289 86
DEFENDANTS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2356 86
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997
10:10 AM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.
MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
MR. LAMBERT: Good morning.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. LAMBERT: I'd like to talk just a few
minutes this morning about DNA, the evidence in the
case.
As you know, we've shown you DNA evidence
through the words and the exhibits of some leading
experts in the country, Dr. Robin Cotton, Gary Simms,
Dr. Brad Popovich.
Those DNA test results are extremely
significant evidence. Extremely significant evidence
establishing the guilt of Mr. Simpson.
And what has the defense said about that
DNA evidence?
In his closing argument the other day,
Mr. Blasier tried to say to you that these DNA test
results are not really as significant as they seem.
Remember, he told you we oversold the RFLP test. He
took out his set of tinker toys and talked to you
about how the DNA is a big tall ladder, and how the
RFLP test doesn't precisely measure 10,250 steps on
that ladder, but it can be called a match if there's
only 10,000 steps.
What he didn't tell you, though, was
what's in the evidence. That was just his argument.
And remember, what you're supposed to
decide is based on what is the evidence in the case.
And what's the evidence about the RFLP
test?
Well, Dr. Robin Cotton explained to you
that this is an extremely well established test,
scientifically. And that when they declare a match,
they don't do it with just a single probe, they do it
when there's multiple probes that all match with the
ladders. The same at five different places on the
chromosome. When that happens scientifically, it is a
match. And that's what Dr. Cotton told you.
And she told you that this same test is
used not just by forensic labs, but by medical labs,
by medical researchers, by doctors treating patients.
They all use this test because it is so reliable.
It's used for people who are going to get
organ transplants to determine whether the donor is an
appropriate donor.
It's used by people who are getting bone
marrow transplants to ensure that they are getting
bone marrow that will be safe for them.
Dr. Brad Popovich, who you saw recently,
is on the faculty of the Oregon Medical School, and
the head of the Oregon Health Sciences Medical
Diagnostic DNA Lab. He told you how he uses this same
technology day in and day out to make a life or death
diagnostic decision. That's how good this technology
is, how reliable this technology is.
That's what the evidence in the case
shows, and that's what you're to rely upon, the
evidence.
But it isn't just the witnesses that we
called that have told you that story.
Let's take a look at the witnesses that
the defense called and see what they said about the
RFLP test.
Remember, they only called one DNA
witness in the case, Dr. John Gerdes. That's the only
one they called. And we'll be talking about him a
little bit later.
Let's just talk about what Dr. Gerdes
told us about the RFLP test.
Would you put the first testimony up,
please.
This is Dr. Gerdes.
I asked him:
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. John
Gerdes, questioned by
Mr. Lambert.)
Now, Dr. Gerdes, I'd like to make
sure that the jury is clear on what you're
saying and what you're not saying here
today.
First, you're not opining that the
RFLP test results obtained by Cellmark and
the Department of Justice were in any way
the result of contamination, are you,
Doctor?
And then he said:
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. John
Gerdes, questioned by
Mr. Lambert.)
On RFLP, there's only one RFLP I
might suspect might be cross-contamination,
that's Item 52 which is a Bundy blood drop.
All the other -- all the rest are valid
results.
And I said:
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. John
Gerdes, questioned by
Mr. Lambert.)
Valid results. Only the RFLP test,
you concur, is a well recognized, high
quality test, isn't it?
A. Yes. Well recognized, high
quality test.
So all those test results are good
test results that the jury can rely upon?
In my opinion, that's true.
MR. LAMBERT: That's their expert.
Now, let's take a look at what their
expert said about the blood on the back gate.
Here he is again. Dr. Gerdes.
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. John
Gerdes, questionod by
Mr. Lambert.)
You will agree that this nine-probe
RFLP match on the rear gate is something
that the jury can rely upon as a valid DNA
result, correct?
Yes, I do.
And a nine-probe match, that's an
extremely important match?
A. It's a significant match.
Q. Very significant -- very
significant in identifying Mr. Simpson as
the person who left the blood there; isn't
that true?
A. Yes.
MR. LAMBERT: That's their expert.
And then I asked him about the blood on
the socks. Here's what he said about the blood on the
socks.
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. John
Gerdes, questioned by
Mr. Lambert.)
The results boards on the socks found
at Rockingham you agree, Dr. Gerdes, that
those RFLP results obtained by Cellmark and
DOJ are not possibly caused by
contamination, correct?
That's correct.
And, in fact, this 11-probe and
five-probe match, together, between Cellmark
and DOJ showing the blood of Nicole Brown
Simpson was on those socks, that's an
extremely probative RFLP result?
A. Yes, it is.
And the nine-probe match showing
Mr. Simpson's blood is also on the socks.
That's a very significant result, isn't it,
Dr. Gerdes?
It is.
MR. LAMBERT: So that's what their expert said
about the RFLP DNA evidence that you've seen.
And, of course, our experts said even
more than that because Gary Simms and Robin Cotton
supplied you with the frequencies; the commoness or
uncommoness of those nine-probe and 11-probe matches.
You remember those frequencies were
completely unchallenged by the defense. They didn't
call any expert at all on that.
Those frequencies showed that these
nine-probe and five-probe matches only occur in one
out of billions of people, and one of them is
Mr. Simpson.
That proves conclusively that it's his
blood on the back gate, it's Nicole's blood on the
sock, it's his blood at Bundy.
They tried to distract you with their
argument, but without any evidence. Their whole
defense is deception, desperation, dishonesty.
They're not giving you evidence, they're
just making argument.
Now, let's talk a little bit about this
contamination argument you heard both Mr. Blasier and
Mr. Baker talk about.
That's another one of their inventions.
They sit down, we're not going to sell this planting
theory, the blood drops were seen by the police the
moment they arrived at the crime scene. They were
collected, the blood drops at Bundy and at Rockingham,
before Mr. Simpson gave his reference blood. It
couldn't have been planted.
So they say we're going to have to come
up with something else. Let's say they're
contaminated. Let's make that argument. Let's say
they're all contaminated. They're worthless.
What's their evidence?
Once again, they called one witness, John
Gerdes. He's the only witness they called in the DNA
part of the case. He's their whole case on
contamination.
Well, who is John Gerdes? Remember, he
told you he works for a DNA Lab in Denver that does
medical but not forensic DNA. He admitted that he had
himself never used the DQ Alpha test, which is one of
the critical tests that we talked about throughout
this trial. He never uses it.
He admitted he never uses D1S80 tests;
another one of the tests we talked about throughout
this trial. He doesn't use it. He admitted he's
never collected evidence at a crime scene. He's never
tested -- collected at a crime scene. He's not a
member of any of the forensic science organizations
that people who do this sort of thing are.
But that's who they call. Though they
could have called a real forensic DNA expert.
Do you remember during the testimony of
Robin Cotton and Dr. Simms, they talked about
Dr. Edward Blake?
Well, who is Dr. Edward Blake?
They told you he's a forensic DNA expert,
has his own lab that does DNA testing.
He was working for Mr. Simpson during the
pretrial and criminal trial, working for Mr. Simpson
during the pretrial and trial stages in the criminal
trial.
He was present, actually, with Gary Simms
when Simms did all of his RFLP and PCR DNA testing.
Blake was looking over his shoulder to make sure it
was done.
He knows all about this stuff.
Why didn't they call him to testify?
It's because he doesn't have anything
good to say for their side. He knows that these are
good tests.
How about Dr. Henry Lee? We've been told
he's the world's leading criminalist, right? A big
expert.
Why didn't they use Dr. Lee on DNA?
He does DNA in his lab.
Well, what has Dr. Lee said on DNA?
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object because Dr. Lee
wasn't called for a DNA expert.
MR. LAMBERT: Here is his testimony.
THE COURT: Just a minute, please.
MR. LAMBERT: Quoting his testimony in the
case, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.
MR. LAMBERT: Question.
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. Henry Lee,
questioned by Mr. Lambert.)
Q. And likewise, Dr. Lee, you're
not here to contest that -- you don't
challenge the blood findings -- the DNA
blood findings of the California Department
of Justice when they purport to identify
certain blood as being consistent with
certain people's blood?
You're correct. I'm not challenging
those.
MR. LAMBERT: So, Dr. Lee, isn't challenging
the DNA test results. Dr. Blake isn't here.
Instead we see Dr. Gerdes. He's not even
a forensic scientist, doesn't even do these kinds of
tests.
Why do they call him?
Well, Dr. Gerdes told you why they called
him. He had this little sideline. What he does is he
testifies for criminal defendants, always on the
defense side, always for criminal defendants, and he
always says the same thing; he says don't trust the
DNA, it might be contaminated. He says it might be
contaminated.
That's what they paid him $40,000 to say.
There's a risk of contamination. That's all he said.
When you listen to his testimony he
didn't say there was actually any contamination. He
said that there was a risk of contamination.
Well, remember what Mr. Blasier told you
during his argument about witnesses that come in and
say things could be?
Let's put Mr. Blasier's argument.
(Transcript displayed on Elmo.)
Here's what Mr. Blasier said when he was
talking about experts.
He said that it's not very helpful when
experts say that something is possible or could have
happened, it gives you almost no information at all,
not very precise work.
That's what Mr. Blasier said during his
argument about experts. And their expert, Mr. Gerdes,
he didn't say could be, he said there's a risk.
But what does the actual evidence in the
case show?
Well, we talked to Mr. Gerdes, when he
was on the stand, about that -- excuse me, Dr. Gerdes,
and you remember that he said that in order for this
evidence to be affected by contamination, a couple of
things, he admitted, had to have happened.
No. 1, he admitted that all of the
contamination, if it ever occurred, had to occur
before Colin Yamauchi did those first tests on
June 14.
And it's just like the point I made
yesterday about the reason for that, which is that
once Colin took -- did those DNA tests and got test
results showing DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson's DNA,
that fixed the whole situation. Thereafter, everybody
else that did tests and got exactly the same results
were just doing repetitive tests validating the
initial test results. So if there's any contamination
theories, it had to take place before.
And the second thing he admitted is what
contamination does if you ever have it. It doesn't
change one person's DNA to another, it simply mixes
DNA's together.
So that if you have a swatch, an
evidentiary swatch collected at a crime scene, and it
has person A's blood on it, and it then gets
contaminated with person B's blood, you can have a
mixture of two persons, A and B. When you do the dot
test they both show up. They can show there's
contamination. That's the most common kind of
contamination that shows up.
Here, of course, when Colin Yamauchi did
all of these tests, all of the test results showed a
single contributor to the evidence. All those Bundy
blood drops, one person, only one person; Mr. Simpson.
So how could that be contamination?
We say to Gerdes -- we say the only way
it could happen is, first, all of the swatches, the
real DNA, degraded in all the swatches, and then there
was contamination.
He admitted that's extremely improbable,
even though you can still find the contamination.
Remember, when they collect each of those
evidence swatches, they also collect a control, a
substrate control. So by every stain they first pick
up a little control, and that control stays with the
evidence all the way through the process, and it gets
tested with the evidence all the way through the
process.
So if any contamination takes place, the
control gets contaminated, too. And they test each
one of those controls using the PCR system, which
Dr. Gerdes admitted can test down to the level of a
few molecules.
All you'd have to get if you're
contaminated is a few molecules of DNA on the control
swatch and it would show up and everybody would know
there was contamination.
Would you put up 2265, Steve.
(Exhibit displayed on Elmo.)
MR. LAMBERT: This is one of the things I went
through with Dr. Gerdes. This shows us the tests done
by Colin Yamauchi on June 14 and June 15. He tested
23 samples the first day, 19 -- why don't you put it
at the bottom, Steve -- total of 42 samples. 18 of
them were evidence samples, 21 of them were controls,
21 were running through the system just to make sure
there was no contamination. That's the whole purpose
of those controls.
And what did Dr. Gerdes tell us about
those?
All of the controls were clean.
No contamination. Zero evidence of
contamination.
And he admitted that if there was
contamination, it should have shown up in the
controls, it should have been mixtures.
None of that happened.
You can take that down.
We also played this tape that Andrea
Mazzola -- remember that? Dr. Gerdes said, well,
maybe she could have gotten blood on the glasses, she
could have gotten some on the tweezers.
He admitted if any of that happened, it
has to show up in the controls, because if you touch
your glasses and then you start touching the evidence,
you're also touching the controls, and that's what the
purpose of the controls are. That's where you're
going to see the contamination.
It never happened.
Why don't we put up pages 140 and 141 of
Dr. -- this is from Dr. Gerdes' testimony on this
exhibit that I just showed you.
So I say:
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. John
Gerdes, questioned by
Mr. Lambert.)
So I say -- so we have 32 evidence
swatches that he processed that day. This
is June 14. And 7 control swatches.
In order for your possibility of
contamination to have -- to be correct, all
the evidence swatches had to be completely
degraded, all completely degraded, and all
of them would have to be contaminated; isn't
that true?
He admits that, yes, you have to have both of
those events happening.
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. John
Gerdes, questioned by
Mr. Lambert.)
But there couldn't be any
contamination on the control swatches
because of those -- all those control
swatches tested negative for DNA, true?
True.
MR. LAMBERT: He admits it didn't happen.
There was risk of contamination, but I
looked at it, I couldn't find any. There simply
wasn't any contamination in any of these evidence
items.
When they finally got around to any
specific items of evidence, Dr. Gerdes mentioned
two -- only two out of all the evidence in this case.
He spent $40,000 worth of the defense's money looking
carefully over that evidence. He found two things
that he could complain about:
The first one was Item 52. Remember,
you've seen the board come up several times with the
DQ Alpha strip done by Department of Justice on Item
52. And he said, oh, I can see a faint dot lighting
up at 1.3, the 1.3 dot.
Gary Simms explained that to you. He
said in the DQ Alpha test at the 1 allele, there's
only one base pair difference between each of those
one alleles.
Remember, we have 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. Each
of those is a separate allele. But the only
difference is one base pair. On that big long ladder
that we're talking about that the DNA looks like, one
step is different, and that changes it from a 1.1 to a
1.2. That's the only difference. It's that small of
a difference.
And because of that, when you have a lot
of DNA in a particular evidence sample, you can get
what's called cross-hybridization, a faint little dot
lighting up at one of the other alleles.
So when Mr. Simpson's blood is tested, in
Item 52, Mr. Simpson's a 1.1, 1.2, so you get a little
faint cross-hybridization at the 1.3.
But the system is built to handle that.
There's also something there called a control dot, the
C dot. You remember seeing that in some of the
pictures.
The way the test works is if the C dot is
darker than the faint dot, not a 1.3, then that proves
it's cross-hybridization.
That's what Gary Simms said. He's run
this test hundreds of times.
John Gerdes tried to say it was
contamination. He's never run the test.
And we brought Brad Popovich in here.
He does this same test, medically; makes
medical decisions on it. He said, oh, yeah, that's
cross-hybridization, that's not contamination.
That's the only example out of all of
this evidence, $40,000 worth of time, that John Gerdes
could come up with, that he could say was possibly
contamination. He didn't say it was for sure. He
said it might be.
The only evidence item he ever talked
about was Item 31. He wasn't calling that
cross-contamination. He was saying he disagreed with
Gary Simms analysis of that item.
But, of course, Simms is the one that
reads those every day in his lab and knows how to read
them, not Dr. Gerdes.
Let's see what Henry Lee said about Gary
Simms from his testimony in this case.
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. Henry Lee,
questioned by
Mr. Medvene.)
Q. Now, do you know Gary Simms?
Yes.
Q. Do you know him to be a
competent, reputable scientist?
A. Oh, yes, excellent scientist.
MR. LAMBERT: That's their expert talking about
Gary Simms. So that's who you should be relying upon
if you're going to make a decision about somebody who
says an appropriate way to read those DQ Alpha strips.
Other than those two things, Dr. Gerdes
didn't talk about anything else. And he admitted that
all of these controls were completely negative for
DNA. No evidence of contamination.
Nothing.
But anyway, we decided we'd go them one
better, so we brought in Dr. Brad Popovich.
And Dr. Popovich spent a lot of time
carefully reviewing all of this evidence.
Would you put up Dr. Popovich's
testimony.
Here's what Dr. Popovich said.
He reviewed lots of materials, personally
visited all the labs on more than one occasion. He
talked to the analysts that were responsible for
performing. He reviewed their bench notes, reviewed
the photographs, all of the original documentation,
each and every piece of evidence in the case. He
looked at trial transcripts. He looked at the
conclusions people reached. He looked at the physical
layout of the labs, at the personnel qualifications.
He was brought in to look at everything that happened
in the case, and give a non-biased opinion as to if
that was credible evidence.
That's what Brad Popovich did. He spent
300 hours doing it, looking at all the evidence. He
looked at it carefully, looked to see if there were
any problems at all with the evidence.
And you remember we went through with Dr.
Popovich each one of those DNA results boards and
looked to see if there was anything in there at all
that shows any contamination? No contamination at
all.
Let's put up the last bit of his
testimony.
Here's what he said to us.
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion
of the transcript of the civil
trial testimony of Dr. Brad
Popovich, questioned by
Mr. Lambert.)
Taking everything into account from
your review of all of those evidence
samples, are the test results that -- the
DNA test results in this case by LAPD,
Cellmark and DOJ, accurate?
I believe those results are accurate.
Are they reliable?
I believe they're very reliable.
Are they unaffected by contamination?
I do believe they're unaffected by
contamination, yes.
So there you have it.
The DNA test results in this case are
accurate, they're reliable, and they're unaffected by
contamination.
They're also conclusive proof of what's
the truth in this case.
They show conclusively that it's
Mr. Simpson's blood on that sidewalk at Bundy.
It's Ron and Nicole's blood in
Mr. Simpson's car.
It's Nicole's blood on those socks found
in Mr. Simpson's bedroom.
He cannot and has not explained to you
how any of those blood evidence items can be found
where they are with any innocent explanation.
He had plenty of opportunities up in the
stand.
You remember Mr. Petrocelli asked him, do
you have any explanation for your blood being in the
Bronco, do you have any explanation for Nicole's blood
being in the Bronco, any explanation for Ron's blood
being in the Bronco?
No.
No explanation. He can't tell you
innocently how it got there 'cause there is no
innocent explanation.
That's their entire contamination
defense.
There's nothing to it.
Don't be misled by these desperate claims
of the defendant.
Don't accept the Tinkertoy defense that
Mr. Blasier is trying to pass off on you.
This DNA evidence is reliable evidence.
The experts told you so. Even their
expert told you so.
And it conclusively proves what
Mr. Petrocelli told you: All of the forensic evidence
proves in this case, there's a killer in the
courtroom.
He did it.
I ask you to so find.
And now Mr. Petrocelli will finish our
argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Tom.
Okay. We're going to finish up and get
you in that deliberation room.
I want to respond to several of the
points Mr. Baker made, try to do it as efficiently as
I can.
You know, there's a part in me that just
wants to sit down, and a bigger part of you that
probably wishes I'd sit down, but, you know, we've
come so far, I want to make sure that you have
everything you need to make the right decision. I
want to make sure that I can answer any question that
could possibly be going through your mind.
You know, in this system you don't have
the chance right now -- maybe it should be changed,
but you can't ask me questions. I'd love for you to
ask me some questions right now, you know, anything
that might be troubling you, because I know there are
answers and I know that the questions can be answered.
But right now you've just got to judge --
as to some of the things Mr. Baker said that I feel I
should respond to.
The defense in this case from day one
has, as is their aim, to distract you from the truth,
to shift your focus away from the facts and the
evidence.
And we want your vision to be clear,
unclouded, you go in that jury room with clear vision.
If you just use your common sense, I
could not ask for anything more. Yet, there isn't
anything you -- if there isn't anything you remember
that I said in the course of two days other than use
your common sense, I'm happy.
If you go in that jury room and just use
your God-given common sense, I could not possibly ask
for anything more.
Motive -- by the way, this board,
Mr. Simpson did not say these things and these are not
excerpts from his testimony. So you understand, this
is the way that I kind of organized the various things
that he is saying in his defense.
The first one: "I would never harm
Nicole." Of course this is his way of saying I'd
never hit her, I would never hit her, I'd never kill
her.
Now, Mr. Baker made two points about
this. He said that, number one, legally we had to
prove motive, and secondly, we didn't prove motive.
In all due respect to Mr. Baker, he's
wrong on both counts.
The law does not require us to prove
motive. There's nothing in your jury instructions,
ladies and gentlemen, about motive. You're not going
to see any mention of motive.
And I want to make sure we don't get
confused about some things here.
When we talked about motive, it doesn't
mean premeditation, planning, deliberation. We don't
have to prove any of those things either. This is not
a first degree murder case. That was a criminal case.
We don't have to prove that Mr. Simpson planned this.
We don't have to prove that he premeditated it. We
don't have to prove that he went there and waited. We
don't have to prove that it was spur of the moment or
heat of passion.
It could be any of those things; whatever
the evidence suggests to you.
However, the only thing we have to prove
is that he did it. That's it.
Not why he did it, not what motivated him
to do it.
It's in his mind, what motivated him to
do it. Even though we have a lot of information, we
can't delve into the depths of his mind and we can't
tell you because he's not telling us and only he knows
why he did it ultimately.
So let's be clear on this. We don't have
to prove motive.
Did we prove it absolutely?
I'm going to talk about that for a few
minutes.
In your jury instructions, what you're
going to hear today, you'll see we essentially have to
prove two things.
I know it's confusing; there's a lot of
legal jargon there, okay.
We have to prove a battery and a wrongful
death.
What's a battery? A battery is when
someone hits somebody. Okay. That's a battery.
When Mr. Simpson attacked Ron or attacked
Nicole, when he actually hit them, stabbed them,
that's a battery. That's it. That's all a battery
is. It's a fancy name for hitting somebody.
We have to prove that.
And we have to prove that they died,
which they obviously did.
So once you decide that Mr. Simpson was
the person who did it, that takes care of both the
battery and the wrongful death. It's as simple as
that.
The only question is whether it's him or
not. And if it is him, then he did the battery and he
did the wrongful death.
And we have to prove those things,
despite what Mr. Baker might have tried to suggest to
you, by preponderance of the evidence.
What does that mean?
Simply means is it more likely than not
that he's the person.
Does it mean he's absolutely the killer?
Do we have to do that? No.
That he definitely is the killer? No.
That he certainly is the killer? No.
That he's probably . . . that's all, in
a civil case, we have to prove.
Now, our evidence went way beyond that.
We easily met that standard. But I want you to be
clear. In this case, all you have to do is decide is
it more probable than not, did he probably do it?
That's it.
You will be asked one other question if
you decide that he did it, that it was more probable
than not that he killed Ron and killed Nicole, you'll
be asked one additional question: Whether he did it
with malice or oppression.
And again, those are fancy legal words,
and they're not to be confused with motive. It has
nothing to do with motive.
Did he do it with malice or oppression.
MR. BAKER: I'm --
MR. PETROCELLI: You can check that.
MR. BAKER: This isn't rebuttal. It wasn't
gone into.
MR. PETROCELLI: It was too.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Malice or oppression simply
means, get right down to the basics, did he do it on
purpose, did he intend to harm these people?
MR. BAKER: That is not the law, Your Honor.
The law is given in the jury instructions. He's
misleading these people.
MR. PETROCELLI: I did not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may continue.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
In other words, in this case, it's not
even really an issue. If you find that Mr. Simpson
was the person who stabbed Ron and stabbed Nicole and
caused their death, well, then of course he did it on
purpose, it wasn't an accident.
Sometimes words like malice or oppression
are a big issue if it's an auto accident or a
negligence case.
This is not a negligence case. We're not
trying to prove Mr. Simpson accidentally killed these
people.
You'll be asked to determine if he did it
with malice or oppression.
And again, that basically means did he do
it on purpose.
And the evidence here is a resounding
yes, of course he did.
And just one final technicality here.
When you're asked to answer that last
question about malice or oppression, the jury
instruction will say that I have to show malice or
oppression by clear and convincing evidence, which is
a little higher standard of proof than preponderance
of the evidence. The evidence has to be clear and
convincing as opposed to preponderance.
And again, in this case, the evidence far
surpasses that requirement in the law. One blood drop
surpasses that requirement in the law.
So the bottom line here, when you get
right down to it, you're just going to be asked to
decide if he did it or didn't, was it more probable
than not.
Now, in terms of motive, motive evidence
is simply additional evidence, like a blood drop, that
may help us identify who the person is that would do
such a thing to two people.
In this case, there is no evidence of any
kind of robbery or sexual assault or any other kind of
motive.
This wasn't a gunshot. I mean, we'll
talk about this in a little bit, but Mr. Baker
actually wanted you folks to believe this was a
professional hit.
Can you imagine that?
And he said two professional assassins.
That's why I said if you take your common
sense, we're satisfied.
Two professional assassins. That's what
he wanted you to believe. 30 stab wounds. Two
professional assassins.
This was a professional assassin, it
would have taken a single bullet in about three
seconds. Gone. Not a shred of evidence.
Is a professional assassin, let alone
two, going to stab people over and over and over
again. You going to leave all the evidence behind?
Does that make any sense to anybody?
Talk about believing in the Easter bunny
and the tooth fairy.
Give me a break.
Doesn't make any sense.
That's what he wants you to believe, that
Nicole and Ron were killed by two professional
assassins.
Look, common sense.
These people were killed by a person in a
state of rage, enraged to the point where he stabbed
over and over and over and over and over again.
There's wounds to the skull, there's
wounds to the neck.
This isn't a professional job.
There's wounds all over their body.
This is somebody just flailing away in a
state of blind rage at that point in time. Whatever
drove him there, who knows. But he was in that state
of mind at that moment.
Did we prove motive? We didn't have to,
but we did anyway 'cause we wanted you to know the
whole story.
There was only one person the evidence in
this case showed had any problem, any hostility, any
antagonism, any enmity, any animosity toward Nicole,
and that was O.J. Simpson.
Is it just a coincidence that near the
very end of her life these two were at war with one
another? Is that just a coincidence?
And then she's just found dead?
Did they bring in any evidence showing
that someone else had a motive?
I'm not going to go through all of the
evidence about the events leading up to her death
because I've done it already and I don't want to -- I
don't want to overstay my welcome, if I'm indeed still
welcome.
But you know what proves the point here.
Mr. Simpson lied to you about everything that happened
near the end of Nicole's live, and that proves the
point. He lied. He lied about everything. And when
you lie, you lie for a reason. Innocent men don't
lie. Guilty men lie.
He even had the audacity, with Nicole's
battered and bruised face right here, right, what,
three feet from him (indicating to witness stand and
Elmo): "I never hit her."
He wanted you to believe he never hit
her.
We brought witnesses -- now, these things
occur in the privacy of one's home, regrettably.
Occasionally somebody else saw something when he lost
his temper, which he cannot control, and he hit her,
and a couple of people saw it and they came to court,
and he accused them all of lying, of committing the
crime of perjury.
And then he even tried to sell you that
he didn't touch her.
He was just, you know, wrestling,
whatever he made up, to lie about it.
Why is he lying?
You know why he's lying.
Why didn't he just say, you know what,
Mr. Petrocelli, I did hit her, I did hit her, I
battered my wife that night.
You know why he didn't tell you?
Because he knows how damning that is. He
knows that if you believe he's the kind of man who
could hit his wife in anger, who could lash out and
strike her, then you can understand that he did the
same thing on the evening of June 12, except this time
he had a knife in his hand.
And that's why he desperately wants to
deny to the end that he ever hit her, 'cause he knows
how incriminating that is, and that's the reason he
lied.
No other reason.
He says he takes full responsibility.
Yet he lies with a straight face.
You saw Nicole's writings about her
feelings, her state of mind.
What did he say?
They're all a pack of lies.
Those are his words, not mine.
And you know, one of the things I had --
I hadn't read to you before, I was going through my
notes about what was happening with Mr. Simpson near
the end, he tried to pretend that he rejected Nicole
and he wasn't upset about it, he had moved on with
this new relationship, and again, he wants to --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This isn't
rebuttal.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.
Your Honor, he went into motive over four
hours.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: He wants to try to convince
you that he wasn't feeling rejected, he was the one
who rejected Nicole.
Now, why did he want to convince you of
that?
Because if he's the rejected one, then
maybe he has a motive to retaliate.
You know this: People, sadly, have been
getting killed in relationships since day one.
Revenge, love, hatred, jealousy, these are the oldest
motives known to mankind. This isn't anything new.
His good friend, Jackie Cooper, this is a
guy who doesn't have a reason in the world to lie,
it's his friend.
Can you put that on the Elmo.
(Transcript is displayed on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Memorial Day weekend, two
weeks before Nicole's death, Ms. Barbieri left
Mr. Simpson because he told her he still loved Nicole.
What did he say to you, "he" referring to
Mr. Simpson?
"He said that she -- she had broken up
with him, she had broken up with him, and it was
different this time, that it was final, that she
had -- he told me that she really meant it this time."
Keep going. (Elmo is adjusted.)
"I think he was sad, I think that he was
upset and in distress."
That's his friend that he's known for a
long time who testified on the stand. This fellow,
Mr. Cooper, has known Mr. Cowlings for many, many
years. They're all very close friends. And this man
was not going to lie. I put him on the stand. I
subpoenaed him. I brought him here. And he wasn't
going to lie.
He told the truth.
Of course Mr. Simpson now accuses him of
being a perjurer because he didn't play ball with him
like Skip Taft and the others.
I've gone through the IRS letter.
There's no reason in the world to send
that letter unless you are retaliating because you are
angry. That is the only reason in the world you send
that letter.
And then, of course, to add to all of his
misery with this failed relationship -- and remember,
Nicole left him, then she brings him back, then she
doesn't want him, then she wants him, and he feels
he's on the end of a yo-yo string and this woman is
driving him crazy, and he broke a woman's heart to go
back with her, and now she won't make a commitment.
Remember how he said, I was so happy with
Paula the year before, I had an idyllic life. That
was his word, idyllic. And yet, he had an idyllic
life with this other woman, and what did he do? He
left her for Nicole, to get a commitment from Nicole,
and a year later, when it was time for Nicole to move
back in, when Mr. Simpson said okay, we're going to do
it now, you're going to move in, we're going to get
remarried, he called Judy Brown up and said, I think
it's going to work. What did Nicole say? I'm sorry,
I don't want to do it, I can't do it, I can't go
through this again.
That's what she said.
And he couldn't accept it, 'cause this
man gets what he wants.
And then he immediately called this other
woman back, Paula.
Paula sees the handwriting on the wall.
This guy's not over Nicole. I'm not going to go
through this pain again. So she leaves him.
And then on this critical night of
June 12, why is Mr. Simpson lying to you about what he
did in the two hours before Nicole's murder?
Is that not the most critical time period
of this whole case, the last two or three hours, from
7 to 10, on the evening of June 10 -- or June 12,
excuse me, on that Sunday evening?
Those are the vital hours.
And he sat there and said, I never picked
up Paula's message letting me go.
And I had to show him a computer record
to show that he did, and I had to show him his own
therapist's notes that showed that he did, and he then
said, well, they're all lying. The therapist is
wrong. The computer records are wrong.
And then finally Mr. Baker gets up here,
and I was astounded by what Mr. Baker said.
He said, quote: "Did he pick up the
message that she had broken up with him after that? I
don't know. It's not a significant thing."
What do you mean, you don't know?
He said he didn't pick it up.
Mr. Simpson said, I didn't pick it up.
Mr. Baker says, I don't know.
Who are we to believe here?
It's not a significant thing. It's not a
significant thing. It's so significant to him that
he'll lie and lie and lie in the face of computer
records and notes.
Not even Mr. Baker can stand up here and
say he did not pick that message up. He can't say
that to you. He says, I don't know.
Now he says I don't know.
In opening statement, he said,
Mr. Simpson didn't pick the message up.
What does that tell you?
He lied about his demeanor at the
recital.
His friend, not mine, not Nicole's, Ron
Fischman:
"In all the years that you knew
O.J. Simpson, he never appeared the way he appeared at
that recital to you, true?
"That's true."
Mr. Simpson, at that recital, was shunned
for the first time in his life. He was shunned.
Nicole wanted no part of him. She took the kids.
They went to a family celebration for his children and
he was not invited and he was shunned. He was left
there, alone at a curb, while everybody drove away.
You can imagine what that did to him.
We don't know what calls went on later
that night. We don't know the precise trigger that
set him off. We don't have to know. I mentioned that
over and over again. We don't have to know. The law
doesn't require us to know. We can never know.
Only Nicole knows and only he knows.
What we do know is that by the time he
got over to Bundy, something had set him off, all of
this turmoil and conflict that was building up, and he
snapped.
And, you know, he says I'd never kill the
mother of my children.
Well, again, mothers of children get
killed all the time by normal people, people who look
like you and me and like Mr. Simpson.
They don't dress and come a certain way.
They don't look like serial killers.
Men beat mothers of children up. Men
kill mothers of children.
I'm going to turn to a different subject.
I'm going to talk a little bit about Mr. Simpson's
alibi number two.
He says he was home when the murders
occurred.
This is a big lie, of course. He was not
home when the murders occurred.
And of course, that alone, tells us he
did it.
If you lie about where you are when the
murders occurred, you did it. That's a pretty basic
rule, I think.
Why do we know he was not home?
I've given you all that evidence and I
don't want to go through it in detail. I'm just going
to mention a couple things to you.
Allan Park, a guy who got 40 bucks to go
pick up Mr. Simpson, and for 40 bucks he's been
dragged into court I can't tell you how many times.
He got there at 10:23. There's no car. And he went
to look again at 10:39 and there's no car and he went
and he called Mr. Simpson at 10:40, 10:43, 10:50,
10:52. No answer. No answer. No answer. No answer.
No Bronco.
What more do you need?
Mr. Simpson's not home; his Bronco's not
there.
You know, I got a kick when Mr. Baker,
yesterday or the other day, said that this Bronco was
a white elephant. He called it a white elephant.
He said, why would Mr. Simpson go commit a murder in a
white elephant.
You know what Mr. Simpson's other choices
were: A Bentley and a Ferrari --
(Laughter in the audience.)
MR. PETROCELLI: -- a Testa Rosa Ferrari, a red
one, no less, a fire-engine red.
MR. BAKER: There's no evidence -- this is not
rebuttal.
MR. PETROCELLI: And he had a Bentley. And
Mr. Simpson went in that white elephant to Bundy, and
he was seen when he went in that white elephant --
Mr. Baker said someone would have seen him. He was
seen. He was seen by Mr. Heidstra. The car was seen.
Now, if this is such a white
elephant, as Mr. Baker called it, the Bronco is the
white elephant, how could Mr. Park, with his nose
three feet from the white elephant, miss it?
Why don't you put up the slide, Steve.
Put up the picture.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. PETROCELLI: You got it. There it is.
Remember, Allan Park drove up the first
time slowly, to look for the curb, and there was no
white elephant, he said.
Then, the second time, after he smoked
his cigarette, he came back to see -- maybe I should
go in this gate -- I don't want to make any mistakes.
This is an important guy -- came back, and he looked
at the curb again, with his face right -- facing this
curb, maybe as far as -- as far as I am.
Probably this far. (Indicating.)
And there's no car there.
Show the other one of the white elephant.
(Mr. Foster complies, displays
photograph of white Ford Bronco.)
MR. PETROCELLI: He's going to miss the white
elephant?
Mr. Simpson is not answering the phone.
He makes up this cockamamy story: Well, the shower,
the dog -- I'm not going to go over it all again --
and Park destroys Mr. Simpson's alibi. It's as simple
as that. Mr. Simpson was not home when the murders
occurred. He's not home. He did it.
That's the last piece of evidence that
tells us he's not home, and that's this 10:03 phone
call.
I have -- I've demonstrated to you that
the 10:03 phone call was made from the Bronco, not
because I say so, because Mr. Simpson has gotten
trapped in so many lies, that it's finally the
cell-phone records emerged to convict him on this lie.
He told the police that he made a call that night
driving to Paula's, on page 138.
All you have to do is look at it. It's
right here: As I was going over there, I called her a
couple of times and she wasn't there.
He's in the Bronco. And the cell phone
records tell us that that call is made at 10:03.
That's the end of the story on that.
And to close the loop, he even tells the
police a couple of times that, right before he left to
go to the airport, he took his phone out of the Bronco
because it was still in the Bronco at 11:00, from when
he came back from the murders.
And he told Michael Baden, his expert, on
June 17 --
Do we have that testimony?
-- that he was -- right before he was
leaving, he was rummaging to get the phone -- he
didn't say accessories and he didn't say battery
charger; he said car phone. He went to his Bronco to
get the car phone right when he left at 11:00, because
it was in the car from the murders, and he wanted to
take it with him.
Now, do you have it, Steve? If you
don't, I'll move on.
Here you go.
(Transcript displayed on the Elmo
screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Looking for his car phone.
This is Mr. Simpson's expert, not ours.
And just to finish this point, when I
brought all this out on cross-examination of
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Simpson a month
later, when Mr. Simpson took the stand under
Mr. Baker's questioning, said what about this
situation?
And Mr. Simpson says, oh I was talking
about Saturday night, not Sunday.
Saturday night, not Sunday.
So he tried to now say well, I meant
Saturday night when I said I was calling Paula, not
Sunday.
Once again, trapped in lies.
The police statement says that when he
was driving over to Paula's house, Paula was not home.
Paula was not home. So we're not talking about
Saturday night; we're talking about Sunday night.
See, he didn't read this statement
carefully enough, because Saturday night, Paula was
home and they went out together. But Sunday night,
she was not home.
So you see what happens when you lie?
You get caught.
You get caught.
And I'll read from page 9:
(Reading:)
I called Paula as I was going to
her house, and Paula wasn't home.
Paula wasn't home. As the trial
progressed and he got trapped, he kept trying to come
back with more lies. He got trapped again. I mean,
it's almost -- well, it is silly.
Now, the second part of this argument
they make is okay. Even if I wasn't home -- even if I
wasn't home, I didn't have the time to commit the
murders.
And then we hear Mr. Baker: If you don't
have the time, you can't commit the crime.
You heard that little -- little poem, I
guess, if you want to call it that.
But what is he saying? What is he
saying?
Mr. Simpson is saying he was home. If
you don't believe Mr. Simpson was home, that's the end
of the story.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. I never
argued he wasn't home; and that's improper argument.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson swore he was home
the entire time.
Now Mr. Baker says, I never argued he was
home.
I don't know what he's saying.
Mr. Simpson testified he was home the
entire time: 9:35, came back from McDonald's, and
didn't leave again until he left for the airport.
If Mr. Simpson is not home, why are we
talking about time?
If Mr. Simpson wasn't home, then he did
it. He obviously had the time to do it.
That argument, this whole time-line thing
is a ruse. It doesn't make any sense as a way to try
to --
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I want to approach.
This is misleading. And I never argued that he wasn't
home. And I object.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your honor --
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may argue the evidence.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: Well, then, don't argue what I
allegedly said; argue the evidence for a change.
MR. PETROCELLI: Now, do you understand that
point here?
It's a ruse if Mr. Simpson isn't home.
He did it, because Mr. Simpson swears on
a stack of bibles that he's home. That's all you need
to find, that he's not home. That's the end of story.
Let me take the next step. Let's say
Mr. Simpson now wants to change his testimony and say,
okay, you got me; you got me. I wasn't home, but I
didn't do this. I was just driving around. I didn't
do this.
Now we get to this issue of length of
struggle. You know how much time it took.
What Mr. Simpson and his lawyers are
trying to prove, it couldn't have been me because
these murders, if they occurred around 10:30, had to
take so long and be so involved, that I couldn't
possibly have done it and gotten back to my property
by 10:55.
Now, you remember 10:55 is the time we
know, from Mr. Park's cell-phone records, that he
finally sees O.J. Simpson going into his house. And
that alone incriminates Mr. Simpson. Why is he
outside, going in his house, when he says he's
supposed to be home?
Okay. He sees him going in the house at
10:55. Mr. Kaelin heard him bump into the wall at
10:51.
And we know that's Mr. Simpson because
there's no other explanation for those noises.
So those are the times we're working on.
10:55, he's seen. 10:51, he's heard.
And Mr. Baker said, well, Mr. Kaelin said
it was 10:40.
That's not true. Mr. Kaelin has been
very consistent from day one, from day one, from the
moment he was first interviewed by O.J. Simpson's
lawyer, Robert Shapiro. He's been very clear that
these thumps, these noises, or thumps, as he called
them, they occurred between approximately 10:40 and
10:50. And he never looked at any watch or anything.
And then, when we finally have the
benefit of Mr. Park's cell-phone records, we're able
to figure out almost exactly when those sounds
occurred. Because Mr. Kaelin said when he heard the
sounds, he was frightened by them. He talked two more
minutes; he got off the phone and went around to look,
and Mr. Park saw him at 10:54. By his cell phone --
see, the cell phones are the timekeeper. The
cell-phone records are finally the timekeeper on this.
Mr. Park saw him 10:54. And about 30
seconds, actually -- and Mr. Kaelin had just gotten
off the phone two or three minutes before, so that's
10:51 -- so that's when those noises occurred.
Now, Mr. Simpson is back at his property
at 10:51. How long does it take to get back there?
Well, he knows the fastest way. We put
on this fellow, Mr. Petee, not even driving as fast as
one could, driving at a reasonably fast speed, but not
excessively fast, he said he made it in four minutes,
going south on Bundy to the first block and pulling
over again.
(Indicating to board entitled Map
of Bundy area.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Let's see if I can get my
bearings here.
Going this way (indicating) and cutting
up and going up Gretna Green. Mr. Heidstra said this
is the quickest way to go north because there's fewer
lights and stoplights than Bundy. He says if you want
to go in that direction, you take Gretna Green.
So Mr. Heidstra sees the car turning.
This -- that's the way that Mr. Petee timed it -- and
he got going this way (indicating) up to Rockingham in
four minutes.
Mr. Simpson probably got there faster
that night.
So that's like -- four minutes from
10:51, that's 10:47. Okay. So Mr. Simpson's got to
be out of there by 10:47, out of Bundy.
Now, what did Mr. Heidstra say about his
observation? Mr. Baker tried to argue that
Mr. Heidstra was talking about 10:50 when he saw that
car leave.
Remember, Mr. Heidstra said he was
standing on this corner under a tree. It was right
here (indicating). He was looking down -- there's a
streetlight here (indicating) -- and he saw a car
coming and make this right, right over here
(indicating).
And it was -- he doesn't say "Blazer," by
the way; that's Mr. Baker's word. He said it looked
like a Bronco.
Okay. White. Made a right.
And what time did he say he saw that?
He didn't say 10:50. That's what
Mr. Baker was trying to get you to believe, to make it
impossible for the person to be Mr. Simpson.
Well, I just want to show you what
Mr. Heidstra said. Rather than to take my word for
it, quote:
"It must have been around 10:40, 10:40,
10:45, in between, no more than 10:45, for sure would
be a little before."
This guy has not got a watch and looking
at his watch; he's estimating times: No later than
that. And we know it was earlier than 10:45 and was
was closer to 10:40 when that car was seen, from his
other observations, which I'll go over.
But even if it is 10:45, Mr. Simpson
easily did make it back in time to bump into a wall at
10:51.
And understand something: When
Mr. Simpson left Bundy, this guy was in a hurry. He
left all the evidence behind.
He left the hat; he left the glove; he
left his blood. He didn't clean up.
Just another thing about this: Is a
professional assassin going to leave all that evidence
behind?
Is a guy who's in the business of killing
people, does he leave all these, his blood?
Does he leave his hat?
Does he leave his glove?
Does he leave all the evidence on the
glove?
This person got out of there and was in a
hurry. And he didn't have to make any stops; he
didn't have to stop anywhere in between to bury a
murder weapon. He had a bag with him that's never
been seen before.
He gets on his property, either through
the Rockingham gate or goes over the fence. He drops
his stuff in a bag. He drops the glove, and he goes
inside. That's all. He didn't have to do anything in
between.
He had time, later on, to dispose of
evidence. He didn't have to dispose of the evidence
between Bundy and Rockingham. He went from Bundy
right to Rockingham and right upstairs, so he wouldn't
miss that limousine.
That's what he did. There were no stops
in between.
Mr. Heidstra said that he heard this dog,
agitated dog, and he knew it was an Akita; and he knew
it was Nicole's Akita; and he knew it was not an angry
growl, as though the dog were angry at a stranger. It
wasn't that kind of growl, because he's very familiar
with dogs, and the dog was agitated.
Mr. Heidstra is coming down here
(indicating) when he gets to about this (indicating)
point where the alleyway is, 10:30 to 10:35, and he
hears this continuous, incredibly loud and nonstop dog
barking. He then decides not to go in front of the
condo because's he got two older dogs and he didn't
want them to be frightened, so he reversed his
direction and he went across here. (Indicating.)
And he said by the time he got to here
(indicating), it was five minutes when he first heard
the sounds. Now we're at 10:35 to 10:40.
And he said that he heard the sounds in
the middle of this alleyway (indicating). So you have
to cut that time in half.
So he's hearing -- remember, he said as
he walked across, he stopped in the middle, opposite
Nicole's condo, and heard: "Hey, hey, hey."
We think that was Ron's voice he heard.
And then Mr. Baker said there was no
other voices heard -- there were no other voices
heard.
Well, that's not true.
Mr. Heidstra said he then heard this
other voice, a deeper voice, which he couldn't make
out. Mr. Heidstra heard two voices: A younger male
and a deeper male voice.
"Hey, hey, hey," followed by this deeper
voice.
And he said that he heard that halfway
between his trip across the alley, so he heard that as
early as 10:32.
There's obviously plenty of time involved
here.
We know he did it, so he had to have the
time.
And then, the last part of their argument
here is, well, even if it occurred around 10:30 or
10:32, it had to be a really long struggle. This was
two gladiators going at each other for 15 minutes.
Well, again, I'm going to trust that you
use your common sense.
First of all, Mr. Baker said he thought
that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed first, and then
Ron Goldman was attacked and killed.
Now, if you believe they're story that --
they want you to accept their story that two
professional assassins go up to Bundy, they kill
Nicole.
Michael Baden, their expert, says Nicole
was killed in about 10, 15 seconds, in no time.
Werner Spitz says the same thing: She
was killed when her throat was cut. She died
instantaneously.
And then he wants you to believe -- and
again, this is their theory, now -- then he wants to
you believe that two assassins, or professional hit
men, then engaged Ron Goldman, who was defenseless and
caught by surprise, and had no weapon, and then they
fought him for two or three minutes. And now, he's
collapsed on the ground.
Now this is Baden's theory, by the way.
Baden's theory used to be, as he told the folks on the
Geraldo Riviera Show, that Ron was fighting for five
or ten minutes. Then, when he came to court, he had
to back down and concede that wasn't accurate any
longer, and now the fight is only two or three
minutes, he said.
He obviously had read Dr. Spitz's
testimony.
And that was that was all he had to do,
was read Dr. Spitz's testimony.
Now he's down to two or three minutes.
Now, Ron Goldman is collapsed on the
ground, two or three minutes. Nicole took less than a
minute. So he's got about a two- or three-minute
fight, according to their own people.
But that doesn't work for them, because
they need to have the killers stay there a really long
time so that you'll think it couldn't have been
Mr. Simpson. So what do they do?
They say, well, the killers then went off
and did something and came back five or ten minutes
later and inflicted the last wound on Mr. Goldman.
And I guess during that five or ten
minutes that they were gone, wherever they went, they
didn't pick up any evidence. They didn't pick up the
glove; they didn't pick up the hat; they didn't clean
up the blood. They didn't do anything.
Does that make any sense at all?
And the other thing they throw at you to
distract you from Mr. Simpson is, they say, oh, there
was two killers, not one killer.
Two killers.
You know why they say there was two
killers? Because they find -- what they think is,
this one footprint out on the sidewalk, which their
own expert, Dr. Henry Lee said, he couldn't tell if
that was put there that night or any other night.
That's their big evidence of a second
killer, that there's one footprint out on the sidewalk
someplace.
You know how many people, when this crime
scene was processed, how many times did you hear
Mr. Baker talk about the 25, 30 officers and others
who were at this crime scene?
Do you know how many people walked in
blood in this crime scene when this crime scene was
processed?
Coroner's assistants, patrol officers,
detectives, criminalists, maybe even media.
And he points to these little mysterious
drops of blood. They liked to talked about those
seven drops of blood. He said that's the direction
the dog was going. What's that all about? Maybe the
dog dropped that blood. Remember, the dog had blood
on it. When the dog was found at 10:55, it had blood
on it under its belly.
Maybe the dog, who was stomping in
blood, that's what all that blood up and down that
path is; that's that dog. You can see the footprints.
It's up and down. Maybe that dog dripped some blood
off.
They want you to look at a few things and
say, you know, look, that means Mr. Simpson didn't do
it. There's seven drops of blood there. There's a
footprint here.
Where is the second killer's footprints
in the crime scene if there's two guys?
How come there's only one set of Bruno
Magli shoe prints throughout the whole crime scene,
right where the bodies are?
How come there's only the Bruno Magli
shoe prints between Nicole's body and Ron's body?
Where are all the other person's
footprints?
What? Was he flying?
Where are his footprints?
They're not there because there is no
other person.
Just use your common sense.
Just use your common sense.
Let me move on.
Mr. Simpson says he's innocent because he
didn't act like a guilty man after the murders.
I'm not going to spend too much time on
this.
Mr. Simpson wasn't really trying to show
everybody that he had just committed a murder, was he?
Shakespeare wrote, "One may smile and
smile and be a villain."
Mr. Simpson agrees with Shakespeare.
Do you have that quote from Mr. Simpson
about his ability to conduct himself when he's under
enormous stress?
(Document displayed on the Elmo
screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)
Q. You are perfectly able,
even when you are feeling very low and
devastated, for that matter, to act
normal in public and give autographs?
A. Yes.
I think that's another answer to all
these witnesses they brought in here, on the airplane
that saw him for, like, ten seconds, and said oh, he
was, you know, smiling, O.J.
Well, of course he was.
Smiling and smiling and being a villain.
Now, this is another interesting thing
that they mentioned: They say none of these witnesses
saw a cut.
This is why you have to really be on your
toes when you listen to these defense arguments. They
say none of these witnesses saw cuts, so he wasn't
cut. So therefore, he's innocent.
Well, Mr. Baker told us yesterday that
Mr. Simpson was bleeding all over Rockingham before he
left for the airport, and that's why the blood's
there; that's how the blood got in the Bronco and the
blood got on the driveway and the blood -- glossed
blood that was found in the house, because Mr. Simpson
must have bled there.
Of course, Mr. Simpson says, I did not
bleed. So we have a conflict between those two.
But if Mr. Baker is right and he suspects
Mr. Simpson was bleeding that night, all over
Rockingham, how come none of the witnesses that he
brought in saw the cut or cuts?
How come they didn't see the cuts?
Mr. Baker told us -- he told us about the
blood. The blood came from cuts, came from someplace.
There's no immaculate cut here; there's a
real cut.
Where did it come from?
Obviously, from his hand.
Do you think Mr. Simpson was going on the
airplane saying, hey, Howard, how you doing? See my
cuts?
(Laughter in the audience.)
MR. PETROCELLI: You think he might have been
putting his hands in his pocket? Maybe.
How come we don't have those blue jeans
that he wore on the plane coming home?
There's a fellow that sat next to him
that said he had on blue jeans, the same blue jeans he
went to Chicago in. Then he arrives at Rockingham in
a completely different change of clothing.
So from the time he got off the plane to
go to Rockingham on Monday to meet with the police, he
had changed his clothing and ditched the blue jeans,
probably because they were stained with blood,
probably because he had been keeping his finger in his
pocket a good part of the flight.
And then again, without going over the
details, can an innocent man possibly have ten to
eleven injuries on his hand and not know it? To this
day.
And ask yourselves when you go in that
jury room -- each one of you have to ask yourselves
this question:
How did O.J. Simpson get all of those
injuries on his hand?
Does any one of you know the answer?
I don't.
I don't know the answer.
We're two and a half years later.
There's no answer.
He said, well, one of them, he thinks he
got cut in Chicago, but he can't tell us how he cut
it, broke a glass somehow, doesn't know how. And he
has no explanation for all the other injuries on his
hand.
And Mr. Baker stood up here and said to
you that O.J. Simpson didn't have one bruise on his
body.
You have the picture of 6/14?
He did not have one bruise on his body.
What about his left hand covered with abrasions and
cuts?
What do you call those?
(Photograph displayed on the Elmo
screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Looks to me like injuries.
You want to go to the -- this -- this --
this -- just flip through a couple of them.
Go ahead.
(Photographs displayed on the Elmo
screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: You want a close-up on that?
You tell me you don't know how these are
caused.
How about this?
(Counsel placed hand on Elmo
screen with counsel's fingernails
placed over photograph of cut on
finger.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Look at all this, this here
(indicating). These are the marks of a killer.
(Indicating to photograph
depicting finger with a cut and a
ruler.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. That's enough.
An innocent man doesn't put a gun to his
head, 47 years old, four children, two small, their
having just lost their mother -- an innocent man
doesn't do that. It's beyond common sense. It's
beyond our experience. Innocent men don't take their
lives and orphan their children, who just lost their
mother. It doesn't happen.
And why would O.J. Simpson, as close --
the closest he came to telling the truth -- why would
he say to Tom Lange, when Mr. Lange said to him,
quote: "Nobody's going to get hurt, O.J. Nobody is
going to get hurt" -- And this is on that Bronco cell
phone, when Tom Lange is begging him to put the gun
away and come home -- Nobody's going to get hurt.
What does Mr. Simpson say? Quote: "I'm
the only one that deserves it." End of quote.
We've already spoken at length -- you
want to put that up?
(Document displayed on the Elmo
screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: These are Mr. Simpson words,
not mine.
Okay, Steve, take it down.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. PETROCELLI: We've already spoken about his
argument that, well, all the evidence is corrupt, and
everybody was out to get me, and his argument that,
throw away all the evidence because it all points to
me.
And, you know, the tragedy here is that
two human lives are lost, and another tragedy that
Mr. Simpson gets up here, with his high-powered
defense team, and accuses police officers of
everything in the book, everything in the book, about
the most heinous things: Set-ups, conspiracy,
frame-ups.
People on the force -- Phil Vannatter, on
the force for 27 years, had an unblemished record.
Now they want you to think he's some kind of criminal,
all these police officers are criminals, people that
protect us, they're criminals.
They're criminals, they're perjurers, and
criminals.
And the irony of it -- the irony of it,
ladies and gentlemen, is that these criminals and
these perjurers took care of this guy big time. They
all took care of him. They all looked the other way
when he beat his wife. And for that, we should fault
the police for that. They took care of this guy.
As late as eight months before Nicole was
murdered, when she was frightened -- and you heard
that tape and you heard the fear in her trembling
voice -- and then I heard Mr. Simpson say she wasn't
frightened.
I will debate it forever.
That's what he said about that tape.
His lawyer, of course, stood up and said,
I think she was frightened.
What did -- what did the police say to
him eight months before Nicole's murder?
Can you put up the Lally quote?
Sergeant Lerner -- Excuse me.
(Document displayed on the Elmo
screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: This is what was really going
on between the Los Angeles Police Department and
O.J. Simpson (indicating).
Can you bring it back up so I can get the
whole thing.
Right there.
"Because of your celebrity status, we are
going to keep this as small as possible."
That describes the relationship of the
Los Angeles Police Department towards O.J. Simpson.
He never had a negative experience with anyone in law
enforcement, none. They treated him like gold. He's
the last person in the world they would try to frame,
the last person.
Now, we're almost done. We've got two
more things to talk about.
Can you bring out the photos.
We're getting done by noon, for sure.
(Board depicting E. J. Flammer and
Harry Scull photographs is
displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Those photos -- I give
Mr. Leonard a lot of credit: He had a thankless job.
He had a thankless job to try to come up here and say
something about these pictures that put the lie to
O.J. Simpson in the biggest way.
These shoes put the lie to O.J. Simpson
because he can't say the shoe prints were planted; he
can't talk about LAPD; he can't talk about anything in
law enforcement.
He's got nothing to say.
When there was only one photo, he said
gee, maybe I could find a guy and pay him enough to --
remember what Mr. Leonard said? What is the
expression he used? Money makes the globe spin.
It did, all right. That's what got
Mr. Groden to spin right into the courtroom.
And the guy that was -- you know, I don't
mean to be disrespectful to him, but he's not a photo
expert. He was hawking videos and he was a driver for
a tour -- the Kennedy the assassination -- of a
deceased president. That's what his job was. That's
a job. Okay. Don't come up here and put yourself on
that witness stand and say you're an expert in
something you don't know anything about.
But he did for $12,000 minimum, $2,000 a
day. He had already gotten $8,000 by the time he got
on the stand, another $2,000 for that day. He was
back a second time. Another $2,000 for that day.
That's at least 12 grand. And for 12 grand,
Mr. Groden -- he followed the script.
He tried to come up with some argument
why that picture isn't real.
And we had to bring in a real expert, a
real expert, the foremost expert on altered
photographs in the United States of America, no less,
Gerald Richards.
And he had to, in almost comical fashion,
he had to just say, you know, even a first-year
college student would know this isn't a sign of
alteration. This is a scratch; this is overexposure.
No, when you measure a negative, you don't go to
Kinko's and blow it up on a xerox machine; you take
this measuring device and you measure it.
It's the guy they put on the stand.
But Mr. Simpson thought, you know, just
put him out there; maybe they'll like him; I only got
one photo to worry about.
And the other shoe dropped, and 30 more
photos came in.
And Mr. Leonard says, you know -- what
did he say? Too late and too much cost. Came too
late, cost too much.
Mr. Kelly said in the nick of time and
priceless.
Well, the photos came in time for you to
see the truth. So forget the catchy slogans. The
photos came in time for you to see the truth, ladies
and gentlemen.
The truth that he lied to you about
wearing the murder shoes.
And they never put on Mr. Groden to say
that these 30 pictures were fake. I guess his asking
price was even out of their reach, because he didn't
come back for money. Maybe he would have for enough,
but Mr. Groden would have had a problem, you see,
because he not only had to do, you know, that one; he
would now have to do 30 of them.
When he tried to lie to you, to say it was
raining that day; that's another reason why that
picture is a fraud; it was raining that day.
I didn't hear Mr. Leonard asking anymore
questions about rain. I didn't hear him talking to
you in his argument about rain. I think they were
embarrassed about that.
Nothing about rain is there, is there?
And then we do our job. We bring in the
people who say yeah, these are Bruno Maglis, same
class as that shoe. Same clothes.
And understand something here; here's
what O.J. Simpson is asking to you believe: (Counsel
covers shoes in photographs with notebook) Why that's
real, that's real, that's real, that's real, that's
real.
(Counsel covers everything on photographs
except shoes with notebook.) That's a fraud, that's a
fraud, that's a fraud.
You want to talk about irony?
This photo was published eight months
earlier in a Buffalo Bills Report, commemorating him
(counsel indicates to Mr. Simpson).
Mr. Leonard -- and you know I give him A
for effort -- he says, well, Mr. Richards didn't look
at the print that appears in there.
What he didn't tell you, of course -- I'm
sure it's in your notes -- is that Mr. Richards looked
at the negative. He looked at this negative, negative
7A, and that negative is unaltered. Negative 7A is
unaltered. That's the negative that was used to print
that photo showing O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli
shoes, Lorenzo Silga sole.
And you know, sometimes there's a
doubting Thomas in the group, and they want to ask a
lot of good questions, and they say, you know, on this
one, we can see the sole, but on this one, you can't.
Good question.
If a guy was going to alter photographs,
maybe he would alter a photograph so you could see the
sole, wouldn't he?
The fact that you don't see his sole is
the best proof that it's not altered.
But Mr. Bodziak came back and explained
well, the photographer might not have done this. But
you do see the sole in all these photographs?
Because this upper part of the sole is
one unit with the underneath of the sole, and it
curves all the way over and hugs the inside of the
fabric. It's one unit. And he testified it's a Silga
sole; doesn't even have to see it.
But in any event, that's not the point,
because Mr. Simpson says, his lawyers say those are
Bruno Maglis. They don't dispute that.
Remember the position that they've now
cornered themselves into? They say these are Bruno
Magli shoes, and they say the killer wore them. And
all they have left is for you to believe that every
single one of these photos, despite what you see, you
don't see -- that's where they are on this.
And you know they complained about the
fact that they came so late. Why did they come so
late?
You know, not everybody is following this
case as intensely as some of the people in this town.
I mean, we asked both photographers -- you have their
testimony --
Why don't you put that up.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Both of them said they didn't
follow the criminal case. This is Mr. Flammer. He's
a young kid who followed the criminal trial, the
Simpson criminal trial, not very closely.
Mr. Scull, did you follow the trial very
closely?
No.
The criminal trial, I mean.
No.
Okay. So they didn't follow this thing
very closely.
These photos are real. They don't come
too late; they come just in time.
I told you before, ladies and gentlemen,
you have -- if you believe the photos are real, and
when you're looking at -- looking at the person who
killed Ron and Nicole, those photos are real. You're
looking at the person who killed Ron and Nicole.
And you know what?
They complained about the pictures coming
late.
You know why these pictures ultimately
showed up?
Because Mr. Simpson testified in this
case, in January of 1996, with great bravado, "I would
never wear those ugly-ass shoes."
And he said that with confidence, because
for two years, he lived -- he lived with the -- with
the confidence that no shoe pictures would emerge.
You know the glove pictures had come up.
No shoe pictures had come up. So he felt pretty
secure; nobody was going to come up with these photos.
So he told me, under oath, in his
deposition, "I'd never wear those ugly-ass shoes."
And, you know, the media picks up on all these things.
And all of a sudden, that got widely reported. And
boom, people start looking through their basements for
photographs. That's what you see, the photographs.
And then he gets on the witness stand
here and says, when the Scull photograph emerged,
well, that's a fraud. And that got widely reported.
And then someone looks again and finds more
photographs.
He's done in by his own lies; that's why
these things came out. When they did, he made a big
issue of trying to say he never wore those shoes, and
then all these pictures are frauds.
And people started rummaging through the
basements. These are freelance photographers; their
job is to take pictures that -- they take hundreds and
thousands of them. They don't even develop them.
They sell them.
Now, I'd like you to close your eyes to
these pictures because the photographers are trying to
sell them.
Why shouldn't they sell them?
You took a picture, and three years later
you found out that someone wanted to pay you a lot of
money for it, would you give it to somebody else to
make money, or would you make money yourself, when
you're in the business of selling photographs?
Because someone is going to sell a
photograph for money after it's become valuable, that
means that he's not wearing those shoes? Does that
follow? I don't think so.
Can you bring in the other board.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Ultimately, ladies and
gentlemen, Mr. Simpson and his lawyers cornered
themselves into this tiny little corner, this tiny
little corner. They've trapped themselves into this
corner. And the only way they can get you to close
your eyes to the truth is to believe that those photos
are fake. And they're all real.
(Board entitled, Either Simpson is
Lying or all of These Witnesses
and Documents are Lying, Mistaken
or Faked, displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Now, Mr. Simpson, of
necessity, has to say that all these people are not
telling the truth, are lying, or are mistaken.
When I originally -- I did this list
before I heard Mr. Baker's argument and Mr. Blasier's
and Mr. Leonard's arguments. And frankly, I left a
lot of names off. After listening to them, I should
have put on all the FBI agents, because he says
they're all biased on it, out to get Mr. Simpson. So
I've got to put Bill Bodziak's name and Gerry
Richards' name and Doug Deedrick's name on there.
And then they accuse us of arm-twisting
all the witnesses.
You know, we all call that fondly, the
Doubletree Defense.
I guess we have the ability to pick up
the phone and call people up, say hey, you know, we
don't know each other, but I'd like you to testify in
this case. Meet me at the Doubletree Hotel; meet me
in my room, and I'm going to try to get you to commit
perjury, a felony, risk your life, maybe go to jail
for many, many years, just to help me out.
Maybe I should -- my name should go up
there as a criminal: I'm suborning perjury. That's
against the law. That's what they say we're doing. I
would go to jail for many years, suborning perjury.
All my partners, too. Put their names up there, too.
We're all begging people to commit
perjury.
I guess we may even have to put
Mr. Baker's name up there, because Mr. Simpson says he
has a different opinion than Mr. Baker on some very
important facts. I guess Mr. Baker's wrong, too.
I don't know.
Did I leave anybody off?
It's undeniable that's what O.J. Simpson
is trying to do; he's tying to deny the undeniable.
He blames everyone.
We heard Mr. Baker -- we heard Mr. Baker
say that, you know, Mr. Simpson is the victim in all
of this, not two precious human beings that are dead.
Now Mr. Simpson's the victim.
He's the victim.
He said vote for Mr. Simpson. The media
are out to get him.
First of all, did he call any members of
the media to the witness stand to say they were out to
get him?
Did he put on any evidence of that?
Did the media put his blood there?
Did the media put his gloves there, his
shoe prints?
Did the media put him in those photos?
Another attempt to move you away from the
truth and anything that will work: I've got to get
this jury to not focus on the evidence; I've got to
move them. Blames the media. Says, if you hold
Mr. Simpson not responsible, the gravy train will
stop.
Let me translate.
If you ignore all the evidence and hold
Mr. Simpson not responsible, his gravy train rolls on
and on and on and on.
It does not make any difference, ladies
and gentlemen. The final analysis, how many names I
put up on that board, it doesn't make a difference to
him how many blood drops there are. It doesn't make a
difference to him how much evidence of abuse we give
you.
It doesn't make any difference to him how
many witnesses we bring in here.
And it doesn't make a difference to him
how many of his lies we expose.
None of this matters to him because this
man has no sense of responsibility. And now we come
full circle, when we started this argument a couple of
days ago.
Why are we here? We are here to seek
some measure of justice so that somebody -- someone
finally will fix responsibility for two innocent
people who lost their lives.
Mr. Baker says, we're not here to talk
about responsibility; we're here to talk about money.
And I was amazed yesterday to hear him
say Ron Goldman, he wouldn't have a restaurant now,
he'd be lucky to have a credit card.
Let me explain something, just in case
you're confused.
We're not seeking any damages for Ron
Goldman's earnings. We're not seeking any damages for
how successful his restaurant would have been. We
make no such claim in this case. Whether Ron Goldman
had a successful restaurant or not has nothing to do
with this case.
We ask that you determine who his killer
is, and we ask that you award damages for this man's
loss. And his life will never be the same. And
Mr. Baker got up here -- in one of the lowest moments
of this trial, he mocked this young man who lies in
his grave.
Now, I want you to think about this: If
O.J. Simpson were innocent, truly innocent, would he
let his lawyer mock this young man? This young man
tried to save the life of the mother of his children.
He is a hero to O.J. Simpson.
Only a guilty man has his lawyers stand
up there and disparage this person and disparage his
loss and cheapen his loss.
And Mr. Baker has the nerve to tell you
it only cost $200 to file a lawsuit. Can you imagine
that?
He is right. It cost $200 to file a
lawsuit.
Is that what he thinks this is about?
It's not about Mr. Simpson's blood or his gloves or
hat and shoes and all the other evidence?
It's not about any of that? It's about
the fact that Mr. Goldman has $200 to file a lawsuit?
And in their zeal to get your verdict,
have they become so insensitive to the greatest of
human tragedies, the loss of life, that they want to
speak about these two dead people in terms of $200?
My stomach turned when I heard that.
You know, Mr. Simpson, here's $200. You
want it? Give me back my client's son.
(Mr. Petrocelli holds out money to
Mr. Simpson.)
MR. BAKER: Give it up.
MR. PETROCELLI: They want this verdict that
bad, take it. Give my client back his son, and we
will march out of here in a heartbeat.
Enough is enough. The time has come to
put this to rest.
Two people lost their lives. They
deserve their due.
They deserve their final peace. Their
lives matter; their lives counted.
And that man (pointing to Mr. Simpson)
who took their lives should be held accountable.
MR. BAKER: That's not the law, Your Honor.
That's not why we're here.
MR. PETROCELLI: It is you --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: It is you, ladies and
gentlemen, and only you, and only will be you, who
have the duty to decide once and for all whether there
will be responsibilities for the lives of these two
human beings. This is it.
And it is a duty that will be with you
not just while you're in that deliberation room, long
after we leave this courtroom, for the rest of your
lives.
The great American lawyer, Daniel
Webster, over 150 years ago, addressed a jury just
like this one in a case involving murder.
Just like this one.
And he spoke of your duty, and he said:
Absence of duty pursues us forever. If we take to
ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the
uttermost parts of the sea, duty performed or duty
violated is still with us, for our happiness, for our
misery.
And, ladies and gentlemen, your sense of
duty performed or duty violated will be with you
forever.
And I have no doubt that you will perform
your duty. I have no doubt that you will do justice.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume
at 1:30.
Don't talk about the case. Don't form or
express any opinions.
(At 11:51 a.m., a recess was taken
until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997
1:36 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.)
THE COURT: All right. Before the Court
instructs the jury I think there's some evidentiary
stipulations or motions.
THE CLERK: Yes. Shall I read them.
MR. GELBLUM: Sure.
THE CLERK: Already objected to those exhibits
that were already received in evidence defense submits
numbers 847, 1422, 1436, 1869, 1870, 1877, 1885, 2046,
and 2049.
THE COURT: Stipulated. They may be withdrawn.
MR. BAKER: No.
THE CLERK: He just submits.
MR. BAKER: These are business records,
exception to the hearsay rule. We submit.
THE COURT: Okay. They're excluded.
THE CLERK: They're excluded.
I know there's stipulation to move into
evidence the following exhibits: 80, 169, 205, 333,
714, 715, 1828, 1830, 1916, 1918, 1925, 2061 which is
an enlarged exhibit, 2274, 2290, 90, 103, 109, 200,
202, 212, 239, 259, 382, 383, 384, 385, 718, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2016, 2017,
2018, 2019, 2111 and 2356.
MR. GELBLUM: Also 2287, 2288, 2289.
THE CLERK: You want the enlarged exhibits?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes, because it's needed to show
the analysis in --
THE CLERK: That's right. 2287, 2288 and 2289.
MR. P. BAKER: Stipulated by both sides.
THE COURT: Okay. They're all received.
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 80.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 169.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 205.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 333.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 714.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 715.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1828.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1830.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1916.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1918.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1925.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2061.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2274.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2290.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 90.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 103.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 109.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 200.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 202.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 212.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 239.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 259.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 382.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 383.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 384.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 385.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 718.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1993.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1994.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1995.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1996.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1997.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1998.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2001.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2002.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2016.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2017.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2018.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2019.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2111.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No. 2356.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2287.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2288.)
(The instrument previously marked
was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2289.)
THE COURT: And there are 14.50 and 14.52
referencing Rufo. That's withdrawn as duplicative?
MR. BREWER: Yes, same one already read.
MR. GELBLUM: There is one for Goldman as well
that was submitted as part of the packet. It has a
direct two line -- two of the plaintiffs, Goldman and
Rufo.
THE COURT: You're withdrawing that, too?
MR. GELBLUM: No.
I'm sorry. I apologize.
We've added one additional instruction
with regards to conduct of jurors and alternate jurors
during recesses.
Counsel have been given copies of those.
THE COURT: Any objections?
MR. GELBLUM: No.
MR. BAKER: No.
MR. BREWER: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Then can we have the
jury in. We will instruct the jury.
MR. GELBLUM: There was one thing on the
verdict form, Your Honor, that we had -- it sort of
slipped by when we made the rescissions on the battery
and wrongful death, there was an extra paragraph at
the end that we had wanted in that the defense didn't
want in.
MR. BAKER: I'd object. We agreed not to have
it in.
MR. GELBLUM: We didn't agree, Your Honor. I
believe I didn't address that paragraph
THE CLERK: Is that question No. 9?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
THE COURT: Which line?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes. Question 9 about the
stipulation. We believe that there's some confusion
with that because there's no question on the form for
damages for battery claim at all, but there are
questions about liability and battery. We're afraid
the jury will be confused. There's only one question
for battery and five questions for liability.
MR. BAKER: My understanding was that we agreed
through Mr. Brewer, who's representing the plaintiffs,
to use this one, one through 8.
THE COURT: That was my understanding.
MR. BREWER: We withdrew it.
MR. GELBLUM: We would ask, Your Honor, to
consider it for the reason I stated. We're concerned
there is confusion. Several questions asked about
liability. Only one question asked about damages.
The whole goal of this is to avoid
confusion with the jury and we think this question
will help avoid confusion for the reason I stated.
THE COURT: I'll exclude it. I think the
C.C.P. is clear that a single money judgment should be
entered, or a single verdict with regards to the
aggregate amount of damages be rendered.
MR. GELGLUM: Your Honor, that's on the
wrongful death case and it's separate. It has been
stipulated to of $100 and $150.
THE COURT: So let them put it in the
aggregate.
MR. GELBLUM: One is for the Browns and one is
for the estate of Brown because you have different
plaintiffs. You have the estate of Brown and the
estate of Goldman, and they're not getting these
question No. 8 damages, that's the individual damages
for Goldman and Rufo.
I apologize for bringing it up at this
point, but that's the issue. We're trying to avoid
confusion --
MR. BAKER: This should have been raised --
MR. GELBLUM: -- not create it.
MR. BAKER: This should have been raised before
argument. We agreed to this verdict form before
argument. It was agreed by the defense and by the
plaintiffs' representative through Mr. Michael Brewer.
THE COURT: Court instructing as requested by
parties, 14.51. And I'll then stand by that
instruction to give a single amount.
And I will read that I will leave that
portion out.
Bring the jury in.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
it is now my duty to instruct you on the law that
applies to this case.
As the Court gives the instructions in
this case, the Court expects no interruption from the
audience, so if anybody wants to leave, leave now
because you're not going to leave while the
instructions are being given.
It is your duty to follow the law.
As jurors it is your duty to determine
the effect and value of the evidence and to decide all
questions of fact. You must not be influenced by
sympathy, prejudice or passion.
You must decide all questions of fact in
this case from the evidence received in this trial and
not from any other source.
You must not make any independent
investigation of the facts or the law or consider or
discuss facts as to which there is no evidence.
This means, for example, that you must
not on your own visit the scene, conduct experiments,
or consult reference works for additional information.
You must not consider any information you
learned about this case before you were selected for
this jury.
You must not consider any information you
learned from watching or hearing or reading about the
criminal trial.
There was evidence and there were
witnesses that were presented at the criminal case
that were not presented in this case, and there was
evidence and witnesses presented in this case that
were not presented in the criminal case.
You should not speculate or consider why
the evidence and witnesses are different.
There are many reasons that the evidence
and witnesses in this case have been different from
the evidence in the criminal case.
You must not consider any evidence that
is not presented or was not presented in this case.
If any matter is repeated or stated in
different ways in my instructions, no emphasis is
intended. Do not draw any inference because of a
repetition.
Do not single out any individual rule or
instruction and ignore the others. Consider all of
the instructions as a whole and each in the light of
the others.
The order in which the instructions are
given has no significance as to their relative
importance.
As I have told you, this is a civil case.
You may know that defendant Simpson was already tried
in a criminal case for the murders of Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ronald Goldman and that defendant Simpson
was acquitted in that criminal case.
The acquittal in the criminal case has no
effect on this case. Even though defendant Simpson
was acquitted in the criminal case, you can still find
him liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown
Simpson in this civil case.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the
Constitution does not prohibit a civil case brought by
victims of crime even after an acquittal in an earlier
criminal trial.
His acquittal means that he cannot be
prosecuted in a criminal case again or go to jail for
the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
However, the plaintiffs have a right to
pursue this civil action even though defendant Simpson
was acquitted at the criminal trial.
If you rule in favor of the plaintiffs in
this case, you will be asked to determine what amount
of money defendant Simpson must pay to the plaintiffs
as compensation for killing Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman. No matter what your verdict is in
this case, defendant Simpson will not be punished by
imprisonment.
We have heard that there was another
proceeding in another court that had to do with
defendant Simpson and his children.
The issues and rulings in that proceeding
have nothing to do with this case.
The judge in that proceeding did not
consider any evidence regarding the deaths of Nicole
Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Our case is fact specific and is
dependent only upon the evidence that we received in
our case, and you must not be influenced by whatever
anybody says or does with regard to any other matter
outside of this trial.
Statements of counsel are not evidence;
however, if counsel have stipulated to a fact, accept
that fact as having been conclusively proven.
Do not speculate as to the answers to
questions to which objections were sustained or the
reasons for the objections.
Do not consider any evidence that was
stricken; stricken evidence must be treated as though
you had never known of it.
A suggestion in a question is not
evidence unless it is adopted by the answer. A
question by i