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.

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 23, 1996



SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES





SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,



VS.



ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.





SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1996

9:00 A.M.



DEPARTMENT NO. WEE

HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)





(The following proceedings occurred in the Judge's Chambers, in

camera, and this portion of the record is to be sealed.)





SEALED PROCEEDINGS DELETED





(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the

presence of the jury.)





THE COURT:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.



AUDIENCE:  Good morning, Your Honor.



THE COURT:  We're going to address some motions made by both sides.



The first motion the Court will address is defendant's motion to

exclude expert witness Terry Lee on the ground that plaintiff has not

made him readily available for deposition.



MR. LAMBERT:  Thomas Lambert.  Thank you.  Yes, Your Honor.



In regard to Terry Lee, the situation is as follows:  On September 3,

the Court granted our motion to add Terry Lee as an expert witness.



On September 5, I wrote to Mr. Blasier, saying you've been trying to

reach him by telephone to schedule Terry Lee's deposition, and

suggesting September 9 as a deposition date.



Later that day, Mr. Blasier called me and said he would like to take

Mr. Lee's deposition the very next day, Friday, September the 6th.



I explained that because Mr. Petrocelli had gone out of town to assist

in the Henry Lee depositions -- you will remember at that time, Mr.

Medvene was a little incapacitated.



So Mr. Petrocelli had gone to assist in that deposition, and I was

responsible for filing a number of papers that were due Friday

morning, in limine briefs and joint trial statements, among others. 

So I suggested to Mr. Blasier we do the deposition the following week.



He said that he was going to go home to Sacramento that week and

didn't want to do the deposition the following week, I then suggested

that we do it on Saturday.



He told me that he was leaving for Sacramento on Friday, so he really

couldn't do it any of those days.



I then suggested, well, let's file the papers Friday morning; we'll do

the deposition Friday afternoon.



He told me he had a one o'clock flight and didn't want to change his

flight.



So we then agreed that if we weren't able to schedule the deposition,

then we'd have to do it sometime later, during trial.



During jury selection, Mr. Blasier came to me and said that he would

like to now schedule Terry Lee's deposition.



I said fine, but I know he's in Japan on an extended trip right now,

because he told me when he left, he was going to be gone for a while;

I'll get you a date.



I called him on Monday, and his office told me he was still out of the

office.  I called him this week; he is now back, and I have a proposed

date for him.



THE COURT:  What's that.



MR. LAMBERT:  A week from Saturday, November the 2.



MR. BLASIER:  We want to have the deposition before opening.



THE COURT:  Mr. Blasier, I'm perfectly willing to have you depose him.

 Somebody's inability to depose him was not entirely the plaintiff's

fault or the witness's fault.  It appears to have been some of your

fault.



So if you want to depose him, you can. If you don't want to depose

him, don't.



MR. BLASIER:  We do.  We ask that he not refer to him in opening.  I

don't know whether they intend to or not.



THE COURT:  Well, whether you depose him or not is going to be up to

you.  He's going to be a witness in this case.  You had the

opportunity to depose him. You're going to have to bend your schedule

a little bit to do that.



MR. BLASIER:  We intend to.



THE COURT:  Well, you have to.  Let me give you the opportunity.  He's

going to testify; you're going to have the opportunity to depose him. 

If you don't depose him, that would be your election.  Pick a date.



MR. BLASIER:  What was the Date that was offered?



MR. LAMBERT:  A week from Saturday, November the 2nd.



MR. BLASIER:  That's fine.



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, can we keep them from referring to him in

opening, because we've been trying to get expert depositions since

July of this year.



THE COURT:  Well, you can refer to him because, Mr. Blasier, you could

have deposed him, I guess, in your schedule, and you didn't.



Defendant's motion to preclude reference on swatch drawing experiments

by Matheson, defendant contends that plaintiff designated Matheson as

an expert witness regarding tests performed by LAPD to determine blood

type and related matters, and that plaintiffs' expert, Fox, testified

that in deposition that he discussed with Matheson, and received notes

from him offered by someone having to do with some drawing tests he

did on bindle 47.



Is Matheson going to be testifying with regard to some drawing tests?



MR. LAMBERT:  No, he's not, Your Honor.



THE COURT:  Okay.



MR. LAMBERT:  We don't intend to offer his opinion on that subject.



THE COURT:  Will there be some testimony regarding drawing tests by

anyone?



MR. LAMBERT:  By Fox, who has been deposed on that subject.



THE COURT:  Okay.  Motion to preclude reference to swatch experiment

drawing expert Matheson's -- testimony by Matheson is precluded. 

Reference to any tests performed by him may or may not be admissible,

depending on what the foundation is.



MR. BLASIER:  Your Honor, may we reserve the right, since Mr. Fox is

going to testify about that, of withdrawing this motion so that we can

cross-examine Mr. Matheson?



THE COURT:  Excuse me, though; you want to cross-examine Matheson?



MR. BLASIER:  We want to preclude Mr. Fox from testifying, as well, as

a way of getting in the back door by having Mr. Fox testify to

something that some other expert did.



We are objecting to that, as well.  But if he's going to be allowed to

testify about it, we --



THE COURT:  Okay.  As I understand the law on expert testimony, if Fox

testifies to some conclusions based upon data obtained by somebody

else, that's not impermissible.  So if you want to cross-examine

Matheson about the data itself, you certainly may withdraw the motion.



MR. BLASIER:  Thank you.



THE COURT:  Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' supplemental

witness list.



Defendant moves to strike Goldman's supplemental witness list because

those witnesses were known to him before filing a joint amended

statement, which is, I believe, September 10, 1996, and they were

omitted from that joint amended statement.



I'll hear from the defendant.



MR. GELBLUM:  Your Honor, this is not at all the same situation we

faced when we were moving to strike witnesses from defendant's witness

list.



The basis of that was failure to provide those names in discovery,

Your Honor, when they were requested.  And the Court ruled that they

had not provided them in discovery, even though they knew about them. 

So they should be stricken from the list on that basis.  All of these

witnesses are people that have been known to the defendant for some

period of time.



The witness list, of course, will not change until long after

discovery closes, so that there's no prejudice, because they couldn't

have been deposed anyway.



The witness list, the parties of Goldman exchanging and supplementing

exhibit lists constantly. As late as yesterday, the defense filed an

additional exhibit list.



So there's absolutely no prejudice of the six people, Your Honor.



Mr. Miller, Vern Miller, slight misstatement in the defendant's

papers.  He is a photographer, not a videographer.  His sole purpose

will be to authenticate one or two photographs; that's all he'll be

doing.  It's really not an issue of the authenticity of it; that's all

he'll be doing.



Mr. Peters they have known about for exactly the same length of time

that we have known about him.  He was revealed in the deposition of

Harry Scull in this action on July 1, 1996.



They had the opportunity to depose him, investigate him, talk to him,

whatever they wanted to do.



Mr. Wilson is a photographer for the Los Angeles Police Department. 

Again, he took pictures on June 13, 1994.  The defense has known about

him for over two years.



Mr. Lovold is an LAPD officer whose sole participation in the case was

to open up Mr. Simpson's Bronco at the print shed on June 14, 1996,

very short witness that they've known about for two years.



The fifth and sixth is the Terrance Watson.  Again, like Mr. Peters,

they learned about exactly when we did, at a deposition in March of

this year.  So they've had all the opportunity in the world to talk to

him or even depose him if they wanted to.



And finally detective -- Commander Gartland is a -- Captain Gartland

is an officer with the LAPD, and he was involved in the original

investigation.  And they, again, have known about him for two years.



No prejudice whatsoever to calling these people, because they've known

about all of them, some before we did, and certainly none later than

we did.



MR. BAKER:  Phil Baker for the defense.



That's exactly the point.  They knew about all these witnesses long

before the September 10 filing:  Peters on July 1, 1996 deposition;

Terrance Watson on March 19, 1996 deposition, the Commander Gartland

on June 11, 1996; these photographers and print chip people were known

in November, December in 1995.



The purpose of the joint amended statement -- the purpose of Local

Rule 7.9 is to give the opposing party a chance to prepare for these

witnesses.  And what we did is, when we were going to exchange our

witness list, we conversed with the other side and wound up exchanging

simultaneously, so neither side would be sand-bagged.



And the purpose is because we're going to prepare folders and prepare

attorneys to be ready to analyze -- examine these witnesses when they

come on the stand.  They knew about these people as early as a year

ago.  And now they're giving us new witnesses on October 4 and October

16, well after jury selection has commenced.



We have been prejudiced.  And the point is, they knew about them and

they should have put them on their joint amended statement.



MR. GELBLUM:  Your Honor, may I, one brief --



THE COURT:  No.



MR. GELBLUM:  No.



THE COURT:  The basis on which the Court struck the defendant's

amended witness list was the defendant's failure to comply with

discovery order; to wit, failure to disclose all witnesses and

interrogatories that defendant was ordered to respond to without

objection.  And that was a ruling that was made by this Court on

September 4, 1996.



The defendant's motion, in this instance, relates to no such discovery

sanctions.  It would appear to this Court that the defendant, in view

of all these witnesses, knew of all of these witnesses well in advance

of time, and was not the subject of a discovery sanction.



The motion to preclude is denied.



The motion to strike is denied.



Plaintiff Goldman's motion for order precluding defense from referring

in opening statement to Fuhrman's recent plea of nolo contendre to the

charge of perjury and conviction thereon, and Fuhrman's testimony in

the criminal trial, that he's expected to testify.



May I hear if moving -- I'm sorry.  I'll hear from the defendants.



MR. LEONARD:  Where I come, from this is called a sandbag, Your Honor.

 We went through four weeks of jury selection in which Mark Fuhrman's

name came up early and often.  It was referred to by both the defense

and the plaintiffs.  Mr. Petrocelli indicated on more than one

occasion that the jury may very well hear from Mr. Fuhrman, either in

person or from his testimony being read in.



Obviously, the plaintiffs knew that this was going to be an issue. 

They knew by virtue of the fact that Mr. Fuhrman had pled the Fifth on

two different occasions, and by virtue of the fact he was domiciled in

Idaho; that the only way, most likely, that we'd be able to get his

testimony in, would be through reading his prior -- his former

testimony at the criminal trial.  And yet, they sat for months, almost

-- exactly 60 days after motions in limine were required to be filed.



And that led us to take positions in front of the jury -- in front of

every single juror, that will sit in this case.  They took positions

themselves.  And now, as an afterthought, Mr. Petrocelli, in open

court the other day, says, "Well, we don't think it's admissible."



The time for filing motions in limine was 60 days ago.  It was an

extremely important reason that that be done.



This is, as Your Honor has noted, a principal witness in this case. 

And we think that we've been absolutely had on this; and for that

reason alone, the motion should be denied.



As far as the merits of the plaintiffs' position, number one, the use

of the term "cross-examination" in the statute, I think, is incidental

to -- the purpose is collateral, if you will, to the purpose of the

statute.



The statute describes a hearsay exception that relies on the fact that

at the former hearing, that the declarant was cross-examined and

directly examined, that he was examined.  So that now, when his

testimony is read in, the triers of facts will be able to determine --

will have the ability to determine whether or not, in fact, his

testimony is reliable.



I've cited a situation in the evidentiary code with regard to an

adverse witness, where the term "cross-examination" is used to simply

refer to the examination of a witness by the party who goes second.



And, in fact, I've also cited a case where the situation was, a

plaintiff in a insurance bad-faith case was utilizing testimony from a

prior worker's compensation hearing, where the judge was the person

who had put the questions to the plaintiff, not an adverse party. 

It's just an examination.  It had some -- I assume it had some

elements of cross-examination.  But the point is that there was an

opportunity -- there was a similar interest in and motive to examine

the witness.



In this case, Detective Fuhrman was on the stand for five days.



He was subject to direct and redirect examination on the very same

issues that are in this case now, by the prosecutor, Marcia Clark. 

She spent hours and hundreds of questions asking him about all the

facts and circumstances surrounding the manner in which he found the

glove, the manner in which he discovered the blood on the outside of

the Bronco, the manner in which he questioned Kato Kaelin, the

circumstances in which he entered the Rockingham property.  These are

the very same issues that exist in this case.



I can't imagine that the plaintiffs would be in any different

position.  I can't imagine that they could possibly conceive of any

questions that weren't already put to this witness.



Basically what's going on here, the plaintiffs want to have it both

ways.  They want to be able to put on summary witnesses here to talk

about the chain of custody, to talk about the manner in which the

evidence was collected.  By virtue of the public employee record

exception, they want this Court and the jury to assume, or to reach

the presumption that the evidence was collected in the ordinary course

of the policemen's duties; that the police, including Fuhrman, can be

relied upon; that the source of these documents with regard to chain

of custody is trustworthy.



At the same time, they actually state in their moving papers, on page

5, that they are not in the position to vouch for Fuhrman.



I don't understand that if Fuhrman -- on the one hand, they're looking

for presumption that relies on the fact that Fuhrman is trustworthy,

and at the same time they're saying they're not vouching for him, I

just don't understand that.



So, you know, that's one of the problems that exists here.  This is,

admittedly, a unique situation.



The plaintiffs point out that there are no cases that address this. 

And I would suggest there are no cases that address this, because it's

obvious that all the interests and purposes served by this hearsay

exception are served in a case like this, either personally, where you

have a witness who is subject to so much examination.  So I would say

that there's the same motive and interest in these plaintiffs here as

there was for the prosecution.



You remember, Your Honor, during jury selection, you said, "Basically,

this is a civil murder case."



Well, these men are civil prosecutors. They stand in the same shoes

that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden stood in at that trial.



If they think -- let me put it to you this way:  If Fuhrman took the

stand here, are they telling you that if they would cross-examine him,

that they would take an adverse position with him?  They would do

precisely what the prosecution did.



THE COURT:  Who would be calling him?



MR. LEONARD:  We'd be calling him as an adverse witness, and they'd be

re-directing him.  That's what we intend to do.



THE COURT:  How would you call him as an adverse witness?  Under what

code section?



MR. BAKER:  776.



MR. LEONARD:  776.



THE COURT:  That's adverse party, calling an adverse witness.



MR. LEONARD:  All right, so we call --



THE COURT:  That's not an adverse witness; it's your witness.



MR. LEONARD:  Even if we call him on direct, we elicit not simply

impeachment, which is what they're suggesting, but a number of facts

that demonstrate his opportunity to plant, and certainly his motive to

plant.



THE COURT:  This certainly is an interesting issue.



MR. LEONARD:  I love it.  But it's interesting -- but to me, with all

due respect, too, it's a no-brainer.  I think that.



THE COURT:  We'll see what the Supreme Court says about a no-brainer.



Let me hear from the other side.



MR. GELBLUM:  Your Honor, obviously, the use of cross-examine in the

statute is not collateral or incidental.  That's highlighted by the

fact that a difference in 1291, which is used when you're trying to

introduce prior testimony, if the party who was a party to the prior

action, there's a specific subdivision that expressly allows somebody

to bring in testimony that was offered by that party in the prior

action.



There's no similar provision in 1292.



THE COURT:  Well, I just got defendant's oppositions right now, at the

beginning of this argument.  They cite

Moore_versus_American_United_Life

Insurance_Company,_150_Cal.App.3d_610.  I haven't had a chance to look

at it.



You have knowledge of that case?



MR. GELBLUM:   Yes, Your Honor.  I had a chance to look at it very

late last night.  And it doesn't help the defendant for two reasons: 

Number one, exactly opposite to this case.  In that case, the

plaintiff, the same party offered the testimony in both cases.



Crucial distinction dispositive distinction here.  They're going to

offer testimony against somebody who is not a party to the prior

action, and the other side is offering it.



The flip side is offering it -- the prosecution offering the first

case.  The defense wants to offer it here.  Moore was the opposite

situation where the plaintiff offered it in both cases.  Second, even

though it wasn't an adverse party who cross-examined in the prior

proceeding, it was the worker's compensation appeals court judgment

cross-examined in the prior proceeding.



And that was deemed to be the party who was similar to the defendant

in the second proceeding.



Here, as we pointed out in our papers --



THE COURT:  Why was that?



MR. GELBLUM:  Excuse me?



THE COURT:  Why is that?



MR. GELBLUM:  Why are the parties similar? Because the -- I frankly am

not very familiar with the worker's compensation system; in fact, not

familiar at all.  But the Court did say -- the Court in Moore said

that the worker's compensation appeals court judgment had an interest

in motive similar to the defendant in this case to cross-examine that

witness.



Here, the prosecution offered the testimony in the first case, had

absolutely no motive or interest whatsoever to cross-examine this Mr.

Fuhrman, none.  It's a crucial distinction.  The legislature obviously

by putting in the provision in 1291 saying you can offer testimony

against somebody who offered it in the first proceeding if they were a

party but leaving that provision out of 1292 meant what it said, meant

if you're not a party to the prior proceeding it can only be offered

against you.  If it was offered against the party in the similar

position in the prior proceeding.  I agree that it's a very clear

issue.  And the clear issue is that it cannot be admitted here.



THE COURT:  All right.  I'll take it under submission and take a look

at this case.



THE COURT:  We will take a recess while I read the case.





(A recess was taken.)



(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside

the presence of the jury.)





THE COURT:  I've had the opportunity of reading Moore versus American

United Life Insurance Company, and reading the 1292 evidence code. 

And I am at the present time concerned that this particular point is

one of the more important issues in this case with regard to how a

ruling will affect the course of the case.



Moore_versus_American_United_Life is not a very satisfying case.  The

court in that case -- there's the issue of, in 1292, almost

back-handed way, not exploring with any depth how the worker's

compensation judge's interest is actually similar to or the same as

that of the defendant, and the motivations are similar and the same as

the defendant.



It does not explain the parties that were involved in the worker's

compensation proceeding, other than the fact that American United Life

was not a party.  It doesn't say who all the other parties were.  So

it's not a very definitive case.



On the other hand, plaintiffs have really not cited any cases that

would explain in any detail at all, really, the operation of 1292,

other than citing People_versus_Green, which explains what

cross-examination means, as interpreted by the court.



It would appear that the evidence code is a statute that has its

genesis in a uniform code that has undoubtedly been adopted elsewhere

in this country.  And if counsel are unable to find any cases in this

jurisdiction that deal with that, counsel could at least cite to the

Court some legislative history or legislative analysis and any other

outside jurisdiction's interpretation of that provision, to shed light

on how it would apply to the facts before this Court.



So, for the present time, the Court will preclude the defendant from

making any references to whether Fuhrman's testimony will be received

via his testimony in the criminal trial, or whether he is expected to

testify at all on this.



The defense has some indication from that witness that the witness is

going to appear voluntarily to testify.



The Court will reserve that issue for a future time, and the defendant

is ordered not to make any offer of that testimony to the jury until

it has received permission to do so by the Court.



And in anticipation of that, the Court will order both sides to

prepare further briefings on that issue.



When do you people -- plaintiffs expect to complete the case?



MR. GELBLUM:  When did plaintiff expect to complete our case?



THE COURT:  Well, I want to set up a briefing schedule with regards to

that issue before the defense puts on its case.



MR. GELBLUM:  You want to give a couple weeks for briefing that will

certainly be think longer than that.



MR. BAKER:  I want this issue resolved before I give my opening

statements.  We've been five weeks --



THE COURT:  Counsel, my order is, you're precluded from making any

reference to it at this time.



MR. BAKER:  I move for a mistrial, based on five weeks of Fuhrman

before this jury trial and talking about the jury panel.



THE COURT:  Motion denied.



MR. BAKER:  I move for a stay to take a writ on the issue.



THE COURT:  Denied.



MR. GELBLUM:  We have a couple briefs for briefing, Your Honor.



THE COURT:  Fine.



MR. GELBLUM:  Your Honor, does your order also include, based on

whatever's given so far, no mention of the perjury plea, as well?



THE COURT:  That's correct.



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, we will brief this afternoon, and can we have

a hearing on it tomorrow.



THE COURT:  I want to give the plaintiff an opportunity to brief it,

also.



MR. BAKER:  I notice the plaintiff can delay and delay.  I've got to

make an opening statement in this case.  And I think when they have

waited 60 days after motions in limine are to be heard, to spring this

on us on the eve of my opening statement that has been prepared for

some time and then say now you've got to change it, I think that's

prejudicial to us.  I think we ought to get the issue resolved.



THE COURT:  The Court will order the briefing to be completed by

November 1 and filed with the Court.



Bring the jury in.





(Jurors resume their respective seats.)





THE COURT:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.



JURORS:  Good morning.



THE COURT:  At this time, we are going to be addressed by the

attorneys with regard to their opening statements.



I want to inform you and advise you that opening statements are not

evidence; they are statements by the attorneys as to what they expect

the evidence is going to show, what their theory of the case is, and

how they hope to prove their case on -- their side of the case.



While what they say to you is not evidence, it is, nevertheless,

important for you to pay close attention to it, because this is one of

the two opportunities they're going to have to address you about this

case, at this time and also at the end of case, after all of the

evidence is in, when, at that time, they'll have the opportunity of

arguing to you and reasoning with you as to what they believe the

evidence did show or failed to show, and how the law should apply to

that state of the evidence, and why you should find in favor of their

clients.



So at this time, we'll hear if the plaintiffs.



You may proceed.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Thank you, Your Honor.



On a June evening, the 12th of June, 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson just

finished putting her ten-year-old daughter, Sydney, and her

six-year-old son, Justin, down to bed.



She filled her bathtub with water.  She lit some candles, began to get

ready to take a bath and relax for the evening.



The phone rang.  It was 9:40 p.m.  Nicole answered.  And it was her

mother, saying that she had left her glasses at the restaurant nearby

in Brentwood, where the family had all celebrated Sydney's dance

recital over dinner, just an hour before.



Nicole's mother asked if Nicole could please pick up her glasses from

the restaurant the next day.  Nicole said, of course, good-bye, and

hung up.



Nicole then called the restaurant and asked to speak to a friendly

young waiter there. Nicole asked this young waiter if he would be kind

enough to drop her mother's glasses off.



The young man obliged and said he would drop the glasses off shortly

after work, on his way to meet his friend in Marina Del Rey.  The

young man's name was Ron Goldman.  He was 25 year old.



With the glasses in hand, Ron walked out of the restaurant, walked the

few minutes to his apartment nearby, to change.  He left the

restaurant at 9:50 p.m.



After Ron changed, he got into his girlfriend's car parked in his

garage, and drove the short distance to Nicole Brown Simpson's home at

875 South Bundy Drive in Brentwood.



Ron parked the car on the side street, walked to the front of Nicole's

condominium, and turned up the walkway to the front gate.  Just past

the front gate were steps leading to Nicole's condominium.



Ronald Goldman never made it past those steps.  It was at that front

gate that Ron spent the last few savage minutes of his life.  It was

there that his brutalized body was found next to Nicole Brown

Simpson's slain body, with her mother's glasses lying next to him on

the ground in an envelope.



Ron Goldman's young life ended because he agreed to do a friend a

favor, only to come upon her rageful killer and his.



He might have run from danger, but he did not.  Ron Goldman died,

ladies and gentlemen, with his eyes open.  And in the last furious

moment of his life, Ron saw through those open eyes the person who

killed his friend Nicole.  And for that reason, he too had to die.



And the last person Ron Goldman saw through his open eyes was the man

who took his young life away:  The man who now sits in this courtroom,

the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson.



Ladies and gentlemen, we will prove to you that Ronald Lyle Goldman

and Nicole Brown Simpson died at the hands of the defendant, Orenthal

Simpson.



Let me again introduce myself and my colleagues to you.



My name is Daniel Petrocelli.  With me are Edward Medvene, Peter

Gelblum, Yvette Molinaro, Thomas Lambert.  We all represent the Estate

of Ronald Goldman and Ronald's father, Fred, in this, his last fight

for justice for his son.



Mr. Brewer represents Ronald's mother, Sharon Rufo, and Mr. Kelly

represents the Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson.  And they will each

talk to you after me.



In this trial, we will present to you an extraordinary amount of

evidence undeniably pointing to O.J. Simpson as the person who killed

Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on the evening of June 12.



This evidence includes:



Mr. Simpson's blood leaving the scene of the murder at Nicole's

condominium;



His blood dripping to the ground from the fingers of his left hand;



Mr. Simpson's blood on the glove he wore when he killed Ron and

Nicole;



Mr. Simpson's blood in his car that he used to drive from Bundy to his

home at Rockingham, five minutes away;



Mr. Simpson's blood on the driveway of his home;



Mr. Simpson's blood inside his home;



Ron's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;



Nicole's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;



Ron's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;



Nicole's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;



Nicole's blood on the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom;



Mr. Simpson's own blood on his socks;



Mr. Simpson's size 12 shoe prints in the blood of Nicole, leaving the

scene of the murder, exiting towards the back of the condominium;



Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair in the knit cap he left behind at the

scene of the murders;



Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair on Ronald Goldman's shirt;



Strands of Nicole's hair and Ron's hair on the glove Mr. Simpson

dropped on the side of his house, trying to get onto his property so

no one would see him;



Carpet fibers, rare carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco found in

the knit cap that he left at the scene of the murders;



Matching blue-black cotton fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt;



The glove at Rockingham and Mr. Simpson's socks in the bedroom, tying

all three together.



Cuts and bruises to Mr. Simpson's left hand during his brief but

violent attacks on Ron and Nicole;



Cuts to this day that Mr. Simpson cannot and will not explain.



We will prove to you that Mr. Simpson has no alibi during the time

when the murders were committed.



He cannot identify a single person who can account for his whereabouts

during the time of the murders.  Not one person will take this stand

and testify that he or she was with Mr. Simpson or spoke to Mr.

Simpson during the time of these murders.



We will prove how Ron and Nicole were killed quickly and savagely. 

They were defenseless against a man so large, powerful, strong, armed

with a six-inch knife, and in a total state of rage.



Nicole had no chance to fight, and died within moments of the gaping

cut to her throat.



Ron tried to fight, but trapped in a small, caged area, he was cut

down swiftly.



We will prove to you that Mr. Simpson committed the murders and sped

back home, just in time to drive to the airport and catch a plane that

he desperately needed to catch to have any hope of an alibi.  In his

extreme panic and hurry, Mr. Simpson left behind a trail of

incriminating evidence, starting right at the murder scene and leading

right into his bedroom.



We will prove to you that Mr. Simpson was embroiled in a deeply

emotional conflict with Nicole Brown Simpson after she had just ended

any last attempt at reconciliation between the two.



We will describe to you the rejection and pain this caused Mr. Simpson

in detail, the build-up of tension, emotion, and anger between Mr.

Simpson and Nicole in the last weeks and days leading up to her

murder.



We will prove that Mr. Simpson killed Ronald Goldman because he would

have been a witness to the rageful attack and murder of Nicole, a

witness who would have testified in this trial, a young man who

simply, and frankly, happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong

time.



We will prove to you how Mr. Simpson's own words and actions following

the murders revealed then, and still reveal today, his guilt for these

deaths.



You will hear Mr. Simpson on tape, just hours after the murder, unable

to explain his actions the night before, during the time of the

murders.



You will hear him make very incriminating statements, statements that

he will now try to contradict or vary.



We will tell you about Mr. Simpson's flight from the police when they

came to arrest him and his apparent thoughts of taking his life,

thoughts that are consistent, ladies and gentlemen, only with a person

who had killed, and that are totally inconsistent with a man whose

children had just lost their mother at the hands of a stranger.



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is argument, not

opening statement.



THE COURT:  Overruled.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Thank you.



You will hear how this man came back to Los Angeles on the day after

the murders and huddled with lawyers, rather than huddle with his

children.



MR. BAKER:  I object, Your Honor.  That's argument.



THE COURT:  Sustained.



MR. PETROCELLI:  We will reveal to you lies and deceptions in the

sworn testimony of Mr. Simpson when questioned under oath for the

first time.



MR. BAKER:  I'll object again, Your Honor. That's argument.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Your Honor, this is what we will introduce.



THE COURT:  Overruled.



MR. PETROCELLI:  We will reveal to you lies and deceptions in the

sworn testimony of Mr. Simpson when questioned under oath for the

first time about his involvement in these murders.



We will prove to you that when asked all the important questions about

his involvement in these murders, O.J. Simpson could not, would not,

and did not tell the truth.



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, I'll object again. This is argument.



THE COURT:  Overruled.



MR. PETROCELLI:  And finally, ladies and gentlemen, we will show that

when faced with the truth of his blood, his hair, his clothing, his

gloves, his shoes, his Bronco, his rage, his motive, his words, and

his actions, you will see how Mr. Simpson in this trial will resort to

theories of police conspiracies, frame-ups, cover-ups and

incompetence, to try to explain away all of the incriminating

evidence.



And we will show you that there is not one ounce of evidence, not one

ounce of proof, and not one ounce of truth to any of these things.



We will demonstrate to you that far from these theories born out of

desperation, there is only one.



MR. BAKER:  I object.  Again, this is simply argument theory.  "Born

out of desperation" is argument.



THE COURT:  Sustained.



MR. PETROCELLI:  We will prove to you, ladies and gentlemen, that

there is only one real and true and honest answer why all the evidence

in this case points to O.J. Simpson.  And that is because he is the

person who killed Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.



Now, let me review this evidence with you in detail.



I'd like to start with talking about the two victims in the case,

Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.



Your Honor, may I?  (Indicating to photos)



(Counsel displays photos.)



MR. PETROCELLI:  Ron grew up in Illinois.  His parents got divorced

when he was a young boy.  He and his little sister, Kimberly, went to

live with their father, Fred.



When Ron was 18, Ron, Kim, Fred, and Fred's new wife, Patty, all moved

to Agoura, California.  Ron took to southern California like a fish to

water.  He excelled at tennis; he loved to play softball.  He got a

job taking care of cerebral palsy patients.  He was the only person at

Pierce College who applied for a job taking care of -- helping to take

care of inner-city kids and helping to turn their lives around.



He was 20 years old when he moved out of his family's home, eventually

winding up in Brentwood, where he loved the friendly atmosphere.  He

was a happy, outgoing, always smiling, handsome young man, who made

friends quickly.



He worked in odd jobs here and there to support himself.  He did a

little modeling, and he dreamed of opening up a restaurant.  And in

February of 1994, to pay the bills, he got a job at a trendy Italian

restaurant called Mezzaluna, as a waiter.



He was single.  He had a girlfriend; he had lots of friends, he loved

his family; he was one of those people who was always there for

others, and ultimately died doing that.  He was a young man, barely 25

years old, with his whole life ahead of him.



Nicole Brown Simpson was 35 years old when she was killed.



She was recently divorced from her ex-husband, O.J. Simpson.  She had

her two children living with her, Sydney and Justin.



She was a full-time mother; she was a devoted mother.  She lived in a

condominium in Brentwood.  She met Mr. Simpson at the age of 18, right

after high school.  And from that moment, they were together.  They

lived together; they were married in 1985, and they had two children.



The evidence will show that they had a very tempestuous relationship,

passionate at times, violent at other times, one of those

relationships where they couldn't live with each other and they

couldn't live without each other.



Nicole left Mr. Simpson in January of 1992, filed for divorce, and

moved into her own apartment with her children.



A year or so later, the divorce was final.  After the divorce was

final, she and Mr. Simpson decided to make another go of it, and they

decided they would try and reconcile, not living together, but they

would start dating.



This was about spring of 1993.  They then spent the next year, till

about three weeks before her death, trying to make this reconciliation

work.



Three weeks before she was killed, Nicole decided it was not working,

and she ended it. One month later, she was dead.



You will hear a lot more about the relationship and what was going on

between Mr. Simpson and Nicole from Mr. Kelly.



O.J. Simpson, the defendant, of course, was a celebrity football star,

film actor, and sports caster, a man who grew up poor and became rich

and famous, and charismatic and a charming man, but in the eyes of the

law, a man no different from anyone else.



Now, I'd like to begin the evidence proving the murders by talking

about the time when Ron and Nicole were killed.  And the reason for

doing this is simple:  After identifying when the murders occurred, we

will show you that Mr. Simpson had the opportunity and the time to

commit the murders.



We will show you that during this time, he has no alibi.



Nicole, as I said earlier, had gone to a dance recital for her

daughter, went to dinner at Mezzaluna, left at around 8:30, got some

ice cream with the kids, and got home before 9:00, and she put the

kids to bed.



She received a phone call from her mom at 9:40, asking about the

glasses.  Her mom asked Nicole to pick them up for her the next day. 

Instead of picking them up the next day, Nicole called Mezzaluna,

spoke to the manager, Karen Crawford, then asked to speak to Ron

Goldman, and asked Mr. Goldman to bring them over.



Ron left Mezzaluna at 9:50 to go home first, change, and then deliver

the glasses.



Before Ron left, he spoke to his friend at the restaurant who worked

there, who was tending bar that night, Stewart Tanner, and he made

plans with Stewart Tanner and another person to meet together after

work in Marina Del Rey, a place called Baja Cantina.



Ron then left the restaurant, walked a few minutes to his home, went

up to his apartment, and we know that he changed out of his waiter's

clothes, and we know that he put on a different set of clothes, a pair

of jeans, a shirt, and some new shoes.



It took Ron about five minutes to get to his apartment.  Ron

apparently did not shave, from the autopsy pictures that we will show.



We do not know if he showered.  He left his home and drove his

girlfriend's car a short distance to Nicole's condominium.  He parked

on Dorothy Street, around the corner.



He walked up to Nicole's front gate. The time was sometime after ten

o'clock p.m.



Now, let's fast-forward.  At 10:50 p.m., 50 minutes later or so, at

the very latest, a man named Louis Karpf, who lived right next door to

Nicole's condominium, walked out to his mailbox on Bundy to pick up

his mail, having just gotten back from the airport.



He saw Nicole's dog, a very large Japanese attack dog called an Akita,

out in the street, barking.  In fact, the dog frightened Mr. Karpf, so

he retreated back up onto his property. Then, when the dog moved away,

Mr. Karpf continued to his mailbox an got his mail.  The time was

about 10:50 p.m., no later than that.



A few minutes later, another man is walking his dog from his apartment

up the street and around the corner.  His name is Steven Schwab.  You

will hear these folks testify.  They're just citizens living in

Brentwood.  They have no axe to grind.



Mr. Schwab came by and saw the dog, Nicole's Akita, out in the middle

of street on Bundy and Gorham I'll show you in a few minutes, you can

see the geography.  And he saw that the dog had blood had blood on his

paws, on his legs.  The time was 10:55 p.m.  Mr. Schwab, with his own

dog, saw the dog was wandering aimlessly and barking in a very

agitated way.  And he decided to take the dog and go home, try to find

the owner, call up the animal shelter.



He got home, wasn't having any luck, and he asked a neighbor who lived

in the same complex, a fellow by the name of Sukru Boztepe, who will

also come here and testify, if he could take care of the dog.



Mr. Boztepe said sure, and he and his wife started to tend to the dog.

 And then they decided to take the dog out for a walk because the dog

was agitated, and maybe they could find the dog's owner.



They then took the dog for a walk, and the dog pulled Mr. Boztepe on a

leash which Mr. Schwab gave Mr. Boztepe.  The dog pulled Mr. Boztepe

in the direction of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium.  In fact,

right to the sidewalk where the walkway led up to her body.



And the dog stopped at that point, and the dog looked down the

walkway.  And Mr. Boztepe saw that the dog was staring.  And he then

looked, and it was extremely dark, even though he was right in front

of the sidewalk there.  He will testify that he did not see anything

until the dog turned his head toward the bodies, and then Mr. Boztepe

looked and saw Nicole's body laying at the bottom of the stairs in a

pool of blood.



Mr. Boztepe then quickly raced across the street and knocked on

neighbors' doors to get somebody to call the police.  And eventually,

the police were summoned.  And they arrived at around 12:00, a little

after midnight.



So we know that these murders occurred, from the evidence that we will

present, sometime after 10:00, when Ron left his apartment, and

sometime before 10:, 50 when Mr. Karpf saw Nicole's dog out in the

street.  And five minutes later, Mr. Schwab saw it with blood.



Between 10:00 and 10:50 -- we can even narrow it further than that,

ladies and gentlemen. There's another man who will come here and

testify. His name is Robert Heidstra.  Mr. Heidstra is a dog lover. 

He has a couple of dogs.  He walks them several times a day, takes the

same route, knows every inch of the way.



He walked his dog on this evening, two of his dogs, and they were

older.  He Left his house sometime after ten o'clock, closer to 10:15,

and he walked around the corner at this point.  I think I will show

you a map.



(Counsel displays map.)



THE COURT:  Can you all see this?



JURORS:  Yes.



THE COURT:  Here's Nicole's condominium; here's 875 South Bundy right

here.



Mr. Heidstra lived on Dorothy.



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, pardon me.  Can you put it up next to those

pictures so that we can all see it?



MR. PETROCELLI:  I don't know if it will stand up here, but we'll try.



THE COURT:  Perhaps you can move the easel over.



MR. PETROCELLI:  That's better.



MR. BAKER:  Could you just put it up the next level; then everybody,

even in the back, can see it.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Ah, fine.



MR. BAKER:  Thank you.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Okay.  Mr. Heidstra lived right here.  He left his

apartment around 10:15 and took this route, walking his dogs.



This is Nicole's condominium; this is Bundy.



This is an alleyway going from Bundy to Dorothy.



About 10:30, 10:35, Mr. Heidstra reached this point with his two dogs,

and he heard a very loud barking.  He immediately recognized the dog

to be Nicole's dog, because he was familiar with Nicole's dog, having

walked by her condominium many times and seen the dog.



The dog was barking in a very agitated way, and Mr. Heidstra was

frightened that his animals might confront Nicole's dog, so he decided

not to walk in front of Nicole's condominium, but to take a detour. 

And he went this way down the alleyway.



So instead of going this way, he cut down this alleyway so he wouldn't

have to go by the dog.



When he got to this point of the alleyway, directly opposite Nicole's

condominium, Mr. Heidstra will testify that he heard a man, young male

voice, yell, "Hey, Hey, Hey."  Then he heard a deeper voice respond. 

Then he heard the other man yell, "Hey, Hey."  And then he heard a

clanging of a gate.



When he heard those sounds, he will testify that it was approximately

10:35 to 10:40 right here.



He then continued his walk across the alleyway until he reached

Dorothy, and he stopped and paused.



There's a big streetlight illuminating Dorothy and Bundy right here.



He looked down the street while his dogs were doing their business,

and he then saw a car pull up to this light, or to this stop sign, I

should say, and make a right turn, and he got a crystal clear view of

that car as it approached and turned right.  That car, he will

testify, was a white utility-type or jeep-like automobile with tinted

windows, like a Ford Bronco.



The time was 10:40 to 10:45.  At the latest, 1045.



We will prove through Mr. Heidstra testimony and other testimony, that

Mr. Hide take heard Ronald Goldman being confronted and attacked by

the defendant.



The time was 10:35 to 10:40, in that range, approximately.



Now, where was Mr. Simpson at that time? That's the next question. 

Here's what we know:



Mr. Simpson had driven alone to his daughter's dance recital earlier

on Sunday, about five o'clock.  He was not invited to dinner with the

Brown family and his children.  And he went home alone after the

recital.  They all went out to dinner at Mezzaluna Restaurant.



Mr. Simpson got to his house on Rockingham about 6:30 or seven

o'clock.  He was home alone that evening, ladies and gentlemen. 

Nobody else was in the house.  His daughter, Arnel, was out for the

evening, and she would not return until about 1:00, 1:30 in the

morning.



Mr. Simpson had a house guest living in a guest room on the side of

the house.  His name was Kato Kaelin.  He was there in the room

passing time at 9:11 p.m., and we know this time exactly because

there's a phone record.  Mr. Kaelin is on the phone long-distance to

San Diego to a friend, when Mr. Simpson comes to his door and knocks

on it. Mr. Kaelin gets off the phone.  We know it's 9:11 p.m. from the

phone record.



Mr. Simpson told Mr. Kaelin that he needed change to go to the

airport, to tip the skycap. He said he was going to the airport and

needed change to tip the skycap.



Mr. Kaelin said all he had was a 20, and he gave it to Mr. Simpson.



Mr. Simpson then said that he was going out to eat, to get a burger.



Mr. Kaelin then asked Mr. Simpson if he could go along, and Mr.

Simpson mumbled, "okay."



They then got in the car.  Mr. Simpson had two automobiles:  He had a

Ford Bronco and he had a Bentley.  He got into the Bentley that was

parked in his driveway, and they drove to McDonald's.



It was sometime after 9:11 p.m.



They got to McDonald's, ordered the food. Mr. Simpson ate his

hamburger in the car very quickly, and drove back.



He got back to the house around 9:30, 9:35 at the very latest.  How do

we know that? Mr. Kaelin was not invited to eat his food with Mr.

Simpson; Mr. Simpson already ate his food in the car.  Mr. Kaelin got

his food and walked around to the back of the house and went into his

room and picked up the phone and made another long-distance phone call

to the same guy in San Diego.  And that call is at 9:37 p.m.  So we

know that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Kaelin are back by then.



So we can estimate it took a couple of minutes to get to the room from

where he got out of the car.  So basically, Mr. Simpson is back at

Rockingham by 9:35 p.m.



Now, at 9:35 p.m. until 10:55 p.m., Mr. Simpson's whereabouts cannot

be corroborated by anybody.



9:35 p.m. to 10:55 p.m., Mr. Kaelin is the last person to see Mr.

Simpson at 9:35. Mr. Simpson was not seen by anybody alive, anybody

who will testify, until 10:55.



One hour and 20 minutes unaccounted for.



It was during this one hour and 20 minutes that the murders occurred.



Now, what happened at 10:55?  Allan Park is a limousine driver who

will come here and he will testify.  He had never driven before for

Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson's regular driver was not available on this

evening to take Mr. Simpson to the airport for a red-eye flight. 

Normally the driver would be there around quarter to 11:00 to get Mr.

Simpson to the airport.



Mr. Simpson had no idea that his normal driver was not going to show

up, and that this new person was going to show up.



Well Mr. Park had never picked up Mr. Simpson before, and he was a bit

nervous, and he wanted to be on time.  He left his home at Torrance at

9:45 p.m. to get to Brentwood -- to Rockingham, 360 North Rockingham,

where Mr. Simpson lives, in plenty of time to get Mr. Simpson to the

airport.



(Counsel displays diagram of Rockingham Avenue.)



MR. PETROCELLI:  Mr. Park comes driving -- this is Mr. Simpson's

property at 360 North Rockingham. You have Ashford Street and you have

Rockingham Avenue.  And there are two driveways to this property. You

have this driveway on Ashford Street, and you have this driveway on

Rockingham.  And there are gates here where you can be buzzed in, and

the gates open and come in.  There's only one intercom, this one at

Ashford Street.



If you want to get into the house and you pull up to the gate on

Ashford, you have to pick up this phone that's right outside the gate,

and you call in and it rings on the telephone inside Mr. Simpson's

house on any number of phones.  And there's even a little light that

lights up saying gate.  So anybody inside knows it's the gate.  They

can then press a button and then the gate opens automatically; the

person comes in, and the gate -- press another button, and the gate

closes.  And that's how people routinely are let into the property.



And Mr. Park was given instructions by his boss, a man named Dale St.

John, to come to the property this way at this certain time, and then

buzz, and he'll be let in.



Again to be early, he drove up Rockingham, and he wasn't quite sure,

you know, which house was Mr. Simpson's, so he stopped and looked when

he got to this area, and he saw on the curb here, the numbers 360. 

Now, that told him that this was Mr. Simpson's house, 360 North

Rockingham.



He stopped and paused, looking out of the driver's side window, and

visibly saw the curb and the numbers.  And he did not see, and he will

so testify, any cars parked there at that time.  He did not see the

Bronco or any other automobile near the numbers or anywhere along this

curb.  No cars were parked.



Now, what time was it when Allan Park drove up?  According to him, it

was 10:20 p.m.



Now, understand something:  Mr. Simpson will testify that he was home

at 10:20 p.m., and he will further testify that his car was right

here, where he claims he parked it earlier in the evening.



But Allan Park will destroy that alibi.



MR. BAKER:  I object.  That's argument.  I object, Your Honor.



THE COURT:  I'm going to ask you to save your argument for --



MR. PETROCELLI:  Okay.



THE COURT:  -- for closing argument.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Allan Park will testify that when he drove up at

10:20, there was no car there.



Furthermore, Park pulls around the corner at Ashford -- it's about

10:25 -- stops the car right here, realizes it's too early to go

inside and call Mr. Simpson, so he smokes a cigarette.  He then gets

ready to pull into that driveway and phone in.  But instead of doing

that, he decides just to be sure, he makes one more pass around to

Rockingham, to make sure this is the right address, and he checks the

curb again.  And it's 10:40 at this point in time, and there's no

Bronco there.  And he sees the address, 360 North Rockingham.



Again, it's 10:40 p.m. or so.  He pulls back around, comes back in,

pulls into the driveway, gets out of the car, and then picks up the

phone and calls in.



Okay.



No one answers the phone.  It rings and it rings, as he will testify,

two, three, four times. Nobody answers the phone.  It's 10:40 p.m.  He

then tried paging his boss, Dale St. John, to find out what -- you

know, what's going on:  What should I do? He didn't get an answer from

his boss; he couldn't get through.



It's now about 10:45 p.m.  Finally, well, what he did here is, he got

back out of the car, as he will testify and he rang the intercom

again: Second time he rang, another two, three, four times it rings. 

No answer.  Then gets back in the car, starts calling some people up. 

Finally gets ahold of this guy, Dale St. John, and he makes a call to

him from the cell phone in the car, so there's a cell phone record

that establishes definitively when Mr. Park got in touch with his

boss.  The time was 10:52.  Okay. 10:52 and 17 seconds.  That call

lasted until 10:55 and 17 seconds.  So we have that time, for sure,

pinned down.



So Park will testify he's in the car, is talking to St. John at 10:52:

 What should I do?  He's not home.



Near the end of that call, he sees a man approach.  He -- you see,

he's in the car.  He has a -- he will testify that he has a clear

view.  These trees do not stick out in the driveway.  And you'll see

it in the photographs:  He has a clear view here. Clear view.  He's

looking straight ahead.  His front bumper is touching up against the

gate.  He's got his parking lights on, his headlights off, and he's

looking straight ahead as he's talking to his boss, and he can see the

front entrance way to Mr. Simpson's house.



All of a sudden, he sees a man approach here, a younger man, a male

with blond hair.  He didn't know who this guy is.  And he indicated to

his boss that he saw somebody.  Continues to talk to his boss.  And

then a moment later, he sees another person who he describes as large,

wearing dark clothing, six feet, 200 pounds, walking in this

direction, kind of at a brisk clip.  Okay.  Sees a guy -- first he

sees this guy, then a moment later, he sees this other person.



He then gets off the phone with his boss, he gets out of the car, and

he rings Mr. Simpson's house again, figuring he's home.  And then Mr.

Simpson picks up for the first time, after he saw the figure heading

towards the front door.



He will also testify that once the figure headed towards the front

door, he saw some lighting on.  He gets out of the car, and a moment

later, somebody answers the phone, and it's Mr. Simpson.  And he

recognized his voice.



So we can tell from Allan Park's records, his phone records, that he

saw this person entering the house at around 10:55 p.m.



Mr. Simpson will admit that that was him entering the house at 10:55

p.m.



So we know Mr. Simpson's whereabouts cannot be tracked, beginning at

10:55, back to 9:35. That's the hour and 20 minutes that he's not

accounted for.



Now, what will Mr. Simpson say about what he was doing during this

time?



You will -- you will hear him say that he was home the entire time.



However, there's a cell phone record that shows a call that he made

from his cell phone at 10:03 p.m. to his friend, Paula Barbieri, tying

to track her down.  We know he called her, but didn't make contact at

10:03 p.m.



Mr. Simpson, the next day when he came back from Chicago, told the

police when he gave a statement, that the very last thing he did

before he went off to Chicago, when the limousine was waiting for him,

was go out to the Bronco to get his cell phone.  So Mr. Simpson

admitted to the police that his cell phone was in the Bronco when he

left for the airport, which was after eleven o'clock.  So we know that

Mr. Simpson had to have been in his Bronco at 10:03 when he made that

call.



Mr. Simpson will say that he was packing and rushing around during

this time frame.  We will show that his trip was for only one day. 

Mr. Simpson will say that he was lying on his bed, reading a book,

starting to nod off.  We will show you that he was taking a red-eye,

where people usually sleep on the flight.



Mr. Simpson will say that he was chipping golf balls.  We will show

you that it was nighttime. No one had seen him chip golf balls at

nighttime.



You will hear him say that he took his dog for a walk around the block

during this one-hour-and-20-minute period.



He can produce no witness who saw him taking that dog for a walk.



You will hear that he was home, up in his room, but he did not answer

two separate calls Alan Park, starting at 10:40, and then again at

10:45.



Mr. Park said when Mr. Simpson picked up the phone, Mr. Simpson said

he had overslept, but he was taking a red-eye.



You will hear Mr. Simpson say a lot of other things about where he was

during that time.  And we will have a lot more to say when we

cross-examine him.  But the important thing to remember is this: About

this one hour and 20 minutes, there isn't anybody who can account for

his whereabouts.  Nobody.



Now, there's one other thing I'd like to mention before I move on to

the next subject.



Mr. Kaelin was seen, as I told you, walking out of his room, onto the

property, was seen by Mr. Park around 10:45 p.m.  The man with the

blond hair that Mr. Park saw and did not recognize was Kato Kaelin.



Now, why was Kaelin out there at 10:54 p.m., walking around about

three or four minutes earlier?  Around 10:50, Mr. Kaelin heard loud

noises against the wall of his room.  He was lying against the wall on

his bed, talking on the telephone, and he heard some loud noises.  And

it shook the wall, and it even moved the picture; that's what he will

testify. He thought there was an earthquake.



He asked the person on the phone, was there an earthquake, talking to

a woman named Rachel Ferrara who lived locally.  And she said she

didn't feel an earthquake.



He was a little frightened.  He got off the phone; he got a light, a

little, small penlight, and he walked outside to go investigate where

those sounds came from and what had happened.



And I'll have to show you when we get another chart during the course

of his testimony, but he walked out of his room, which is back here,

came down this way, walks across here, and then went down to the side

of the garage to this point here, where he heard the noise.



You will hear Mr. Kaelin's testimony about going back to that side of

the house and what he saw.



What you will not hear, however, from the defense in this case will be

one shred of evidence either from Mr. Simpson or from any other

witness --



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, I'm going to object. That's argument that you

will not hear from us.



MR. PETROCELLI:  There will be no evidence in this case presented by

the defense as to what caused that noise that Kato Kaelin heard.



We will prove that was caused by Mr. Simpson returning to his property

by going on the side of the house, to avoid being detected by Alan

Park, who is waiting out on the street.



But you won't hear any other evidence as to what caused those noises.



THE COURT:  We'll take a ten-minute recess.



Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions, ladies

and gentlemen.





(Recess.)



(Jurors resume their respective seats.)





THE COURT:  You may resume.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Thank you, Your Honor.  What I'd like to do now,

ladies and gentlemen, is review for you the physical evidence found

when the murders were investigated and then I would like to show you

how we will prove that it links the defendant, Mr. Simpson, to the

murders.



Evidence was found, virtually all the evidence was found in three

locations.  Nicole's condominium, 875 South Bundy, Mr. Simpson's

Bronco, and Mr. Simpson's home, 360 north Rockingham.



Let me start with the physical evidence at Bundy.  I'm not going to

show you photographs now. I'm going to let the witnesses show you

photographs.



The bodies of the victims, of course, were found at 875 south Bundy. 

There's a walkway up to the steps and Nicole's body was found at the

bottom of the first step in the pool of blood.



She was still wearing the black dress she had worn for her recital. 

She was bear foot.  She had a watch on and she had rings on her

fingers.



Ron was found slumped against a tree a few feet from Nicole's body in

a small caged-in area. And I say caged, you'll see photos of it, it's

caged because there's a fence that goes around this little dirt area

and there's a big street in the middle which sort of bisects this

area.  And Mr. Goldman's body was found against the tree and it's a

very small area. And it's next to the stairs where Nicole's body was

found.



Ron had a pager and the pager was found lying on the ground next to

him.  Ron's keys to the car were found lying on the ground next to

him.



The envelope with Judy Brown's glasses was found lying on the ground

next to him, obviously indicating that Ron had never got past the

stairs with the envelope.



In between Ron and Nicole's body, -- bodies, there was a single

leather glove on the ground.  There was also a knit cap, a dark knit

cap, starting from where Nicole's body was and leading to the back of

the condominiums, a long walkway that goes to the back where there's a

gate.



There with shoe prints walking towards the back in blood, bloody shoe

prints.  There were also some shoe prints in between Nicole's body and

Ron's body.  All of these shoe prints are all of the same size, size

12.



Next to the shoe prints going towards the back of the condominium were

drops of blood.  To the left of the shoe prints, as though somebody

had cut themselves from the left hand or the left fingers, droplets of

blood, four or five.



At the end of the walkway, there's a gate that goes out to the back of

the house, then there were three blood stains found on this gate.



Later examination of some of this evidence showed that Ron's shirt had

some fibers on it and had some hair on it.  The knit cap was found to

have some hair on it.  There were also fibers found in the knit cap.



That's kind of the general picture of what we saw at Bundy.



By the way, while we're at Bundy, the door to Nicole's home, you go up

the steps, you walk a little past and there's a door, front door to

her condo.  The door was open.  The lights were on inside. There were

candles.  There was a bathroom upstairs that she used near her

bedroom.  It had water in it and her children were sleeping in the

bed.



None of Nicole's jewelry that she had on was taken.  None of Ron's

possessions was taken. Nothing inside the house was disturbed or

removed. The house was not ransacked.  The children were left unharmed

in their bed.  Expensive automobiles in the garage, one being a

Ferrari, they were not taken. Everything was left intact.  Obviously

indicating that there was no robbery here.  No breaking and entry, no

burglary, no evidence of that will be presented in this case.



Nor will there be any evidence presented that this was -- there was

any sexual assault upon Nicole.  Her clothes were not torn, nothing

was ripped.  There will be no evidence of that.



We will prove from these facts that Nicole was the target of these

murders.  These murders did not occur in a convenience store or an ATM

machine.  They occurred at her home.  We will prove that Ron Goldman

-- nobody knew Ron Goldman was going to be at Nicole's home except Ron

Goldman.  Nicole and Karen Crawford at Mezzaluna, when Ron left at

9:50, he told Karen he was going to drop these glasses off and he got

them from Karen.



And then a half hour later or so, he's at Nicole's condo and he's

killed.  Nobody -- there's no evidence that will be presented that

anybody knew Ron Goldman was going to Nicole's condominium.  He went

there at the last minute unexpectedly.



Now, the physical evidence in the Bronco, let me talk about that.  The

Bronco was found parked on -- on Rockingham when the police arrived in

the wee hours of the morning.



It was locked and it was parked right near this curb where it said 360

and you'll see photos of that.  Right where Alan Park drove by and did

not see a Bronco.



It had blood, little stain of blood on the outside of the door near

the door handle, driver side door and it also had some stains of blood

down at the bottom of the door.  And officers will testify, detectives

will testify, detective Lange, Detective Phillips, Detective

Vannatter, Detective Gonzalez and others that they could see inside

the Bronco through the windows and saw blood inside as well.



When the Bronco was towed the next day to the LA print shed and then

opened the following day, it had to be opened with a slim jim.  Blood

was found in various places inside on the steering wheel, on the

instrument panel, on the seats, on the center console, and on the

driver side door panel, in the area where there's a little well, where

you open up the door to get out.  The handle is as though one  a

left hand or left finger was bleeding when they tried to open up the

handle to get out, right in that area, there was blood found.  There

was also blood found on the carpet of the driver side in the shape of

a shoe print.



Now, at Rockingham itself, 360 north Rockingham, there is evidence

found both outside the house and inside the house.



Outside the house, there were blood drops outside the Bronco on the

ground and there were blood drops then up the driveway.  There were

blood drops found inside the foyer of Mr. Simpson's house. When you

open up the front door, there's low a foyer there were blood drops

found on that floor.



There were blood drops found in Mr. Simpson's bathroom on the floor. 

There were socks found, a pair of dark socks on a rug next to Mr.

Simpson's bed in his bedroom.  Later examination of these socks showed

there were blood stains, discoloration not easily visible to the naked

eye.



Outside the house, on the side of the house were Kato Kaelin heard the

notices, there was a leather glove found for the right hand.  The

leather glove found at Bundy was for the left hand.  This leather

glove matched the glove at Bundy, one was right, one was left, both

brown leather gloves.



When this glove was examined, it was loaded with evidence.  It had

blood stains on it.  It had strands of hair and it had fiber on it.



Now, let me explain to you how this evidence that I just described

briefly to you ties into Mr. Simpson, how it identifies him.



First of all, I'd like to talk for a bit about the wound to the

victims, and this is obviously a difficult area to discuss and you

will be seeing some photographs, pictures during the course of the

trial.



Both victims died of knife wounds.  We will call to the witness stand,

one of the nation's most renowned pathologist.  His name is Dr. Werner

Spitz who we hired to independently examine the photographs, autopsy

reports and make some conclusions about the autopsies done on Ron and

Nicole in the nature of the wounds.  I should say, the person who

performed the autopsy, Dr. Irwin Golden, is on the witness list for

this case.  He is also available to testify if needed.



Now, a quick word of Dr. Spitz, he is one of the -- you will here he

is one of the most renowned pathologists, the author of numerous

authoritative works.  He served on various committees, including

committees investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Martin

Luther King, Junior.



Now, Dr. Spitz, after reviewing the materials, he will testify when

he's called that Nicole had some superficial defensive type wound,

very superficial, not very many.  She had stab wounds to the neck, and

she had a gapping slash across her throat.  This last wound was so

deep in such -- and such a devastating cut that it almost, the blade

almost hit her spinal cord.  It was this last wound that caused her

death, caused her to bleed out massively and she died moments later.



Ronald Goldman, all of his wound were also knife wounds.  He had one

wound that bled out onto his pants, a wound to his leg.  He had a

wound to the neck that severed a vein.  He had two wounds to his chest

below his armpits, and he had a deep wound in the abdominal area. 

Those are the basic wounds that he had.



Dr. Spitz will testify that all of the wounds to Ron and Nicole were

consistent with one knife.  And one assailant.



The blood testing done in this case also shows that there is a drop of

blood on Ron Goldman's boot, on the bottom of the boot which later

testing revealed to be a mixture of Ron's blood and Nicole's blood. 

And this blood drop will show that one knife was used on both victims,

hence transferring one blood to the other.



As you will see from the photos of the crime scene, Nicole was kill at

one area at the bottom of the stairs and Ron was killed at a separate

area next to the stairs.  And there are some bloody foot prints

between Ron's body and Nicole's body and we will offer this evidence

to prove Ron and Nicole were killed in sequence, meaning take they

were not confronted and killed together at the same time.



In addition, the evidence will show that there is only one set of foot

prints throughout the whole crime scene, all size 12.  There will be

no evidence presented that anybody else that evening left any foot

prints.  And there will be no evidence presented that anybody else was

involved that night in these murders.



The evidence that we will present will show that both Ron and Nicole

struggled very briefly before they were killed.  There was no blood on

Nicole's feet.  She was found laying down in a pool of blood and there

was no blood on her feet.  None of her blood on her feet, meaning that

she was already down when she was cut across the neck and she bled

out.



When she was cut on the neck, Dr. Spitz will testify that she lived no

longer than about 15 seconds or so from that point.



Dr. Spitz will explain that Ron Goldman did try to fight valiantly,

but he too was killed quickly.  He was pinned in this small caged

area, taken by surprise and he did not have room to maneuver, to

defend himself let alone fight back.



His area is very small.  And if you try to throw a punch or get your

arms up, there's not much you could do except ward off the knife blows

that were being delivered one after the other and that is why we see

cuts on Ron's hands.



One of the early wounds to Ron, as Dr. Spitz will testify, severed the

aorta in the abdominal area, the abdominal cavity.  This caused an

instant loss of blood pressure, and an immense internal bleeding to

the surrounding tissue.  After this wound, Ron was rendered totally

defenseless.



And Dr. Spitz will testify that he could have struggled about 60

seconds before collapsing to his death.  It was during this struggle

with Ron most likely when the glove came off and the hat came off.



Also, Mr. Simpson sustained injuries to his left hand in the nature of

cuts and gouges.  Dr. Spitz has examined photographs of these injuries

and he will testify that these are very likely, gouges caused by the

finger nails of either Ron or Nicole digging into Mr. Simpson's hand

in order to try to get free.



The evidence will also show that, as I said before, Nicole bled

outward after she was already down on the ground incapacitated, and

Ron bled largely internally.  Therefore, the evidence does not suggest

that Mr. Simpson would have been drenched with blood nor does it

suggest that he would have bruises and marks all over his body.



Now, let me tie in something that we talked about earlier.  We were

talking about the time. Okay.  And Mr. Heidstra will testify that he

heard a voice of a man say hey, hey, hey around 10:35 or so.



Now, we will show that the struggle with Mr. Goldman was brief.  The

struggle with Nicole was even briefer.  That in a matter of minutes,

both were killed.  Mr. Heidstra heard hey, hey, hey around 10:35 or

so.  Couple of minutes later, the killings were done at the latest and

Mr. Simpson would have had plenty of time to leave the crime scene,

get into his car, get back to Rockingham in time to have made the

sounds that Kato Kaelin heard at 10:50 p.m. and to have been seen by

Alan Parks at 10:55 p.m.



The evidence will show that the person who did this left this crime

scene in an extreme hurry.  They left behind all kinds of

incriminating evidence.  Blood drops, bloody shoe prints, a single

glove, a hat.  This was a person in a big hurry.



Now, the defense on this point, I'll just stick with it a few minutes

longer, will try to convince you --.



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, this isn't argument what we're trying to

convince --



THE COURT:  Sustained.



MR. PETROCELLI:  The defense will present evidence.



MR. BAKER:  I object.  This is opening as to what he's going to

present.



THE COURT:  That is correct.  You cannot presuppose what evidence they

will present.



MR. PETROCELLI:  They have a .



THE COURT:  They may and or they may not offer the evidence.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Very well, Your Honor.



THE COURT:  It's a contention -- that was in a contention.  You may

argue it.



MR. PETROCELLI:  It is.



THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may argue it. Overruled.



MR. PETROCELLI:  The defense position, one of the defense says that

Mr. Simpson did not have enough time to commit the murders.  And the

basis for the defense's position is that the struggle with Ron and

Nicole lasted too long.



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is argument.  I want

to be heard on this.



THE COURT:  You may make up your contentions.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Is the reporter .



THE COURT:  The reporter.



(The following proceedings were held at bench:)



MR. PETROCELLI:  One of their critical positions in this case is that

there was a long struggle.



THE COURT:  My question to you was:  Was there a contention

interrogatory that was responded to, to that effect?



MR. BAKER:  Absolutely.



MR. PETROCELLI:  I don't have it.  Mr. Baker won't disavow that that's

not his position.  He's just trying to say that he can't discuss it,

even though it's a contention.



MR. BAKER:  Don't say what my --



THE COURT:  Go ahead.



MR. BAKER:  It's my position, in opening statements, they can show

what their evidence is going to present.  They cannot argue that the

evidence or contention that we say is our case is ineffectual. That's

not opening statement.  Opening statement is what their case is, what

their evidence is going to prove, what they have a burden of proving. 

It is not to rebut what our position may or may not be at the time of

trial.



And for him to do that, it then becomes argument.  And he's got to, in

my opinion, save that for the conclusion of his case.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Your Honor, a good part of my opening is going to be

devoted to addressing the defense contentions.  One is that there's a

long struggle and the time was insufficient to that there was a

conspiracy.



THE COURT:  Mr. Petrocelli, you may, in your opening statement, state

it in a form that if it is a -- if it is going to be a contention that

there was insufficient time or defense will show thus and thus and so

on, but I think it would be improper to presuppose that Mr. Baker is

going to offer any particular evidence on any particular subject

raised by his contentions.  You may raise it as a hypothetical in

affect and you may state the evidence that you are going to offer that

a contention is made as to this.  Or any contentions made to that. 

You cannot say that he is going to actually raise that as a

contention.



MR. PETROCELLI:  In this case, they're going to put on an expert that

will say that the struggle took 15 minutes.



THE COURT:  Mr. Baker may decide not to call this man at all.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Then I'd like to be able to say that if the defense

offers evidence that the struggle was wrong, then I would like to go

on.



MR. BAKER:  With great respect, I think he has to.  He can say that

the evidence will show it doesn't take 10 to 15 minutes, but he can't

start presupposing what I'm going to put on.  He can say all he wants

about why it took a minute or anything like that.



THE COURT:  Mr. Petrocelli, I'm a sympathetic person to the defense

position.  You're trying to shape his argument and shape his

presentation of his case and I don't think that's appropriate.



MR. PETROCELLI:  We're going to get into this on the planning and

conspiracies.  I intend to show that there's no evidence at all to

support any of those issues, Your Honor.  I mean, that's what he's

been talking to the jury about for 30 days.



THE COURT:  This is opening statement.  You're going to be setting

forth what your evidence is going to be.



MR. PETROCELLI:  I would also like to point out that there will be no

evidence presented with respect to other.



THE COURT:  You don't know that.



MR. PETROCELLI:  I do know that from the interrogatory answer that

there will be no evidence presented, for example, there were two

gloves at Bundy.  There will be no evidence presented.



THE COURT:  You may state that.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Those are the kind of things.



THE COURT:  But you cannot state Mr. Baker's defense.



MR. PETROCELLI:  I'll try to.



MR. BREWER:  If we say defense may contend the following then we can

address that in opening statements.



THE COURT:  No, I think Mr. Baker's right.  I think you cannot state

what his defense is going to be.



MR. BREWER:  If it's raised in a hypothetical form.



THE COURT:  No, I don't think so because --



MR. BREWER:  I THOPBLG> thought you said if he raised it in a

hypothetical form.



THE COURT:  I think Mr. Baker convinced me otherwise.



MR. PETROCELLI:  That's the big part of the case, that the struggle

was 10, 20 minutes.  Can I introduce that was their position that

there was struggle, lasted long enough to say that Simpson couldn't be

the person and I want to demonstrate why the evidence is such and so

you have to understand the context in which I'm talking about this? 

They don't understand the context if I can't say it was fighting

around and at 10:35 that there was a 20 minutes fight. There's no way

it could be.



THE COURT:  You can save it for your closing argument.  You wanted to

--  want to explain to the jury what evidence you are going to offer,

you may. And you can state it for the purpose of showing that the

struggle lasted only such and such a minute.  But your front loading

this and I don't think that's appropriate because we haven't heard any

evidence yet.



MR. PETROCELLI:  We do have his specific contentions in this regard.



THE COURT:  I understand that.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Including the timing which I don't have with me but I

can show you after lunch.



MR. BAKER:  That' not the issue.



MR. PETROCELLI:  I'll move forward on this point for now.



THE COURT:  Okay.  Thanks.



(The following proceedings were resumed in open Court in the presence

of the jury.)



MR. PETROCELLI:  Just to conclude this point, then I'm going to move

on to a different topic.



The evidence that we will present through the physical evidence at the

crime scene through the testimony regarding the wound delivered to the

victims, through the testimony of Dr. Spitz is that Ron and Nicole

struggled briefly and died quickly and that there was more than ample

time for Mr. Simpson to leave there 10:35, 10:40 and even as late as

10:45 to get back to Rockingham by 10:50.



Now, with respect to the specific evidence that was found at Bundy,

starting with the hair evidence, we will call to the stand a man named

Douglas Deedrick who's an agent with the FBI and he works in the

laboratory that deals with hair and fiber's.  He examined the hair and

fiber evidence that was found in this case.



Starting with the hat, the knit cap found at Bundy, Mr. Deedrick will

testify.  What Mr.` Deedrick did is he examined that hat, the hair,

the hair found in that hat and he examined some samples of Mr.

Simpson's hair provided by Mr. Simpson and he compared them.



And Mr. Deedrick will testify that there was in effect, a match

between the two.  That they shared the same microscopic

characteristics, that is Mr. Simpson's hair and the hair found in the

hat at Bundy.



Mr. Deedrick will also testify, and by the way, Mr. -- We'll present

evidence showing that Mr. Simpson has knit caps and had knit caps at

that time just like the one found at Bundy.



Mr. Deedrick will also testify that hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt

matched Mr. Simpson's hair.  He will testify that hairs found on the

Rockingham glove, the glove found behind the side of Mr. Simpson's

house, matched Nicole's hair and other hair on it matched Ron

Goldman's hair.



Mr. Deedrick will testify that he found certain rose beige fibers on

the knit cap at Bundy, particular rare type of carpet fiber that he

will say is found in very few Bronco automobiles.  And he will testify

that after comparing the fibers, the carpet fibers found in the hat to

the carpet fibers in Mr. Simpson's car, that they matched.  They

shared the same microscopic characterization.



He also examined the fibers, carpet fibers found on the Rockingham

glove and he said those carpet fibers are the same fibers as found in

Mr. Simpson's car.



He also found a different kind of fiber, a blue black cotton fiber in

several different places and it was the same blue black cotton fiber

found in these places:  1, Ron Goldman's shirt; 2, the glove found at

Rockingham; and 3, the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom.  That again,

Mr. Deedrick will testify all these fibers matched indicating that

they all came from a common source.



On the gloves, one glove was found at Bundy, one glove was found at

Rockingham.  Both gloves Aris leather like, extra large, color brown. 

We will present evidence in this case that Nicole Brown Simpson on

December 18, 1990, purchased two pairs of Aris leather light gloves,

extra large, color brown and color black.  She purchased them at

Bloomingdale's in New York city close to where she and Mr. Simpson had

an apartment.



Only Bloomingdale's, by the way, sold these gloves in the United

States and only two hundred pairs were sold in 1990 to 1991 when

Nicole bought them in Mr. Simpson's extra large size.



After December 18, 1990 when Nicole bought these gloves, we have

pictures that we will present showing Mr. Simpson wearing both pairs

of gloves.  We have six photographs, somebody wearing the black

gloves, somebody wearing the brown gloves.  By the way, these gloves,

stylewise, are made to be skin tight, so that you have dexterity when

you're using them.  They're not big ski gloves.  They're very

tight-fitting gloves.  You will hear testimony from the woman who was

in charge of these gloves, of selling these gloves at Bloomingdale's.



Now, we have asked Mr. Simpson to produce the gloves that he was seen

wearing in the photographs and he will not be able to present, in

court, those gloves.  Neither pair of them.



We will prove that the gloves that he was wearing in those photographs

and that Nicole bought on December 18, 1990, the brown pair, were the

ones he used when he killed Ron and Nicole leaving one at Bundy and

one at Rockingham.



Let me turn to the show prints.  We will call to the stand, FBI agent

William Bodziak who is one of the country's most foremost experts in

shoe print impressions.  And he will testify after reviewing all of

the evidence, the photographs and so forth, crime scene pictures,

taking measurements and doing lots of investigative work around the

world that these shoe prints that were left at Bundy were all the same

size, size 12.  That there were no other shoe prints left behind that

night.  He will explain that only nine percent of the population wears

size 12. Mr. Simpson wears size 12.



He was able to take an impression of the bloody shoe print and track

down the precise type of sole that made that bloody shoe print and

it's a Silga sole made in Italy that is used on a shoe called a Bruno

Magli or Bruno Magli as some people say, shoe. It's an expensive

casual shoe.  It costs $160, sold in only 40 stores in the United

States in 1991 and 1992.



It's a casual shoe, sort of leather type shoe.  It's dark in color,

particular style here is called the Lorenzo style and it has this

Silga sole which has like a waffle-type pattern to it.  That is the

sole that William Bodziak will say made that shoe print, and that sole

is only used on a Bruno Magli shoe.  So we know and can prove that

that shoe that left a shoe print was a Bruno Magli shoe, size 12,

Lorenzo style, dark in color.



At Mr. Simpson's deposition we asked him whether he wore those type of

shoes and his testimony is as follows on this and we will present it

to you at page 1305.  Question was about whether he wore Bruno Magli

shoes, the kind that left the bloody shoe prints.



"Q.     Did you ever buy shoes that you knew wore Bruno Magli shoes.



"A.     No.



"Q.     How do you know that?



"A.     Because I know Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the

shoes they had in court that's involved in this case I would have

never owned those ugly-ass shoe.



"Q.     You thought those were ugly-ass shoes.



"A.     Yes.



That deposition was taken back in February, 1996.  A month or so later

after that deposition, a photograph appeared in the National Enquirer

taken by a photographer named Harry Scull, Jr., whose testimony you

will hear.



He's a sports photographer in Buffalo where Mr. Simpson used to play

football and go back and broadcast football games.  He worked for the

Associated Press in 1993 and on September 26, 1993 there was a game

between the Buffalo Bills, the Miami Dolphins in Rich Stadium, New

York Buffalo's stadium and Mr. Scull working for the AP took

photographs of lots of players including some shots of Mr. Simpson

broadcasting on the sidelines interviewing athletes.



In the past Mr. Scull had taken many, many pictures of Mr. Simpson. 

This was not the first time.



If the Associated Press didn't use the photographs as Mr. Scull will

testify, he would try to then sell them.  That's how he earns his

living.



In September of 1993, one of the pictures that he took is a picture

that shows Mr. Simpson in the end zone wearing a jacket, tie, shirt,

belt, pants, shoes that are clearly visible including the bottom of

the shoe, the sole.



We've had those shoes that picture shown to an expert by the way, an

expert who used to head the photographic and questioned documents unit

at the FBI for 25 years, a guy named Gerry Richards.  He will testify

that the photograph is authenticated looked at the negative and no

question about the photograph.



We've also had the shoes shown in that photograph that Mr. Simpson is

wearing given to an expert Mr. Bodziak the shoe print expert and we've

asked him to identify the shoe based on his training and knowledge and

he can positively identify that the shoe Mr. Simpson is wearing in

that photograph is a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style size 12 that has the

Silga sole to it.  That is the shoe that left the bloody shoe prints

on Bundy on June 12.



Once again we've asked Mr. Simpson to produce the shoes that he has

been shown wearing in that photograph taken in September, 1993, just

eight months or so before Nicole's death.



He cannot produce them.  We've asked him where are the shoes and where

are the gloves that are seen in those photographs and his answers and

we will present them to you here in court in testimony, "I gave them

away."



Asked him who he gave them to his answer, he can't identify who he

gave them to.



Your Honor, this is a good time.



THE COURT:  All right.  Ladies and gentlemen we'll adjourn to 1:30

don't talk about the case among yourselves or with anyone else and

don't form or express any opinion.





(At 11:58 A.M. an adjournment was taken until

1:35 P.M. of the same day.)





SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1996

1:35



DEPARTMENT NO. WEE

HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)





(Jurors resume their respective seats.)



THE COURT:  Okay, you may resume.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Thank you.  When we last left off before the noon

hour, I was explaining to you the physical evidence that was found and

how it tied in to Mr. Simpson.



I'd like to resume.



Kato Kaelin will testify that on the evening of June the 12th, when he

saw Mr. Simpson and went to McDonald's, Mr. Simpson was wearing a dark

sweat suit with a white zipper to it.



Bear in mind also that the testimony of the hair and fiber expert,

Douglas Deedrick, is that he found blue-black cotton fibers on various

items.



At his deposition, Mr. Simpson testified that he didn't recall owning

any dark sweat suit.  We've asked him to produce the dark sweat suit

for us, and he has not been able to produce any dark sweat suit, even

though you will hear the testimony of Kato Kaelin that he was wearing

a dark sweat suit on the evening of June 12.



Now, the physical evidence that I've described so far at Bundy will

indicate that the killer had cuts or gouges on his left hand,

evidenced by the blood drops that fell to the left of the bloody shoe

print.



Also, we know the left glove came off, because it was dropped there,

and that's probably how the left hand got injured.



Now, Mr. -- One other thing is, the Bronco had blood drops in the

door, where you open up the door, on the driver's side interior panel,

as I explained before.



Where you would open up the door there was some blood drops in that

little well there, also suggesting blood on the left fingers.



So the evidence will show that the killer had blood coming from his

left fingers or hand.



When Mr. Simpson returned from Chicago on June 13, he had cuts on his

left finger, two of his fingers.  He went to the police that day and

gave a statement, and one of those cuts was very noticeable and was

photographed.  And we have a picture of it, which we will show you.



His friend who was at the police station with him and with him during

that entire day will testify -- his name is Leroy Taft -- that he saw

at least two cuts on Mr. Simpson's fingers, the middle finger and the

fourth finger, on June 13.  So we have Mr. Simpson coming back from

Chicago with cuts on his left hand, left fingers.



In his deposition in this case, we asked Mr. Simpson about his cuts on

his left hand, and he was unable to explain exactly how he got them. 

His testimony in his deposition was that he cut himself in Chicago in

his hotel room.  After he claims to have heard the news of Nicole's

death, he went into the bathroom and somehow cut himself on a glass, a

drinking glass, but does not remember exactly how he did it, and

cannot tell us how he cut himself in the bathroom in that Chicago

hotel room.



However, long before he gave his deposition in this case, on June 13,

when he went to speak to the police at Parker Center, he told the

police in a statement that he cut himself before going to Chicago. 

And we will present that testimony or those statements to you.



So, we have his statement on June 13 admitting that he cut himself

before he went to Chicago.  Now we have his testimony in this case

saying he cut him himself in the hotel room.



Now, probably the most important evidence that we will present in this

trial that identifies Mr. Simpson as the person who killed Ron and

Nicole is the blood evidence, although there's lots of other evidence,

as well, as you've heard me discuss.



The blood evidence was tested mainly through DNA tests, highly

reliable, scientific DNA tests.  I'm going to talk to you a little bit

about DNA.  First, before I do so, I want to describe what the blood

tests showed.



Starting with Bundy, again, Nicole's condominium, the blood drops to

the left of the shoe print were tested, and they matched Mr. Simpson's

blood.  The blood found on the back gate of Nicole's condominium was

tested.  They matched Mr. Simpson's blood.



At Rockingham, the blood on the driveway was tested.  That matched Mr.

Simpson's blood.



The blood in his foyer was tested; that matched his blood.  The blood

in the bathroom was tested; that matched his blood.



There were three different kinds of blood stains on the glove found at

Rockingham.  One stain matched Mr. Simpson's blood.  Another stain

matched Nicole's blood, and another stain matched Ron Goldman's blood.



The socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom were tested.  Two different

kinds of stains were found on the socks:  One matched Mr. Simpson's

blood; one matched Nicole's blood.



The blood in the Bronco was tested.  The blood on the door panel that

I've been telling you about, where you open up the door, that matched

Mr. Simpson's blood.



There was blood found on the console that matched Mr. Simpson's blood,

the  center console between the passenger and driver's seat.



There was blood found on the panel and on the console that also

matched Nicole's blood, and there was blood found there that matched

Ron's blood.



So you have in these three places, where most of the evidence was

found -- Bundy, Rockingham, in the Bronco -- only three types of

blood:  Ronald Goldman's, Nicole Brown Simpson's, and O.J. Simpson's.



One other thing I'll mention about the Bronco:  There was a carpet on

the driver's side that had blood stains on it.  The blood was tested

and found to be Nicole's blood.  The blood was located in an area on

the carpet where one would step into the Bronco with your foot, if

you're trying to enter into the car.



And there were marks in Nicole's blood in the Bronco consistent with a

shoe print.  And FBI agent William Bodziak will say while there's not

enough marks to make an absolute identification, that the marks that

he does see on the carpet in Nicole's blood are consistent with the

unique Bruno Magli sole that made the shoe print at the Bundy crime

scene.



Furthermore, Mr. Bodziak will explain that, because of the thickness

of the carpet in the Bronco, if a person had blood on his shoes and he

was walking on concrete, and the blood started to wear off and not

leave anymore bloody shoe prints, once you step onto the rug, the

carpet, because of the thickness of it, the blood will squeeze out of

the sole and thereby leave an imprint.



And that's what we will show you.



Now, let me talk to you a little bit about the blood tests that I've

just described which produced results matching the defendant's blood,

as well as the victim's blood.



Most of these tests were DNA tests.  Just a little background about

DNA that you will hear from our experts.



DNA is the genetic blueprint of life.  It is the nucleus of every cell

in the human body; it's what makes us unique.  No two persons except

identical twins have the same DNA profile.



Each of us has our own unique DNA.



When we say DNA acts as the blueprint of life, this is what we mean: 

It is the DNA in our cells that causes us to have common

characteristics of human beings, such as arms, legs, hearts and

livers, et cetera.  And it is also the DNA which causes us to have the

characteristics that make us different from everyone else:  Brown

eyes, blue eyes, short, tall, right-handed, left-handed, et cetera.



Each person gets half of his or her DNA from his mother and the other

from his or her father.



DNA can be found throughout a person's body.  Blood, sperm, hair,

saliva, bone, teeth, organ muscles, and other tissues all contain DNA

that can be tested by scientists.  And particularly important in

forensic use that is using DNA to solve crimes is body fluids, such as

saliva and blood, that can be tested for the presence of DNA.



DNA obviously is not just used in forensic applications; it's used in

a great variety of areas, including diagnosis of disease, development

of new medicines, typing of tissues for organs and bone-marrow

transplants, and the study and breeding of endangered species,

increasing agricultural production, and others.



For example, it was because of DNA research that the scientific

community was able to determine that the disease known as sickle cell

anemia was caused by a genetic defect.  So it's a very powerful,

powerful piece of science.



Now, in terms of the forensic use of DNA, scientists are using it to

solve crimes.  DNA has been used to determine that people accused of

crimes could not have been the killer, are excluded as the killer,

because there is no DNA match.  Sometimes people who have been wrongly

convicted and sentenced to jail can be released years later because of

DNA tests that are done.



And, of course, it works the other way, as well.  DNA can be an

important indicator that a person is likely to be the person who

committed the crime.



Now, the DNA tests in this case, right from the beginning, there are

going to -- they're going to be very important, because there was a

lot of blood evidence.  There was blood in the Bronco; there was blood

at Rockingham; and there was blood at Bundy.



Therefore, a decision was made to have DNA tests performed on the

blood found, not just at the Los Angeles Police Department's lab, but

also the State of California's Laboratory, Justice Department in

Sacramento, and one of the largest privately owned forensic

laboratories in the country, Cellmark Laboratories in Maryland.  So

all three labs were used to do the blood tests in this case, to make

sure that there were no problems.



Most of the time a piece of blood was tested, it was tested by at

least two and sometimes three of the labs to see if the results would

all be the same.



There are two different kinds of DNA tests that you will be hearing

about.  One test is called the RFLP test.  It's a very, very powerful

DNA test that has the ability to establish a DNA profile to a very

high degree of uniqueness.



The other test is called the PCR test, and it is a test that's

especially developed when you have a smaller quantity of blood.  Blood

comes in various sizes and stains.  Sometimes there's more DNA in the

blood that can be extracted, and sometimes there's less DNA.  When

there's a little bit of DNA, the PCR test is typically used.  When

there's more DNA, the RFLP test is used.



The blood in this case that was tested was subjected to both forms of

tests, the RFLP test and the PCR test.  You will be hearing from our

experts who did this and the other technicians what the results are,

but let me summarize them for you.



On the five Bundy blood drops that were along the walkway, all three

labs tested those blood drops and came up with the same results, all

three laboratories.  The DNA profile of those Bundy blood drops

matched Mr. Simpson's.



On one of the blood drops, blood drop 52, which was outside past the

back gate, they were able to do an RFLP test because there was enough

DNA. And the results of that showed that only one out of 170 million

people could have had that DNA profile. And that profile, of course,

matched Mr. Simpson's.



The blood found on the back gate was subject to DNA tests, both  RFLP

and PCR tests.  Once again, it was determined that those blood drops

had DNA profiles that matched Mr. Simpson's.



One of those drops, number 117-- there's three drops on the back gate

-- had enough DNA to allow scientists to do the RFLP test.  That test

established that the DNA profile in that blood drop matched that of

Mr. Simpson, and was of such a high degree of a match, that only one

out of every 57 billion people could have that same DNA profile.



Of course, there's only about 6 billion people in that neighborhood on

the face of the earth.



Now, going to Rockingham, the trail of blood that was found leading up

the driveway into Mr. Simpson's house, blood drops there were

subjected to both the PCR and the RFLP blood drops, again, by the

different laboratories.



All the labs agreed results were the same:  All the results showed DNA

profile that matched Mr. Simpson's.



The glove that was found at Rockingham was tested at the California

Department of Justice Laboratory.  The tests there on the glove found

some of the blood contained a DNA profile that matched Mr. Simpson's;

some of the blood contained a DNA profile that matched Ron Goldman's;

and some contained the DNA profile that matched Nicole Brown

Simpson's.



The socks were tested.  DNA profile matched Mr. Simpson; another stain

matched Nicole.



And finally, in the Bronco, again, DNA test results established that

the blood on the driver's-side door matched Mr. Simpson's DNA; the

other stains matched Mr. Simpson, Ron Goldman, and Nicole Brown

Simpson.



Now, the only witnesses who will be testifying in this case about

doing DNA tests of the blood in this case are witnesses that we will

be presenting.



You will hear no testimony from any witness by the defense who did a

DNA test.  If they did, they're not going to testify about it.



The only witnesses who will testify about the DNA tests are the

witnesses that we will call.



There will be no evidence contradicting any of the findings of these

DNA tests.



Let me now turn to a different subject altogether.  In addition to the

blood evidence, in addition to the physical evidence that points

directly to Mr. Simpson, we are going to put on other evidence to show

his responsibility for the murders on June 12. Among this evidence

will be evidence describing Mr. Simpson's activities and his behavior

after the murders.



And we will prove by this evidence that he did not act and behave like

an innocent man; that his behavior and his actions indicated a

consciousness of guilt.



MR. BAKER:  Your Honor, I'm going to object to this based upon the

Court's ruling.



THE COURT:  Overruled.



MR. PETROCELLI:  There are a couple of -- I'm not going to go through

all the evidence here; time doesn't permit it.  And you will be

hearing it in the course of the trial.  I'd like to highlight a few

things that we will present to you.



First of all, when Mr. Simpson packed that limousine, with Alan Park,

driving to the airport, Kato Kaelin was present, together with Alan

Park and Mr. Simpson.  It was about 11:10 p.m. on June 12, and Mr.

Simpson had to get to a flight.



There will be testimony by Alan Park and separate testimony by Kato

Kaelin that after packing some pieces of luggage, there was a bag,

smaller dark bag, out near the Bentley that Mr. Simpson insisted on

picking up himself, not allowing Kaelin, who offered to pick it up and

put it in the car, insisted on picking it up himself and bringing it

into the car.



After Mr. Simpson returned, brought his luggage back, after all of the

legal proceedings, after all of the attempts to obtain all the

discovery in this case, that bag has never been seen again. There will

be no witness who will bring that bag into this court.



Mr. Simpson has produced some luggage that he claims he brought with

him to Chicago that night, including one he claims was this bag.



Kato Kaelin will testify that is not the bag he saw.  Alan Park will

testify that is not the bag he saw.  There is a bag that has never

been seen since June 12.



Mr. Simpson went to Chicago on a red-eye. There will be evidence that

despite the fact that almost everybody in first class slept, he did

not sleep.



He arrived in Chicago and was driven to a hotel a short distance away,

the Chicago O'Hare.  He checked in.  He was driven to the hotel by a

Hertz employee, a man named James Merrill, whose testimony you will

hear.  He's a guy who works for Hertz in Chicago, and when there are

celebrities who come in -- Mr. Simpson was a Hertz paid celebrity --

this guy Merrill's job is to help out.  And he picked Mr. Simpson up

at the airport early in the morning and brought him to the hotel,

packed up the luggage in Mr. Merrill's car -- Mr. Merrill lived 45

minutes, in the suburbs, away from the hotel, away from the airport. 

Mr. Simpson left his golf bag in Mr. Merrill's car.  Mr. Merrill went

off and went to bed.



The next morning, Mr. Simpson received a phone call from Officer --

from Detective Ron Phillips, in which Detective Phillips informed Mr.

Simpson of Nicole's death.



Now, Mr. Simpson is in his hotel room in Chicago.



We will present evidence showing that Mr. Simpson made a series of

phone calls -- at least three that we know about, and we have phone

records to prove them -- to this fellow, James Merrill, who lived 45

minutes away, in order to have him come back to the hotel and take Mr.

Simpson to the airport, even though there was cab and ground

transportation right downstairs, five minutes to the airport.



Mr. Merrill will testify that Mr. Simpson was frantic about Merrill's

picking him up.  And Merrill jumped out of his house, got in his car,

tried to get to the airport -- tried to get to the hotel. Mr. Simpson

had an early flight.  As it turned out, Merrill did not get to the

hotel in time, and Mr. Simpson had to get other transportation to the

airport, and flew to Los Angeles.



Merrill left the golf clubs with American Airlines.  And they put them

on the next flight, and they were shipped back to L.A.



Now, on June 14, which is a Tuesday -- Mr. Simpson arrived in Los

Angeles on Monday, June 13, around eleven o'clock or so.



On Tuesday, Mr. Simpson got up and drove to his office in Brentwood

with his friend, Robert Kardashian, and they went up to Mr. Simpson

office. And Mr. Simpson had his assistant secretary, Cathy Randa, call

Mr. Merrill on the phone.  And in that conversation, Mr. Simpson found

out what happened to his golf clubs.  And he then requested Mr.

Kardashian to take him to the airport to get his golf clubs on

Tuesday, June 14, at around -- I guess before noon or so.



When questioned about this in his deposition, Mr. Simpson claimed he

did not ask to be taken to the airport to get his golf clubs; he just

happened to be riding around with Mr. Kardashian near the airport, and

decided he'd stop in and get his golf clubs.



We will present the testimony of not only Robert Kardashian, but Mr.

Simpson's other friend, Mr. Taft, who will testify that Mr. Simpson

specifically said, "Take me to the airport; I need to get my golf

clubs."



Mr. Simpson, on Monday, when he came back, June 13, got to Rockingham

and then went down to the police station, where he gave a statement to

detectives Tom Lange and Phil Vannatter.  He spoke on a tape for about

30 minutes or so.



And this was the first time, hours after Nicole's murder, that Mr.

Simpson had been questioned about what he did the night before, what

his whereabouts were, and so forth.



Now, you'll hear that tape, or you'll have the statement read in.  You

will see that Mr. Simpson is unable to provide any clear explanation

for what he was doing the night before.



All he could say was, he was rushing and packing, and he was not able

to describe with any detail what he was doing, particularly in that

hour and 20 minutes.  And again, as I mentioned before, when he was

told that blood was found at Rockingham, he said he cut his finger --

he must have cut his finger before going to Chicago, even though now

he says he cut his finger in Chicago in the hotel room.



We will also present to you further deposition testimony of Mr.

Simpson about that cut when we pressed him whether or not he saw any

blood before he went to Chicago, as he told the police.  And all he

said in his deposition is that there was a tiny dab of blood that he

saw on a pinky one time before he got in the limousine, which he

dabbed, and threw the napkin away.



So we will present to you direct inconsistencies in his deposition, in

his police statement, about crucial events.



After he came back from the police statement, later that night, Mr.

Simpson had friends over to his house and family members.  Kato Kaelin

had gone to stay with a friend.  He was asked to come back to Mr.

Simpson's house.



He got there, and he ended up in the kitchen alone with Mr. Simpson

for a few moments. This is about eight or nine o'clock on the evening

of June 13.  Mr. Simpson then said to Mr. Kaelin, alone in the

kitchen, words to this effect:  You saw me go in the house after

McDonald's, didn't you?



And Kato Kaelin said no, I did not.



Kato Kaelin's testimony, as I mentioned previously -- maybe I didn't,

actually -- Kato Kaelin's testimony is that when he came back from

McDonald's, he did not see Mr. Simpson walk back into the house.  Mr.

Kaelin walked into the house while Mr. Simpson stayed at the Bentley

in the driveway, and never moved from it.  We will present this

testimony to, once again, show Mr. Simpson's attempt to build an

alibi.



And finally -- and I will let Mr. Brewer talk to you more about this

-- on Friday, June 17 of that week, the police made a decision to

arrest Mr. Simpson for the murders of Ron and Nicole.  And Mr. Simpson

was notified of this while he was staying at his friend's house,

Robert Kardashian.



We will present to you evidence, including the testimony of Mr.

Simpson, that when he found out that he was going to be arrested, he

and his friend, boyhood friend, Allen Cowlings, got into Mr. Cowling's

car and left the Kardashian home.  And they took off.



And in that car was not only Mr. Simpson's personal effects, including

his passport, but he also had, between Cowlings and him, over $8,000

in cash, changes of clothing, of underwear, windbreaker, and other

items of clothing.



There was a disguise: fake goatee, and there was a loaded gun.



Now, Mr. Simpson will testify that he was suicidal because of the loss

of Nicole.  We will present to you evidence and prove that Mr. Simpson

fled the police with Mr. Cowlings and contemplated suicide because he

knew he was responsible for these murders.  We will show that there is

no other explanation.



Mr. Brewer will discuss this with you in greater detail when he

speaks.



Now, people always ask when there's a killing, what's the motive.  And

that's a good, important question.



Technically, the lawsuit does not require us to prove a motive.  But

when there is a motive, it's important to bring out, because it helps

to explain why something happened, why a person would kill another

person.



In this case, O.J. Simpson had a motive to kill Nicole, which I will

describe to you very briefly, and I will let Mr. Kelly recount to you

in greater detail.



He had a motive to kill Ron Goldman for the simple reason that Ron

would have been and eyewitness, or was and eyewitness to the murder of

his friend, Nicole.



Nicole was killed for a different reason. We will present evidence

showing that in this relationship between Nicole Brown Simpson and

O.J. Simpson, there was severe conflict, tension, anger, that had been

building up.  There had been a recent estrangement, recent rejection

of Mr. Simpson.  There was a history of abuse, and there was a history

of rage.



And after the divorce in 1992, Mr. Simpson and Nicole tried again to

make their relationship work.  In a month before the murders, Nicole

ended it for the final time.  And we will show that Mr. Simpson could

not accept this, was frustrated, was confused, was angry, and he

retaliated.  He also tried to get her back, buying her expensive gifts

when she returned.



And in the end, there was a build-up of a lot of anger and a build-up

of a lot of hostility, to the point where we will present to you a

letter that Mr. Simpson sent to Nicole just six days before she was

killed, threatening -- putting her on notice about possible IRS

violations, knowing the impact that it would have on Nicole, and

knowing that it would cause her to have to sell her house because of

possible tax problems, and she would have to move with her two

children.



And, in fact, one day before her murder, on Saturday, June 11, Nicole

hired a realtor and had found a place in Malibu that she was going to

move to.



On the date of the murders, June 12 -- and again, the details will be

laid out for you by Mr. Kelly -- I will just mention this:  Mr.

Simpson had flown all the way back from the east coast.  He was tired

he was exhausted.  He wanted to go to his daughter's recital on Sunday

with the family.  He was not invited to sit with the family.



By "the family," I mean his wife and her mother and father and

sisters.



He was not invited to a celebration dinner after the recital, and he

was pretty much alone, maybe for the first time in his life.



The defendant claims that he tried calling the house at 9:00 p.m. that

evening, just to speak to Sydney, whom he had just seen at the

recital. He said he did not say anything to Nicole.  We don't know

what happened in that call.  But what we do know and what we can

prove, is that an hour later, Mr. Simpson went over there in dark

clothing, dark shoes, dark hat, dark gloves, with a knife, in a rage,

and killed Nicole and Ron.



Now, I've laid out for you the basic elements of our case.  And Mr.

Kelly and Mr. Brewer will fill in.  We have the evidence in this case,

ladies and gentlemen, that will show that Mr. Simpson had time and

opportunity to kill Nicole, that there were severe problems in his

relationship with Nicole at that time.  In fact, the relationship was

over.



That all of the physical evidence of the case points only to him and

no one else.  All the evidence collectively points to him and nobody

else.



We submit to you that establishes to a certainty that Mr. Simpson

killed Ron and killed Nicole.



Now, what I'd like to do now is talk a little bit about what the

defense will contend in response to -- or does contend in response to

all this evidence.



MR. BAKER:  I'm going to object to that, Your Honor.



THE COURT:  Sustained.



MR. PETROCELLI:  I need to be heard.



THE COURT:  Okay.





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





MR. PETROCELLI:  I'm now going to spend my remaining time dealing with

their defense of contamination and conspiracy, which is at the core of

their case.



Mr. Baker has said to the jury over and over again, if you're to find

Mr. Simpson innocent, basically, you would have to conclude that

evidence was planted or was contaminated.  This is their contention;

it's in their interrogatories.  And I'm going to go through the lack

of evidence of any conspiracy and any contamination, any planting of

evidence.  This is, in effect, their affirmative defense.  And I have

the right to detail what evidence that we will show that demonstrates

that these positions are not accurate.



Now I'm not going to say what evidence they're going to put on; I'm

simply going to say that this is their defense:  Contamination and

conspiracy or planting of evidence.  That's right out of their

interrogatory answers.  Then I'm going to proceed to detail the

evidence that we will present to defeat those claims.



THE COURT:  Well, what place does that have in the opening statement?



MR. PETROCELLI:  His defense is like an affirmative defense.



THE COURT:  Where is it?  Is it in the pleading?



MR. PETROCELLI:  It's in the contention to interrogatories that the

evidence was planted and the evidence was contaminated.



THE COURT:  You don't address it in opening statements; you can argue

in it in closing.



MR. PETROCELLI:  Your Honor, we want to lay out the evidence that

we're going to present, to show in this case that there was no

planting and there was no contamination.  I want to go through the way

the crime scene --



THE COURT:  If you want to do that, go ahead. You don't have to lay

out Mr. Baker's theory.



MR. PETROCELLI:  I don't intend  to lay out his theory at all, except

to identify their defense is conspiracy and planting of evidence and

contamination; that's what their defense is.



THE COURT:  I'm not going to permit to you identify their defense as

their defense.  And if you want to say this is our effort to show

there was no contamination, that there was no conspiracy, fine, go

ahead.  But you can't speak for Mr. Baker.



MR. PETROCELLI:  I would like -- fine.  I won't say anything about the

defense.





(The following proceedings were held in open court,

in the presence of the jury.)





MR. PETROCELLI:  In the last part of my remarks, I would like to spend

some time detailing the evidence:  How the crime scenes were

processed, how the evidence was collected, so that you will see, based

on the evidence that we present, that there was no planting of

evidence, and there was no contamination of evidence, and that all of

the evidence that was collected was put there by the defendant, not by

members of the LAPD.  And none of the evidence was contaminated and

none of the evidence mistakenly identified Mr. Simpson, in particular,

blood evidence.



First of all, on the subject of conspiracy, we will put on evidence

showing that members of the Los Angeles Police Department, if

anything, had a favorable impression of Mr. Simpson, and none of the

persons involved in this case had any axe to grind whatsoever.  There

are a couple of insurance agents that point this out that we will

present.



One time in 1984, Mr. Simpson took a baseball bat to Nicole's

windshield, and the police were called out, and the office that came

out to the to the house was Mark Fuhrman.



And Mr. Simpson himself will testify that Mark Fuhrman did not arrest

him; Mark Fuhrman did not frisk him, did not search him, did not

harass him. There was no mistreatment of him in connection with that

incident in 1984.



Three or four years later, in 1989, there was another incident in

which the police came out to Rockingham on the morning of January 1,

1989, because Nicole had been beaten.  And you will hear evidence

about that incident.



The police arrived -- Fuhrman, by the way, was not -- was not involved

in that incident at all.  There were other officers involved,

including Officer Edwards.



Police arrived and they told Mr. Simpson to get on his clothes, get

dressed; they were going to take him in, after seeing Nicole and

hearing from Nicole.



Mr. Simpson got dressed, got in his car and drove out the other way,

and fled the scene.



Okay.  We will prove by the officers who were there, that Mr. Simpson

was never arrested for what he did for fleeing.  Charges were never

filed against him; nothing happened to him for leaving the scene.



Just eight months before Nicole's death in October of 1993, once

again, the police were called out to Nicole's house, this time at her

own apartment in Brentwood on Gretna Green, where she lived right

before she went to Bundy.



There was another incident in which Mr. Simpson was upset, broke part

of a door down, and the police were called out.



We will present to you evidence of that incident, showing that the

police did everything in their power to keep it quiet so there

wouldn't be any problem for Mr. Simpson.



There will be no evidence presented that anybody had any motive to do

anything wrong to O.J. Simpson, let alone frame him for a double

murder.



Furthermore, we will show to you that most of the officers involved in

investigating this case didn't even know one another.  People like

Phil Vannatter and Lange did not know Mark Fuhrman, for example, and

they will so testify.



We will prove to you that there were a large number of people involved

in this investigation; it wasn't one or two persons who found all the

evidence.  Lots of people were involved.  And I'm going to go through

some of those people in a minute.



There were lab technicians; there were criminalists; there were

scientists; there were coroner's assistants; there were people who

drive cars to and from; there were police officers who secure crime

scenes, people who put up crime-scene tape; officers who take care of

traffic; detectives, lead detectives, watch commanders, lots and lots

of people involved in this investigation collecting the evidence and

storing it and testing it and investigating the case.



And there will be no evidence that any of them did anything wrong to

harm Mr. Simpson, to prejudice Mr. Simpson, let alone to frame Mr.

Simpson.



The first officer who arrived at Bundy was Officer Robert Riske.  He

came with his partner, officer Michael Terrazas, at 12:13 a.m., wee

hours of the morning, June 13.  The bodies had been discovered by Mr.

Boztepe, with Nicole's dog, right after midnight, a couple of hours

after the police were summoned, and the first two officers who arrived

are Officers Riske and Terrazas.  And you will hear them testify they

arrived at the scene; they saw what had happened; they saw two people

had been killed.  And they immediately got on the phone and called

more officers to the scene.



And officers started arriving in units, in teams.  And lots of them

came.



And let me just pick a point:  One o'clock in the morning, okay?  By

one o'clock in the morning, there were about a dozen officers, or at

least six to a dozen officers, in that range, were coming or on their

way there.  And you'll hear some of the these names as the officers

testify.



The crime scene was immediately secured. An officer was sent to secure

the back, so nobody would come in through the back and damage any

evidence.  Officers were put on the front; officers were put around

the corner; crime-scene tape was put on this; it's what officers do

when they arrive at a crime scene.



Now, it's not the job of the police officers to start doing the

detective work, the investigators are.  What they do is, they call and

get detectives assigned to the case.



At this time, it was a West L.A. case because it occurred in West L.A.



We will hear evidence that the West L.A. detective was summoned, and

his name was Ronald Phillips.  He was asked to send a team of

detectives out to Bundy.  And Detective Phillips called two people up:

 Detective Roberts and Detective Fuhrman. It was about one o'clock

a.m. when he called them to say, "You better get here to the police

station; we have to go out to a crime scene."  1:00 a.m.  Mark Fuhrman

is in bed 1:00 a.m.  Detective Roberts is in bed 1:00 a.m.



Detective Tom Lange, who later got involved, he's in bed.  Detective

Phil Vannatter, he's in bed.  Dennis Fung, the criminalist who got

involved later on, he's in bed.  His assistant, Andrea Mazzola, he's

in bed -- she's in bed.  Excuse me.



The lab technician who did a lot of lab work, Collin Yamauchi, he's in

bed.  His boss, Greg Matheson, he's in bed.  The head of the lab,

Michele Kestler, she's in bed.  So you get the picture.



Now, while all these people are in bed, the first officers on the

scene see the all the basic evidence that I've just described to you. 

They see the two bodies; they see fresh blood drops on the walkway. 

They see the blood on the back gate.  We will prove to you from these

officers' observations and their notes, that that blood was not

planted on the back gate and could not have been planted, because the

officers saw it at 12:30 in the morning.



Riske saw it; Terrazas saw it.  They showed it to other officers who

came.  And there's even a photograph that picks up at least one stain

of the three.  So with this evidence, not only the officers'

observations, not only their notes but a photograph.  We will

demonstrate that there is no conceivable way that any blood on the

back gate was planted.



The first officers on the scene saw it. In addition, these officers

saw the other evidence that had been left behind.  They saw the knit

cap lying on the ground, and they saw a single leather glove.



When the other teams of officers came and finally the detectives

arrived, everybody was pointing out the basic evidence so they

wouldn't touch it or interfere with it, just look at it.



Now, Detective Phillips, who called Fuhrman out of bed and called

Roberts out of bed, Detective Phillips got over to Bundy at around ten

after 2:00 with Mark Fuhrman, and they were going to be the initial

detectives who would handle the case.



After they surveyed the crime scene, detective Fuhrman sat down to

make out his report, and then was told -- and you will hear this from

the testimony of Detective Phillips  -- that a decision had been made,

because it was probably going to be a big case, high-profile case and

so forth, that it was going to be transferred downtown, from West L.A.

to downtown, to the robbery/homicide division, and that new detectives

would be coming and taking over.



And Phillips finds that out around, I don't know, 20 to 3:00, quarter

to 3:00 in the morning.  He then waited around with Fuhrman, with

Roberts, with 14, 15 other people who are there by that time, for the

detectives to come over, just making sure the crime scene is secure.



Now, let's first focus on the time period before Detective Fuhrman got

there at ten after 2:00. Everybody who looked at the evidence at the

crime scene saw only one glove.  And they saw the knit hat; they saw

the blood drops and the victims' bodies, of course,



Nobody who was there before Detective Fuhrman arrived or Detective

Phillips, ever saw a second glove.  Nobody ever saw a second glove

there.



After Detective Phillips arrived with Fuhrman, other detectives and

people who came were shown the crime scene.  And those people didn't

see a second glove.



In other words, the point I'm making here is, there is no evidence

that there was ever a second glove at Bundy.  And we will present

evidence to you that there was only a single glove at Bundy; that

everybody who was there, saw only one glove.  And I don't mean right

at the walkway or right in the dirt area where Ron's body was found; I

mean anywhere around the area, including in the back and in the front,

wherever the officers went to secure th