Baker Says Simpson Had No Motive, No Opportunity To Kill
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (Jan. 22, Evening) -- An indignant and angry Robert Baker began his closing argument by decrying the plaintiffs' "character assassination" of O.J. Simpson, and claiming that his client had no motive for killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
On Thursday, Baker will continue his argument. Defense attorney Robert Blasier, who handled the DNA evidence in the case, will also speak to the jury. The plaintiffs are scheduled to present a rebuttal argument when the defense finishes. Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki, in an effort to get the case to the jury tomorrow, has set court to begin at 8:00 a.m.
Baker took to the floor after the noon break. Earlier, the end of Petrocelli's closing statement seemed to bring many in the courtroom -- including several jurors -- to tears. But Baker quickly sought to defuse the strong emotion that ended the plaintiffs' case.
"This isn't a fight for justice, it's a fight for money," Baker told the jury. "It's a fight for your verdict, and for Mr. Simpson to transfer money to Mr. Goldman."
The defense lawyers' argument, which he mostly fired out in staccato bursts, jumped from point to point and sometimes rambled. It centered around the theme that there were few solid facts to support the plaintiffs' contention that O.J. Simpson committed the murders. Baker has yet to set fully his sights on the Los Angeles Police, although he touched briefly on the issue.
"I sat here, as you have, for the last two days . . . I didn't hear one word about police malfeasance," Baker said, referring to the plaintiffs closing arguments. "Did you hear one word about it? Did you hear one mention of EDTA?"
The plaintiffs, Baker argued, have built their case on circumstantial evidence that does not add up. Look at the details, Baker urged, and it seems preposterous that O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman.
"It just doesn't make any sense," Baker told the jury. "You have to filter these facts through your common sense."
Baker scoffed at the notion that Simpson would wear a sweatsuit with "dress socks and $300 shoes" and drive a "big white elephant" Ford Bronco on his way to commit murder. Can you imagine, Baker asked jurors incredulously, O.J. Simpson trying to hide his likeness with a knit cap.
"Why would you put a hat and gloves on in June, 1994?" Baker asked. "Is it a disguise? Are you kidding me?"
The lead defense attorney took pains to address each domestic violence incident brought up by the plaintiffs, shooting down each one except for the Jan. 1, 1989 fight. Simpson pleaded no contest to domestic violence charges arising from the episode, and Baker reminded the jury that his client took full responsibility for what happened during that altercation.
"[Nicole] got injured. She should not have gotten injured," Baker said. "[Simpson is] not here to tell you his actions were okay that night. They were not. They were out of line."
The other fights, Baker charged, were either made up by witnesses seeking publicity, or they were not violent incidents. None of Nicole's friends took the stand to testify about domestic violence, Baker noted.
"They're not here because they wouldn't testify to what [the plaintiffs] want you to believe," Baker said.
Relying so much on domestic violence is not the way to prove a murder, Baker said. In fact, he argued, the plaintiffs were obscuring the actual crime by putting on so much testimony about alleged incidents of domestic abuse.
"I thought this case was about the January 1 event," Baker said. "I didn't think it was about the June 12 murders."
The lead defense lawyer tried to counter the plaintiffs' theory that Simpson was trying to get back together with his ex-wife and was in a rage the evening of the murders.
"There was no obsession -- certainly it's a stretch, a quantum leap," Baker said. "But it is an effort by the plaintiffs . . . to manufacture a motive for these killings."
The plaintiffs needed to manufacture a motive, Baker charged, because there was none. "Where's the rage?" he asked.
To prove his point, Baker noted that while Simpson was walking up to Nicole's house one time, he saw her performing oral sex on another man. The incident, Baker said, "didn't send O.J. into a blind rage," instead he walked away.
"Now I don't know as a man if you could experience anything more devastating," Baker said.
Baker also told the jury that Simpson did not stalk his ex-wife.
"O.J. Simpson didn't have time to stalk her," Baker argued. "He didn't have the time, he didn't have the desire, nor did he have any rage whatsoever."
One of the most important considerations, Baker told the jurors, was to discern the time that the murders took place. Using the timeline provided by various witnesses, Baker asserted that the crime happened around 10:45, 10:50 p.m. Simpson could not have killed two people and arrived home to be seen by his limousine driver shortly before 11:00 p.m., Baker said.
"If he didn't have time, he couldn't have done it," Baker declared. "I don't care what they say about blood, hair, and fiber."
-Robert Schmidt
Court TV Law Center
Find out about Court TV's coverage of the civil trial, and take a look at the witness lists provided by both sides.
Rob Schmidt's Reporter's Notebook
Court TV Reports and Trial Coverage
A Look Back at the Criminal Case
Discuss the Case
Register for our message boards and trade your
insights and opinions with other trial watchers.
