Author Topic: 12th "South Essex" Regiment of Foot  (Read 11294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ambiguous

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 11216
  • Lieutenant of the 92nd
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 92nd_Lt_Ambiguous
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #60 on: March 04, 2024, 05:09:45 pm »
Official Statment Pumti Finally didnt loose a flag

 8) 8) 8) PROFESSIONAL FLAGGING

And because the other team was utter shite
I take personal offense to that statement.
1v1 me in among US Dan hit the button!!!!

saw US in all caps and my eyes widened just for it to be an among us mentioned and not USA mentioned 💔
I feel your pain, Yovko hates me for being born on that continent.

Offline Yovko

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Yovko
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #61 on: March 04, 2024, 05:44:34 pm »
Spoiler
Official Statment Pumti Finally didnt loose a flag

 8) 8) 8) PROFESSIONAL FLAGGING

And because the other team was utter shite
I take personal offense to that statement.
1v1 me in among US Dan hit the button!!!!

saw US in all caps and my eyes widened just for it to be an among us mentioned and not USA mentioned 💔
I feel your pain, Yovko hates me for being born on that continent.
[close]
I wear my tags with Honor in the 84th and that is why my howitzer shots NEVER MISS!!

Offline 12th_Official

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #62 on: March 04, 2024, 08:16:55 pm »
Spoiler
Official Statment Pumti Finally didnt loose a flag

 8) 8) 8) PROFESSIONAL FLAGGING

And because the other team was utter shite
I take personal offense to that statement.
1v1 me in among US Dan hit the button!!!!

saw US in all caps and my eyes widened just for it to be an among us mentioned and not USA mentioned 💔
I feel your pain, Yovko hates me for being born on that continent.
[close]
I wear my tags with Honor in the 84th and that is why my howitzer shots NEVER MISS!!
@84th @GlennofNW Can we get a statement on Yovko´s claim of never missing a howitzer shot
12th South Essex Regiment of Foot

Offline Glenn

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 9332
  • 84th [NA] / 12th [EU]
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Glenn
  • Side: Union
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #63 on: March 04, 2024, 09:29:45 pm »
Spoiler
Official Statment Pumti Finally didnt loose a flag

 8) 8) 8) PROFESSIONAL FLAGGING

And because the other team was utter shite
I take personal offense to that statement.
1v1 me in among US Dan hit the button!!!!

saw US in all caps and my eyes widened just for it to be an among us mentioned and not USA mentioned 💔
I feel your pain, Yovko hates me for being born on that continent.
[close]
I wear my tags with Honor in the 84th and that is why my howitzer shots NEVER MISS!!
@84th @GlennofNW Can we get a statement on Yovko´s claim of never missing a howitzer shot

I can confirm Yovko never misses. If the howitzer doesn’t get a kill, it’s because the enemy tanked.
click here to join the 84th

Offline John Price

  • Block guys what is this!?
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 21399
  • Destroyer of RGL
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #64 on: March 04, 2024, 09:58:18 pm »
Spoiler
Official Statment Pumti Finally didnt loose a flag

 8) 8) 8) PROFESSIONAL FLAGGING

And because the other team was utter shite
I take personal offense to that statement.
1v1 me in among US Dan hit the button!!!!

saw US in all caps and my eyes widened just for it to be an among us mentioned and not USA mentioned 💔
I feel your pain, Yovko hates me for being born on that continent.
[close]
I wear my tags with Honor in the 84th and that is why my howitzer shots NEVER MISS!!
@84th @GlennofNW Can we get a statement on Yovko´s claim of never missing a howitzer shot

I can confirm Yovko never misses. If the howitzer doesn’t get a kill, it’s because the enemy tanked.
This is a lie. I've seen him miss with my own eyes
Knightmare is from Albania, no?
Sorry, I can't accept this team.

Offline Ambiguous

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 11216
  • Lieutenant of the 92nd
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 92nd_Lt_Ambiguous
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #65 on: March 04, 2024, 10:27:15 pm »
@Nightwing
Spoiler
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      THE COURT:  MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE LATE START, BUT WE HAD SOME MATTERS TO GET OUT OF THE WAY BEFORE WE ACTUALLY STARTED THE ARGUMENT WITH THE ATTORNEYS; HOWEVER, WE ARE NOW READY TO COMMENCE.*****

            MISS CLARK, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, ARE THE PROSECUTION PREPARED TO PROCEED WITH THEIR OPENING ARGUMENT?
      MS. CLARK:  YES, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  YOU MAY PROCEED.
      MS. CLARK:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
 

                     CLOSING ARGUMENT
 
BY MS. CLARK:
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      MS. CLARK:  FINALLY.  I FEEL LIKE IT IS HAS BEEN FOREVER SINCE I TALKED TO YOU.  IT KIND OF HAS.
            IT IS VERY WEIRD BEING IN THE COURTROOM SITTING NEXT TO YOU EVERYDAY NOT GETTING A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU.  IT IS VERY UNNATURAL.
            I HAVE TO TELL YOU AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, AS MANY YEARS AS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, AT THIS MOMENT IN THE TRIAL I ALWAYS FEEL THE SAME.  I FEEL LIKE I WANT TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU SAY, "AND WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?"
      THE COURT:  EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK.
            JUROR 165 NEEDS A PEN.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      THE COURT:  MISS CLARK.
      MS. CLARK:  THANK YOU.
            I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO YOU AND TELL YOU, "WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?  WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?"  BECAUSE THAT WAY I DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT STUFF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR, STUFF THAT YOU DON'T WANT EXPLAINED, STUFF THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN, AND I CAN'T, AND I ALWAYS HAVE A SENSE  OF FRUSTRATION.
            SO I'M SORRY IF I SAY THINGS THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO HEAR OR I EXPLAIN THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY CLEAR TO YOU.  PLEASE BEAR WITH ME BECAUSE I AM NOT A MIND READER AND I DON'T KNOW.
            FIRST I WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.  YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH SO MUCH.  YOU HAVE MADE A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE.  YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR CHILDREN ENOUGH, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR FAMILY ENOUGH, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR LOVED ONES ENOUGH, AND ALL OF THIS IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE AND THE SERVICE OF JUSTICE.
            YOUR DEDICATION AND YOUR SELFLESSNESS ARE TRULY BEYOND THE PALE.  NO ONE CAN SAY THAT ANY JURY HAS SACRIFICED MORE FOR THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE THAN YOU HAVE, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW SINCERELY FROM MY HEART I APPRECIATE IT.
            I SPEAK ON BEHALF, I KNOW, OF THE -- OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  THIS WAS A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE.  YOUR SELFLESSNESS AND YOUR DEVOTION WILL LONG BE REMEMBERED BY MANY, AND THANK YOU.
            I THINK NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW GREAT THEIR SACRIFICE HAS BEEN, HOW TERRIBLE THE PRESSURE HAS BEEN, HOW AWFUL IT MUST BE FOR YOU TO HAVE YOUR LIVES KIND OF OUT OF CONTROL THIS WAY AT THE MERCY OF US TAKING LONGER THAN WE SHOULD HAVE AND YOU HAVING  TO PUT YOUR LIVES ASIDE FOR LONGER THAN YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD TO.
            I'M SORRY FOR THAT.  I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
            THERE IS ONLY ONE BRIGHT SIDE.  TWO BRIGHT SIDES.  ONE, IT IS ALMOST OVER.
            NO. 2, YOU HAVE THE ASSURANCE OF KNOWING THAT NO STONE HAS BEEN LEFT UNTURNED.  THE DEFENDANT HAS EXPLORED EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY OF THE CASE.  WE HAVE EXHAUSTIVELY TRIED TO GIVE YOU EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE RELEVANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER.
            AND IN DOING SO IN THE EXHAUSTIVE EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ALL OF THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE AND THE EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION AND WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE, ONE THING IS CLEAR:
            THIS DEFENDANT HAS RECEIVED THE ULTIMATE IN A FAIR TRIAL.
            AND AT LEAST YOU KNOW THAT.  YOU HAVE THAT ASSURANCE.
            NOW, IN THE COURSE OF PRESENTING ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL, JUST LIKE EVERY TRIAL, SOME EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU THAT REALLY IS NOT RELEVANT TO ANSWER THE CORE QUESTION OF WHO MURDERED RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN.
            AND IT IS UP TO YOU, THE JURY, TO WEED OUT THE DISTRACTIONS, WEED OUT THE SIDE SHOWS AND  DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE IS IT THAT REALLY HELPS ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
            AND IT IS KIND OF LIKE THE ARTIST, THE SCULPTOR.  SOMEBODY WENT TO HIM AND SAID HOW DO YOU MAKE AN ANGEL?  WELL, I TAKE A PIECE OF MARBLE AND I REMOVE EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT AN ANGEL.  THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.  IT IS NOT EASY.  IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT FOCUS AND A LOT OF DETERMINATION ON YOUR PART.
            BECAUSE THE SIDE SHOWS MAY BE VERY INTERESTING, THEY PRESENT VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES, VERY SERIOUS ISSUES, BUT ISSUES THAT REALLY DO NOT RELATE TO WHO COMMITTED THESE MURDERS.
            AND THEY SHOULD BE DEALT WITH OUTSIDE THIS COURTROOM, BECAUSE HERE NOW IN THIS COURTROOM WE ARE HERE TO DECIDE WHO MURDERED RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN.
            NOW, YOU AS JURORS SIT AS JUDGES OF THE EVIDENCE.  YOU ARE CALLED THE TRIER OF FACT.  AND AS SUCH YOUR JOB IS TO BE NEUTRAL AND TO BE IMPARTIAL AS YOU EXAMINE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED.
            AND IN THIS REGARD YOU ARE GUIDED, JUST LIKE ANY JUDGE, BY THE LAW.  AND THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE READ TO YOU ON FRIDAY IS THE LAW THAT YOU WILL APPLY TO THE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION THAT IS POSED HERE, WHO MURDERED RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN.
 
             THE INSTRUCTIONS DISCUSS A WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS.  THEY TALK ABOUT GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, BOTH EXPERT AND LAY WITNESSES, AND THEY TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVE TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT, BUT THEY GO BEYOND THAT AND THEY ALSO TELL YOU THE FRAME OF MIND THAT YOU SHOULD ADOPT WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE.
            AND ONE OF THE FIRST INSTRUCTIONS THAT WAS READ TO YOU BY THE JUDGE ON FRIDAY, IF YOU WILL RECALL, CONCERNED YOUR DUTIES AS A JURY AND IT STATED IN PART:
                "YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PITY FOR A DEFENDANT OR BY PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM, YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR THIS OFFENSE, CHARGED WITH A CRIME OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL."
            OF COURSE THAT MAKES SENSE.  IT IS LOGICAL.  AND THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO PRESENT PROOF TO YOU.  WE JUST DON'T COME IN AND SAY IT IS SO.  I HAVE TO PROVE IT TO YOU WITH EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, SO THAT MAKES SENSE.
            NOW, THE INSTRUCTION GOES ON TO READ:
                "YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MERE SENTIMENT, CONJECTURE, SYMPATHY, PASSION, PREJUDICE, PUBLIC OPINION OR PUBLIC FEELING.
            BOTH THE PEOPLE AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT YOU WILL CONSCIENTIOUSLY  CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, APPLY THE LAW AND REACH A JUST VERDICT REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES."
            IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL YOU HAVE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY OF A VERY EMOTIONAL NATURE.  I EXPECT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT YOU ARE GOING TO BE HEARING VERY IMPASSIONED SPEECHES,
FIREY SPEECHES THAT MAY STIR UP FEELINGS OF ANGER OR PITY.
            ALTHOUGH YOUR FEELINGS MAY BE AROUSED, AS MAY BE NATURAL AND UNDERSTANDABLE FOR ALL OF US, AS THE INSTRUCTION TELLS YOU AS THE TRIER OF FACT, YOU, THE JUDGES, ARE TO REMAIN NEUTRAL AND IMPARTIAL AND NOT BE INFLUENCED BY SUCH PASSION OR SENTIMENT, NO MATTER HOW SORELY TEMPTED YOU MAY BE TO DO SO.
            AND THIS APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES, BOTH SIDES.
            ALTHOUGH THE BRUTAL AND CALLOUS WAY IN WHICH RON AND NICOLE WERE MURDERED MAY UNDERSTANDABLY MAKE YOU FEEL SORRY, PITY, EVEN ANGER, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY JUST BECAUSE YOU FELT SORRY FOR THEM.
            ON THE OTHER HAND, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE IF YOU WERE TO FEEL ANGRY AND DISGUSTED WITH MARK FUHRMAN, AS WE ALL ARE, STILL IT WOULD BE WRONG TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY -- NOT GUILTY JUST BECAUSE OF THAT ANGER AND DISGUST.
            SO AS YOU LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, PLEASE REMEMBER WHEN YOU WEIGH THE EVIDENCE  AND YOU CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, REMEMBER THAT APPEAL TO PASSION AND EMOTION IS AN INVITATION TO IGNORE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A JUROR.
            TO BE FAIR WE MUST EXAMINE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN A CALM AND A RATIONAL AND A LOGICAL WAY.
            LET ME COME BACK TO MARK FUHRMAN FOR A MINUTE.
            JUST SO IT IS CLEAR.  DID HE LIE WHEN HE TESTIFIED HERE IN THIS COURTROOM SAYING THAT HE DID NOT USE RACIAL EPITHETS IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?
            YES.
            IS HE A RACIST?
            YES.
            IS HE THE WORSE LAPD HAS TO OFFER?
            YES.
            DO WE WISH THAT THIS PERSON WAS NEVER HIRED BY LAPD?
            YES.
            SHOULD LAPD HAVE EVER HIRED HIM?
            NO.
            SHOULD SUCH A PERSON BE A POLICE OFFICER?
            NO.
            IN FACT, DO WE WISH THERE WERE NO SUCH PERSON ON THE PLANET?
            YES.
            BUT THE FACT THAT MARK FUHRMAN IS A RACIST AND LIED ABOUT IT ON THE WITNESS STAND DOES  NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVEN'T PROVEN THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            AND IT WOULD BE A TRAGEDY IF WITH SUCH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS WE HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU, YOU FOUND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY IN SPITE OF ALL THAT, BECAUSE OF THE RACIST ATTITUDES OF ONE POLICE OFFICER.
            IT IS YOUR DUTY AND IT WOULD BE YOUR CHALLENGE TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE QUESTION YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ANSWER, AND THE ONLY QUESTION THAT YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ANSWER, DID THE DEFENDANT COMMIT THESE MURDERS?
            IN SEEKING THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION YOU LOOK TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO YOU BY BOTH SIDES NOW, BY BOTH THE PEOPLE AND BY THE DEFENSE, AND YOU DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE REALLY ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
            BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS THROWN OUT MANY, MANY OTHER QUESTIONS.  THEY HAVE THROWN OUT QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER LAPD HAS SOME BAD POLICE OFFICERS, DOES THE SCIENTIFIC DIVISION HAVE SOME SLOPPY CRIMINALISTS, DID THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAVE SOME SLOPPY CORONERS?
            AND THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS IS SURE, YES, THEY DO.
            THAT IS NOT NEWS TO YOU.  I'M SURE IT WASN'T A BIG SURPRISE TO YOU.
            BUT THOSE ARE NOT -- THEY ARE IMPORTANT  ISSUES.  YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THE QUALITY CONTROL, THINGS SHOULD BE DONE BETTER, THINGS COULD ALWAYS BE DONE BETTER IN EVERY CASE AT EVERY TIME. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
            WE ARE NOT HERE TO VOTE ON THAT TODAY.
            THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU THAT RELATES TO WHO KILLED RON AND NICOLE, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?  DOES THAT CONVINCE YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
            NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE QUALIFIED OR HOW MUCH BETTER THEY COULD HAVE DONE THEIR JOB, STILL AND ALL, DID THEY PRESENT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO YOU, DID THE EVIDENCE COME TO YOU IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND CONVINCING FORCE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN MET OUR BURDEN IN THIS CASE.
            NOW, THE DEFENSE HAS THROWN OUT A LOT OF POSSIBILITIES TO YOU, THE MEREST OF POSSIBILITIES, AND A LOT OF THEM WERE JUST THERE TO SCARE YOU.
            YOU HEARD DR. GERDES TALK ABOUT IT COULD BE THIS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT.  I SEE THE VALIDATION STUDIES, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE REMINDS ME OF A DOCTOR, WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO IN FOR AN OPERATION, THEY GIVE YOU ALL THIS LIST OF THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO YOU, COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO YOU.
            NEVERTHELESS, THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU THAT  WARNING, RIGHT?  THEY GOT TO TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU CANNOT GIVE AN INFORMED CONSENT AND SAY, YES, KNOWING THE RISK, I'M GOING TO GO AND DO THIS.
            NOW, IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED THAT ALL THESE HORRIBLE THINGS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN, NO ONE WOULD HAVE AN OPERATION.  YOU WOULDN'T TAKE THE RISK.  BUT YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE GOT TO TELL ME EVERYTHING NO MATTER HOW REMOTE THE POSSIBILITY, AND INDEED YOU GO AND HAVE THE OPERATION AND YOU ARE FINE AND NONE OF THAT STUFF HAPPENS.
            WELL, IN THIS CASE IT IS ACTUALLY THEY HAVE RAISED ALL THE POSSIBILITIES OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN IN AN EFFORT TO SCARE YOU AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE, BUT WE HAVE DONE BETTER THAN YOU COULD EVER DO IN AN OPERATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE PROVEN TO YOU THAT NOTHING IN THIS CASE DID HAPPEN.
            WE HAVE PROVEN TO YOU THAT IT WAS NOT CONTAMINATED.  WE HAVE EVEN PROVEN TO YOU THAT IT WAS NOT PLANTED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
            AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND DEMONSTRATE HOW WE HAVE PROVEN THAT TO YOU.
 
            SO WHY WERE THESE ISSUES RAISED?  WHY WERE THESE QUESTIONS RAISED?  WELL, THEY ARE ALL QUESTIONS AND ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AS A DISTRACTION.  THEY WERE ROADS RAISED, ROADS CREATED BY THE DEFENDANT TO LEAD YOU AWAY FROM THE CORE TRUTH  AND THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE SEARCHING FOR THE ANSWER TO, WHICH IS WHO MURDERED RON AND NICOLE?
            BUT THESE ROADS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THESE ARE FALSE ROADS.  THEY ARE FALSE ROADS BECAUSE THEY LEAD TO A DEAD-END.
            THE FALSE ROADS WERE PAVED WITH INFLAMMATORY DISTRACTIONS.
            BUT EVEN AFTER ALL THEIR TIRELESS EFFORTS, THE EVIDENCE STANDS STRONG AND POWERFUL TO PROVE TO YOU THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT.
            NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.  I THINK THAT BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE WILL AGREE.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MS. CLARK:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I APPROACH FOR A MOMENT?
      THE COURT:  MR. COCHRAN.
 
            (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE              BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
 
            (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
 
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  MISS CLARK.
 

             (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MS. CLARK:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
            PROCEED.
      MS. CLARK:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
            REASONABLE DOUBT.
            OKAY.  THIS IS AN INSTRUCTION THAT WE WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT, THEY ARE GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.  THIS IS A REAL IMPORTANT INSTRUCTION.  IT IS AT THE REAL HEART OF A CASE, EVERY CASE, EVERY CRIMINAL CASE.
            BECAUSE IT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE.  WE DON'T GUESS ANYBODY GUILTY.  WE PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THIS CASE.
            NOW, TO TELL YOU ABOUT REASONABLE DOUBT, IT IS KIND OF A FUNNY DEFINITION BECAUSE IT TALKS TO YOU ABOUT REASONABLE DOUBT IN VERY NEGATIVE TERMS.
            IT SAYS:
                "THAT STATE OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH, AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT YOU HAVE AN ABIDING CONVICTION."
IT IS VERY WEIRDLY WORDED AND IT IS GOING TO TAKE YOU A WHILE TO GO THROUGH THIS, SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT PIECES AT A TIME TO TRY AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE HAND HERE.
            FIRST OF ALL, LET ME POINT OUT THE FIRST  PARAGRAPH TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT IS OUR BURDEN OF PROOF.  I THINK THAT ONE IS FINE.  THAT IS PRETTY EASY.
            NOW, IT TALKS ABOUT HOW REASONABLE DOUBT IS DEFINED.  THIS IS REAL IMPORTANT.
                "IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT," OKAY, "BECAUSE EVERYTHING RELATING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT."
            THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.  IT IS A DOUBT FOUNDED IN REASON.
            I'M GOING TO AMPLIFY MORE ON THAT WITH EXAMPLES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, BUT BEAR THAT IN MIND, A POSSIBLE DOUBT.
            I HAVE A POSSIBLE DOUBT THAT THE SUN WILL COME UP TOMORROW.  DO I HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT IT?  NO.  I HAVE NO DOUBT FOUNDED IN REASON THAT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, JUST FOR A VERY BASIC EXAMPLE, SO THINK ABOUT THAT, TOO.
            WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT POSSIBLE DOUBT IS.  IT IS REASONABLE DOUBT.
            NOW, THE OTHER PART OF IT:
                "IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHICH AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON, THE ENTIRE COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE."
            NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS YOU CONSIDER THE DEFENSE CASE AND YOU CONSIDER THE PROSECUTION CASE.  YOU CONSIDER ALL OF IT.
            YOU WILL PROBABLY HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE, MULTIPLE TIMES, "WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING."
            THAT IS RIGHT.  THEY DON'T.
            IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE WHEN THE PEOPLE COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATION, THE DEFENSE CAN SAY NO WITNESSES, WE REST, BECAUSE THEY CAN SIT AND MAKE THE STATE PROVE THEIR CASE WITHOUT EVER CALLING A WITNESS.
            THAT'S RIGHT.  THAT'S CORRECT.
            BUT WHEN THEY DO, WHEN THEY DO, THEN YOU MUST CONSIDER THE QUALITY AND THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED.
            THAT GOES INTO THE MIX.  THAT IS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION.
            WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE DID THEY PRESENT TO DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING TO YOU?  TO PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU?
 
            IF THEY TRY TO PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU, THEIR WITNESSES, THEIR EVIDENCE GETS EVALUATED BY THE SAME RULES OURS DO.  THE SAME JURY INSTRUCTION APPLIES.
            YOU WILL SEE A JURY INSTRUCTION IN YOUR PACKET BACK THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW TO EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, BOTH EXPERT AND LAY WITNESSES.
            THERE IS NO DISTINCTION MADE IN THAT JURY INSTRUCTION FOR DEFENSE WITNESSES OR FOR PEOPLE'S  WITNESSES.  IT IS ALL THE SAME.
            YOU DETERMINE THEIR CREDIBILITY AND THE RELATIVE CONVINCING FORCE OF THE PROOF IN -- BY THE SAME RULES, OKAY?
            SO THAT IS THE FIRST THING TO REMEMBER. WHEN YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING, YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
            WHAT HAVE THEY SHOWN YOU?  WHAT HAVE WE SHOWN YOU?  WE HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
            BUT YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE SHOWN YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS PROVEN TO YOU.
            WE HAVE PIECES OF BOARDS AND EXHIBITS EVERYWHERE IN THIS COURTROOM.
            ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, ALL I'M TELLING YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS IT IS A REASONABLE DOUBT AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE DOUBT AND WE WILL COME BACK TO IT AGAIN.
 
            BUT AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL OF OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEN YOU OPEN UP THE WINDOWS AND LET THE COOL AIR BLOW OUT THE SMOKESCREEN THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE DEFENSE WITH THE COOL WIND OF REASON, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN PROVEN GUILTY EASILY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY:
            THE EVIDENCE HAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT WHEN DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN SAID HE DID NOT USE RACIAL EPITHETS IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, HE LIED, BUT  IT IS ALSO CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WITH THE TIMING, OKAY?  I THINK THAT IS THE EASIEST PLACE TO START, THE TIMING ON JUNE THE 12TH.

[CLARK REVIEWS EVIDENCE REGARDING TIMING AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MURDER ACCORDING TO PROSECUTION]
 

            SO NOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CONDUCT, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OPPORTUNITY AND TIMING.
            LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
            I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT IN THE DETAIL YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD IT, HEAVEN FORBID, BUT ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN WITH THE OPPORTUNITY EVIDENCE, WITH THE CONDUCT EVIDENCE, WE ALREADY HAVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT DID COMMIT THESE MURDERS, WITHOUT EVEN REALLY GETTING INTO THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, AND ONCE YOU SEE THE VAST ARRAY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS VIRTUALLY AN OCEAN OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THIS DEFENDANT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS.
            WHAT ALL OF THIS DOES, ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE, IT LINKS THE DEFENDANT TO THE VICTIMS AND THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY.
            NOW, THE DEFENSE HAS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TRY AND SHOW THAT THEY COULD DISCREDIT THIS EVIDENCE AND THE LENGTHS THAT THEY HAVE INCLUDED HAVE BEEN SOME OF THE MOST BIZARRE AND FARFETCHED NOTIONS I THINK I HAVE EVER HEARD.
            THEY HINT THAT THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED. THEY HAVE TRIED TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT MULTIPLE OTHER BLOODSTAINS WERE CONTAMINATED AND THAT SOMEHOW ALL THE CONTAMINATION ONLY OCCURRED WHERE IT WOULD CONSISTENTLY PROVE THE DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY.
            SO NOW THE LITTLE AMPLICONS, THOSE LITTLE DNA, THEY ARE CO-CONSPIRATORS, TOO, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE GOT TO RUSH TO ONLY THE PLACES WHERE YOU CAN ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO THE MURDERER.
            WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, JUST THINK ABOUT THAT ONE POINT LOGICALLY, OKAY?
            OBVIOUSLY IT IS COMMON SENSE, IF CONTAMINATION IS GOING ON YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IT GOING ON ALL OVER THE PLACE.
            AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS TRUE WITH THIS AEROSOL EFFECT, FLYING DNA ALL OVER THE PLACE, THEN MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD TYPE OUGHT TO BE SHOWING UP IN OTHER CASES SOMEWHERE.  YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE OUT OR DOWN IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT IN A RAPE CASE MR. SIMPSON'S TYPE SHOULD BE SHOWING UP BECAUSE IT IS EVERYWHERE.
            OR EVEN LET'S CONFINE TO IT THIS CASE. TALK ABOUT THAT.  THAT HOW COME IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HIS BLOOD IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, DNA IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, WHY DIDN'T WE FIND HIS BLOOD TYPE SHOWING UP WHERE OBVIOUSLY IT SHOULDN'T BE?
            WHAT I MEAN IS THIS:
            THEY TOOK SAMPLES FROM THE POOL OF BLOOD BY NICOLE'S BODY.  THEY TOOK SAMPLES OF BLOOD THAT WAS NEAR RON GOLDMAN'S BODY.  OBVIOUSLY THE BLOOD CAME FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE LYING THERE.
 
             AND THEN OF COURSE YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THE BLOOD DROPS LEADING AWAY FROM THE CRIME SCENE THAT HAD TO BE LEFT BY THE KILLER.  THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.  THAT WAS LEFT BY THE KILLER BECAUSE THEY ARE NEXT TO THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS.
            SO YOU KNOW, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAMPLES OF BLOOD THEY TOOK FROM HER POOL OF BLOOD DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD TYPE IF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD TYPE DNA IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE?
            IF IT IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, THEN IT OUGHT TO BE ALL OVER THE PLACE.  WHY ISN'T IT IN THE POOL OF BLOOD SAMPLE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM NICOLE BROWN?  WHY ISN'T IT IN THE POOL OF THE BLOOD SAMPLE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM NEAR RON GOLDMAN'S BODY?
            LOGIC, COMMON SENSE, IT OUGHT TO BE.  THE DNA, THOSE AMPLICONS, THESE LITTLE THINGS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.  THEY DON'T -- THEY ARE NOT GUIDED.  CONTAMINATION IS A RANDOM THING.  THE HAPPENS WILLY-NILLY.
            AND WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS THEY ARE TRYING TO GET YOU TO BELIEVE THAT ONLY THE KILLER'S BLOOD WAS CONTAMINATED AND IT WAS CONSISTENTLY CONTAMINATED WITH ONLY THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD TYPING.
            DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU?
            WHAT YOU OUGHT TO HAVE, IF YOU HAVE CONTAMINATION, IF YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM HERE, IS THAT SOME OF THE BLOOD DROPS COME BACK TO THE DEFENDANT AND SOME DON'T; THEY COME BACK TO THE REAL KILLER.  THAT IS WHAT YOU OUGHT TO GET, BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE THIS CONSISTENT.
            IF YOU HAD ONE BLOOD DROP IN THIS CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT BE CONCERNED WITH ALL OF THESE POSSIBILITIES THEY HAVE RAISED, BUT YOU HAVE SO MANY, YOU HAVE SO MANY. YOU'VE GOT FIVE BLOOD DROPS LEADING AWAY FROM THE BODIES THE VICTIM OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND YOU'VE GOT THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.
            AND YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE OTHER PART OF THEIR -- OF THEIR SCENARIO THAT MAKES NO SENSE, NO SENSE.  YOU HAVE ALL THESE POLICE OFFICERS THAT WERE THERE ON JUNE THE 13TH, OFFICER RISKE SAYING HIS PARTNER, YOUNG ROOKIE NAMES OFFICER TERRAZAS, SHINED HIS LIGHT ON THE REAR GATE TO SHOW HIM THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.  YOU HAVE OFFICER RISKE SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.  YOU HAVE OFFICER ROSSI SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.  YOU HAVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE, ALL OF IT EARLY ON.
            DENNIS FUNG, WHOM YOU CAN SEE IS NOT THE MODEL OF EFFICIENCY, FORGOT TO COLLECT IT, AND FROM THIS WE GET A THEORY THAT THEY SEEM TO IMPLY THAT THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED.  WHY DO THEY SAY THAT?
            NOW, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO HEAR MR. COCHRAN ACTUALLY STAND UP IN FRONT OF YOU AND TELL YOU HE BELIEVES THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED.  I WANT TO HEAR THAT.
            BECAUSE THAT IS INCREDIBLE.  THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.
            WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, THINK WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN TO SHOW YOU HOW THAT BLOOD WAS PLANTED, TO SHOW YOU WHEN THAT BLOOD WAS PLANTED, TO SHOW YOU WHO PLANTED THAT BLOOD?
            NOW, THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH THIS STORY ABOUT CONTAMINATION AND PLANTING, AND I WANT TO HEAR IF THEY REALLY, REALLY DO THAT, SAY THAT TO YOU, IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET AROUND THE RESULT.
 
 ******

            NOW, THE BLOOD ON THE SOCKS, NICOLE'S BLOOD ON THE SOCKS.  AGAIN RFLP MATCH, VERY POWERFUL.  SHOWED FROM CELLMARK THAT WAS A FIVE-PROBE MATCH AND I BELIEVE FOUND TO BE ONE IN 6.8 BILLION PEOPLE.  AGAIN, MORE THAN -- THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.  IDENTIFICATION.  AND 11-PROBE MATCH BY DOJ SHOWED THAT IT WAS ONE IN 7.7 BILLION PEOPLE.  AGAIN, HER BLOOD AND ONLY HERS ON THIS PLANET COULD BE ON THAT SOCK.
            NOW, HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT?  IT WASN'T WRONG AND THEY COULDN'T FIND AN EXPERT WHO WOULD SAY IT WAS CONTAMINATED BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH DNA.  THAT IS THE BLOOD.  THAT TYPE IS THE TYPE.  IT IS HER BLOOD.
            HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT?  AND IF YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS TRUE, IF YOU KNOW IT IS HER BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS THAT THEY FIND ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 13TH, THAT ALONE WITH THE REAR GATE STAIN CONVICTS HIM.  YOU CAN'T BELIEVE OTHERWISE.
            YOU HAVE SO MUCH PROOF NOW HOW DO THEY GET AROUND THAT?  THEY HAVE TO FIND A THEORY TO GET AROUND THAT.  AND WHAT DO THEY DO?  THIS IS WHAT THEY COME UP WITH.
            SO IF IT IS LOW VOLUME DNA, IT IS CONTAMINATED.  IF IT IS HIGH VOLUME DNA, IT IS PLANTED, AND IT IS ALSO VERY CONVENIENT AND RIDICULOUS.
            NOW, THEIR EXPERTS HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  THEIR EXPERTS COULD HAVE COME IN AND SHOWN YOU HOW THE EVIDENCE GOT CONTAMINATED.  GOT CONTAMINATED, NOT POSSIBLY -- REMEMBER, I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT MERE POSSIBILITY.
            NO, DID, DID GET CONTAMINATED, AND THEY COULD HAVE COME HERE AND TOLD YOU AND POINTED OUT THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWED WHY ONLY THE BLOOD DROPS LEFT BY THE MURDERER GOT CONTAMINATED AND SHOWN YOU WHY THEY CONSISTENTLY ONLY GOT CONTAMINATED IN A WAY THAT SHOWED THE DEFENDANT'S DNA TYPE, NOT THAT THEY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE.
            YES, POSSIBLY WE ARE ALL SITTING ON MARS RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, AND I'M FROM VENUS AND I'M TALKING.  ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
            LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT DID HAPPEN.  LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE GOT.
            THEY COULD HAVE SHOWN YOU PROOF THAT THE BUNDY BLOOD DROPS WERE CONTAMINATED, NOT THE MERE POSSIBILITY.  NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT GIVES YOU A REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT THAT HAPPENED, AND THAT THEY NEVER COULD DO.
            AND THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT IF IT WERE TRUE, BUT THEY DIDN'T.
            AND NOT ONE EXPERT THEY BROUGHT IN ON THE DNA DID EVEN ONE TEST ON THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE THAT PROVES TO YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS; NOT ONE, WITH ALL THOSE EXPERTS YOU SAW.
            AND THE REASON FOR THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THAT IT ISN'T TRUE.
            THE BLOOD ON THE BUNDY TRAIL COMES BACK TO THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT IS HIS BLOOD.  THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE COMES BACK TO THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT IS BLOOD HE LEFT THERE ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS.
            SO THEY TOOK YOU THROUGH ALL THIS TORTURED AND TWISTED ROAD ONE MOMENT SAYING THAT THE POLICE ARE ALL A BUNCH OF BUMBLING IDIOTS.  THE NEXT MOMENT THEY ARE CLEVER CONSPIRATORS.

 ***********

            NOW THAT I'VE REVIEWED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE GIVES YOU MUCH  MORE ASSURANCE OF THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT.  AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THIS.
            IN A DIRECT EVIDENCE CASE, YOU MAY HAVE ONE EYEWITNESS TO TELL YOU, "I SAW IT."  THAT MEANS YOU HAVE ONE THING TO RELY ON.
            BUT IN A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE, YOU HAVE MANY THINGS TO RELY ON.  YOU HAVE THE BLOOD AT BUNDY.  YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF NICOLE ON HIS SOCKS.  YOU HAVE HIS BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY.  YOU HAVE RONALD GOLDMAN'S BLOOD IN HIS CAR.  YOU HAVE HIS HAIR ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT.  YOU HAVE THE FIBER FROM HIS CLOTHING ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT, ON HIS SOCKS, ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE.  YOU HAVE THE BRONCO CARPET FIBER ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE.  YOU HAVE THE BRONCO CARPET FIBER ON THE KNIT SKI CAP.
            THE WEALTH OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS SIMPLY OVERWHELMING.  IF WE ONLY HAD THE BUNDY BLOOD TRAIL THAT MATCHED THE DEFENDANT, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH PROOF TO FIND HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IF WE ONLY HAD NICOLE BROWN'S BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO PROVE HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  IF WE ONLY HAD RON GOLDMAN'S BLOOD IN HIS BRONCO, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO PROVE HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            BUT WE HAVE ALL THAT AND MUCH MORE.  AND NOW, LET ME SUMMARIZE FOR YOU WHAT WE HAVE PROVEN.
            ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.  WE'VE PROVEN  THE OPPORTUNITY TO KILL.  WE'VE GIVEN THE TIME WINDOW IN WHICH HE WAS ABLE TO KILL BECAUSE HIS WHEREABOUTS WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE TIME THAT WE KNOW THE MURDERS WERE OCCURRING.
            WE HAVE THE HAND INJURIES THAT WERE SUFFERED ON THE NIGHT OF HIS WIFE'S MURDER TO THE LEFT HAND, AS WE KNOW THE KILLER WAS INJURED ON HIS LEFT HAND.  WE HAVE THE POST-HOMICIDAL CONDUCT THAT I TOLD YOU ABOUT, LYING TO ALLAN PARK, MAKING ALLAN PARK WAIT OUTSIDE, NOT LETTING KATO PICK UP THAT LITTLE DARK BAG, HIS REACTION TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WHEN HE MADE NOTIFICATION, WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAID TO HIM, "NICOLE HAS BEEN KILLED."  INSTEAD OF ASKING ABOUT A CAR ACCIDENT, THE DEFENDANT ASKED NO QUESTIONS.
            WE HAVE THE MANNER OF KILLINGS, KILLINGS THAT INDICATE THAT IT WAS A RAGE KILLING, THAT IT WAS A FURY KILLING, THAT IT WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL HIT, THE MANNER OF KILLING THAT INDICATES ONE PERSON COMMITTED THESE MURDERS, ONE PERSON WITH THE SAME STYLE OF KILLING.
            WE HAVE THE KNIT CAP AT BUNDY.  WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT OF THE BLUE BLACK COTTON FIBERS, THE DEFENDANT'S HAIR.  WE HAVE THE BRUNO MAGLI SHOEPRINT, SIZE 12, ALL OF THEM SIZE 12, HIS SIZE SHOE, ALL OF THEM CONSISTENT GOING DOWN THE BUNDY WALK.
            WE HAVE THE BUNDY BLOOD TRAIL, HIS BLOOD  TO THE LEFT OF THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS.  WE HAVE THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, HIS AND RON GOLDMAN'S.  WE HAVE THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD TRAIL UP THE DRIVEWAY, IN HIS BATHROOM, IN THE FOYER.
            WE HAVE THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ON IT, RON GOLDMAN'S FIBERS FROM HIS SHIRT, RON GOLDMAN'S HAIR, NICOLE'S HAIR, THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD, RON GOLDMAN'S BLOOD, NICOLE'S BLOOD AND THE BRONCO FIBER AND THE BLUE BLACK COTTON FIBERS.  WE HAVE THE SOCKS AND WE HAVE THE BLUE BLACK COTTON FIBERS ON THE SOCKS AND WE HAVE NICOLE BROWN'S BLOOD ON THE SOCKS.
            THERE HE IS.  I HAVEN'T EVEN SPOKEN -- YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD YET ABOUT THE MOTIVE.  YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD THE WHY OF IT, THE WHY HE DID IT. AND YOU KNOW HE DID IT.
            NOW, THESE MURDERS DID NOT OCCUR IN A VACUUM, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE HEARD IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE.  THEY OCCURRED IN THE CONTEXT OF A STORMY RELATIONSHIP, A RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS SCARRED BY VIOLENCE AND ABUSE. AND THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE COMPLETES THE PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AS IT EXPLAINS THE MOTIVE FOR THESE MURDERS AND SHOWS YOU WHAT LED THIS DEFENDANT TO BE SITTING HERE IN THIS COURTROOM TODAY.
            THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            THANK YOU, MISS CLARK.
            MR. DARDEN, ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED?
      MR. DARDEN:  WELL, THERE'S NO BETTER TIME THAN RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. DARDEN:  MAY I?
      THE COURT:  I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU WANTED SOME EXHIBITS BROUGHT UP.  BUT IF YOU'RE READY TO GO --
      MR. DARDEN:  I'M READY TO GO.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, SIR.
            PROCEED.
 
              (OPENING ARGUMENT BY MR. DARDEN)
 
      MR. DARDEN:  THANK YOU.
            GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD EVENING.
      MR. DARDEN:  YOU KNOW, THEY ASKED ME TO DO THE SUMMATION MARCIA CLARK JUST DID FOR YOU, BUT I TOLD THEM, NO, IT'S TOO LONG.  I'M NOT THE KIND OF PERSON WHO LIKES TO TALK THAT LONG AND MARCIA ISN'T EITHER, BUT SHE HAD TO.
            AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU PROBABLY GATHERED FROM HEARING HER TODAY IS THAT THIS CASE REALLY IS A SIMPLE CASE IN THIS ESSENCE. WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, THIS CASE REALLY IS A SIMPLE CASE.
            ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS USE THE TOOLS GOD GAVE YOU, THE TOOLS HE GAVE YOU TO USE OR UTILIZE WHENEVER YOU'RE CONFRONTED WITH A PROBLEM OR AN ISSUE.  ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. AND THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A COMPLEX SERIES OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND LAW AND SCIENCE AND ALL OF THAT.  NOT REALLY.  NOT REALLY.
            YOU HAVE TO QUESTION OR WONDER HOW IT IS A LAWYER CAN SUMMARIZE A CASE IN EIGHT HOURS WHEN PRESENTING THE CASE TOOK EIGHT MONTHS.  IT'S A SIMPLE CASE, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF SMOKE, A LOT OF SMOKE SCREENS, A LOT OF DIVERSIONS, A LOT OF DETRACTIONS, A LOT OF DISTRACTIONS, AND IN SOME RESPECT, THERE'S  BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO GET YOU TO LOSE FOCUS OF WHAT THE REAL ISSUES ARE IN THIS CASE.  AND THAT TAKES TIME.
            IF I COULD GIVE YOU ANY ADVICE AS JURORS, ANY ADVICE AT ALL, I WOULD SAY TO YOU, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.  WHEN YOU GET ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AND GO INTO THE JURY ROOM AND AFTER YOU PICK A FOREPERSON, TAKE THAT COMMON SENSE THAT GOD GAVE YOU, TAKE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION GAVE YOU AND THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE, GO INTO THAT JURY ROOM, SIT DOWN, SPREAD IT OUT.  AND USING THAT COMMON SENSE, ASK YOURSELF A QUESTION; WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW.  WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW?
            AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE SIMPLEST TERMS, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IS THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, BLOOD TRAIL FROM BUNDY, BLOOD IN HIS BATHROOM, BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS.  SIMPLE EVIDENCE.
            YOU CAN LOOK AT A CHART AND SEE WHAT THE DNA RESULTS ARE.  IT REALLY, REALLY WON'T BE THAT DIFFICULT AND WHEN YOU USE YOUR COMMON SENSE AND GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, PUT ASIDE ALL OF THE DISTRACTIONS AND ALL OF THE SMOKE THAT'S BEEN BLOWN THROUGHOUT THIS COURTROOM AND IN YOUR DIRECTION.
            NOW, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU.  AND UNFORTUNATELY, I WASN'T HERE DURING JURY SELECTION.  SO I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU AND INTRODUCE MYSELF TO YOU DURING VOIR DIRE, AND SO YOU WERE SORT OF GIVEN THE DARDEN SHOCK TREATMENT I GUESS.  YOU SAW ME LITERALLY  THE FIRST DAY YOU CAME INTO THE COURTROOM THE FIRST DAY WE BEGAN TAKING EVIDENCE LITERALLY, AND I GOT INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND WE DIDN'T GET TO TALK A LOT.
            WELL, LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU IN THE LIMITED TIME THAT I HAVE.  YOU ARE AN AMAZING GROUP OF PEOPLE.  YOU'VE BEEN SEQUESTERED NOW LONGER THAN ANY JURY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  I THINK JUDGE ITO ALLUDED TO THAT BEFORE.
            YOU SPENT MONTHS IN SEQUESTRATION.  I GUESS YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO WATCH YOUR 50 TELEVISION PROGRAMS OR FOOTBALL.  MAYBE YOU MISSED THE NBA SEASON.  I DON'T KNOW.
            BUT AS YOU SAT THERE IN SEQUESTRATION, THE REST OF US, THESE PEOPLE, WE ALL GOT ON WITH OUR LIVES.  WE WENT HOME EVERY NIGHT, SAW OUR FAMILY AND OUR FRIENDS.  WE CONTINUED THE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE HAD, AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DO THAT FOR EIGHT MONTHS.
            AND ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT IS THAT YOU ARE AN AMAZING GROUP OF PEOPLE, AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE PAID A VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT PRICE.  YOU HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE.  YOU HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO SEE TO IT THAT THIS CASE IS RESOLVED FAIRLY AND CORRECTLY AND YOU MADE A COMMITMENT TO SEE TO IT THAT THE LAW IS FOLLOWED, THAT THE POLICE FOLLOWED PROCEDURE AND THE LAW AND THAT THERE IS NO CONVICTION IN THIS CASE UNLESS THE  EVIDENCE IS PROVEN TO YOU, UNLESS HIS GUILT IS PROVEN TO YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD DO.  THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY SHOULD DO.
            A TRIAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, AND SOMETIMES THE TRUTH IS UNCOVERED OR REVEALED AT THE END OF A LONG ROAD, AT THE END OF A LONG JOURNEY.  AND THIS HAS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY.
            WELL, LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU; THAT TODAY -- TONIGHT, THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING US TONIGHT OR WATCHING ME, AND THEY HAVE LISTENED TO THE EVIDENCE AND THEY HAVE WATCHED THE WITNESSES TESTIFY HERE ON TELEVISION AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO.
            THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE I SUPPOSE WHO THINK THAT JUSTICE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE JUST TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AND SAY HE'S NOT GUILTY.  SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT JUSTICE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE JUST TO JUMP TO SOME CONCLUSION, SOME SILLY CONCLUSION, SOME CONCLUSION NOT BASED ON THE LAW AND FORGET ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.
            SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IS A CELEBRITY, THAT PERHAPS HE IS SOMEONE ABOVE THE LAW, THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SPECIAL RULES FOR HIM OR THAT SOMEHOW HE SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER DEFENDANT.  BUT  THAT'S NOT JUSTICE.
            AND THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT THINK BECAUSE FUHRMAN IS A RACIST, THAT WE OUGHT TO CHUCK THE LAW OUT OF THE WINDOW, THROW IT OUT OF THE WINDOW, PERHAPS IT SHOULDN'T BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE.
            WELL, THAT'S WRONG AND THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE, BECAUSE WE DON'T IGNORE THE LAW JUST BECAUSE OF THE STATUS OF A DEFENDANT, BECAUSE OF WHO HE IS OR BECAUSE OF WHO HE KNOWS.  THAT ISN'T JUSTICE.
            YOU'RE HERE TO ENSURE JUSTICE, I'M HERE TO ENSURE JUSTICE AND WE ALL KNOW THE RULES.  AND THE RULES SAY AND THE LAW SAYS THAT HE SHOULD NOT KILL, THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE, AND THE LAW SAYS THAT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT YOU SHOULD FIND HIM GUILTY.
            YOU HEARD MARCIA CLARK AND YOU'VE HEARD THE EVIDENCE AND YOU'VE SEEN THE EVIDENCE, AND YOU'RE REASONABLE PEOPLE.  AND, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW.  I MEAN, IF WE'RE HONEST WITH OURSELVES, WE KNOW, IF WE ARE. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHAT WE KNOW.  BUT WE KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH THAT WE KNOW IS THAT HE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE.
      MR. COCHRAN:  OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.  I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      MR. DARDEN:  NOW, THIS MAN, THIS DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, WE BELIEVE THAT, GIVEN THE STATE AND THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE, IS GUILTY.
            AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH VOTING GUILTY IN THIS CASE GIVEN THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE.  A VOTE OF GUILT IN THIS CASE ISN'T A VOTE FOR ANY INDEPENDENT GROUP IN PARTICULAR OR ANY INDEPENDENT GROUP AT ALL.  IT ISN'T A VOTE FOR THE PROSECUTION, FOR MARCIA AND I.  IT CERTAINLY ISN'T A VOTE FOR THE LAPD, AND IT'S NOT A VOTE AGAINST ANYONE.  IT'S NOT A VOTE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.  IT'S NOT A VOTE FOR THE VICTIMS OR THE VICTIMS' FAMILY.
            WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT JURY ROOM OPEN-MINDED AND FAIRLY AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSIDER THIS EVIDENCE AND THEN CAST A BALLOT, A VOTE FOR GUILT OR INNOCENCE BASED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THIS CASE AND ONLY ON THE LAW GIVEN TO YOU BY JUDGE ITO, WHEN YOU CAST A VOTE ON THAT BASIS, THEN YOU'RE VOTING FOR JUSTICE, YOU'RE VOTING FOR FAIRNESS, YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING UNDER THE LAW.  AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO.

 ******

            YOU HEARD FROM THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE AND THEY PRESENTED TESTIMONY ABOUT SLURS, EPITHETS AS THEY CALL THEM, A BUNCH OF NASTY, HATEFUL, LOW-DOWN LANGUAGE USED BY MARK FUHRMAN.  AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO CALL HIM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IF I CAN HELP IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T DESERVE THAT TITLE.  HE DOESN'T WARRANT THAT KIND OF RESPECT, NOT FROM ME.
            BUT THIS ISN'T THE CASE OF MARK FUHRMAN. THIS IS THE CASE OF O.J. SIMPSON.
            AND LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU, IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO.  AND I DON'T MEAN TO OFFEND YOU OR DEMEAN YOU, AND I HOPE THAT YOU DON'T FEEL THAT I AM.  BUT THIS IS THE CASE OF O.J. SIMPSON, NOT MARK FUHRMAN.  THE CASE OF MARK FUHRMAN, IF THERE'S TO BE A CASE, THAT'S A CASE FOR ANOTHER FORUM, NOT NECESSARILY A CASE FOR ANOTHER DAY, BECAUSE TODAY MAY BE THE DAY.  BUT IT IS A CASE FOR ANOTHER FORUM, ANOTHER JURY PERHAPS.
            THIS CASE IS ABOUT THIS DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, AND THE "M" WORD, MURDER; NOT ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN AND THE "N" WORD.  AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
            I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACT OF HIS MISSTATEMENTS OR LIES OR UNTRUTHS, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO TERM IT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT.  THAT'S THE LAW.  YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING FUHRMAN SAID ON THE WITNESS STAND BECAUSE THAT'S EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
            AND I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER IT.  I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE.  SO DON'T THINK THAT I'M SAYING, HEY, JUST OVERLOOK IT, JUST OVERLOOK WHAT HE SAID, JUST OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT HE LIED ABOUT HAVING USED THAT SLUR IN THE PAST 10 YEARS.
            BUT I AM ASKING YOU TO PUT IT IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE.  YOU DECIDE WHAT IT'S WORTH.  YOU DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS.  IF IT HELPS YOU IN ASSESSING HIS CREDIBILITY -- AND IT SHOULD, OR HIS LACK OF CREDIBILITY, I DON'T KNOW -- THEN YOU USE IT.
            BUT PLEASE JUST REMEMBER, FUHRMAN ISN'T THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE AND HIS USE OF THAT WORD IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  AND YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.  I HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT AS A LAWYER FOR THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT APPARENTLY WAS A VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT EVENT FOR THE DEFENSE.
 *****

[DARDEN DISCUSSES EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE BY O.J. AGAINST NICOLE]

            THEY WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE  CONSPIRED AGAINST O.J. SIMPSON.  NICOLE SAYS THEY HAD BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND NEVER DID ANYTHING TO HIM.  I DON'T KNOW.
            WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.  HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT TAKE?  IF THEY'D BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE THAT NIGHT, THEN THAT NIGHT WAS THE NINTH TIME.  NO ONE HAD EVER DONE ANYTHING TO HIM BEFORE.  I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS.
            BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK?  DO YOU THINK IT'S TIME TO THINK THAT PERHAPS THIS TIME, WE OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING?  EIGHT IS ENOUGH.  IF EIGHT ISN'T ENOUGH, NINE -- NINE IS CERTAINLY ENOUGH.
            NICOLE SAID IT WITH HER OWN MOUTH BACK THEN, "HE IS GOING TO KILL ME, HE IS GOING TO KILL ME."   AND SURE ENOUGH, HE HAS, LONG AFTER SHE MAKES THESE SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS TO OFFICER EDWARDS, AFTER SHE COMPLAINS THEY HAVE BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND THEY'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO HIM, THIS MAN, THE DEFENDANT, SEE.
            AND WE'RE SEEING THE DEFENDANT AT HOME AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW.  WE'RE SEEING THE PRIVATE SIDE OF HIM, THE PRIVATE SIDE I TOLD YOU I'D SHOW YOU.
            HE COMES OUT OF HIS HOUSE AND HE'S WEARING A BATHROBE 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.  AND HE SPEAKS TO OFFICER EDWARDS.
 
            NOW, WHEN HE SPEAKS TO OFFICER EDWARDS,  DOES HE ASK HIM, "HOW'S MY WIFE"?  NO.  DOES HE SAY, "I HOPE I DIDN'T HURT HER TOO BADLY"?  NO.
            WHAT DOES HE SAY?  WHAT DOES HE DO?  HE HUMILIATES HER.  REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID.  HE SAID, "I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN MY BED ANYMORE.  I GOT TWO OTHER WOMEN.  I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN MY BED ANYMORE."
            THAT WAS HIS RESPONSE.  AND THIS WAS NICOLE, HIS WIFE.  SHE HAD BEEN HIS WIFE FOUR YEARS.
            YOU RECALL OFFICER EDWARDS' TESTIMONY, THAT THIS DEFENDANT, HE WAS ANGRY, HE WAS MAD, HE WAS FIT TO BE TIED.  AND HE WAS YELLING AT OFFICER EDWARDS.
            AND THE DEFENDANT WAS ON ONE SIDE OF THE GATE.  HE WAS ON THE ROCKINGHAM SIDE ON HIS OWN PROPERTY.  OFFICER EDWARDS WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GATE.  AND THERE THEY ARE SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE GATE, AND THE DEFENDANT IS YELLING THESE THINGS TO OFFICER EDWARDS ABOUT HIS WIFE, SAYING THESE KINDS OF THINGS ABOUT HIS WIFE TO OFFICER EDWARDS WHO IS A STRANGER.
            AND OFFICER EDWARDS SAID TO THE DEFENDANT, "YOUR WIFE HAS BEEN BATTERED.  SHE IS INJURED.  I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ARREST YOU."
            WELL, THAT JUST SET THE DEFENDANT OFF AGAIN, JUST SET HIM OFF.
 
            LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.  THE FUSE IS  BURNING.  THE FUSE IS BURNING, FOLKS.  THE FUSE IS BURNING.  AND AT SOME POINT, THIS FUSE IS GOING TO RUN OUT AND IT IS GOING TO PLAY OUT.  IT IS GOING TO GET SO SHORT AND SO CLOSE TO THE BOMB THAT AT SOME POINT, THIS BOMB IS GOING TO EXPLODE.
            AND WHAT DOES THE DEFENDANT SAY WHEN OFFICER EDWARDS SAYS TO HIM, "I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ARREST YOU, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE YOU TO JAIL"? WHAT DOES THE DEFENDANT SAY?
            HE SAYS THE SAME THING NICOLE SAID IN A SENSE.  HE SAYS TO OFFICER EDWARDS -- THIS IS WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID.  YOU RECALL THIS TESTIMONY. OFFICER EDWARDS HEARD THE DEFENDANT SAY, "YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS?"
            NOW, LET'S JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.  IF NOTHING ELSE, WE NOW HAVE THE CONFIRMATION THAT WE NEED.  THAT IS THE CONFIRMATION OF THE FACT THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE.
            BUT WHAT IS THIS PART ABOUT, "AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS"?  WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  "NOW, YOU ARE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS, BUT YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE."
 
 
            AND I DON'T KNOW.  THIS IS THE EVIDENCE  IN THE CASE.  YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT THAT MEANS.  YOU CAN INTERPRET WHAT HE SAYS.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST TAKE IT LITERALLY.  YOU DECIDE WHAT THAT MEANS.  IT COULD MEAN A COUPLE THINGS.
            AND AFTER HE SAID THAT AND AFTER HE COMPLAINED TO OFFICER EDWARDS ABOUT THE FACT HE WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED FOR BEATING HIS WIFE, HE SAYS TO OFFICER EDWARDS, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER.  IT IS A FAMILY MATTER AND NOTHING MORE."
            WELL, WIFE BEATING IS NOT JUST A FAMILY MATTER, IS IT?  I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO TAKE SERIOUSLY?
            THAT'S ONE THING ABOUT SPOUSAL ABUSE. YOU KNOW, IT HAPPENS AND IT ALWAYS HAPPENS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.  AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY; NOBODY KNOWS WHAT GOES ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
            AND WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WENT ON BEHIND THE GATES OF THIS MAN'S ESTATE AT ROCKINGHAM, BUT WE DO KNOW THIS; THAT WHATEVER IT WAS, WHATEVER WENT ON THERE HAD GONE ON EIGHT TIMES PRIOR TO THIS TIME, RIGHT?  WE KNOW THAT.
            BUT HE SAYS IT'S A FAMILY MATTER.  HE MINIMIZES WHAT HAS HAPPENED.  HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THIS WOMAN.  HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHAT HE DID TO HER.
 
 
            WELL, OFFICER EDWARDS GIVES HIM THE STAR  TREATMENT.  HE TELLS HIM, "HEY, I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU TO JAIL.  GO BACK IN THE HOUSE AND GET DRESSED."
            OFFICER EDWARDS DID NOT INSIST ON ARRESTING HIM RIGHT THEN AND THERE.  HE LET HIM GO IN THE HOUSE ALONE TO GET DRESSED.  APPARENTLY THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID, BECAUSE A FEW MINUTES LATER, HE CAME BACK OUT YELLING AND COMPLAINING AND MOANING, COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING ARRESTED, SAYING MORE DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT HIS WIFE IN FRONT OF THIS STRANGER.
            WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, OFFICER EDWARDS HAD SENT FOR A SECOND CAR, SECOND POLICE VEHICLE, A TRANSPORT VEHICLE BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT NICOLE TO THE STATION IN ONE CAR AND THEY WERE GOING TO ARREST THIS MAN AND TAKE HIM TO THE STATION IN ANOTHER CAR.  AND AS THAT SECOND POLICE CAR ARRIVED AND AS OFFICER EDWARDS TURNED HIS ATTENTION TOWARD THAT SECOND POLICE CAR, THAT MEANT THAT HE TURNED HIS ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT.  AND WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT DO?
            REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY, REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED?  I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.  WHAT DID HE DO?  JUMPED IN THE CAR AND HE RAN.  REMEMBER THAT? HE WENT OUT THE OTHER GATE IN THE BENTLEY.  HE RAN. HE DROVE AWAY.  HE GOT AWAY.  HE DIDN'T GET ARRESTED.  HE AVOIDED RESPONSIBILITY THAT DAY FOR HAVING DONE WHAT HE DID TO NICOLE.
            "RESPONSIBILITY" IS AN IMPORTANT WORD,  ONE OF THE WORDS WE TEACH OUR -- I KNOW I TEACH MY KIDS ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY.  YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM -- YOU HAVE TO LET YOUR KIDS KNOW, HEY, YOU DO AN ACT, YOU'VE GOT TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, OKAY.  YOU'VE GOT TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.
            WELL, HE DIDN'T ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES THAT DAY.  HE DIDN'T ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.  HE JUMPED IN THAT BENTLEY, HE DROVE AWAY, HE SNUCK OFF. HE AVOIDED RESPONSIBILITY.  HE GOT AWAY FROM THE POLICE.  THEY TRIED TO CATCH HIM.  THEY COULDN'T. WELL, WE CAUGHT HIM THIS TIME.
            WELL, AFTER THE DEFENDANT GOT AWAY, EDWARDS ASKED NICOLE TO GO DOWN TO PARKER CENTER, TO COME FROM ROCKINGHAM ALL THE WAY DOWNTOWN TO PARKER CENTER SO HE COULD HAVE SOME PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF HER INJURIES, BUT SHE REFUSED.  REMEMBER WHAT SHE SAID?  SHE SAID, "NO.  I JUST WANT MY CHILDREN.  I WANT TO STAY HERE WITH MY CHILDREN.  I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE MY CHILDREN."
            AND SHE WAS BEATEN AND SHE WAS BRUISED AND SHE WAS HURT.  SHE STILL WANTED TO STAY WITH HER KIDS.  SHE WANTED TO BE WITH HER KIDS.
            AND EDWARDS SAID, "WELL, WILL YOU DO THIS FOR US?  WILL YOU JUST GO DOWN TO WEST L.A. STATION AND LET US PHOTOGRAPH YOUR INJURIES?  IT ONLY TAKES A FEW MINUTES."
 
            IT SEEMS AS IF SHE WAS MORE CONCERNED  ABOUT HER KIDS THAN SHE WAS DOING ANYTHING TO THE DEFENDANT.  SHE DIDN'T -- SHE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT DOCUMENTING HER OWN INJURIES AT THAT TIME.  SHE JUST WANTED TO BE WITH HER KIDS.
            BUT EDWARDS TOOK HER TO WEST L.A. STATION AND HE TOOK SOME POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER. REMEMBER THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?  BACK IN FEBRUARY I THINK IT WAS, I THINK I MARKED THOSE PEOPLE'S 4 AND 5.
            I WANT YOU TO GO BACK FOR A MOMENT WITH ME EIGHT MONTHS AGO.  TAKE A LOOK AT THESE INJURIES. KEEP IN MIND, THESE ARE POLAROIDS AND THEY'RE EIGHT YEARS OLD.  LOOK AT THESE INJURIES.  JUST LOOK AT WHAT YOU CAN SEE, WHICH ISN'T MUCH AT THIS POINT.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. DARDEN:  SEE THE SMALL CUT TO THE RIGHT SIDE FROM WHERE WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER UPPER LIP?  LOOK AT THE SWOLLEN LEFT CHEEK.  LOOK AT THE SCAR, THE SCRATCH, THE BRUISE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER FOREHEAD.  YOU SEE THAT?
            YOU'VE SEEN OTHER PICTURES OF HER.  YOU SAW A PICTURE OF HER WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE AND SMILING. REMEMBER THAT PICTURE?  I HAVE TO FIND IT FOR YOU TOMORROW.
 
 
            LOOK AT THAT PICTURE, THE ONE YOU'RE  LOOKING AT NOW.  WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ONE OF HER SMILING, YOU LOOK AT THOSE TWO PICTURES, YOU THINK IT HELPS YOU DISCERN JUST HOW BADLY BRUISED SHE WAS.
            AT SOME POINT, HE TOOK HER BACK HOME TO BE WITH HER KIDS.  THE DEFENDANT, WELL, THEY DIDN'T CATCH HIM THAT NIGHT.  AND THE NEXT DAY, NICOLE SPOKE TO RON SHIPP AND THE NEXT DAY AS WELL, THE DEFENDANT SPOKE TO DETECTIVE FARRELL.
            REMEMBER DETECTIVE FARRELL, THE DETECTIVE INVESTIGATING THIS CASE?  HE CALLED DETECTIVE FARRELL ON THE PHONE AND APOLOGIZED FOR THE INCIDENT AND EXPRESSED TO DETECTIVE FARRELL HIS DISMAY AT THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES.  YOU REMEMBER THAT.  HE CALLED FARRELL AND TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T REALIZE SHE HAD BEEN INJURED THAT MUCH.
            YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THE FULL EXTENT OF HER INJURIES AT THE TIME?  I DON'T KNOW.  YOU TELL ME. THAT'S A POLAROID.  THIS IS PEOPLE'S 29.  SHE DOESN'T QUITE LOOK LIKE THAT IN ANY OTHER PHOTOGRAPH YOU'VE SEEN IN THIS CASE, DOES SHE?
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. DARDEN:  THE FUSE WAS BURNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.  HE HAD INJURED HER, HE HAD HARMED HER AND HE HAD BEATEN HER, AND HE DID NOT FULLY REALIZE THE EXTENT OF HIS OWN ANGER, THE EXTENT OF HIS OWN RAGE AT THAT POINT.  HE HAD HURT HER IN WAYS THAT HE  APPARENTLY HIMSELF DIDN'T FULLY, FULLY COMPREHEND AT THE TIME.
            AND LATER ON, HE WROTE HER SOME LETTERS. HE WAS TRYING TO GET BACK ON HER GOOD SIDE.
            NOW, YOU MAY SEE THESE AS LETTERS OF APOLOGY.  WE SAY THESE ARE LETTERS OF MANIPULATION. WHAT IS HE REALLY ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? YOU'LL HAVE THE ORIGINAL LETTERS IN THE JURY ROOM.
            IN THE BEGINNING, HE EXPRESSES TO HER HOW SORRY HE IS.  ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW.  DOES HE SAY HE'S SORRY?  DOES HE SAY HE WAS WRONG?  HE SAYS HE WAS WRONG FOR HURTING HER AND THAT THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT HE DID, AND THEN HE GOES ON TO WRITE SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HERE.
            HE'S THINKING AND TRYING TO REALIZE HOW HE GOT SO CRAZY.  HE HAD SUCH EMOTIONAL FEELINGS TOWARDS HER THAT WAS HIGH AS ANY HE EVER FELT, AND IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF THOSE FEELINGS THAT HE REACTED SO EMOTIONALLY.  WITH ALL OF THAT EMOTION RUNNING IN HIM, HE SAYS HE DIDN'T REACT TOO WELL.
            IT'S JUST AS I SAID A MOMENT BEFORE.  HE DOESN'T FULLY REALIZE OR HE DIDN'T IN 1989 JUST HOW CRAZY HE GOT, HE COULD GET, HOW EMOTIONAL HE COULD GET, HOW PASSIONATE HE COULD GET.
            NOW, WHAT SET THIS WHOLE THING OFF?  WHAT HAPPENED IN 1989 THAT CAUSED HIM TO GET TO THE POINT THAT HE BEAT THIS WOMAN UP?
            WELL, RON SHIPP TESTIFIED ABOUT HIS  CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE.  NOW, IF YOU REFLECT BACK FOR A MOMENT ON THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT TO EDWARDS, THAT HE HAD TWO WOMEN, RIGHT, WHAT DOES SHIPP TELL YOU ABOUT HIS CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE?
            SHE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE OTHER TWO WOMEN. SHE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM.  SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE WITH HIM.  THAT'S WHAT LED TO THIS WHOLE THING IN 1989, HIS PASSION, HIS EMOTION.  AND WHEN THAT PASSION AND THAT EMOTION GETS OUT OF CONTROL -- AND HE WAS OUT OF CONTROL IN 1989 -- AND WHEN THAT FUSE STARTS BURNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND IT STARTS GETTING SHORTER AND SHORTER, SETS HIM OFF.
            HE WAS SET OFF THAT DAY IN 1989.  LOOK AT THIS LETTER.  YOU'LL HAVE THIS LETTER IN THE JURY ROOM, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT HE CAN'T ALWAYS CONTROL THE PASSION AND ANGER AND EMOTION HIMSELF.  SOMETHING ABOUT THIS WOMAN, THIS WOMAN, SHE DOES SOMETHING TO THIS MAN THAT CAUSES HIM TO LOSE CONTROL.
            AND HE LOST CONTROL.  HE LOST CONTROL OF HER BECAUSE IN 1992, SHE MOVED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, IN JANUARY OF 1992 AS I RECALL.  AND THE NEXT MONTH, I THINK IT'S FEBRUARY -- I DON'T KNOW.
            MAYBE I SHOULD PULL OUT THAT TIME LINE BOARD, JOHN, BECAUSE IN 1992, IN FEBRUARY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE.  WELL, YOU KNOW WHEN A WOMAN MOVES OUT OF THE HOUSE AND FILES FOR DIVORCE, I HAVE LEARNED IT MEANS SHE DOESN'T WANT YOU ANYMORE.  IT MEANS THAT THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG IN  THE RELATIONSHIP AND IT MEANS I THINK THAT PERHAPS IF YOU ARE THE OTHER PARTY TO THAT MARRIAGE, THAT PERHAPS YOU SHOULD BE SEEKING --
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
      MR. DARDEN:  -- COMPANIONSHIP ELSEWHERE.
            NOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN THIS CASE. SHE LEFT.  SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE, AND HE COULDN'T TAKE IT.
            YOU HEARD FROM KATHRYN BOWE AND HER HUSBAND, MR. COLBY.  REMEMBER MR. COLBY?  THEY LIVED AT THE CORNER ON GRETNA GREEN.
            IN 1992, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS APRIL 28TH AROUND 11:00 P.M. THAT NIGHT -- IT'S HERE ON THE CHART -- THEY LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW AND THEY SAW A FIGURE, A MAN, A MAN IN THE DARK.  IN THE DARKNESS, THEY SAW A MAN, AND THE MAN WAS OUT ON THE SIDEWALK AND HE WAS LOOKING AROUND AND HE WAS PACING A LITTLE BIT UP AND DOWN THE SIDEWALK.  HE WAS PACING, WALKING UP AND DOWN ON THE SIDEWALK.
            KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN PEOPLE PACE.  I DO IT A LOT.  BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS PERSON WAS DOING PACING OUT THERE ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT THEY THOUGHT THIS WAS UNUSUAL AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. WAS IT A SUNDAY NIGHT?  I THINK IT WAS A SUNDAY NIGHT.
 
 
            AND THEY WATCHED THIS PERSON AND THEY  WATCHED THIS PERSON, THIS MAN -- BY THE WAY, THIS MAN WAS ABOUT SIX FEET, SIX FOOT TWO, 200 POUNDS, AFRICAN AMERICAN.  THEY WATCHED THIS MAN IN THE DARK IN THE NIGHT PACING UP AND DOWN THE SIDEWALK, AND THEN THEY SAW THAT MAN WALK DOWN THE SIDEWALK, UP THE DRIVEWAY AND PEER THROUGH THE WINDOW OF NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN.  REMEMBER THAT TESTIMONY?
            HE DIDN'T HANDLE THAT DIVORCE -- THE FILING OF THAT DIVORCE TOO WELL NOW, DID HE?
            NOW, THEY MAY SAY, OH, WELL, HE -- YOU KNOW, HE LOOKED THROUGH A WINDOW.  BIG DEAL.
            THIS IS MORE THAN JUST LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW.  THIS IS STALKING.  WHEN PEOPLE COME UP TO YOUR WINDOW AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND THEY PEEK THROUGH IT AND THEY LOOK THROUGH IT AND THEY WATCH YOU, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG HERE.  THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE.  THIS IS OBSESSIVE CONDUCT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.  THIS IS OBSESSIVE CONDUCT. THIS IS STALKING.
            AND THE COLBY'S SAW THIS MAN, THEY SAW HIM DO THAT, THEY SAW HIM WALK BACK ON THE SIDEWALK, AND THEY BECAME SO CONCERNED ABOUT HIM THAT THEY TELEPHONED THE POLICE.  THEY CALLED THE POLICE.  AND AFTER THEY CALLED THE POLICE, THEY CONTINUED TO WATCH THROUGH THIS WINDOW TO WATCH THIS MAN.  THEY COULDN'T TELL WHO THE MAN WAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BUT AFTER A FEW MOMENTS, THEY COULD.
            WHO WAS THAT MAN?  HIM.  IT WAS THE  DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, STALKING NICOLE.  IT'S ALREADY APRIL, APRIL OF 1992.
            LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.  BY APRIL OF 1992, THIS WOMAN KNEW SHE WAS GOING TO DIE.  SHE TOLD EDWARDS THAT HE WAS GOING TO KILL HER.  SHE TOLD HIM THAT BACK IN 1989, AND APPARENTLY SHE BELIEVED THAT.
            YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM A D.A. INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE, MY INVESTIGATOR FROM MY OFFICE, MIKE STEVENS, AND MR. STEVENS TESTIFIED THAT IN DECEMBER OF 1994 AND WITH THE PERMISSION OF A JUDGE, HE SAID THAT HE WENT TO A BANK AND HE DRILLED A HOLE IN A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX.  YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?  AND IT WAS IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX THAT HE FOUND A LETTER THAT WE SHOWED YOU A MOMENT AGO.
            REMEMBER THAT, THE LETTER WHERE THE DEFENDANT SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW HE GOT SO CRAZY? THEY FOUND THAT LETTER AND THEY FOUND TWO OTHER LETTERS FROM THE DEFENDANT, FROM O.J. SIMPSON, TO NICOLE, ATTEMPTING TO GET BACK WITH HER, ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE HER TO TAKE HIM BACK, ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE HER THAT THINGS WOULD BE BETTER THE NEXT TIME.
            THEY FOUND THOSE LETTERS IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX AND THEY FOUND SOMETHING ELSE.  THEY FOUND A WILL.  THEY FOUND A WILL, THIS WOMAN'S WILL. IT HAD BEEN EXECUTED DURING 1990, WHICH MEANS SHE MUST HAVE BEEN ABOUT 30 YEARS OLD.  YOU KNOW MANY PEOPLE AT THE AGE OF 30 WHO EXECUTE WILLS?  BUT THEY  FIND HER WILL, HIS LETTERS AND SOMETHING ELSE.
            DO YOU HAVE THAT?
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. DARDEN:  THERE WAS SOME PHOTOGRAPHS, SOME PHOTOGRAPHS FROM BACK IN 1989, BECAUSE AFTER HE BEAT HER IN 1989, SHE CALLED HER SISTER, DENISE, AND DENISE CAME OVER AND SHE SHOWED DENISE THE INJURIES THIS MAN INFLICTED ON HER AND SHE ASKED DENISE TO TAKE PICTURES OF THOSE INJURIES, AND SHE PUT THOSE PICTURES IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX ALONG WITH HER WILL, ALONG WITH HER LETTERS.
            OKAY.  SHE PUT THOSE THINGS THERE FOR A REASON.  I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST LETTERS AND THEY'RE JUST PICTURES.  BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, YOU'D THINK THAT THE THINGS YOU PUT IN THAT BOX ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT.
            NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO INTERPRET THAT CONDUCT.  YOU CAN INTERPRET IT ANY WAY YOU WANT.  BUT LET ME SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU SHOULD INTERPRET IT THIS WAY.  SHE IS LEAVING YOU A ROAD MAP TO LET YOU KNOW WHO IT IS WHO WILL EVENTUALLY KILL HER.  SHE KNEW IN 1989.  SHE KNEW IT AND SHE WANTS YOU TO KNOW IT.  SHE KNEW WHO WAS GOING TO DO IT TO HER, BUT SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN.  BUT WHENEVER THAT EVENT ACTUALLY CAME, SHE WANTED YOU TO KNOW WHO DID  IT.
            THINK ABOUT THAT.  JUST THINK ABOUT THAT.  A WILL, PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER BEING BEATEN. OKAY.  YOU TELL ME.

 *******

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
                     9:15 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103            HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
 

                CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED)
 
BY MR. DARDEN:
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      MR. DARDEN:  I HOPE EVERYBODY -- I'M SORRY.
            MR. FAIRTLOUGH, WOULD YOU JUST BRIEFLY SHOW THAT TO COUNSEL, IF YOU CAN.
            I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A GOOD SLEEP LAST NIGHT.  IT WAS A LONG DAY YESTERDAY, AND I THANK YOU.
            LET ME THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR HEARING ME AGAIN THIS MORNING.  I DON'T EXPECT TO TAKE UP THE ENTIRE MORNING.
            IN FACT, WITH ANY LUCK, I WON'T TAKE UP MORE THAN HALF OF IT, BUT WE WILL HAVE TO SEE.
            WELL, YOU WILL RECALL WHERE WE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY.  I WAS TELLING YOU ABOUT THIS DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP, THIS MAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN, AND I TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS A SIMMERING RELATIONSHIP.  YOU KNOW, IT WAS -- IT WAS A SLOW BURN.  IT WAS A SLOW BURN.
            AND I DESCRIBED FOR YOU AND DISCUSSED WITH YOU SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD IN THIS CASE, TESTIMONY YOU HEARD FROM WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE 1985 INCIDENT INVOLVING THE BASEBALL BAT AND THE MERCEDES BENZ.
            WE TALKED ABOUT THE -- THE 1989 INCIDENT AND THE FACT THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT  TIMES BEFORE.  BOTH THE DEFENDANT HERE AND NICOLE BROWN BOTH -- BOTH ADMITTED THAT, SO I GUESS IT IS TRUE, RIGHT?
            WE TALKED ABOUT THE INCIDENT AT THE RED ONION WHEN THE DEFENDANT GRABBED NICOLE BY THE CROUCH IN FRONT OF A BAR FULL OF STRANGERS AND HUMILIATED HER.  WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
            WE TALKED ABOUT HIS ADMISSION TO SHIPP ABOUT HIS JEALOUSY AFTER THE 1985 INCIDENT.
            WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD FROM DENISE BROWN.  YOU REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY FROM DENISE BROWN WHEN SHE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF
THE -- THE REALLY, REALLY NASTY THINGS HE WOULD SAY TO NICOLE?
            AS YOU MAY RECALL, DENISE, DENISE BROWN, NICOLE'S SISTER, TESTIFIED THAT DURING THE TIME THAT SHE WAS PREGNANT THE DEFENDANT WOULD CALL HER NAMES.
            DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?  HE WOULD CALLER A FAT PIG AND HE WOULD CALL HER A FAT PIG IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
            I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SHOULD -- YOU SHOULD EXTRACT FROM THAT.  I MEAN, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING?
            I DON'T KNOW.  I WOULD SUGGEST, HOWEVER, THAT THAT IS SOME INDICATION OF HOW HE REALLY FELT ABOUT HER.
            YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU GET IN A RELATIONSHIP, PEOPLE GET IN A RELATIONSHIP, AND YOU  HAVE ONE -- ONE HALF OF THE RELATIONSHIP WHO IS DOMINANT AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER HALF WHO IS SOMEWHAT PASSIVE, AND THE DOMINANT HALF DOMINATES THE OTHER HALF AND WHAT -- WHAT EFFECT DO YOU SPOUSE THIS WOULD HAVE ON NICOLE, THAT IS, BEING CALLED A FAT PIG BY HER HUSBAND WHILE SHE IS PREGNANT?  WHAT AFFECT WOULD THAT HAVE ON HERSELF ESTEEM.
            BECAUSE YOU ARE PROBABLY WONDERING, WELL, HEY, IF HE DID ALL OF THESE THINGS TO HER, IF HE SAID ALL OF THESE THINGS TO HER, WHY DID SHE STAY?
            WELL, THERE IS OLD SONG AND THE WORDS USED TO GO THAT -- OH, I THINK IT WAS THE DRAMATICS, I CAN'T REALLY RECALL, BUT THERE WAS A COUPLE OF LINES IN THE SONG WHERE THEY SAID THE STRONG GIVE UP AND MOVE ON AND THE WEAK GIVE UP AND STAY.
            YOU KNOW, IF YOU BADGER A PERSON LONG ENOUGH, IF YOU BEAT THEM DOWN LONG ENOUGH, IF YOU WEAR THEM DOWN LONG ENOUGH, PRETTY SOON YOU STRIP THEM OF THEIR DIGNITY THEIR SELF ESTEEM, AND THEY ARE WEAK AND THEY ARE SUBMISSIVE AND THEY CAN'T GO; THEY CAN'T STAY.
            YOU KNOW HOW THAT IS.  EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW THAT IS.  WE'VE ALL BEEN IN BAD RELATIONSHIPS BEFORE.  YOU HAVE FRIEND, YOU SEE THEM IN THESE BAD RELATIONSHIPS.  WHY?  WHY DO THEY SAY?  WHY DO THEY STAY?
            USUALLY THEY FEEL THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.  THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A CHOICE.  THEY FORGOT THAT THEY HAD A CHOICE.  AND IN THEIR MINDS THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
            SHE IS A FAT PIG.
            BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY AND WE TALKED ABOUT JUSTICE AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS ABOUT AND I POINTED THE DEFENDANT OUT TO YOU AND I TOLD YOU HE KILLED HER AND YOU'VE HEARD THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
            HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN.  O.J. SIMPSON IS A MURDERER.  THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES.  THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES.  THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.

 *******

           AND I -- AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT TRANSPIRE AFTER MAY 22ND, 1994, YOU GET THE SENSE, DON'T YOU, THAT HE FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE? IT IS OVER.  IT IS OVER.  SHE CAN'T BE BOUGHT.  YOU CAN GIVE ME THIS EXPENSIVE GIFT IF YOU WANT TO, THAT IS FINE, BUT I'M NOT STAYING IN THIS RELATIONSHIP, TAKE IT BACK, AND SHE GAVE IT BACK TO HIM.
 
             AND THE DEFENSE WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK THAT -- THAT THIS WAS A -- BUT THERE IS NO DIG DEAL TO THIS BREAK-UP, THAT NICOLE BROWN WAS UPSET, THAT HE WASN'T UPSET ABOUT IT, BUT WAS HE?
            CHRISTIAN REICHARDT TESTIFIED FROM THE WITNESS STAND FOR THE DEFENSE AND HE TOLD YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN DEPRESSED DURING THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO THE MURDER ALSO.  HE HAD BEEN DEPRESSED BECAUSE OF HIS FAILING RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE.  HE WAS DEPRESSED BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T MAKE UP HER MIND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE WANTED TO STAY IN THE RELATIONSHIP.
            YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?  HE WAS DEPRESSED ABOUT THAT.  BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PERHAPS HIS DEPRESSION TURNED TO ANGER.
            DO YOU HAVE THE IRS LETTER?
            IN THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED -- AND WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THEM IN THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED, BUT WE KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT THERE WAS A LETTER THAT HE WROTE TO HER.  WE ASSUME THAT HE WROTE IT BECAUSE HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THE BACK.
            AND THIS LETTER HAS BEEN MARKED AS EVIDENCE AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH WILL GET THE EXHIBIT NUMBER.  THE ACTUAL LETTER HAS BEEN MARKED AS EVIDENCE, AND THE LETTER IS DATED JUNE 6TH, AND IT IS SIGNED O.J., O.J. SIMPSON, AND IN THE LETTER -- NOW REMEMBER THIS IS -- THERE ARE NO HARD FEELINGS HERE  IF YOU BELIEVE THE DEFENSE CASE.
            AND THIS LETTER BEGINS:
                 "ON THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCES I'M COMPELLED TO PUT YOU ON WRITTEN NOTICE THAT DO YOU NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO USE MY ADDRESS AT ROCKINGHAM AS YOUR RESIDENCE OR MAILING ADDRESS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INFORMATION AND TAX RETURNS FILED WITH ANY TAXING ENTITY."
            WELL WHAT IS THIS?  WHAT DOES THIS LETTER MEAN?  HOW IS THIS LETTER HELPFUL TO YOU?  HOW MANY TIMES DO WE BREAK UP WITH SOMEONE AND THEN SEND THEM A LETTER A FEW DAYS LATER OR TWO WEEKS LATER IN LEGALESE?
            AND WHAT ARE THE CHANGES IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE IS REFERRING TO?  THE CHANGE IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES IS THAT SHE HAS DECIDED THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH HIM ANY MORE AND NOW HE IS OUT TO HURT HER, HE IS GOING TO HURT HER.
            THIS LETTER IS PEOPLE'S 25, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
 

        MR. DARDEN:  DID NICOLE HAVE SOME KIND OF TAX PROBLEM?  LOOKS LIKE IT.  IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH HE SAYS:
                "I CANNOT TAKE PART IN ANY COURSE OF ACTION BY YOU THAT MIGHT BE MISLEADING TO THE IRS OR THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD."
            WHAT IS HE SUGGESTING TO HER?  HOW SHOULD SHE RECEIVE THIS LETTER?  AND LOOK AT THE CARBON COPY.
            MR. COCHRAN ASKED SOMEONE ON THE WITNESS STAND IF THEY KNEW THAT MARVIN GOODFRIEND WAS HIS ACCOUNTANT, AS I RECALL.  WE'VE HEARD THAT LEROY TAFT IS HIS LAWYER.  A CARBON COPY TO HIS LAWYER AND HIS ACCOUNTANT.
            WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?  THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN AMENABLE BREAK-UP?  NO HARD FEELINGS?  THIS IS CONTROL.  THIS IS A SUBTLE THREAT.
           AND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, FINE.  THE DEFENSE DISAGREES WITH ME, THAT IS FINE AS WELL.
            BUT LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.  WHEN THE DEFENSE BEGAN THE DEFENSE CASE -- WELL, NOT THE DEFENSE CASE, BUT WHEN MR. COCHRAN DID HIS OPENING STATEMENT, HE TOLD YOU ABOUT A WITNESS HE INTENDED TO CALL, AND THIS WITNESS SEEMED TO BE A PRETTY IMPORTANT WITNESS AND WOULD SEEM TO BE, GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE HEARD IN THIS CASE.
            HE TOLD YOU ABOUT A WOMAN NAMED  DR. LENORE WALKER AND HE SAID TO YOU AT PAGE 11783 THAT:
                "THERE IS AN EXPERT IN THE U.S. WHOSE NAME IS DR. LENORE WALKER AND THAT SHE IS BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE NO. 1 EXPERT IN AMERICA ON THE FIELD OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE."

 *****

            SO WHERE IS DR. WALKER TO COME HERE TO TESTIFY, TO TAKE -- TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND, TO SIT IN THE BLUE CHAIR AND TELL YOU THAT NONE OF THIS IS IMPORTANT, THAT EVERYTHING I'VE TOLD YOU FOR THE LAST THREE HOURS IS INSIGNIFICANT AND UNIMPORTANT?  WHERE IS SHE TO TELL YOU THAT HE DOES NOT SUFFER FROM SOME ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER?
            SHE AIN'T HERE.
            AND HAD SHE COME HERE AND EXPRESSED AN OPINION THAT THIS WAS UNIMPORTANT, WE WOULD HAVE CROSS-EXAMINED HER, BUT THEY CAN'T TOUCH THIS.  THEY CAN'T TOUCH THIS.
 *********

            AND SO I THINK WE HAVE COME FULL CIRCLE AT THIS POINT.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO KILL.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE HAD THE MOTIVE, THAT HE HAD A MOTIVE TO KILL.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU IN THIS TRIAL THAT HE WAS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF KILLING.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE HAD A REASON TO KILL.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE WOULD HAVE KILLED, COULD HAVE KILLED AND DID KILL THESE TWO PEOPLE.
            HE IS A MURDERER.  HE WAS ALSO ONE HELL OF A GREAT FOOTBALL PLAYER, BUT HE IS STILL A  MURDERER.
            AND SO WE HAVE COME FULL CIRCLE.
 

[DARDEN ATTEMPTS TO REBUT DEFENSE CASE]
 

          THERE WAS A LOT OF MINUTIA IN THIS CASE AND YOU KNOW IT WAS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN.  THE DEFENSE GOT LOST IN MINUTIA IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE YOU AND TO RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT.
 
             WELL, LET ME EXPLAIN JUSTICE TO YOU THIS WAY AND THEN I WILL SIT DOWN AND I WILL BE QUIET.
            THE PEOPLE PUT ON THEIR CASE, THE DEFENSE PUT ON THEIR CASE, AND I ASSERT THAT THE DEFENSE CASE IS A BUNCH OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS, ALL ABOUT DISTRACTING YOU FROM THE REAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
            SO IMAGINE THE SMOKE AND IMAGINE A BURNING HOUSE.  IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE STANDING IN FRONT OF A BURNING HOUSE, AND FROM INSIDE THAT BURNING HOUSE YOU CAN HEAR THE WAIL OF A BABY, A BABY'S CRY, A BABY IN FEAR, A BABY ABOUT TO LOSE ITS LIFE.  AND YOU CAN HEAR THAT BABY SCREAMING.  YOU CAN HEAR THAT WAIL.
            NOW, THAT BABY, THAT BABY IS JUSTICE. THIS IS BABY JUSTICE.  USUALLY JUSTICE IS A STRONG WOMAN, BUT IN THIS CASE JUSTICE IS JUST A BABY.  AND YOU HEAR THAT BABY AND YOU HEAR THAT WAIL AND YOU SEE THE SMOKE, YOU SEE THE DEFENSE.
            THERE IS ALL THIS SMOKE IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOU FEEL A SENSE -- YOU HAVE A SENSE OF JUSTICE AND YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES AND YOU HAVE A STRONG COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE AND TO THE LAW AND YOU WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING WHILE JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO PERISH, JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO BE LOST, BABY JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO BE LOST.
            AND SO YOU START TO WADE THROUGH THAT SMOKE TRYING TO GET TO THAT BABY.  YOU HAVE GOT TO SAVE THAT BABY, YOU HAVE TO SAVE BABY JUSTICE, AND  YOU HAPPEN TO RUN INTO SMOKE, FIND YOUR WAY THROUGH THE SMOKE, AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO RUN INTO A COUPLE OF DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ALONG THE WAY, JUST ASK THEM TO POLITELY STEP ASIDE AND LET YOU FIND YOUR WAY THROUGH THE SMOKE, BECAUSE THE SMOKE ISN'T OVER, OKAY?  THE SMOKE IS GOOD TO GET HEAVIER BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT TO TALK TO YOU.
            LET'S USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.  WADE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE.  GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
            AND PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING.
            IT HAS BEEN A HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND WE WILL WAIT FOR YOUR VERDICT.
 
 

              (CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. COCHRAN)
 
      MR. COCHRAN:  JUDGE ITO, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DEFENSE, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE PROSECUTION, THE GOLDMAN FAMILY, THE BROWN FAMILY AND TO THE SIMPSON FAMILY.
            GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD AFTERNOON.
      MR. COCHRAN:  THE DEFENDANT, MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, IS NOW AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THE CASE, IF YOU WILL, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.  WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS TO TRY AND DISCUSS THE REASONABLE INFERENCES WHICH I FEEL CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS EVIDENCE.
            AT THE OUTSET, LET ME JOIN WITH THE OTHERS IN THANKING YOU FOR THE SERVICE THAT YOU'VE RENDERED.  YOU ARE TRULY A MARVELOUS JURY, THE LONGEST SERVING JURY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, PERHAPS THE MOST PATIENT AND HEALTHY JURY WE'VE EVER SEEN.  I HOPE THAT YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR GOOD HEALTH CONTINUES.
            WE MET APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY AGO ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 1994.  I GUESS WE'VE BEEN TOGETHER LONGER THAN SOME RELATIONSHIPS AS IT WERE.
            BUT WE'VE HAD A UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP IN THIS MATTER IN THAT YOU'VE BEEN THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS.  WE HAVE BEEN ADVOCATES ON BOTH SIDES.  THE JUDGE HAS BEEN THE JUDGE OF THE LAW.  WE ALL  UNDERSTAND OUR VARIOUS ROLES IN THIS ENDEAVOR THAT I'M GOING TO CALL A JOURNEY TOWARD JUSTICE.  THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON AS I SEE TO ADDRESS YOU.
            THE FINAL TEST OF YOUR SERVICE AS JURORS WILL NOT LIE IN THE FACT THAT YOU'VE STAYED HERE MORE THAN A YEAR, BUT WILL LIE IN THE QUALITY OF THE VERDICT THAT YOU RENDER AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT VERDICT SPEAKS JUSTICE AS WE MOVE TOWARDS JUSTICE.
            NOW, YOU'LL RECALL DURING A PROCESS CALLED VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION, EACH OF YOU WERE THOROUGHLY QUESTIONED BY THE LAWYERS.  YOU PROBABLY THOUGHT, GEE, I WISH THEY'D LEAVE ME ALONE.  BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD I'M SURE THAT THIS IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.  OUR CLIENT, MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, IS ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE, AND SO WE HAD TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL, BOTH SIDES, IN TRYING TO GET PEOPLE WHO COULD BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES.
            YOU'LL RECALL THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT YOU KEEP AN OPEN MIND, WHICH I HOPE YOU STILL HAVE EVEN TO THIS DAY, THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE SWAYED BY SYMPATHY FOR OR PASSION AGAINST EITHER SIDE IN THIS CASE, THAT YOU WOULD GIVE BOTH SIDES OF THIS LAWSUIT THE BENEFIT OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL OPINION.
            NO ONE, NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE FACTS ARE.  THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR JOB TO DETERMINE.  IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AGE OR EXPERIENCE.  WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.  THIS IS ONE OF  THOSE JOBS WHERE YOU KIND OF LEARN ON THE JOB, AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT'S WHY VOIR DIRE WAS SO VERY IMPORTANT AS WE ASKED YOU ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU WERE SEQUESTERED, BEFORE YOU WERE ACTUALLY PICKED.
            NOW, EACH OF YOU FILLED OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS HONESTLY I'M SURE.  YOU KNOW, SISTER ROSE SAID A LONG TIME AGO, "HE WHO VIOLATES HIS OATH PROFANES THE DIVINITY OF FAITH HIMSELF."  AND, OF COURSE, BOTH SIDES OF THIS LAWSUIT HAVE FAITH THAT YOU'LL LIVE UP TO YOUR PROMISES AND I'M SURE YOU'LL DO THAT.
            YOU KNOW, ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID THAT JURY SERVICE IS THE HIGHEST ACT OF CITIZENSHIP.  SO IF IT'S ANY CONSOLATION TO YOU, YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT VERY HIGHEST ACT OF CITIZENSHIP.  AND SO AGAIN, WE APPLAUD YOU AND WE THANK YOU AS WE MOVE TOWARD JUSTICE.
            ONE OTHER ENTITY OR GROUP OF LADIES OR TWO LADIES THAT I SHOULD THANK ARE OUR MARVELOUS COURT REPORTERS.  THEY HAVE BEEN PATIENT WITH US. THEY'VE BEEN HERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.  WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THEM IN THEIR SERVICE AND I ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE THEM BECAUSE SOMETIMES I SPEAK RATHER RAPIDLY AND THEY HAVE A TOUGH TIME KEEPING UP WITH ME.  SO I TRUST THAT TODAY, IF I START TO SPEAK TOO FAST IN NY ZEAL, MISS MOXHAM AND CHRIS WILL BRING THAT TO MY ATTENTION.  I'M SURE THEY WILL.
            NOW, IN THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS WHERE WE'RE DISCUSSING THE REASONABLE INFERENCES OF THE EVIDENCE, I ASK YOU TO REMEMBER THAT WE'RE ALL ADVOCATES.  WE'RE ALL OFFICERS OF THIS COURT.
            I WILL RECALL THE EVIDENCE AND SPEAK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.  SHOULD I MISSTATE THAT EVIDENCE, PLEASE DON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST MR. SIMPSON.  I WILL NEVER INTENTIONALLY TO THAT.  IN FACT, I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT DURING MY PRESENTATION, UNLIKE MY LEARNED COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE, I'M GOING TO READ YOU TESTIMONY OF WHAT THE WITNESSES ACTUALLY SAID SO THERE WILL BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT CERTAIN KEY THINGS.
            BUT REMEMBER THAT WE ARE ALL ADVOCATES. AND I THINK IT WAS MISS CLARK WHO SAID SAYING IT SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.  I THINK THAT APPLIES VERY MUCH TO THEIR ARGUMENT.  ULTIMATELY, IT'S WHAT YOU DETERMINE TO BE THE FACTS IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT, AND ALL OF US CAN LIVE WITH THAT.
            YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO DO JUSTICE.  YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO ENSURE THAT THIS GREAT SYSTEM OF OURS WORKS.
            LISTEN FOR A MOMENT, WILL YOU, PLEASE. ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE IN HISTORY IS THE GREAT FREDERICK DOUGLAS.  HE SAID SHORTLY AFTER THE SLAVES WERE FREED, QUOTE, "IN A COMPOSITE NATION LIKE OURS AS BEFORE THE LAW, THERE SHOULD BE NO RICH, NO POOR, NO HIGH, NO LOW, NO WHITE, NO BLACK, BUT COMMON  COUNTRY, COMMON CITIZENSHIP, EQUAL RIGHTS AND A COMMON DESTINY."
            THIS MARVELOUS STATEMENT WAS MADE MORE THAN 100 YEARS AGO.  IT'S AN IDEAL WORTH STRIVING FOR AND ONE THAT WE STILL STRIVE FOR.  WE HAVEN'T REACHED THIS GOAL YET, BUT CERTAINLY IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS, WE'RE TRYING.  WITH A JURY SUCH AS THIS, WE HOPE WE CAN DO THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
            NOW, IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE AWARE THAT WE REPRESENT MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON.  THE PROSECUTION NEVER CALLS HIM MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON.  THEY CALL HIM DEFENDANT.
            I WANT TO TELL YOU RIGHT AT THE OUTSET THAT ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, LIKE ALL DEFENDANTS, IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT.  HE'S ENTITLED TO THE SAME DIGNITY AND RESPECT AS ALL THE REST OF US.  AS HE SITS OVER THERE NOW, HE'S CLOAKED IN A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
            YOU WILL DETERMINE THE FACTS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE'S SET FREE TO WALK OUT THOSE DOORS OR WHETHER HE SPENDS THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON. BUT HE'S ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON.  HE'S NOT JUST THE DEFENDANT, AND WE ON THE DEFENSE ARE PROUD, CONSIDER IT A PRIVILEGE TO HAVE BEEN PART OF REPRESENTING HIM IN THIS EXERCISE AND THIS JOURNEY TOWARDS JUSTICE, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT.
 
 
             FINALLY, I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE LENGTH THAT THIS JOURNEY HAS TAKEN.  BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE SEEKING JUSTICE, THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS. IF YOU WERE TO TRADE PLACES WITH EITHER SIDE, YOU'D WANT SOMEONE TO FIGHT HARD FOR YOU AND VIGOROUSLY, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS A PERSON WHO MAINTAINED THEIR INNOCENCE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
            SOME OF YOU IN VOIR DIRE TALKED ABOUT THAT.  YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN OTHER CASES WHERE YOU FELT THE LAWYERS DIDN'T STAND UP.  WELL, I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT IN THIS CASE, ON BOTH SIDES, YOU FELT THE LAWYERS DID THEIR BEST TO REPRESENT THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS.  AND WE WILL CONTINUE I'M SURE TO DO THAT SO THAT ALTHOUGH I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTH OF THE TRIAL, I HOPE AND I TRUST THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT IN A JOURNEY TOWARDS JUSTICE, THERE IS NO SHORTCUT.
            FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ASKED YOU AT THE VERY BEGINNING TO DON'T COMPROMISE.  THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR THE TIMID OR THE WEAK OF HEART.  THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR THE NAIVE.  THIS IS A CASE FOR COURAGEOUS CITIZENS WHO BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
            AND WHILE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THINK WITH ME FOR A MOMENT HOW MANY TIMES YOU HEARD MY LEARNED ADVERSARY SAY THE DEFENSE DIDN'T PROVE, THE DEFENSE DIDN'T DO THIS, DEFENSE  DIDN'T DO THAT.
            REMEMBER BACK IN VOIR DIRE?  WHAT DID THE JUDGE TELL US?  JUDGE ITO SAID THE DEFENSE COULD SIT HERE AND DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  ONE OF YOU IS FROM MISSOURI, AND HE REMINDED YOU -- WHO'S FROM MISSOURI HERE -- SAYING TO THE PROSECUTION, YOU SHOW US.
            NOW, WE DIDN'T DO THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS YOU SEE -- YOU HEARD FROM THE JURY INSTRUCTION.  AND AT THE END, I WILL SHOW YOU SOME OTHERS.
            WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.  WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.  THIS IS THE PROSECUTION'S BURDEN, AND WE CAN'T LET THEM TURN THE CONSTITUTION ON ITS HEAD.  WE CAN'T LET THEM GET AWAY FROM THEIR BURDEN.
            IT'S MY JOB -- ONE OF MY JOBS IS TO REMIND YOU OF THAT AND TO REMIND THEM OF THAT.  BUT THAT'S THEIR BURDEN.  THEY MUST PROVE MR. SIMPSON GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND TO A MORAL CERTAINTY, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT A REASONABLE DOUBT MEANS.
            AND SO NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ANALYZE THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AGREE WITH ONE THING THAT MR. DARDEN SAID.  TO THIS TASK, I ASK YOU TO BRING YOUR COMMON SENSE.  COLLECTIVELY, THE 14 OF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 500 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.  I KNOW YOU'RE ALL YOUNG, BUT ADD THAT BY 14 -- YOU WON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST ME I DON'T THINK -- 500 YEARS OF  EXPERIENCE.  YOU DIDN'T LEAVE YOUR COMMON SENSE OUT IN THAT HALLWAY WHEN YOU CAME IN HERE.  WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO APPLY IT TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.
            I'D LIKE TO COMMENT AND TO COMPLIMENT MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN ON WHAT I THOUGHT WERE FINE ARGUMENTS YESTERDAY.  I DON'T AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT THEY SAID, BUT I LISTENED INTENTLY, AS I HOPE YOU'LL DO WITH ME.  AND TOGETHER, HOPEFULLY THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING TO BE HELPFUL TO YOU IN TRYING TO ARRIVE AT A DECISION IN THIS CASE WHERE YOU DON'T COMPROMISE, WHERE YOU DON'T DO VIOLENCE TO YOUR CONSCIOUS, BUT YOU DO THE RIGHT THING.  AND YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING.
            LET ME ASK EACH OF YOU A QUESTION.  HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED OF SOMETHING?  HAVE YOU EVER BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED?  EVER HAD TO SIT THERE AND TAKE IT AND WATCH THE PROCEEDINGS AND WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT, ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT YOU DIDN'T DO IT?
            ALL YOU COULD DO DURING SUCH A PROCESS IS TO REALLY MAINTAIN YOUR DIGNITY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? KNOWING THAT YOU WERE INNOCENT, BUT MAINTAINING YOUR DIGNITY AND REMEMBERING ALWAYS THAT ALL YOU'RE LEFT WITH AFTER A CRISIS IS YOUR CONDUCT DURING.  SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE ARE PROUD TO REPRESENT THIS MAN WHO'S MAINTAINED HIS INNOCENCE AND WHO HAS CONDUCTED HIMSELF WITH DIGNITY THROUGHOUT THESE  PROCEEDINGS.
            NOW, LAST NIGHT, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES, TWO WORDS CAME TO MIND. AND I WANT TO -- I ASKED MY WIFE THIS MORNING TO GET THE DICTIONARY OUT AND LOOK UP TWO WORDS.  THE TWO WORDS WERE "SPECULATIVE" AND "CYNICAL."  LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THOSE WORDS THAT SHE GOT FOR ME.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. COCHRAN:  I ASKED HER -- I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS CASE -- TO GO TO WEBSTER'S.  AND I WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SPECULATE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE CYNICAL, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT MY COLLEAGUES' ARGUMENTS AND THEIR APPROACH TO THIS CASE AND THEIR VIEW OF THIS CASE.
            "CYNICAL" IS DESCRIBED AS CONTEMPTUOUSLY DISTRUSTFUL OF HUMAN NATURE AND MOTIVES, GLOOMY DISTRUSTFUL VIEW OF LIFE.  AND TO SPECULATE -- TO SPECULATE, TO ENGAGE IN CONJECTURE AND TO SURMISE OR -- IS TO TAKE TO BE THE TRUTH ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
            I MENTION THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS TO YOU BECAUSE I FELT THAT MUCH OF WHAT WE HEARD YESTERDAY AND AGAIN THIS MORNING WAS MERE SPECULATION.
            UNDERSTAND THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN; THAT NONE OF US IN THIS COURTROOM WERE OUT AT 875 BUNDY ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 AFTER 10:30 OR 10:45 IN THE  EVENING, SO THAT EVERYTHING WE SAY TO YOU IS OUR BEST EFFORT TO PIECE TOGETHER WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS CASE.
            WHEN PEOPLE THEORIZE ABOUT THINGS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT SHORT FUSES, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT'S JUST THAT.  IT'S SPECULATION.  PEOPLE SEE THINGS THAT ARE TOTALLY CYNICAL.  MAYBE THAT'S THEIR VIEW OF THE WORLD.  NOT EVERYBODY SHARES THAT VIEW.
            NOW, IN THIS CASE -- AND THIS IS A HOMICIDE CASE AND A VERY, VERY, VERY SERIOUS CASE. AND OF COURSE, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
            IT IS A SAD FACT THAT IN AMERICAN SOCIETY, A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EACH YEAR.  VIOLENCE UNFORTUNATELY HAS BECOME A WAY OF LIFE IN AMERICA.  AND SO WHEN THIS SORT OF TRAGEDY DOES IN FACT HAPPEN, IT BECOMES THE BUSINESS OF THE POLICE TO STEP UP AND STEP IN AND TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE MATTER.
            A GOOD EFFICIENT, COMPETENT, NONCORRUPT POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL CAREFULLY SET ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF INVESTIGATING HOMICIDES.  THEY WON'T RUSH TO JUDGMENT.  THEY WON'T BE BOUND BY AN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ALL COSTS.  THEY WILL SET ABOUT TRYING TO APPREHEND THE KILLER OR KILLERS AND TRYING TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT FROM SUSPICION.
 
             IN THIS CASE, THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES HAD AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DEMAND EXACTLY JUST THAT IN THIS CASE.  BUT IT WAS CLEAR UNFORTUNATELY THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS ANOTHER AGENDA.  FROM THE VERY FIRST ORDERS ISSUED BY THE LAPD SO-CALLED BRASS, THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH THEIR OWN IMAGES, THE PUBLICITY THAT MIGHT BE GENERATED FROM THIS CASE THAN THEY WERE IN DOING PROFESSIONAL POLICE WORK.  THAT'S WHY THIS CASE HAS BECOME SUCH A HALLMARK AND THAT'S WHY MR. SIMPSON IS THE ONE ON TRIAL.
            BUT YOUR VERDICT IN THIS CASE WILL GO FAR BEYOND THE WALLS OF DEPARTMENT 103 BECAUSE YOUR VERDICT TALKS ABOUT JUSTICE IN AMERICA AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE POLICE AND WHETHER THEY'RE ABOVE THE LAW AND IT LOOKS AT THE POLICE PERHAPS AS THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LOOKED AT VERY RECENTLY.  REMEMBER, I TOLD YOU THIS IS NOT FOR THE NAIVE, THE FAINT OF HEART OR THE TIMID.
            SO IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROFESSIONAL POLICE WORK TOOK A BACKSEAT RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING.  UNTRAINED OFFICERS TRAMPLED -- REMEMBER, I USED THE WORD IN OPENING STATEMENT -- THEY TRAIPSED THROUGH THE EVIDENCE.
            AND IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT AT THE BEGINNING, BUT LATER ON IN THIS TRIAL, WE HEARD MR. GOLDBERG, TALKING TO WITNESSES, USE MY WORDS, "TRAIPSING" THROUGH THE WITNESS SCENE, THAT SCENE THERE AT  BUNDY.  HE USED OUR WORDS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD. WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.  WE WERE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE VIDEOS.
            THEY DELAYED UNCONSCIONABLY ROUTINE PROCEDURES IN NOTIFYING THE CORONERS.  THEY DIDN'T CALL THE CRIMINALIST OUT ON TIME AND YES, THEY ALLOWED THIS INVESTIGATION TO BE INFECTED BY A DISHONEST AND CORRUPT DETECTIVE.  THEY DID THAT IN THIS CASE.  AND THEY MAY TRY TO BACK AWAY FROM IT ALL THEY WANT, BUT THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE, TO THIS CASE AND THE RESOLUTION OF MY CLIENT'S INNOCENCE.
            BECAUSE OF THEIR BUNGLING, THEY IGNORED THE OBVIOUS CLUES.  THEY DIDN'T PICK UP PAPER AT THE SCENE WITH PRINTS ON IT.  BECAUSE OF THEIR VANITY, THEY VERY SOON PRETENDED TO SOLVE THIS CRIME AND WE THINK IMPLICATED AN INNOCENT MAN, AND THEY NEVER, THEY NEVER EVER LOOKED FOR ANYONE ELSE.  WE THINK IF THEY HAD DONE THEIR JOB AS WE HAVE DONE, MR. SIMPSON WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED EARLY ON.
            AND SO THIS CASE IS NOT -- LET ME SAY IT AT THE OUTSET -- IS NOT ABOUT ATTACKING THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.  WE'RE NOT ANTI-POLICE IN MAKING THESE STATEMENTS.  YOU'RE NOT ANTI-POLICE. WE ALL NEED THE POLICE.  I JUST SAID WE HAVE SO MUCH CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, WE NEED THE POLICE.
 
 
             BUT WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT WE MUST DEMAND, WHAT ALL OF US SHOULD HAVE ARE HONEST, EFFECTIVE, NONBIASED POLICE OFFICERS.  WHO COULD DEMAND LESS? ANY OF YOU SAY THAT'S NOT WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE?
            AND SO LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED HERE THIS AFTERNOON.
            THE DEFENSE HAS ONE OPPORTUNITY BASICALLY TO ADDRESS YOU.  THIS IS AFTER THE PROSECUTORS ARE FINISHED.  I WILL ADDRESS YOU FIRST, AND AFTER I'M CONCLUDED -- AND I WILL TALK GENERALLY ABOUT THE LAY WITNESSES AND OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND WHAT YOU'VE HEARD.  I WILL TRY NOT TO BORE YOU.  I'LL STRIVE TO BE HONEST IN MY DISCUSSIONS, TO BE RELEVANT, TO BE CONCISE OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT HERE.
            WHEN I'M FINISHED, MR. BARRY SCHECK WILL COME BEFORE YOU AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE FORENSIC ISSUES.  AND THEN FINALLY, AFTER MR. SCHECK FINISHES, I'LL COME BACK AND CONCLUDE SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS REGARDING WHAT YOU'VE HEARD OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO DAYS AT ANY RATE.
            NOW, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION BEARS THE BURDEN IN THIS CASE AND IN ALL CASES, MISS CLARK WILL ARGUE LAST TO SEEK TO REBUT THAT WHICH WE BRING UP.  PRESUMABLY, SHE WON'T BE BACK UP HERE TALKING ABOUT ALL KINDS OF NEW THINGS, BUT SEEK TO REBUT THAT WHICH IS BEING ARGUED.
 
 
             AND LET ME TELL YOU UP FRONT, IF SHE BRINGS UP ANYTHING, WE MAY BE PRECLUDED FROM STANDING UP SAYING, "WAIT A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR.  HERE'S THE ANSWER TO THAT."  BUT YOU CAN THEN SUBSTITUTE YOUR COMMON SENSE, YOUR JUDGMENT IN THAT PLACE, AND THAT'S REQUIRED IN THIS JOURNEY TOWARD JUSTICE.
            NOW, AT THE OUTSET, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS TIME LINE FOR THE DEFENSE.  I SAID EARLIER THAT MR. DARDEN DID A GOOD JOB IN HIS ARGUMENT, BUT ONE THING HE TENDED TO TRIP OVER AND STUMBLE OVER WAS WHEN HE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT OUR CASE.  HE DOESN'T KNOW OUR CASE LIKE WE KNOW OUR CASE.
            IT WAS INTERESTING, WASN'T IT, BECAUSE FIRST HE STOOD UP AND STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE TIME LINE BEING AT 10:15.  THEN HE SAID, WELL, THEY DIDN'T PROVE ANYTHING, BUT, "GOLLY, WELL, IT MAY HAVE BEEN AS LATE AS 10:30."
            THAT'S INTERESTING, ISN'T IT?  NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE.
            YOU LOOK BACK AND SEE WHAT MISS CLARK PROMISED YOU A YEAR AGO.  10:15.  10:15 WAS ALL THEY TALKED ABOUT, AND THEY WERE GOING TO USE, BECAUSE OF THE INCOMPETENCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION, THE WAIL OF A DOG.  SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN RELEGATED TO IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THIS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION.
 
 
             BUT HAVING SAID THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING IN THIS CASE, WE DID IN FACT.  SO MR. DARDEN CAN TALK ALL HE WANTED TO ABOUT HIS THEORIES ABOUT MOTIVE.  THEY'RE JUST THAT, HIS SPECULATIVE THEORIES ABOUT MOTIVE.  BUT WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THE END, HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT MOTIVE, WAS HE?  HE WAS TRYING TO TALK ABOUT OUR TIME LINE.
            WHY WOULD HE DO THAT?  LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY HE WOULD.
            BECAUSE THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE CALLED MANY WITNESSES WHO CORROBORATED EACH OTHER AND WHO SHATTERED THE PROSECUTION'S TIME LINE.  NOW, THESE ARE WITNESSES TO A PERSON WHO WERE KNOWN BY THE PROSECUTION, BUT DISCARDED BY THE PROSECUTION.  WHY? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FIT THEIR TORTURED, NARROW WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY.
            SO WHEN YOU INVISUALIZE FOR ME THAT JIG-SAW PUZZLE WHERE THEY WANT TO REDUCE THIS CASE DOWN TO A JIG-SAW PUZZLE, THE PART THAT DEALS WITH OPPORTUNITY IS THE TIME LINE.  AND WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH THAT BECAUSE IN A SEARCH FOR TRUTH, LET'S LOOK FOR THE TRUTH.  NOT SOME CONTORTED, TWISTED TRUTH, BUT THE REAL TRUTH, THE FACTS THAT YOU HEARD DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
            WE THINK AFTER YOU LOOK AT THIS TIME LINE FOR THE DEFENSE, YOU WILL AGREE WITH OUR EARLIER ANALYSIS.  THIS IS A CASE ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, A CASE WHERE THERE'S BEEN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ALL  COSTS, AND IN THE WORDS OF DR. HENRY LEE, SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE PROSECUTION'S CASE.
            LET'S START OFF WITH FRANCESKA HARMON. FRANCESKA HARMON IS A LADY WHO LEFT THE DINNER PARTY ON DOROTHY AT ABOUT 10:20 P.M.  SHE DROVE WEST ON DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND TURNED NORTH ON BUNDY.  SO SHE WOULD BE HEADING NORTH TOWARD 875.  SHE SAW NOTHING, HEARD NOTHING, NO BARKING DOGS, LADY KNOWN, OF COURSE, TO BOTH SIDES.
            AND SO YOU SEE THIS GRAPHIC REGARDING FRANCESKA HARMON.  AND I THINK TO FAMILIARIZE YOU WITH THAT, I THINK AT 10:20, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT'S THE APPROXIMATE TIME THAT SHE WOULD PASS BY OR NEAR NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HOME THERE.  YOU SEE IT WITH THE "X" MARKED THERE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPHIC. THAT'S MISS HARMON.
            WE FOLLOWED FRANCESKA HARMON WITH ELLEN AARONSON AND DAN MANDEL, REMEMBER, THE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN ON THEIR FIRST DATE.  THEY HAD GONE TO MEZZALUNA.  AND THEY WERE INTERESTING YOUNG PEOPLE. I THINK YOU WOULD FIND THEM CREDIBLE.
            BY THE WAY, YOU HOLD ALL WITNESSES UP TO THE SAME STANDARD.  NO SIDE HAS A PRIORITY ON THE TRUTH.
            THESE ARE WITNESSES KNOWN TO BOTH SIDES. WE'RE THE ONES, HOWEVER, WHO ELECTED TO CALL THEM AND BRING THEM HERE FOR YOU.
 
             YOU KNOW, HOW THEY WALKED HOME FROM THIS FIRST DATE AT MEZZALUNA, WALKING DIRECTLY BY THE WALKWAY AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, AND THEY SAID THEY PASSED BY THERE.  REMEMBER, THEY WERE CLEAR, THEY PASSED BY THERE AT 10:25.  AND YOU'LL SEE THE LITTLE KIND OF PURPLE LINES SHOWS YOU THE ROUTE THEY TOOK.
            SO THEY PASSED RIGHT IN FRONT OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HOME AT 10:25.  AND YOU REMEMBER, THEY CONTINUED ON.  SO THEY WERE OVER ON DARLINGTON STREET BY 10:29.  SHE SAID THAT IT TOOK THEM ABOUT FOUR MINUTES FROM THE TIME THEY PASSED 875 SOUTH BUNDY TO GET HOME THAT EVENING.  THIS WAS THEIR FIRST DATE AND I GUESS, AS I RECALL, THIS WAS ALSO THEIR LAST DATE.  THEY SAW NO BLOOD, THEY SAW NO BARKING DOGS.
            I SUBMIT TO YOU, IF THE BODIES HAD BEEN THERE, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN.  NOW, WHY DO I SAY THAT?  I SAY THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTACT PRINT IN EVIDENCE -- AND I'M GOING TO ASK MR. HARRIS, IF HE CAN, TO SHOW US THIS CONTACT PRINT.  THIS IS AN ITEM YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE BACK IN THE JURY ROOM.
            THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY MR. ROKAHR AT NIGHT AND IT WILL LET YOU SEE, WHEN MR. HARRIS GETS IT INTO FOCUS, THAT SCENE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, WHAT YOU COULD SEE WITH REGARD TO THIS BODY.
            YOUR HONOR, YOU MAY WANT TO CUT THE FEED ON PART OF THIS.
            33, HOWARD.
             (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. COCHRAN:  NOW -- AND THIS EXHIBIT IS WHAT NUMBER, MR. -- DO YOU HAVE IT?  I BELIEVE IT MAY BE 86.  I'LL GET IT FOR YOU AS SOON AS HE TAKES IT OFF, YOUR HONOR.
            NOW, THIS EXHIBIT -- AND WE'LL TRY TO GIVE THEM TO YOUR HONOR WHEN WE FIRST GET THEM UP THERE.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
      MR. COCHRAN:  THIS EXHIBIT NO. 86 WAS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE GOT LATE IN THE TRIAL FROM MR. ROKAHR, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, WHO WAS CALLED BY US. YOU SEE THAT DOCUMENT OVER THERE?  THAT'S A CONTACT SHEET.
            REMEMBER, WE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS IN SEQUENCE, AND THIS FIRST ROLL WERE TAKEN AT NIGHT.  THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ROLE FOR YOU AS THIS CASE PROGRESSES.  THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH AT NIGHT OF WHAT YOU COULD SEE FROM ACROSS THE STREET.
            AND THERE WERE LIGHTS IN AND AROUND THERE.  AND SO WHEN MR. DARDEN STANDS UP HERE AS AN ADVOCATE AND TELLS YOU IT WAS PITCH BLACK AND YOU COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING, THIS IS THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE SUN CAME UP.  THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN AT NIGHT.  IT'S NOT PITCH BLACK.
 
             WE KNOW ALSO THAT, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE, BLOOD HAD FLOWED DOWN THAT WALKWAY.  THERE WERE BLOODY PAW PRINTS THAT WENT SOUTHBOUND ON BUNDY THERE.  SO YOU SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH.  YOU SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
            NOW, YOU CAN BE AN ADVOCATE.  WE'RE ALL SWORN TO DO THE RIGHT THING.  WE TALKED ABOUT HIS OATH.  YOUR OATH IS ALSO TO TELL THE TRUTH.
            IT'S NOT PITCH BLACK.  WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE.  AND I AM GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT THROUGHOUT WHERE THEY HAVE MISLED YOU AND HAVE SAID THINGS NOT CORRECT.  I'M GOING TO TRY AND STRAIGHTEN IT OUT FOR YOU.
            MR. HARRIS, WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE COURT NOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.
      MR. HARRIS:  1369.
      MR. COCHRAN:  NO. 1369.  AND THAT'S ROKAHR.
            WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO SOME OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS ON THAT, BUT YOU'LL RECALL HIS TESTIMONY.
            AND THE REASON WHY 1369 IS SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT AT 10:25, MANDEL AND AARONSON WALKED PASSED THERE.  IF THERE WAS BLOOD DOWN ON THAT SIDEWALK, IF THERE HAD BEEN -- A KILLING HAD TAKEN PLACE, IF THERE WERE DOGS BARKING OR WAILING, DON'T YOU THINK GIVEN THAT, THAT HAD YOU BEEN OUT THERE, YOU'D SEE IT?
 
             SO THE TIME HAS COME NOW TO STOP ALL THIS FOLLY AND FANTASY.  LET'S DEAL IN REALITY AND IN THE FACTS OF WHAT TOOK PLACE AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES.  I DON'T WANT YOU TO SPECULATE OR THEORIZE.  WHEN I SIT DOWN, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FACTS ARE OF THIS CASE.
            MR. HARRIS, YOU CAN TAKE THAT DOWN.
            AFTER THAT, WE HAD DENISE PILMAK AND JUDY TEALANDER.  YOU KNOW, AND I THINK, AGAIN, AS ADVOCATES, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO TREAT ALL OF THESE WITNESSES WITH RESPECT.  THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T ASK TO COME DOWN HERE.  THESE PEOPLE DON'T ASK TO BE MALIGNED.  I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY WANTS THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE OR TWO, AND MOST OF THEM WERE CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION.
            SO WHEN DENISE PILMAK, THE LADY WHO WORE TWO WATCHES, COMES IN HERE AND TELLS YOU -- I ASK YOU TO JUDGE HER CREDIBILITY LIKE YOU DO ALL THE WITNESSES THE COURT HAS INSTRUCTED YOU.
            YOU HOLD ALL WITNESSES UP TO THE SAME STANDARD.  YOU LOOK AT THE REASONABLENESS OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.  YOU LOOK AT THEIR BIAS OR INTEREST.  YOU LOOK AT THEIR DEMEANOR ON THE STAND. YOU USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.  YOU USE YOUR VISCERAL REACTION, IF I CAN USE THAT WORD, TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THIS PERSON IS TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.
 
             NONE OF THESE PEOPLE KNOW OR KNEW O.J. SIMPSON WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE TOGETHER.  THEY DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER.  THEY'RE WITNESSES AVAILABLE TO BOTH SIDES.  BUT IN THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, WE'RE THE ONES WHO SUBPOENAED THEM AND BROUGHT THEM IN.
            LET'S LOOK AT DENISE PILMAK.  SHE TELLS YOU THAT SHE WAS AT HOME WITH HER FRIEND, JUDY TEALANDER.  SHE IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM 875 SOUTH BUNDY.  SHE'S SOUTH AND ACROSS THE STREET.  YOU'LL RECALL THAT.
            SHE SPOKE OF HOW EERILY QUIET -- REMEMBER THOSE WORDS?  IT WAS AT ABOUT 10:24 P.M. WHEN TEALANDER LEFT HER HOUSE, AND SHE REMEMBERED THAT BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO GET TEALANDER OUT OF THERE. SHE HAD BEEN THERE ALL DAY AND SHE WANTED TO USE HER COMPUTER OR SOMETHING TO TYPE SOME LETTERS.  REMEMBER THAT?
            SO SHE WENT OUTSIDE ON THE PORCH WITH TEALANDER, AS I RECALL.  AND PILMAK JUST DIDN'T COME TO YOU AND TELL YOU THAT.  PILMAK DID SOMETHING ELSE.  SHE --
            AND I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S EXHIBIT 1237.  SHE SHOWED US --
      THE COURT:  PHONE RECORDS.
      MR. COCHRAN:  THE PHONE RECORD, YOUR HONOR.
            SHE SHOWED US THAT SHE GOT ON THE PHONE AS SOON AS PILMAK LEFT AND CALLED HER MOTHER,  REMEMBER, SHE SAID IN GARDENA.  AND YOU LOOK THERE ON JUNE 12TH AT 10:25 P.M., SHE MADE A CALL TO GARDENA. SHE WAS ABLE TO FIX THE EXACT TIME THAT HER FRIEND LEFT.
            AND SHE SAID TO US SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING; THAT IT WAS QUIET WHEN HER FRIEND LEFT AND THE QUIET CONTINUED FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 10 MINUTES.  SO THAT WOULD BE 10:25 TO 10:35 AT THE EARLIEST.  SHE SAYS THAT AT 10:35 IS THE FIRST TIME SHE HEARD DOGS BARKING LOUDLY THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT.
            AND SO THAT SHE, AS YOU WILL SEE, ALONG WITH ROBERT HEIDSTRA CONFIRM EACH OTHER.  THEY DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW EACH OTHER, BUT THEY CONFIRM EACH OTHER AS TO WHEN THIS BARKING REALLY, REALLY BEGAN.
            NOW, THEY WEREN'T LAYING IN BED AND HAD BEEN ASLEEP LIKE EVA STEIN.  THEY WEREN'T LIKE MISS ELSIE TESTER, WHO IS ACROSS THE STREET WHO DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING.  THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO WERE OUTSIDE OR IN THAT AREA WHO CAN COME IN HERE AND TELL YOU WHY THEY REMEMBER THESE PARTICULAR TIMES.  THEY WERE WIDE AWAKE, UP AND ABOUT, OUTSIDE AROUND THE TIME WHEN THIS BARKING TOOK PLACE.
            THEN WE CALL THIS MAN, ROBERT HEIDSTRA. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT CAME OUT THAT ROBERT HEIDSTRA HAD BEEN TALKING TO THE PROSECUTION, REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID?
 
             NOW, THIS IS THE MAN -- WHO IS AN INTERESTING MAN -- WHO DETAILS CARS.  HE'S THE MAN WHO IS WELL-KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION.  REMEMBER, HE TALKED TO DETECTIVE PAYNE, ALMOST RIGHT AWAY DURING THE INVESTIGATION TO PAYNE AND HE TOLD PAYNE THE SAME THING HE TOLD YOU IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL.  THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.
            HE SAYS HE LIVES NEARBY AND HE HAS THESE TWO ELDERLY DOGS, ONE OF WHOM I RECALL WAS 14 YEARS OF AGE.  AND SO THESE DOGS WALK KIND OF SLOWLY. REMEMBER THAT.  HE WALKS AND HE TAKES THIS ROUTE.
            NOW, THAT GRAPHIC UP THERE SHOWS YOU THE ROUTE HE TAKES.  REMEMBER, HE TOLD YOU HE LEFT HOME A LITTLE BIT LATE THAT PARTICULAR SUNDAY.  10:15, HE LEAVES HOME AND HE PROCEEDS ON THIS ROUTE AND, YOU KNOW, HE'S IN THAT ALLEYWAY THAT RUNS PARALLEL TO BUNDY AND HE KNOWS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.  HE'S BEEN DOING THIS FOR MORE THAN 14 YEARS.  HE KNOWS NOT ONLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HE KNOWS THE DOGS, HE KNOWS THEIR BARKS, HE KNOWS THE GATES, HE KNOWS WHEN THEY CLANK, HE KNOWS ALL OF THAT.
            THIS IS AN INTERESTING SITUATION. WOULDN'T YOU HAVE THOUGHT THAT -- OF ALL THE WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL, IN THIS JOURNEY TOWARDS JUSTICE, THIS IS THE ONLY WITNESS WHO EVER HEARD ANY VOICES.  BUT THEY DIDN'T CALL HIM.  YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT IN THEIR TIME LINE AS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE.
            AND SO HE TELLS YOU THAT.  AND YOU'LL RECALL, HE'S DIRECTLY OPPOSITE MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDO IN THAT ALLEY WHEN HE HEARS WHAT HE BELIEVES IS THE AKITA START BARKING.  AND THAT'S AT ABOUT 10:35 P.M.  HE RECOGNIZES HE SAYS THE AKITA BARK SINCE HE WALKS THAT WAY, THAT SAME WAY EACH AND EVERY EVENING.
            SO WHILE IN THAT ALLEYWAY, EAST OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY, HE HEARS A VOICE YELL, "HEY, HEY, HEY," AND HE SAYS HE THEN HEARS A GATE SLAM.  NOW, HE GOES ON AND SAYS AT ABOUT 10:40, 10:45, HE SEES THIS WHITE VEHICLE WHICH HE DESCRIBES CLEARLY AS A VAN OR A JEEP.
            NOW, THEY WILL TRY AND TELL YOU ALL THESE THINGS ABOUT IT BEING SOME BRONCO, BUT HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A BRONCO.  HE SAID A VAN OR A JEEP. AND THE IMPORTANT PART WAS -- IS WHAT HE TELLS THE DETECTIVE.  BUT HE SAYS IT GOES SOUTHBOUND ON BUNDY AWAY FROM, THIS IS WHERE MR. SIMPSON LIVED.
            AND CAN YOU IMAGINE, IN THIS AREA IN WEST LOS ANGELES AND BRENTWOOD, THE NUMBER OF WHITE VEHICLES THERE ARE AND MUST BE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA?
            BUT THE REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T CALL HIM IS BECAUSE AT 10:45, AT 10:45, O.J. SIMPSON CANNOT BE GUILTY OF THIS CRIME, CAN HE?  HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN?
 
             WELL, YESTERDAY, IN HER ZEAL AND ADVOCACY, MISS CLARK TRIED TO PUSH THE TIME BACK FROM 10:40 OR 10:45 THAT KATO HEARD THOSE THUMPS.  SHE TRIED IN HER CHART THERE TO PUSH IT BACK, REMEMBER, TO 10:53.  SOME OF YOU PROBABLY WERE SURPRISED.
            THERE'S BEEN NO TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT.  SO LET ME TELL YOU -- LET ME QUOTE FOR YOU.
            COUNSEL, THIS IS PAGE 19873.  THIS IS MISS CLARK TALKING TO ONE OF HER FAVORITE WITNESSES, MR. KATO KAELIN.
                "BY MISS CLARK:  AND WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT PICTURE WHEN THE THUMPS OCCURRED?
      "THE PICTURE TILTED FROM -- THAT WOULD BE RIGHT TO LEFT.
      "THE PICTURE MOVED?
                "ANSWER:  YES, IT DID.
                "AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HEARD THE   THUMPS ON THE WALL, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL        FERRERA?"
            REMEMBER, HE STARTED TO CALL HIS FRIEND, CALLED HIS GIRLFRIEND.
                "ABOUT A HALF HOUR."
            THIS IS AFTER HE WENT BACK IN THE HOUSE, HE CALLED HIS GIRLFRIEND.
 
 
                "SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?"
            ANSWER BY MR. KAELIN:
                "AT ABOUT 10:40."
            AT ABOUT 10:40.  NOW, THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE DOGS FIRST START TO BARK OVER THERE, ABOUT 10:40.
            "IS THAT EXACT 10:40," MISS CLARK SAYS.
                "WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER.  I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40.
      "QUESTION:  DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?
      "ANSWER:  YES.
      "QUESTION:  OKAY.  AND IS THAT
      CORRECT?
      "ANSWER:  YES."
            NOW, THAT'S THEIR WITNESS.  THAT'S THEIR WITNESS.  THAT'S WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.
            THERE'S NO QUESTION HE'S THERE.  THEY KNOW HE'S THERE.  YOU KNOW HE'S THERE.  THEY DON'T CALL HIM.  WHAT ABOUT THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH?  CAN THEY HANDLE THE TRUTH?  YOU WILL BE MAKING THAT KIND OF DECISION.
 
 
            AND SO WE THEN KNOW, ACCORDING TO THIS, THAT BY THE TIME HEIDSTRA SEES THIS VEHICLE TURN SOUTH ON BUNDY, KATO KAELIN HAS ALREADY HEARD THE THREE THUMPS ON THE ROCKINGHAM WALL OUTSIDE OF HIS ROOM.  YOU KNOW, THAT'S SO INTERESTING BECAUSE  MISS CLARK TRIED TO CHANGE HOW THOSE THUMPS SOUNDED.
            NOW, REMEMBER -- THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NEVER FORGET PROBABLY.  I WON'T COME ALL THE WAY OVER THERE, BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN DUPLICATE -- KATO KAELIN SAID -- HERE'S HOW HE SAID THOSE THUMPS SOUNDED, (INDICATING) ONE, TWO, THREE, EXCEPT HE USED THAT THICK PLACE UP THERE.  HE SAID THEY WERE THUMPS, ALMOST LIKE A SIGNAL; ONE, TWO, THREE (INDICATING) IS WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.  AND, OF COURSE, YOU'LL RECALL THAT.  YOUR NOTES ARE MUCH BETTER THAN OURS I'M SURE.
            APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR ZEAL AND THEIR OBSESSION TO WIN WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON IS SO AMAZING THAT HE CAN BE IN TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE MILES APART.
            AND WHEN DARDEN WAS TALKING TO YOU TODAY, REMEMBER, HE USED HEIDSTRA TO SAY, "WELL, ON A SUNDAY EVENING, YOU COULD MAKE IT OVER THERE IN ABOUT FOUR MINUTES."  REMEMBER HE SAID THAT?
            WELL, IN THEIR OWN -- -- IN THEIR OWN DRIVE-THROUGH THAT VANNATTER DID BETWEEN FIVE AND SIX MINUTES -- YOU SAW IT.  IT TOOK CLOSE TO SIX MINUTES.  HE DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT AGAIN TODAY.
            AND IF YOU WANT TO GET A FLAVOR FOR HOW -- WE HEARD THE WORD DESPERATE A COUPLE OF TIMES, BUT HOW WITNESSES WERE TREATED -- THESE ARE ORDINARY WITNESSES, REGULAR CITIZENS.
            LET ME SHARE WITH YOU A TRANSCRIPT REGARDING HEIDSTRA.
            COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING AT 36368 THROUGH 36370.
            THIS IS HOW MR. DARDEN TREATED THIS WITNESS WHO HELPED TO SHATTER THEIR TIME LINE AND ESTABLISH O.J. SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE.
                "DIDN'T YOU TELL US YESTERDAY THAT THE VOICE WAS A YOUTHFUL VOICE?
                "YEAH.  SOUNDED LIKE A YOUNG VOICE.
                "OKAY.  WHEN YOU HEARD THAT VOICE, YOU THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS THE VOICE OF A YOUNG WHITE MALE, DIDN'T YOU?"
            AND THERE WAS AN OBJECTION YOU MAY RECALL.
                "THE VOICE SOUNDED LIKE THE VOICE OF A WHITE MALE," MR. DARDEN SAID.
 
 
 
                "ANSWER:   HOW COULD I SAY THAT IT IS A WHITE MALE?  I DON'T KNOW THE VOICE.  IT COULD BE ANYBODY THERE.
                "QUESTION:  DID YOU EVER TELL
MR. STEVENS, MY INVESTIGATOR, THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE A WHITE MALE?
                "ANSWER:  NO.  NEVER SAW MR. STEVENS COME IN HERE AND SAY THAT.
                "NEVER SAID THAT?
      "ANSWER:  I DON'T RECALL THAT AT ALL.  I SAID IT WAS A CLEAR VOICE, BUT NEVER WHAT KIND OF VOICE, WHITE OR BROWN OR YELLOW.
                "AND THEN THERE WAS THAT SECOND VOICE, CORRECT?
                "RIGHT.
                "AND THAT SECOND VOICE, THAT VOICE SOUNDED DEEPER THAN THE FIRST VOICE, DIDN'T IT?
                "ANSWER:  A LITTLE BIT, BUT I
COULDN'T HARDLY HEAR IT WITH THE DOGS, THE COMMOTION WITH TWO DOGS THERE.  IT WAS VERY SHORT.
                "DID YOU EVER TELL ANYONE THAT
THE SECOND VOICE WAS A DEEP VOICE?
 
                "ANSWER:  WAS DEEP, WAS DEEPER
THAN THE OTHER ONE, THAN, 'HEY, HEY, HEY.'"
            OKAY.  THEN WE GET TO THE QUESTION AT LINE 22, COUNSEL.
                "THE SECOND VOICE THAT YOU HEARD SOUNDED LIKE THE VOICE OF A BLACK MAN; IS THAT CORRECT?"
            OBJECTION.
                "THE WITNESS:  OF COURSE NOT."
            NOW, YOU KNOW, WE CAN BE ADVOCATES. THOSE QUESTIONS -- NOBODY EVER CAME IN TO IMPEACH THAT MAN.
            HE TOLD YOU HE HEARD TWO VOICES.  HE TOLD  YOU WHEN THIS TOOK PLACE.  HE TOLD YOU WHY, BECAUSE HE WALKS HIS DOGS.  HE KNOWS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
            A SEARCH FOR TRUTH.  YOU SEE, THEIR JOB IS NOT TO JUST TRY TO CONVICT.  THEIR JOB AS PROSECUTORS IS TO MAKE SURE THE INNOCENT GO FREE ALSO, TO MAKE SURE ALL THE WITNESSES COME TO YOUR ATTENTION AS WE'VE HAD TO DO IN THIS CASE.
            SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN WITNESSES WHO CAME BEFORE YOU WERE OFTENTIMES TREATED ROUGHLY AND RIDICULED AND ATTACKED BY THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR OBSESSION TO WIN.
            YOU DON'T THINK HEIDSTRA WAS ATTACKED? REMEMBER HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTION, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, "ARE YOU A CITIZEN HERE," BECAUSE HE WAS FROM FRANCE APPARENTLY AND SOMETHING ABOUT HIS JOB AND HIS LITTLE APARTMENT BECAUSE HE'S A CAR DETAILER.
            EVERYBODY IS ENTITLED TO DIGNITY.  THAT'S WHAT WE FOUGHT FOR IN THIS COUNTRY.  YOU DON'T TREAT WITNESSES WHO JUST COME IN HERE -- THEY DON'T GET PAID TO TELL THE TRUTH LIKE THAT -- JUST PURELY AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SAYING WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY IN YOUR CONTORTED VERSION OF WHAT THE TRUTH OUGHT TO BE.
            BUT YOU SAW THAT YOURSELF.  I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT.
            INTERESTING ENOUGH, THEY CHOSE NOT TO MENTION EVEN ONE OF THE DEFENSE WITNESSES IN MISS CLARK'S DISCUSSION OF HER TIME LINE.  THE  PROSECUTORS NOTED THAT NONE OF THEIR TIME LINE WITNESSES ASKED TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  WELL, NONE OF THE WITNESSES WE CALLED ASKED TO BE CALLED IN THIS CASE.  THEY CAME FORWARD.  YOU SAW HOW THEY WERE TREATED, AND YET, THEY TOLD YOU WHAT THEY OBSERVED.
            BUT PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THEM IS, THESE AREN'T ANY FAMILY MEMBERS. THESE AREN'T PEOPLE WHO KNOW O.J. SIMPSON.  THESE ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO HAPPENED TO BE OUT THERE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT.  AND I THINK YOU CAN NOW SEE FROM THAT GRAPHIC THAT THEY ALL PASSED BY THERE.
            WE TRIED TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS WE COULD.  IT'S COMMON SENSE.  IT'S COMMON SENSE JUST LIKE HE SAID.  IT BECOMES VERY, VERY CLEAR RIGHT AT THE OUTSET.
            SO IF YOU ACCEPT THE PROSECUTION'S SCENARIO, IT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR O.J. SIMPSON TO COMMIT THESE MURDERS GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THAT WE UNDERSTAND.
            LET ME JUST SUCCINCT IT AT THE VERY BEGINNING TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I AM GOING ON THIS.
            REMEMBER BODZIAK THEY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SO MUCH?  F. LEE BAILEY CROSS-EXAMINED BODZIAK THE FIRST TIME HE WAS HERE.  BAILEY GOT HIM TO SAY THIS REMARKABLE THING ABOUT WHOEVER LEFT OUT THAT BACK GATE TURNED AND WENT BACK THE OTHER WAY.  IT'S PRETTY INTERESTING BECAUSE -- I DIDN'T SEE ALL THOSE PRINTS,  BUT THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.
            THEY WENT BACK TO THE SCENE.  REMEMBER THAT?  THAT'S WHAT BODZIAK HAD SEEN.
            DARDEN SAID THIS MORNING THE KILLER OR KILLERS THAT WENT THAT WAY, THEY WEREN'T IN ANY HURRY.  THEY WENT THAT WAY AND THEN CAME BACK.
            YOU TAKE THAT ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE REGARDING THIS STRUGGLE TOOK BETWEEN FIVE TO 15 MINUTES.  NOW, THAT'S WHAT DR. HENRY LEE, DR. MICHAEL BADEN SAID.  THEY NOT ONLY TOLD YOU THAT, THEY SHOWED YOU WHY THAT WAS TRUE.
            YOU KNOW, WHILE I'M ABOUT IT, JUST TO DIGRESS FOR JUST A MOMENT, MR. DARDEN TALKED THIS MORNING ABOUT CALLING WITNESSES OR NOT CALLING WITNESSES.  ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?  NOW, THEY'RE THE PROSECUTORS.  THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE BURDEN. IN THE HISTORY OF MAN RUNNETH, NOT TO THE CONTRARY.
            NOBODY AROUND HERE CAN REMEMBER ANY TIME THAT THE CORONER WHO DID THE AUTOPSY, THE ACTUAL AUTOPSY ON THESE BODIES WASN'T CALLED BY THESE PROSECUTORS.  WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WAS?  THEY DIDN'T CALL THE CORONER.  THEY CHOSE INSTEAD TO CALL DR. LAKSHMANAN WHO CAME IN HERE.
            THEY SHOWED YOU WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT HIM.  THEY TALKED ABOUT THIS MAN SO BADLY.  I MEAN FOR EIGHT DAYS, WE HEARD DR. LAKSHMANAN TALK TO YOU. THEY TALK ABOUT LENGTH OF TIME IN THIS TRIAL.  LET ME PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU.
            FOR EIGHT DAYS, DR. LAKSHMANAN SAT ON THAT STAND AND WENT THROUGH DIRECT EXAMINATION BY BRIAN KELBERG.  CHECK YOUR NOTES IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT.  BOB SHAPIRO GOT UP AND TOOK THREE AND A HALF HOURS AND DEMOLISHED HIM, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, LAKSHMANAN TOLD YOU THIS:
      "WELL, THESE WERE DEATHS THAT WERE CAUSED BY STAB WOUNDS AND THE TIME OF DEATH WAS BETWEEN 9:00 AND 12:00."
            REMEMBER ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT BIG TICKET ITEMS, BIG TICKET ITEMS?  AND WHEN YOU GET BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM, YOU WILL HAVE A LOT OF FUN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ALL THOSE RED AND BLUE MARKS THAT THEY DREW OVER THE CORONER.
            THEY SPENT EIGHT DAYS TRASHING THEIR OWN CORONER AND THEY DIDN'T CALL HIM.  WHY IS THAT IN THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH?  THEY CALL SOMEBODY ELSE WHO'S NOT EVEN THERE AT THE AUTOPSIES WHO HAS THE BENEFIT OF OUR EXPERTS, MICHAEL BADEN AND BARBARA WOLF, WHO POINT OUT TO HIM THE MISTAKES THAT GOLDEN HAS MADE. HE THEN RUNS IN HERE AND TESTIFIES ABOUT THOSE MISTAKES THAT WE HAD DISCOVERED.
            REMEMBER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IN THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH, OUR EXPERTS WERE IN PLACE RIGHT AWAY.  O.J. SIMPSON WAS PAYING FOR THESE EXPERTS TO FIND THE KILLER OR KILLERS.
            AND YOU'LL RECALL THE EVIDENCE THAT DR. LEE, MICHAEL BADEN, BARBARA WOLF WERE OFFERED  THEM AT THE BEGINNING.  SO THE IDEA IS FROM THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH.  AND SO I MENTION THAT PARENTHETICALLY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
            YOU TALK ABOUT NOT CALLING WITNESSES IN EVERY MURDER CASE, IT'S BASIC THAT YOU'VE GOT TO CALL THE CORONER.  BUT THEY DID A NUMBER OF THINGS IN THIS CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT HAD NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE.
            OF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS, FOUR DETECTIVES GOING TO THE SCENE TO NOTIFY SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT EVEN A NEXT OF KIN.  A DETECTIVE CARRIES BLOOD 25 OR 30 MILES AROUND IN HIS POCKET.
            THEY DO THINGS THAT YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE IN THIS CASE.  IS IT BECAUSE IT'S ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON?
            AND SO AS WE LOOK THEN AT THE TIME LINE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS TIME LINE, I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THESE WORDS.  LIKE THE DEFINING MOMENT IN THIS TRIAL, THE DAY MR. DARDEN ASKED MR. SIMPSON TO TRY ON THOSE GLOVES AND THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT, REMEMBER THESE WORDS; IF IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.  AND WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THAT THROUGHOUT.
            SO TO SUMMARIZE, IF YOU TAKE THE WITNESSES THAT WE PRESENTED WHO STAND UNIMPEACHED, UNIMPEACHED, AND IF YOU ARE LEFT WITH DOGS STARTING TO BARK AT 10:35 OR 10:40, 10:40 LET'S SAY -- AND WE  KNOW FROM THE MOST QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS, HENRY LEE AND MICHAEL BADEN, THIS WAS A STRUGGLE THAT TOOK FROM FIVE TO 15 MINUTES.  IT'S ALREADY 10:55.  AND REMEMBER, THE THUMPS WERE AT 10:40 OR 10:45 -- O.J. SIMPSON COULD NOT BE GUILTY.  HE IS THEN ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL.

 *********

            CONTINUING ON, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT MR. SIMPSON EVER TRIED TO HIDE A KNIFE OR CLOTHES OR ANYTHING ELSE ON HIS PROPERTY. YOU'LL RECALL THAT FUHRMAN -- AND WHEN I GET TO FUHRMAN, WE'LL BE SPENDING SOME TIME ON HIM AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE.  BUT ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAID WAS THAT HE ENCOUNTERED COBWEBS FURTHER DOWN THAT WALKWAY, INDICATING, IF THAT PART IS TRUE -- AND I DON'T VOUCH FOR HIM AT ALL -- THERE HAD BEEN NOBODY DOWN THAT PATHWAY FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
            AND SO SHE TALKS ABOUT O.J. BEING VERY, VERY RECOGNIZABLE.  SHE TALKS ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON GETTING DRESSED UP TO GO COMMIT THESE MURDERS.
            JUST BEFORE WE BREAK FOR OUR BREAK, I WAS THINKING -- I WAS THINKING LAST NIGHT ABOUT THIS CASE AND THEIR THEORY AND HOW IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AND HOW IT DIDN'T FIT AND HOW SOMETHING IS WRONG.  IT OCCURRED TO ME HOW THEY WERE GOING TO COME HERE, STAND UP HERE AND TELL YOU HOW O.J. SIMPSON WAS GOING TO DISGUISE HIMSELF.
            HE WAS GOING TO PUT ON A KNIT CAP AND SOME DARK CLOTHES, AND HE WAS GOING TO GET IN HIS WHITE BRONCO, THIS RECOGNIZABLE PERSON, AND GO OVER AND KILL HIS WIFE.  THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE.  THAT'S HOW SILLY THEIR ARGUMENT IS.
            AND I SAID TO MYSELF, MAYBE I CAN DEMONSTRATE THIS GRAPHICALLY.  LET ME SHOW YOU SOMETHING.  THIS IS A KNIT CAP.  LET ME PUT THIS KNIT  CAP ON (INDICATING).
            YOU HAVE SEEN ME FOR A YEAR.  IF I PUT THIS KNIT CAP ON, WHO AM I?  I'M STILL JOHNNIE COCHRAN WITH A KNIT CAP.
            AND IF YOU LOOKED AT O.J. SIMPSON OVER THERE -- AND HE HAS A RATHER LARGE HEAD -- O.J. SIMPSON IN A KNIT CAP FROM TWO BLOCKS AWAY IS STILL O.J. SIMPSON.  IT'S NO DISGUISE.  IT'S NO DISGUISE. IT MAKES NO SENSE.  IT DOESN'T FIT.  IF IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.
  *****
 

            THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.  WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THIS CASE, PROVED THINGS, HOWEVER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.
            SO IF A WITNESS WASN'T CALLED, DON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST O.J. SIMPSON.  YOU HOLD THAT AGAINST ME.  AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HOLD THAT AGAINST ME BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.
            AND REMEMBER, THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY INSTRUCTED YOU AS FOLLOWS, AND LET ME READ IT TO YOU AGAIN SO THAT WE MAKE THIS CLEAR.
            MAYBE MR. DARDEN WILL REMEMBER THIS.
                "THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EACH ELEMENT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION AND THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A PERPETRATOR OF ANY SUCH CRIMES -- SUCH CHARGED CRIME.  THE DEFENDANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE HIMSELF INNOCENT OR TO PROVE THAT ANOTHER PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIMES CHARGED."
            WELL, THAT LAW IS NOT JUST FOR O.J. SIMPSON.  THAT IS THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR EVERYONE, AND THEY KNOW IT.
            I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING IN THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH, IN YOUR COURAGE, WE CANNOT LET THEM TURN THE CONSTITUTION ON ITS HEAD.
            I AM GOING TO BE THE REMINDER OF THAT.

 *************

            SO THEY TOOK THAT VIDEO -- YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLY ON.  LAPD SHOULD ALWAYS TAKE VIDEOS OF EVERYTHING AT THAT CRIME SCENE.  THEY DON'T DO THAT.  BUT THEY TOOK THIS VIDEO NOT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO HELP MR. SIMPSON.  IF ANYTHING WAS MISSING OR GOT BROKEN, THIS WAS A CIVIL LIABILITY VIDEO. REMEMBER, THEY WERE GOING AROUND TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE MISSING OF WHATEVER IF THERE WAS EVER A SUIT LATER ON.
 
            BUT THEY GOT HOISTED BY THEIR OWN PETARD AGAIN BECAUSE THE VIDEO HAS THE COUNTER AND THE NUMBER.  THEY WILL NEVER, EVER BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE TESTIMONY IN BLACK AND WHITE AS WHEN THEY WENT UPSTAIRS AND COLLECTED  THEM.
            THOSE SOCKS FROM THE BEGINNING IS GOING TO BRING THEM DOWN.  SO THOSE ARE THE SOCKS, THESE SOCKS.  NO DIRT, NO SOIL, NO BERRIES, NO TRACE. NOBODY SEES ANY BLOOD UNTIL AUGUST 4TH.  ALL THESE MIRACULOUS THINGS START HAPPENING, AND THEN -- MR. SCHECK WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THIS.  THEN WE FIND OUT IT HAS EDTA IN IT.
            IS IT PLANTED ALONG WITH THAT BACK GATE? HOW WOULD IT BE ON THERE?  WHY DIDN'T THEY SEE THE BLOOD BEFORE THAT?  THERE'S A BIG FIGHT HERE.  WHERE IS THE DIRT?  WHY WOULD MR. SIMPSON HAVE ON THESE KIND OF SOCKS WITH A SWEAT OUTFIT?
            WAIT A MINUTE.  NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LIKE FROM THE FASHION POLICE TO KNOW THAT.  YOU DON'T WEAR THOSE KINDS OF SOCKS.  YOU WEAR THOSE KIND OF SOCKS WITH A SUIT.  YOU DON'T WEAR THOSE KIND OF SOCKS WITH A SWEAT OUTFIT.
            DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU THAT THOSE SOCKS WERE IN THAT HAMPER FROM SATURDAY NIGHT WHEN MR. SIMPSON WENT TO THAT FORMAL EVENT?  THOSE KIND OF SOCKS IS WHAT YOU WEAR WITH YOUR TUXEDO WHEN HE WAS DRESSED WITH THOSE OTHER LADIES.  THEY WENT AND TOOK IT OUT OF THE HAMPER AND STAGED IT THERE, AND YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENED.
            IS THAT NOT REASONABLE UNDER THESE FACTS?  I THINK YOU'LL AGREE IT IS.  IT'S THE ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION.  IT'S POSED THERE.  AND THE  REASON FOR DOING THIS IS BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT OF PLACE.
            BUT ISN'T THAT INTERESTING, IN THE HAMPER IN WHICH LUPER WENT AND THEY ALL WENT, THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANYTHING ELSE?  YOU'D THINK THE POLICE WOULD ASK MR. SIMPSON, "WHAT WERE YOU WEARING?  IN ADDITION TO THE SUIT, WHAT WERE YOU WEARING THAT NIGHT?"
            THEY DIDN'T TAKE ONE THING.  YET WE HEAR ALL THIS TALK ABOUT, I WONDER WHERE THE CLOTHES WENT, I WONDER WHERE THE CLOTHES WENT.  YOU'D THINK MR. SIMPSON, WHO TOLD THEM EVERYTHING, COOPERATED WITH THEM FULLY, TOLD THEM, LIKE HE TOLD THEM ABOUT THOSE SHOES, WHAT HE WAS WEARING.  THEY DIDN'T BOTHER COLLECTING THOSE, DID THEY?  NO TOWELS, NO NOTHING.
            SHE'S WORRIED ABOUT HIM TAKING THIS QUICK SHOWER.  IF HE TOOK A SHOWER, THERE'S SO MUCH BLOOD, HE'S COVERED WITH BLOOD, WHY DIDN'T THEY BRING THE TOWELS IN HERE?  SOMETHING IS WRONG IN THIS CASE.  IT JUST DOESN'T FIT.  WHEN IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.
            SO THE SOCKS -- I COULD TALK ABOUT THESE SOCKS FOREVER, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE MR. SCHECK WILL TALK ABOUT THE FORENSIC ASPECT OF IT.  BUT LET ME JUST REMIND YOU OF TWO QUICK MORE THINGS.
            DR. HERBERT MAC DONELL CAME IN HERE AND HE TOLD YOU THERE WAS NO SPLATTER OR SPATTER ON THESE SOCKS.  THESE SOCKS HAD COMPRESSION TRANSFER, AND HE  USED HIS HANDS TO SHOW YOU SOMEBODY TOOK THOSE SOCKS AND THEY PUT SOMETHING ON THEM AND IT WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO SIDE 3.
            NOW, WITH ALL THEIR EXPERTS BRINGING PEOPLE BACK THREE, FOUR TIMES, THEY NEVER HAD ANYBODY TO CONTRAVENE THAT.  HOW DID THAT GET OVER TO SIDE 3? HOW DID IT GET OVER THERE?  IT WOULDN'T GET THERE IF THERE WAS A LEG IN THE SOCK.  CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN THAT?  CAN ANY OF YOU EXPLAIN THAT?  MAYBE MISS CLARK CAN EXPLAIN THAT.  EXPERTS CAN'T EXPLAIN IT. SOMETHING IS WRONG.
            THEN FINALLY THE EDTA WHICH INDICATES THE ANTICOAGULANT FROM A PURPLE TOP TUBE IS WHERE THAT BLOOD IS FROM.  THE SOCKS, AS YOU KNOW, ARE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO GET EMOTIONAL ABOUT BECAUSE WE'VE KNOWN ABOUT THESE SOCKS FOR SOME TIME.  THIS IS TO SAY THE LEAST DISTURBING.  IT'S WORSE THAN THAT THOUGH.
            IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, I TOLD YOU ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE COMPROMISED, CONTAMINATED AND CORRUPTED AND I TOLD YOU SOMETHING THEN.  I SAID IN THIS CASE, THERE'S SOMETHING EVEN FAR MORE SINISTER. THE SOCKS ARE ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT.
            NOW, IF YOU WANT TO BE FAIR DECIDING THIS CASE, YOU'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH THESE SOCKS.  YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO SEE THEM.  LOOK FOR THE DIRT THAT YOU EXPECT ON THEM.  LOOK FOR THE SPATTER THAT YOU EXPECT ON THEM.  LOOK AND SEE WHY IT WENT OVER TO SIDE 3.  THERE'S A LEG IN IT.
            NOW, ISN'T IT INTERESTING HOW YOU GET THIS BLOOD ON THIS SOCK WITH YOUR PANTS?  YOUR PANTS HAVE TO BE ALMOST UP.  THIS WOULD TAKE A REAL CONTORTION TO DO IT.  THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD EXPLAIN IT.  SO LET'S JUST LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS AND MR. SCHECK WILL PICK UP ON THAT.

[DISCUSSING FURHMAN'S TESTIMONY]

            AND THEN MY COLLEAGUE, LEE BAILEY, WHO CAN'T BE WITH US TODAY, BUT GOD BLESS HIM, WHEREVER HE IS, DID HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS INDIVIDUAL AND HE ASKED SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS.  SOME OF YOU PROBABLY WONDERED, "I WONDER WHY HE'S ASKING THAT."
            HE ASKED THIS MAN WHETHER OR NOT HE EVER MET KATHLEEN BELL.  OF COURSE, HE LIED ABOUT THAT.
      "NEVER MET THIS WOMAN.  I DON'T RECOGNIZE HER.  I DON'T KNOW HER,  GEE, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT."
            BOY, AND HE SOUNDED REALLY CONVINCING, DIDN'T HE?
 
 
 
            HE SAYS, QUOTE:
      "I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THIS WOMAN AS ANYBODY I HAVE EVER MET."
            THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.  THEN BAILEY SAYS:
      "HAVE YOU USED THAT WORD, REFERRING TO THE 'N' WORD, IN THE PAST 10 YEARS?
      "NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
      "YOU MEAN, IF YOU CALL SOMEONE A NIGGER, YOU HAD FORGOTTEN IT?
      "I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION THE WAY IT'S PHRASED, SIR."
             AND THEY GO ON.  HE SAYS, "WELL --" AND THEN PINS HIM DOWN.
                "I WANT YOU TO ASSUME THAT PERHAPS AT SOME TIME SINCE 1985 OR '86, YOU ADDRESSED A MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE AS A NIGGER.  IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT ACT ON YOUR PART?
                "ANSWER:  NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
                "ARE YOU, THEREFORE, SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NOT USED THAT WORD IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
 
      "ANSWER:  YES.  THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
                "QUESTION:  AND YOU SAY UNDER
OATH THAT YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY BLACK          PERSON AS A NIGGER OR SPOKEN ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE AS NIGGERS IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
                "THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, SIR.
                "SO THAT ANYONE WHO COMES TO
THIS COURT AND QUOTES YOU AS USING THAT WORD IN DEALING WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS  WOULD BE A LIAR; WOULD THEY NOT, DETECTIVE       FUHRMAN?
                "YES, THEY WOULD.
                "ALL OF THEM, CORRECT?
                "ALL OF THEM."
            THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD YOU UNDER OATH IN THIS CASE.  DID HE LIE?  DID HE LIE?  DID HE LIE UNDER OATH?  DID THIS KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS LIE  UNDER OATH?  AND I'M GOING TO END THIS PART AND RESUME WITH HIM TOMORROW MORNING.  DID HE LIE?
            AND THEY TRY TO TELL YOU IT'S NOT IMPORTANT.  LET'S REMEMBER THIS MAN.  THIS IS THE MAN WHO WAS OFF THIS CASE SHORTLY AFTER 2:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING RIGHT AFTER HE GOT ON IT.  THIS IS THE MAN WHO DIDN'T WANT TO BE OFF THIS CASE.  THIS IS THE MAN, WHEN THEY'RE RINGING THE DOOR BELL AT ASHFORD, WHO GOES FOR A WALK.  AND HE DESCRIBES HOW HE'S STROLLING.
            LET ME QUOTE HIM FOR YOU.  HERE'S WHAT HE SAYS:
      "I WAS JUST STROLLING ALONG LOOKING AT THE HOUSE.  MAYBE I COULD SEE SOME MOVEMENT INSIDE.  I WAS JUST WALKING WHILE THE OTHER THREE DETECTIVES WERE DOWN THERE."
            AND THAT'S WHEN HE WALKS DOWN AND HE'S THE ONE WHO SAYS THE BRONCO WAS PARKED ASKEW AND HE SEES SOME SPOT ON THE DOOR.  HE MAKES ALL OF THE DISCOVERIES.
            HE'S GOT TO BE THE BIG MAN BECAUSE HE'S HAD IT IN FOR O.J. BECAUSE OF HIS VIEWS SINCE '85. THIS IS THE MAN, HE'S THE GUY WHO CLIMBS OVER THE FENCE.  HE'S THE GUY WHO GOES IN AND TALKS TO KATO KAELIN WHILE THE OTHER DETECTIVES ARE TALKING TO THE FAMILY.  HE'S THE GUY WHO'S SHINING A LIGHT IN KATO KAELIN'S EYES.  HE'S THE GUY LOOKING AT SHOES AND LOOKING FOR SUSPECTS.  HE'S THE GUY WHO'S DOING THESE  THINGS.
            HE'S THE GUY WHO SAYS, "I DON'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT THE THUMPS ON THE WALL."  HE'S THE GUY WHO'S OFF THIS CASE WHO'S SUPPOSEDLY THERE TO HELP THIS MAN, OUR CLIENT, O.J. SIMPSON, WHO THEN GOES OUT ALL BY HIMSELF, ALL BY HIMSELF.
 
            NOW, HE'S WORRIED ABOUT BODIES OR SUSPECTS OR WHATEVER.  HE DOESN'T EVEN TAKE OUT HIS GUN.  HE GOES AROUND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AND LO AND BEHOLD, HE CLAIMS HE FINDS THIS GLOVE AND HE SAYS THE GLOVE IS STILL MOIST AND STICKY.
            NOW, UNDER THEIR THEORY, AT 10:40, 10:45, THAT GLOVE IS DROPPED.  HOW MANY HOURS IS THAT?  IT'S NOW AFTER 6:00 O'CLOCK.  SO WHAT IS THAT?  SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS.  THE TESTIMONY ABOUT DRYING TIME AROUND HERE, NO DEW POINT THAT NIGHT.   WHY WOULD IT BE MOIST AND STICKY UNLESS HE BROUGHT IT OVER THERE AND PLANTED IT THERE TO TRY TO MAKE THIS CASE?  AND THERE IS A CAUCASIAN HAIR ON THAT GLOVE.
            THIS MAN CANNOT BE TRUSTED.  HE IS SINFUL TO THE PROSECUTION, AND FOR THEM TO SAY HE'S NOT IMPORTANT IS UNTRUE AND YOU WILL NOT FALL FOR IT, BECAUSE AS GUARDIANS OF JUSTICE HERE, WE CAN'T LET IT HAPPEN.
 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1995
                     9:01 A.M.

 
                CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED)
 
 ****

         THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION DURING THIS FIRST PART OF MY ARGUMENT.
            I HOPE THAT DURING THIS PHASE OF IT I HAVE DEMONSTRATED TO YOU THAT THIS REALLY IS A CASE ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AN OBSESSION TO WIN, AT ALL COSTS, A WILLINGNESS TO DISTORT, TWIST, THEORIZE IN ANY FASHION TO TRY TO GET YOU TO VOTE GUILTY IN THIS CASE WHERE IT IS NOT WARRANTED, THAT THESE METAPHORS ABOUT AN OCEAN OF EVIDENCE OR A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE IS LITTLE MORE THAN A TINY, TINY STREAM, IF AT ALL, THAT POINTS EQUALLY TOWARD INNOCENCE, THAT ANY MOUNTAIN HAS LONG AGO BEEN REDUCED TO LITTLE MORE THAN A MOLEHILL UNDER AN AVALANCHE OF LIES AND COMPLEXITY AND CONSPIRACY.
            THIS IS WHAT WE'VE SHOWN YOU.
            AND SO AS GREAT AS AMERICA IS, WE HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE POINT WHERE THERE IS EQUALITY IN RIGHTS OR EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
            I STARTED OFF TALKING TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FREDERICK DOUGLAS AND WHAT HE SAID MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, FOR THERE ARE STILL THE MARK  FUHRMANS IN THIS WORLD, IN THIS COUNTRY, WHO HATE AND ARE YET EMBRACED BY PEOPLE IN POWER.
            BUT YOU AND I, FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND IDEALS AND FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL, MUST CONTINUE TO FIGHT TO EXPOSE HATE AND GENOCIDAL RACISM AND THESE TENDENCIES.
            WE THEN BECOME THE GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY, FOR IF WE AS THE PEOPLE DON'T CONTINUE TO HOLD A MIRROR UP TO THE FACE OF AMERICA AND SAY THIS IS WHAT YOU PROMISED, THIS IS WHAT YOU DELIVERED, IF YOU DON'T SPEAK OUT, IF YOU DON'T STAND UP, IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT'S RIGHT, THIS KIND OF CONDUCT WILL CONTINUE ON FOREVER AND WE WILL NEVER HAVE AN IDEAL SOCIETY, ONE THAT LIVES OUT THE TRUE MEANING OF THE CREED OF THE CONSTITUTION OR OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
            I'M GOING TO TAKE MY SEAT, BUT I GET ONE LAST TIME TO ADDRESS YOU, AS I SAID BEFORE.
            THIS IS A CASE ABOUT AN INNOCENT MAN WRONGFULLY ACCUSED.  YOU HAVE SEEN HIM NOW FOR A YEAR AND TWO DAYS.  YOU OBSERVED HIM DURING GOOD TIMES AND THE BAD TIMES.
            SOON IT WILL BE YOUR TURN.  YOU HAVE THE KEYS TO HIS FUTURE.  YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE BY WHICH YOU CAN ACQUIT THIS MAN.  YOU HAVE NOT ONLY THE PATIENCE, BUT THE INTEGRITY AND THE COURAGE TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
            WE BELIEVE YOU WILL DO THE RIGHT THING,  AND THE RIGHT THING IS TO FIND THIS MAN NOT GUILTY ON BOTH OF THESE CHARGES.
            THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.
            I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION.
 

                     CLOSING ARGUMENT
 
BY MR. SCHECK:

            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, GOOD MORNING.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      MR. SCHECK:  LET ME JOIN WITH EVERYBODY IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
            I CAN -- THE FRUSTRATION, THE LONELINESS, THE SACRIFICE YOU HAVE MADE IN THIS SEQUESTRATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE UNDERSTAND OR WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
            AS THE JUDGE HAS POINTED OUT A NUMBER OF TIMES, MY COLLEAGUE, MR. NEUFELD AND I, WE ARE FROM NEW YORK CITY.  MORE SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE FROM BROOKLYN, AND WE'VE BEEN OUT HERE QUITE UNEXPECTEDLY FOR A LOT OF MONTHS.
            AND I REMEMBER WHEN THAT DETECTIVE FROM CHICAGO TESTIFIED ABOUT HAVING THOSE KEYS THAT YOU STICK IN AND OUT OF THE DOORS AND LITTLE LIGHTS GO ON, UMM, EVERY DAY GOING IN AND OUT OF THOSE DOORS AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY, EVERYTHING REPEATING ITSELF, THE MONOTONY, THE LONELINESS, THE FRUSTRATION.
            WE SIT AROUND AND WE TALK SOMETIMES IN AMAZEMENT AT HOW YOU DEAL WITH THIS AND HOW APPRECIATIVE WE ARE AND -- WELL, IT IS JUST REALLY A HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO PRESENT THIS CASE TO YOU.
            AND AS LAWYERS THAT DEALT WITH SOME OF THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS DETAILED AND COMPLICATED, AND I'M SURE I SPEAK FOR MYSELF, MR. BLASIER, MR. NEUFELD, MR. CLARKE, FOR THE PROSECUTION, MR. GOLDBERG, THAT WE HAD A JOB.
            OUR JOB WAS TO MAKE IT SIMPLE, TO MAKE IT COGENT WITHOUT SACRIFICING ANY MEANINGFUL DETAIL. THAT IS OUR JOB.
            AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW APPRECIATIVE WE ARE BECAUSE YOU PAID ATTENTION, YOU WERE PATIENT, YOU FOLLOWED THE EVIDENCE.  I KNOW THAT.  I WATCHED IT.

[SCHECK DISCUSSES THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE]

            AND OF COURSE YOU KNOW THE BRONCO.  HOW CAN YOU TRUST THE BRONCO?  CHAIN OF CUSTODY.  HOW CAN YOU TRUST THAT?  THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN TRUST ABOUT THE BRONCO AND HOW THEY HANDLED IT.
            THEN THE GLOVES.  THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT. THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT.  THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT.
            REASONABLE DOUBT.

 ****************

            SO WHAT I'VE TRIED TO DO IN MY REMARKS IS REVIEW WITH YOU ESSENTIAL PIECES, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE.
            AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.  WE DON'T HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS CASE.
            AND EACH ESSENTIAL PIECE, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY, THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT AND SOME, SOME OF THESE ARE SO PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING IN TERMS OF THE MANUFACTURING OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THAT I'M SURE YOU REALLY CAN'T ABIDE IT, NOT IN THIS COUNTRY, NOT IN THIS DEMOCRACY CAN WE ALLOW DISHONEST MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE TO LIE AT THE HEART OF A CASE LIKE THIS.
            IT CANNOT BE.  YOU CANNOT TRUST.  I MEAN, YOU CANNOT GO BACK AND SAY, WELL, MAYBE THEY PLANTED EVIDENCE ON THE GLOVE.  MAYBE ON THE BACK GATE.  OH, THERE IS BLOOD MISSING.  BIG DEAL.  HOW CAN THAT BE A BIG DEAL?
            THAT IS -- MANY, MANY REASONABLE DOUBTS IMBEDDED IN ALL OF THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE IS A FOURTH C, CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, BUT THERE IS A FOURTH C THAT GOES ALONG WITH HOW THESE THINGS HAPPENED THAT RELATES TO THIS TESTIMONY, AND THE FOURTH C HAS TO DO WITH COVER-UP, AND I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE STATEMENTS OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE COVER-UP OF MR. FUHRMAN THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU SO ELOQUENTLY IN THE LAST TWO DAYS.

 *****

            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.  I'VE TRIED TO REASON THROUGH THIS EVIDENCE, DRAWING THE FAIR INFERENCES AS BEST WE COULD LOOKING AT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE, AND I JUST THINK THERE IS VERY LITTLE QUESTION HERE, IS THERE?
            SO MUCH OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE JUST SHOT THROUGH WITH REASONABLE DOUBT. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG.  THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE.
            SOMEBODY MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  THERE IS HISSING BLOOD.  THERE IS EDTA.  THERE IS QUESTIONS, SERIOUS DEEPLY TROUBLING QUESTIONS.
            YOU MUST DISTRUST IT.  YOU HAVE TO DISTRUST IT.
            YOU CANNOT RENDER A VERDICT IN THIS CASE OF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ON THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IF YOU DO, NO ONE IS SAFE, NO ONE.
            THE CONSTITUTION MEANS NOTHING.
            THIS CANNOT, WILL NOT, SHALL NOT HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY WITH YOU GOOD PEOPLE.
            IT JUST WON'T.
            THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, MR. SCHECK.
 

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR COCHRAN (CONTINUED)

 ********
 

            AND YOU HEARD ALL ABOUT BRUNO MAGLI SHOES AND BRUNO MAGLI SHOES AND WE SEARCHED ALL AROUND THE  WORLD AND WE WENT TO BLOOMINGDALES, AND WHAT WE DID WE FIND THERE IS NOBODY WHO EVER SOLD O.J. SIMPSON ANY BRUNO MAGLI SHOES.
            THEY SEARCHED.  THEY TRIED.  THEY NEVER SOLD HIM ANY SHOES, SO THEY ARE BACK TALKING ABOUT BRUNO MAGLI SHOES.  I MEAN, THERE MUST BE EVERY OTHER HOUSE IN BRENTWOOD.  I GUESS IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO AFFORD SOME BRUNO MAGLIS SHOES, I GUESS THEY COULD.
            THAT IS THEIR CASE.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD ANY BRUNO MAGLI SHOES EVER.  IN FACT, WHEN LANGE IS LOOKING FOR THE CLOTHES AND O.J. SIMPSON SAYS THIS IS WHAT HE WORE, HERE ARE THE TENNIS SHOES, HE TOOK ONLY TENNIS SHOES THAT NIGHT.
            THERE ARE -- IS NO EVIDENCE THAT O.J. SIMPSON EVER OWNED ANY BRUNO MAGLI SHOES, AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT.
 
 ********

            THIS CASE IS A TRAGEDY FOR EVERYBODY, FOR CERTAINLY THE VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES, FOR THE SIMPSON'S FAMILY, AND THEY ARE VICTIMS, TOO, BECAUSE THEY LOST THE EX DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, FOR THE DEFENDANT.
            HE HAS BEEN IN CUSTODY SINCE JUNE OF 1994 FOR A CRIME THAT HE DIDN'T COMMIT.
            SOMEONE HAS TAKEN THESE CHILDREN'S MOTHER.  I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOUR DECISION DOESN'T TAKE THEIR FATHER AND THAT JUSTICE IS FINALLY ACHIEVED IN THIS CASE.
 
 

            NOW, AS IT COMES TIME FOR ME TO CONCLUDE MY REMARKS, I MAY NEVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AGAIN TO SPEAK TO YOU, CERTAINLY NOT IN THIS SETTING, MAYBE WHEN THE CASE IS OVER.
            AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MANY, MANY TIMES, THESE ARE VERY HEAVY BURDENS PLACED UPON THE PEOPLE, AND FOR GOOD REASON, TO PROVE THIS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            AS SUCH IT IS MISS CLARK'S DUTY TO ANSWER FOR YOU AS BEST SHE CAN ANY LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE EVIDENCE WHICH WE BELIEVE CASTS DOUBT UPON MR. SIMPSON'S GUILT.
            THERE MAY BE 1000 SUCH QUESTIONS IN A  CASE LIKE THIS WHICH COULD BE PUT TO HER, BUT WE INTEND NO SUCH EXERCISE.  I DO THINK, AFTER CAREFUL DELIBERATION, THAT IT MIGHT BE FAIR TO SUGGEST FIFTEEN QUESTIONS, JUST FIFTEEN QUESTIONS WHICH LITERALLY HANG IN THE AIR IN THIS COURTROOM AT THIS MOMENT.
            AND AS THE TIME APPROACHES FOR YOU TO DECIDE THIS CASE, FOR US TO HAND THE BATON TO YOU.
            I OFFER THESE QUESTIONS NOW AS A MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGE TO THE PROSECUTION, THE PROSECUTION WHICH CLAIMS THAT IT HAS MET ITS BURDEN IN THIS CASE.
            IF THAT BURDEN HAS IN FACT BEEN MET, YOU WILL BE GIVEN LOGICAL, SENSIBLE, CREDIBLE, SATISFYING ANSWERS TO EACH OF THESE FIFTEEN QUESTIONS.  IF THE QUESTIONS ARE OVERWHELMING AND UNANSWERABLE, THEY WILL BE IGNORED OR YOU WILL BE TOLD THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS NO OBLIGATION TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
            IF YOU ARE GIVEN ANYTHING LESS THAN A COMPLETE SENSIBLE AND SATISFACTORY RESPONSE, SATISFYING YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO THESE FIFTEEN QUESTIONS, YOU WILL QUICKLY REALIZE THAT THE CASE REALLY IS TRANSPARENT AND YOU WILL THINK ABOUT THE SCENARIO THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH FOR YOU AND THAT -- THE TERM SMOKE AND MIRRORS THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE DEFENSE.
            WE PROVED REAL HARD THINGS FOR YOU, THINGS THAT YOU CAN SEE, THINGS YOU COULD TAKE BACK  IN THAT JURY ROOM.
            AND ACCORDINGLY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND MR. SIMPSON NOT GUILTY.
            WHEN I'M CONCLUDED, FOR MISS CLARK'S CONVENIENCE, SHOULD SHE DECIDE TO DEAL WITH THESE VERY TROUBLESOME QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO LEAVE HER A WRITTEN LIST OF THESE QUESTIONS HERE WHEN I CONCLUDE.
            LET ME GO OVER THESE FIFTEEN QUESTIONS WITH YOU JUST BRIEFLY.

[COCHRAN PRESENTS 15 QUESTIONS]

          IN TIMES LIKE THESE WE OFTEN TURN TO THE BIBLE FOR SOME ANSWERS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHEN YOU'VE GOT SITUATIONS LIKE THIS AND YOU WANT TO GET AN ANSWER AND YOU WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND.
            I HAPPEN TO REALLY LIKE THE BOOK OF PROVERBS AND IN PROVERBS IT TALKS A LOT ABOUT FALSE WITNESSES.
            IT SAYS THAT A FALSE WITNESS SHALL NOT BE UNPUNISHED AND HE THAT SPEAKETH LIES SHALL NOT ESCAPE.
            THAT MEANT A LOT TO ME IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE WAS MARK FUHRMAN ACTING LIKE A CHOIRBOY, MAKING YOU BELIEVE HE WAS THE BEST WITNESS THAT WALKED IN HERE, GENERALLY APPLAUDED FOR HIS WONDERFUL PERFORMANCE.
            IT TURNS OUT HE WAS THE BIGGEST LIAR IN  THIS COURTROOM DURING THIS PROCESS, FOR THE BIBLE HAD ALREADY TOLD US THE ANSWER, THAT A FALSE WITNESS SHALL NOT BE UNPUNISHED AND HE THAT SPEAKETH LIES SHALL NOT ESCAPE.
            IN THAT SAME BOOK IT TELLS US THAT A FAITHFUL WITNESS WILL NOT LIE BUT A FALSE WITNESS WILL UTTER LIES.
            FINALLY IN PROVERBS IT SAYS THAT HE THAT SPEAKETH THE TRUTH SHOWETH THE FORTHRIGHTFULNESS BUT A FALSE WITNESS SHOWS DECEIT.
            SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRUTH, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRUTH AND LIES AND CONSPIRACIES AND COVER-UPS, I ALWAYS THINK ABOUT ONE OF MY FAVORITE POEMS, WHICH I THINK IS SO VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS CASE.
            YOU KNOW WHEN THINGS ARE AT THE DARKEST THERE IS ALWAYS LIGHT THE NEXT DAY.  IN YOUR LIFE, IN ALL OF OUR LIVES, YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TRANSFORM MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S DARK YESTERDAY INTO BRIGHT TOMORROW.  YOU HAVE THAT CAPACITY.  YOU HAVE THAT POWER IN YOUR HAND.
            AND JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL SAID IT BEST ABOUT WRONG AND EVIL.  HE SAID THAT TRUTH FOREVER ON THE SCAFFOLD, WRONG FOREVER ON THE THROWN, YET THAT SCAFFOLD SWAYS THE FUTURE AND BEYOND THE DIM UNKNOWN STANDETH GOD WITHIN THE SHADOWS, KEEPING WATCH ABOVE HIS OWN.
            YOU WALK WITH THAT EVERYDAY, YOU CARRY  THAT WITH YOU AND THINGS WILL COME TO YOU AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO REVEAL PEOPLE WHO COME TO YOU IN UNIFORMS AND HIGH POSITIONS WHO LIE AND ARE CORRUPT.
            THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE AND SO THE TRUTH IS NOW OUT.  IT IS NOW UP TO YOU.  WE ARE GOING TO PASS THIS BATON TO YOU SOON.
            YOU WILL DO THE RIGHT THING.  YOU HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT FOR JUSTICE.  YOU WILL DO THE RIGHT THING.
            I WILL SOME DAY GO ON TO OTHER CASES, NO DOUBT AS WILL MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN.  JUDGE ITO WILL TRY ANOTHER CASE SOME DAY, I HOPE, BUT THIS IS O.J. SIMPSON'S ONE DAY IN COURT.
            BY YOUR DECISION YOU CONTROL HIS VERY LIFE YOUR HANDS.  TREAT IT CAREFULLY.  TREAT IT FAIRLY.  BE FAIR.
            DON'T BE PART OF THIS CONTINUING COVER-UP.  DO THE RIGHT THING REMEMBERING THAT IF IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT, THAT IF THESE MESSENGERS HAVE LIED TO YOU, YOU CAN'T TRUST THEIR MESSAGE, THAT THIS HAS BEEN A SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
            THAT NO MATTER HOW BAD IT LOOKS, IF TRUTH IS OUT THERE ON A SCAFFOLD AND WRONG IS IN HERE ON THE THRONE, WHEN THAT SCAFFOLD SWAYS THE FUTURE AND BEYOND THE DIM UNKNOWN STANDETH THE SAME GOD FOR ALL PEOPLE KEEPING WATCH ABOVE HIS OWN.
            HE WATCHES ALL OF US AND HE WILL WATCH YOU IN YOUR DECISION.
            THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
            GOD BLESS YOU.
[close]
« Last Edit: March 05, 2024, 09:51:04 am by Nightwing »

Dolcebowler

  • Guest
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #66 on: March 05, 2024, 09:19:59 am »
@Nightwing
Spoiler
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      THE COURT:  MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE LATE START, BUT WE HAD SOME MATTERS TO GET OUT OF THE WAY BEFORE WE ACTUALLY STARTED THE ARGUMENT WITH THE ATTORNEYS; HOWEVER, WE ARE NOW READY TO COMMENCE.*****

            MISS CLARK, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, ARE THE PROSECUTION PREPARED TO PROCEED WITH THEIR OPENING ARGUMENT?
      MS. CLARK:  YES, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  YOU MAY PROCEED.
      MS. CLARK:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
 

                     CLOSING ARGUMENT
 
BY MS. CLARK:
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      MS. CLARK:  FINALLY.  I FEEL LIKE IT IS HAS BEEN FOREVER SINCE I TALKED TO YOU.  IT KIND OF HAS.
            IT IS VERY WEIRD BEING IN THE COURTROOM SITTING NEXT TO YOU EVERYDAY NOT GETTING A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU.  IT IS VERY UNNATURAL.
            I HAVE TO TELL YOU AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, AS MANY YEARS AS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, AT THIS MOMENT IN THE TRIAL I ALWAYS FEEL THE SAME.  I FEEL LIKE I WANT TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU SAY, "AND WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?"
      THE COURT:  EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK.
            JUROR 165 NEEDS A PEN.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      THE COURT:  MISS CLARK.
      MS. CLARK:  THANK YOU.
            I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO YOU AND TELL YOU, "WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?  WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?"  BECAUSE THAT WAY I DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT STUFF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR, STUFF THAT YOU DON'T WANT EXPLAINED, STUFF THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN, AND I CAN'T, AND I ALWAYS HAVE A SENSE  OF FRUSTRATION.
            SO I'M SORRY IF I SAY THINGS THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO HEAR OR I EXPLAIN THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY CLEAR TO YOU.  PLEASE BEAR WITH ME BECAUSE I AM NOT A MIND READER AND I DON'T KNOW.
            FIRST I WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.  YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH SO MUCH.  YOU HAVE MADE A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE.  YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR CHILDREN ENOUGH, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR FAMILY ENOUGH, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR LOVED ONES ENOUGH, AND ALL OF THIS IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE AND THE SERVICE OF JUSTICE.
            YOUR DEDICATION AND YOUR SELFLESSNESS ARE TRULY BEYOND THE PALE.  NO ONE CAN SAY THAT ANY JURY HAS SACRIFICED MORE FOR THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE THAN YOU HAVE, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW SINCERELY FROM MY HEART I APPRECIATE IT.
            I SPEAK ON BEHALF, I KNOW, OF THE -- OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  THIS WAS A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE.  YOUR SELFLESSNESS AND YOUR DEVOTION WILL LONG BE REMEMBERED BY MANY, AND THANK YOU.
            I THINK NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW GREAT THEIR SACRIFICE HAS BEEN, HOW TERRIBLE THE PRESSURE HAS BEEN, HOW AWFUL IT MUST BE FOR YOU TO HAVE YOUR LIVES KIND OF OUT OF CONTROL THIS WAY AT THE MERCY OF US TAKING LONGER THAN WE SHOULD HAVE AND YOU HAVING  TO PUT YOUR LIVES ASIDE FOR LONGER THAN YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD TO.
            I'M SORRY FOR THAT.  I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
            THERE IS ONLY ONE BRIGHT SIDE.  TWO BRIGHT SIDES.  ONE, IT IS ALMOST OVER.
            NO. 2, YOU HAVE THE ASSURANCE OF KNOWING THAT NO STONE HAS BEEN LEFT UNTURNED.  THE DEFENDANT HAS EXPLORED EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY OF THE CASE.  WE HAVE EXHAUSTIVELY TRIED TO GIVE YOU EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE RELEVANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER.
            AND IN DOING SO IN THE EXHAUSTIVE EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ALL OF THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE AND THE EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION AND WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE, ONE THING IS CLEAR:
            THIS DEFENDANT HAS RECEIVED THE ULTIMATE IN A FAIR TRIAL.
            AND AT LEAST YOU KNOW THAT.  YOU HAVE THAT ASSURANCE.
            NOW, IN THE COURSE OF PRESENTING ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL, JUST LIKE EVERY TRIAL, SOME EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU THAT REALLY IS NOT RELEVANT TO ANSWER THE CORE QUESTION OF WHO MURDERED RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN.
            AND IT IS UP TO YOU, THE JURY, TO WEED OUT THE DISTRACTIONS, WEED OUT THE SIDE SHOWS AND  DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE IS IT THAT REALLY HELPS ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
            AND IT IS KIND OF LIKE THE ARTIST, THE SCULPTOR.  SOMEBODY WENT TO HIM AND SAID HOW DO YOU MAKE AN ANGEL?  WELL, I TAKE A PIECE OF MARBLE AND I REMOVE EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT AN ANGEL.  THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.  IT IS NOT EASY.  IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT FOCUS AND A LOT OF DETERMINATION ON YOUR PART.
            BECAUSE THE SIDE SHOWS MAY BE VERY INTERESTING, THEY PRESENT VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES, VERY SERIOUS ISSUES, BUT ISSUES THAT REALLY DO NOT RELATE TO WHO COMMITTED THESE MURDERS.
            AND THEY SHOULD BE DEALT WITH OUTSIDE THIS COURTROOM, BECAUSE HERE NOW IN THIS COURTROOM WE ARE HERE TO DECIDE WHO MURDERED RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN.
            NOW, YOU AS JURORS SIT AS JUDGES OF THE EVIDENCE.  YOU ARE CALLED THE TRIER OF FACT.  AND AS SUCH YOUR JOB IS TO BE NEUTRAL AND TO BE IMPARTIAL AS YOU EXAMINE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED.
            AND IN THIS REGARD YOU ARE GUIDED, JUST LIKE ANY JUDGE, BY THE LAW.  AND THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE READ TO YOU ON FRIDAY IS THE LAW THAT YOU WILL APPLY TO THE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION THAT IS POSED HERE, WHO MURDERED RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN.
 
             THE INSTRUCTIONS DISCUSS A WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS.  THEY TALK ABOUT GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, BOTH EXPERT AND LAY WITNESSES, AND THEY TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVE TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT, BUT THEY GO BEYOND THAT AND THEY ALSO TELL YOU THE FRAME OF MIND THAT YOU SHOULD ADOPT WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE.
            AND ONE OF THE FIRST INSTRUCTIONS THAT WAS READ TO YOU BY THE JUDGE ON FRIDAY, IF YOU WILL RECALL, CONCERNED YOUR DUTIES AS A JURY AND IT STATED IN PART:
                "YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PITY FOR A DEFENDANT OR BY PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM, YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR THIS OFFENSE, CHARGED WITH A CRIME OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL."
            OF COURSE THAT MAKES SENSE.  IT IS LOGICAL.  AND THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO PRESENT PROOF TO YOU.  WE JUST DON'T COME IN AND SAY IT IS SO.  I HAVE TO PROVE IT TO YOU WITH EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, SO THAT MAKES SENSE.
            NOW, THE INSTRUCTION GOES ON TO READ:
                "YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MERE SENTIMENT, CONJECTURE, SYMPATHY, PASSION, PREJUDICE, PUBLIC OPINION OR PUBLIC FEELING.
            BOTH THE PEOPLE AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT YOU WILL CONSCIENTIOUSLY  CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, APPLY THE LAW AND REACH A JUST VERDICT REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES."
            IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL YOU HAVE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY OF A VERY EMOTIONAL NATURE.  I EXPECT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT YOU ARE GOING TO BE HEARING VERY IMPASSIONED SPEECHES,
FIREY SPEECHES THAT MAY STIR UP FEELINGS OF ANGER OR PITY.
            ALTHOUGH YOUR FEELINGS MAY BE AROUSED, AS MAY BE NATURAL AND UNDERSTANDABLE FOR ALL OF US, AS THE INSTRUCTION TELLS YOU AS THE TRIER OF FACT, YOU, THE JUDGES, ARE TO REMAIN NEUTRAL AND IMPARTIAL AND NOT BE INFLUENCED BY SUCH PASSION OR SENTIMENT, NO MATTER HOW SORELY TEMPTED YOU MAY BE TO DO SO.
            AND THIS APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES, BOTH SIDES.
            ALTHOUGH THE BRUTAL AND CALLOUS WAY IN WHICH RON AND NICOLE WERE MURDERED MAY UNDERSTANDABLY MAKE YOU FEEL SORRY, PITY, EVEN ANGER, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY JUST BECAUSE YOU FELT SORRY FOR THEM.
            ON THE OTHER HAND, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE IF YOU WERE TO FEEL ANGRY AND DISGUSTED WITH MARK FUHRMAN, AS WE ALL ARE, STILL IT WOULD BE WRONG TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY -- NOT GUILTY JUST BECAUSE OF THAT ANGER AND DISGUST.
            SO AS YOU LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, PLEASE REMEMBER WHEN YOU WEIGH THE EVIDENCE  AND YOU CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, REMEMBER THAT APPEAL TO PASSION AND EMOTION IS AN INVITATION TO IGNORE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A JUROR.
            TO BE FAIR WE MUST EXAMINE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN A CALM AND A RATIONAL AND A LOGICAL WAY.
            LET ME COME BACK TO MARK FUHRMAN FOR A MINUTE.
            JUST SO IT IS CLEAR.  DID HE LIE WHEN HE TESTIFIED HERE IN THIS COURTROOM SAYING THAT HE DID NOT USE RACIAL EPITHETS IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?
            YES.
            IS HE A RACIST?
            YES.
            IS HE THE WORSE LAPD HAS TO OFFER?
            YES.
            DO WE WISH THAT THIS PERSON WAS NEVER HIRED BY LAPD?
            YES.
            SHOULD LAPD HAVE EVER HIRED HIM?
            NO.
            SHOULD SUCH A PERSON BE A POLICE OFFICER?
            NO.
            IN FACT, DO WE WISH THERE WERE NO SUCH PERSON ON THE PLANET?
            YES.
            BUT THE FACT THAT MARK FUHRMAN IS A RACIST AND LIED ABOUT IT ON THE WITNESS STAND DOES  NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVEN'T PROVEN THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            AND IT WOULD BE A TRAGEDY IF WITH SUCH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS WE HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU, YOU FOUND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY IN SPITE OF ALL THAT, BECAUSE OF THE RACIST ATTITUDES OF ONE POLICE OFFICER.
            IT IS YOUR DUTY AND IT WOULD BE YOUR CHALLENGE TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE QUESTION YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ANSWER, AND THE ONLY QUESTION THAT YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ANSWER, DID THE DEFENDANT COMMIT THESE MURDERS?
            IN SEEKING THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION YOU LOOK TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO YOU BY BOTH SIDES NOW, BY BOTH THE PEOPLE AND BY THE DEFENSE, AND YOU DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE REALLY ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
            BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS THROWN OUT MANY, MANY OTHER QUESTIONS.  THEY HAVE THROWN OUT QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER LAPD HAS SOME BAD POLICE OFFICERS, DOES THE SCIENTIFIC DIVISION HAVE SOME SLOPPY CRIMINALISTS, DID THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAVE SOME SLOPPY CORONERS?
            AND THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS IS SURE, YES, THEY DO.
            THAT IS NOT NEWS TO YOU.  I'M SURE IT WASN'T A BIG SURPRISE TO YOU.
            BUT THOSE ARE NOT -- THEY ARE IMPORTANT  ISSUES.  YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THE QUALITY CONTROL, THINGS SHOULD BE DONE BETTER, THINGS COULD ALWAYS BE DONE BETTER IN EVERY CASE AT EVERY TIME. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
            WE ARE NOT HERE TO VOTE ON THAT TODAY.
            THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU THAT RELATES TO WHO KILLED RON AND NICOLE, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?  DOES THAT CONVINCE YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
            NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE QUALIFIED OR HOW MUCH BETTER THEY COULD HAVE DONE THEIR JOB, STILL AND ALL, DID THEY PRESENT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO YOU, DID THE EVIDENCE COME TO YOU IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND CONVINCING FORCE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN MET OUR BURDEN IN THIS CASE.
            NOW, THE DEFENSE HAS THROWN OUT A LOT OF POSSIBILITIES TO YOU, THE MEREST OF POSSIBILITIES, AND A LOT OF THEM WERE JUST THERE TO SCARE YOU.
            YOU HEARD DR. GERDES TALK ABOUT IT COULD BE THIS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT.  I SEE THE VALIDATION STUDIES, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE REMINDS ME OF A DOCTOR, WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO IN FOR AN OPERATION, THEY GIVE YOU ALL THIS LIST OF THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO YOU, COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO YOU.
            NEVERTHELESS, THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU THAT  WARNING, RIGHT?  THEY GOT TO TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU CANNOT GIVE AN INFORMED CONSENT AND SAY, YES, KNOWING THE RISK, I'M GOING TO GO AND DO THIS.
            NOW, IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED THAT ALL THESE HORRIBLE THINGS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN, NO ONE WOULD HAVE AN OPERATION.  YOU WOULDN'T TAKE THE RISK.  BUT YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE GOT TO TELL ME EVERYTHING NO MATTER HOW REMOTE THE POSSIBILITY, AND INDEED YOU GO AND HAVE THE OPERATION AND YOU ARE FINE AND NONE OF THAT STUFF HAPPENS.
            WELL, IN THIS CASE IT IS ACTUALLY THEY HAVE RAISED ALL THE POSSIBILITIES OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN IN AN EFFORT TO SCARE YOU AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE, BUT WE HAVE DONE BETTER THAN YOU COULD EVER DO IN AN OPERATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE PROVEN TO YOU THAT NOTHING IN THIS CASE DID HAPPEN.
            WE HAVE PROVEN TO YOU THAT IT WAS NOT CONTAMINATED.  WE HAVE EVEN PROVEN TO YOU THAT IT WAS NOT PLANTED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
            AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND DEMONSTRATE HOW WE HAVE PROVEN THAT TO YOU.
 
            SO WHY WERE THESE ISSUES RAISED?  WHY WERE THESE QUESTIONS RAISED?  WELL, THEY ARE ALL QUESTIONS AND ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AS A DISTRACTION.  THEY WERE ROADS RAISED, ROADS CREATED BY THE DEFENDANT TO LEAD YOU AWAY FROM THE CORE TRUTH  AND THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE SEARCHING FOR THE ANSWER TO, WHICH IS WHO MURDERED RON AND NICOLE?
            BUT THESE ROADS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THESE ARE FALSE ROADS.  THEY ARE FALSE ROADS BECAUSE THEY LEAD TO A DEAD-END.
            THE FALSE ROADS WERE PAVED WITH INFLAMMATORY DISTRACTIONS.
            BUT EVEN AFTER ALL THEIR TIRELESS EFFORTS, THE EVIDENCE STANDS STRONG AND POWERFUL TO PROVE TO YOU THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT.
            NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.  I THINK THAT BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE WILL AGREE.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MS. CLARK:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I APPROACH FOR A MOMENT?
      THE COURT:  MR. COCHRAN.
 
            (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE              BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
 
            (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
 
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  MISS CLARK.
 

             (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MS. CLARK:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
            PROCEED.
      MS. CLARK:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
            REASONABLE DOUBT.
            OKAY.  THIS IS AN INSTRUCTION THAT WE WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT, THEY ARE GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.  THIS IS A REAL IMPORTANT INSTRUCTION.  IT IS AT THE REAL HEART OF A CASE, EVERY CASE, EVERY CRIMINAL CASE.
            BECAUSE IT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE.  WE DON'T GUESS ANYBODY GUILTY.  WE PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THIS CASE.
            NOW, TO TELL YOU ABOUT REASONABLE DOUBT, IT IS KIND OF A FUNNY DEFINITION BECAUSE IT TALKS TO YOU ABOUT REASONABLE DOUBT IN VERY NEGATIVE TERMS.
            IT SAYS:
                "THAT STATE OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH, AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT YOU HAVE AN ABIDING CONVICTION."
IT IS VERY WEIRDLY WORDED AND IT IS GOING TO TAKE YOU A WHILE TO GO THROUGH THIS, SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT PIECES AT A TIME TO TRY AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE HAND HERE.
            FIRST OF ALL, LET ME POINT OUT THE FIRST  PARAGRAPH TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT IS OUR BURDEN OF PROOF.  I THINK THAT ONE IS FINE.  THAT IS PRETTY EASY.
            NOW, IT TALKS ABOUT HOW REASONABLE DOUBT IS DEFINED.  THIS IS REAL IMPORTANT.
                "IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT," OKAY, "BECAUSE EVERYTHING RELATING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT."
            THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.  IT IS A DOUBT FOUNDED IN REASON.
            I'M GOING TO AMPLIFY MORE ON THAT WITH EXAMPLES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, BUT BEAR THAT IN MIND, A POSSIBLE DOUBT.
            I HAVE A POSSIBLE DOUBT THAT THE SUN WILL COME UP TOMORROW.  DO I HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT IT?  NO.  I HAVE NO DOUBT FOUNDED IN REASON THAT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, JUST FOR A VERY BASIC EXAMPLE, SO THINK ABOUT THAT, TOO.
            WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT POSSIBLE DOUBT IS.  IT IS REASONABLE DOUBT.
            NOW, THE OTHER PART OF IT:
                "IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHICH AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON, THE ENTIRE COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE."
            NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS YOU CONSIDER THE DEFENSE CASE AND YOU CONSIDER THE PROSECUTION CASE.  YOU CONSIDER ALL OF IT.
            YOU WILL PROBABLY HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE, MULTIPLE TIMES, "WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING."
            THAT IS RIGHT.  THEY DON'T.
            IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE WHEN THE PEOPLE COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATION, THE DEFENSE CAN SAY NO WITNESSES, WE REST, BECAUSE THEY CAN SIT AND MAKE THE STATE PROVE THEIR CASE WITHOUT EVER CALLING A WITNESS.
            THAT'S RIGHT.  THAT'S CORRECT.
            BUT WHEN THEY DO, WHEN THEY DO, THEN YOU MUST CONSIDER THE QUALITY AND THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED.
            THAT GOES INTO THE MIX.  THAT IS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION.
            WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE DID THEY PRESENT TO DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING TO YOU?  TO PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU?
 
            IF THEY TRY TO PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU, THEIR WITNESSES, THEIR EVIDENCE GETS EVALUATED BY THE SAME RULES OURS DO.  THE SAME JURY INSTRUCTION APPLIES.
            YOU WILL SEE A JURY INSTRUCTION IN YOUR PACKET BACK THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW TO EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, BOTH EXPERT AND LAY WITNESSES.
            THERE IS NO DISTINCTION MADE IN THAT JURY INSTRUCTION FOR DEFENSE WITNESSES OR FOR PEOPLE'S  WITNESSES.  IT IS ALL THE SAME.
            YOU DETERMINE THEIR CREDIBILITY AND THE RELATIVE CONVINCING FORCE OF THE PROOF IN -- BY THE SAME RULES, OKAY?
            SO THAT IS THE FIRST THING TO REMEMBER. WHEN YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING, YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
            WHAT HAVE THEY SHOWN YOU?  WHAT HAVE WE SHOWN YOU?  WE HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
            BUT YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE SHOWN YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS PROVEN TO YOU.
            WE HAVE PIECES OF BOARDS AND EXHIBITS EVERYWHERE IN THIS COURTROOM.
            ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, ALL I'M TELLING YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS IT IS A REASONABLE DOUBT AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE DOUBT AND WE WILL COME BACK TO IT AGAIN.
 
            BUT AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL OF OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEN YOU OPEN UP THE WINDOWS AND LET THE COOL AIR BLOW OUT THE SMOKESCREEN THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE DEFENSE WITH THE COOL WIND OF REASON, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN PROVEN GUILTY EASILY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY:
            THE EVIDENCE HAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT WHEN DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN SAID HE DID NOT USE RACIAL EPITHETS IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, HE LIED, BUT  IT IS ALSO CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WITH THE TIMING, OKAY?  I THINK THAT IS THE EASIEST PLACE TO START, THE TIMING ON JUNE THE 12TH.

[CLARK REVIEWS EVIDENCE REGARDING TIMING AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MURDER ACCORDING TO PROSECUTION]
 

            SO NOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CONDUCT, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OPPORTUNITY AND TIMING.
            LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
            I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT IN THE DETAIL YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD IT, HEAVEN FORBID, BUT ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN WITH THE OPPORTUNITY EVIDENCE, WITH THE CONDUCT EVIDENCE, WE ALREADY HAVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT DID COMMIT THESE MURDERS, WITHOUT EVEN REALLY GETTING INTO THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, AND ONCE YOU SEE THE VAST ARRAY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS VIRTUALLY AN OCEAN OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THIS DEFENDANT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS.
            WHAT ALL OF THIS DOES, ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE, IT LINKS THE DEFENDANT TO THE VICTIMS AND THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY.
            NOW, THE DEFENSE HAS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TRY AND SHOW THAT THEY COULD DISCREDIT THIS EVIDENCE AND THE LENGTHS THAT THEY HAVE INCLUDED HAVE BEEN SOME OF THE MOST BIZARRE AND FARFETCHED NOTIONS I THINK I HAVE EVER HEARD.
            THEY HINT THAT THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED. THEY HAVE TRIED TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT MULTIPLE OTHER BLOODSTAINS WERE CONTAMINATED AND THAT SOMEHOW ALL THE CONTAMINATION ONLY OCCURRED WHERE IT WOULD CONSISTENTLY PROVE THE DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY.
            SO NOW THE LITTLE AMPLICONS, THOSE LITTLE DNA, THEY ARE CO-CONSPIRATORS, TOO, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE GOT TO RUSH TO ONLY THE PLACES WHERE YOU CAN ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO THE MURDERER.
            WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, JUST THINK ABOUT THAT ONE POINT LOGICALLY, OKAY?
            OBVIOUSLY IT IS COMMON SENSE, IF CONTAMINATION IS GOING ON YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IT GOING ON ALL OVER THE PLACE.
            AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS TRUE WITH THIS AEROSOL EFFECT, FLYING DNA ALL OVER THE PLACE, THEN MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD TYPE OUGHT TO BE SHOWING UP IN OTHER CASES SOMEWHERE.  YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE OUT OR DOWN IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT IN A RAPE CASE MR. SIMPSON'S TYPE SHOULD BE SHOWING UP BECAUSE IT IS EVERYWHERE.
            OR EVEN LET'S CONFINE TO IT THIS CASE. TALK ABOUT THAT.  THAT HOW COME IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HIS BLOOD IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, DNA IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, WHY DIDN'T WE FIND HIS BLOOD TYPE SHOWING UP WHERE OBVIOUSLY IT SHOULDN'T BE?
            WHAT I MEAN IS THIS:
            THEY TOOK SAMPLES FROM THE POOL OF BLOOD BY NICOLE'S BODY.  THEY TOOK SAMPLES OF BLOOD THAT WAS NEAR RON GOLDMAN'S BODY.  OBVIOUSLY THE BLOOD CAME FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE LYING THERE.
 
             AND THEN OF COURSE YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THE BLOOD DROPS LEADING AWAY FROM THE CRIME SCENE THAT HAD TO BE LEFT BY THE KILLER.  THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.  THAT WAS LEFT BY THE KILLER BECAUSE THEY ARE NEXT TO THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS.
            SO YOU KNOW, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAMPLES OF BLOOD THEY TOOK FROM HER POOL OF BLOOD DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD TYPE IF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD TYPE DNA IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE?
            IF IT IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, THEN IT OUGHT TO BE ALL OVER THE PLACE.  WHY ISN'T IT IN THE POOL OF BLOOD SAMPLE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM NICOLE BROWN?  WHY ISN'T IT IN THE POOL OF THE BLOOD SAMPLE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM NEAR RON GOLDMAN'S BODY?
            LOGIC, COMMON SENSE, IT OUGHT TO BE.  THE DNA, THOSE AMPLICONS, THESE LITTLE THINGS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.  THEY DON'T -- THEY ARE NOT GUIDED.  CONTAMINATION IS A RANDOM THING.  THE HAPPENS WILLY-NILLY.
            AND WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS THEY ARE TRYING TO GET YOU TO BELIEVE THAT ONLY THE KILLER'S BLOOD WAS CONTAMINATED AND IT WAS CONSISTENTLY CONTAMINATED WITH ONLY THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD TYPING.
            DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU?
            WHAT YOU OUGHT TO HAVE, IF YOU HAVE CONTAMINATION, IF YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM HERE, IS THAT SOME OF THE BLOOD DROPS COME BACK TO THE DEFENDANT AND SOME DON'T; THEY COME BACK TO THE REAL KILLER.  THAT IS WHAT YOU OUGHT TO GET, BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE THIS CONSISTENT.
            IF YOU HAD ONE BLOOD DROP IN THIS CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT BE CONCERNED WITH ALL OF THESE POSSIBILITIES THEY HAVE RAISED, BUT YOU HAVE SO MANY, YOU HAVE SO MANY. YOU'VE GOT FIVE BLOOD DROPS LEADING AWAY FROM THE BODIES THE VICTIM OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND YOU'VE GOT THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.
            AND YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE OTHER PART OF THEIR -- OF THEIR SCENARIO THAT MAKES NO SENSE, NO SENSE.  YOU HAVE ALL THESE POLICE OFFICERS THAT WERE THERE ON JUNE THE 13TH, OFFICER RISKE SAYING HIS PARTNER, YOUNG ROOKIE NAMES OFFICER TERRAZAS, SHINED HIS LIGHT ON THE REAR GATE TO SHOW HIM THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.  YOU HAVE OFFICER RISKE SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.  YOU HAVE OFFICER ROSSI SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.  YOU HAVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE, ALL OF IT EARLY ON.
            DENNIS FUNG, WHOM YOU CAN SEE IS NOT THE MODEL OF EFFICIENCY, FORGOT TO COLLECT IT, AND FROM THIS WE GET A THEORY THAT THEY SEEM TO IMPLY THAT THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED.  WHY DO THEY SAY THAT?
            NOW, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO HEAR MR. COCHRAN ACTUALLY STAND UP IN FRONT OF YOU AND TELL YOU HE BELIEVES THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED.  I WANT TO HEAR THAT.
            BECAUSE THAT IS INCREDIBLE.  THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.
            WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, THINK WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN TO SHOW YOU HOW THAT BLOOD WAS PLANTED, TO SHOW YOU WHEN THAT BLOOD WAS PLANTED, TO SHOW YOU WHO PLANTED THAT BLOOD?
            NOW, THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH THIS STORY ABOUT CONTAMINATION AND PLANTING, AND I WANT TO HEAR IF THEY REALLY, REALLY DO THAT, SAY THAT TO YOU, IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET AROUND THE RESULT.
 
 ******

            NOW, THE BLOOD ON THE SOCKS, NICOLE'S BLOOD ON THE SOCKS.  AGAIN RFLP MATCH, VERY POWERFUL.  SHOWED FROM CELLMARK THAT WAS A FIVE-PROBE MATCH AND I BELIEVE FOUND TO BE ONE IN 6.8 BILLION PEOPLE.  AGAIN, MORE THAN -- THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.  IDENTIFICATION.  AND 11-PROBE MATCH BY DOJ SHOWED THAT IT WAS ONE IN 7.7 BILLION PEOPLE.  AGAIN, HER BLOOD AND ONLY HERS ON THIS PLANET COULD BE ON THAT SOCK.
            NOW, HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT?  IT WASN'T WRONG AND THEY COULDN'T FIND AN EXPERT WHO WOULD SAY IT WAS CONTAMINATED BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH DNA.  THAT IS THE BLOOD.  THAT TYPE IS THE TYPE.  IT IS HER BLOOD.
            HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT?  AND IF YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS TRUE, IF YOU KNOW IT IS HER BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS THAT THEY FIND ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 13TH, THAT ALONE WITH THE REAR GATE STAIN CONVICTS HIM.  YOU CAN'T BELIEVE OTHERWISE.
            YOU HAVE SO MUCH PROOF NOW HOW DO THEY GET AROUND THAT?  THEY HAVE TO FIND A THEORY TO GET AROUND THAT.  AND WHAT DO THEY DO?  THIS IS WHAT THEY COME UP WITH.
            SO IF IT IS LOW VOLUME DNA, IT IS CONTAMINATED.  IF IT IS HIGH VOLUME DNA, IT IS PLANTED, AND IT IS ALSO VERY CONVENIENT AND RIDICULOUS.
            NOW, THEIR EXPERTS HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  THEIR EXPERTS COULD HAVE COME IN AND SHOWN YOU HOW THE EVIDENCE GOT CONTAMINATED.  GOT CONTAMINATED, NOT POSSIBLY -- REMEMBER, I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT MERE POSSIBILITY.
            NO, DID, DID GET CONTAMINATED, AND THEY COULD HAVE COME HERE AND TOLD YOU AND POINTED OUT THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWED WHY ONLY THE BLOOD DROPS LEFT BY THE MURDERER GOT CONTAMINATED AND SHOWN YOU WHY THEY CONSISTENTLY ONLY GOT CONTAMINATED IN A WAY THAT SHOWED THE DEFENDANT'S DNA TYPE, NOT THAT THEY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE.
            YES, POSSIBLY WE ARE ALL SITTING ON MARS RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, AND I'M FROM VENUS AND I'M TALKING.  ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
            LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT DID HAPPEN.  LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE GOT.
            THEY COULD HAVE SHOWN YOU PROOF THAT THE BUNDY BLOOD DROPS WERE CONTAMINATED, NOT THE MERE POSSIBILITY.  NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT GIVES YOU A REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT THAT HAPPENED, AND THAT THEY NEVER COULD DO.
            AND THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT IF IT WERE TRUE, BUT THEY DIDN'T.
            AND NOT ONE EXPERT THEY BROUGHT IN ON THE DNA DID EVEN ONE TEST ON THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE THAT PROVES TO YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS; NOT ONE, WITH ALL THOSE EXPERTS YOU SAW.
            AND THE REASON FOR THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THAT IT ISN'T TRUE.
            THE BLOOD ON THE BUNDY TRAIL COMES BACK TO THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT IS HIS BLOOD.  THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE COMES BACK TO THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT IS BLOOD HE LEFT THERE ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS.
            SO THEY TOOK YOU THROUGH ALL THIS TORTURED AND TWISTED ROAD ONE MOMENT SAYING THAT THE POLICE ARE ALL A BUNCH OF BUMBLING IDIOTS.  THE NEXT MOMENT THEY ARE CLEVER CONSPIRATORS.

 ***********

            NOW THAT I'VE REVIEWED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE GIVES YOU MUCH  MORE ASSURANCE OF THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT.  AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THIS.
            IN A DIRECT EVIDENCE CASE, YOU MAY HAVE ONE EYEWITNESS TO TELL YOU, "I SAW IT."  THAT MEANS YOU HAVE ONE THING TO RELY ON.
            BUT IN A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE, YOU HAVE MANY THINGS TO RELY ON.  YOU HAVE THE BLOOD AT BUNDY.  YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF NICOLE ON HIS SOCKS.  YOU HAVE HIS BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY.  YOU HAVE RONALD GOLDMAN'S BLOOD IN HIS CAR.  YOU HAVE HIS HAIR ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT.  YOU HAVE THE FIBER FROM HIS CLOTHING ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT, ON HIS SOCKS, ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE.  YOU HAVE THE BRONCO CARPET FIBER ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE.  YOU HAVE THE BRONCO CARPET FIBER ON THE KNIT SKI CAP.
            THE WEALTH OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS SIMPLY OVERWHELMING.  IF WE ONLY HAD THE BUNDY BLOOD TRAIL THAT MATCHED THE DEFENDANT, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH PROOF TO FIND HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IF WE ONLY HAD NICOLE BROWN'S BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO PROVE HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  IF WE ONLY HAD RON GOLDMAN'S BLOOD IN HIS BRONCO, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO PROVE HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            BUT WE HAVE ALL THAT AND MUCH MORE.  AND NOW, LET ME SUMMARIZE FOR YOU WHAT WE HAVE PROVEN.
            ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.  WE'VE PROVEN  THE OPPORTUNITY TO KILL.  WE'VE GIVEN THE TIME WINDOW IN WHICH HE WAS ABLE TO KILL BECAUSE HIS WHEREABOUTS WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE TIME THAT WE KNOW THE MURDERS WERE OCCURRING.
            WE HAVE THE HAND INJURIES THAT WERE SUFFERED ON THE NIGHT OF HIS WIFE'S MURDER TO THE LEFT HAND, AS WE KNOW THE KILLER WAS INJURED ON HIS LEFT HAND.  WE HAVE THE POST-HOMICIDAL CONDUCT THAT I TOLD YOU ABOUT, LYING TO ALLAN PARK, MAKING ALLAN PARK WAIT OUTSIDE, NOT LETTING KATO PICK UP THAT LITTLE DARK BAG, HIS REACTION TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WHEN HE MADE NOTIFICATION, WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAID TO HIM, "NICOLE HAS BEEN KILLED."  INSTEAD OF ASKING ABOUT A CAR ACCIDENT, THE DEFENDANT ASKED NO QUESTIONS.
            WE HAVE THE MANNER OF KILLINGS, KILLINGS THAT INDICATE THAT IT WAS A RAGE KILLING, THAT IT WAS A FURY KILLING, THAT IT WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL HIT, THE MANNER OF KILLING THAT INDICATES ONE PERSON COMMITTED THESE MURDERS, ONE PERSON WITH THE SAME STYLE OF KILLING.
            WE HAVE THE KNIT CAP AT BUNDY.  WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT OF THE BLUE BLACK COTTON FIBERS, THE DEFENDANT'S HAIR.  WE HAVE THE BRUNO MAGLI SHOEPRINT, SIZE 12, ALL OF THEM SIZE 12, HIS SIZE SHOE, ALL OF THEM CONSISTENT GOING DOWN THE BUNDY WALK.
            WE HAVE THE BUNDY BLOOD TRAIL, HIS BLOOD  TO THE LEFT OF THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS.  WE HAVE THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, HIS AND RON GOLDMAN'S.  WE HAVE THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD TRAIL UP THE DRIVEWAY, IN HIS BATHROOM, IN THE FOYER.
            WE HAVE THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ON IT, RON GOLDMAN'S FIBERS FROM HIS SHIRT, RON GOLDMAN'S HAIR, NICOLE'S HAIR, THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD, RON GOLDMAN'S BLOOD, NICOLE'S BLOOD AND THE BRONCO FIBER AND THE BLUE BLACK COTTON FIBERS.  WE HAVE THE SOCKS AND WE HAVE THE BLUE BLACK COTTON FIBERS ON THE SOCKS AND WE HAVE NICOLE BROWN'S BLOOD ON THE SOCKS.
            THERE HE IS.  I HAVEN'T EVEN SPOKEN -- YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD YET ABOUT THE MOTIVE.  YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD THE WHY OF IT, THE WHY HE DID IT. AND YOU KNOW HE DID IT.
            NOW, THESE MURDERS DID NOT OCCUR IN A VACUUM, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE HEARD IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE.  THEY OCCURRED IN THE CONTEXT OF A STORMY RELATIONSHIP, A RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS SCARRED BY VIOLENCE AND ABUSE. AND THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE COMPLETES THE PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AS IT EXPLAINS THE MOTIVE FOR THESE MURDERS AND SHOWS YOU WHAT LED THIS DEFENDANT TO BE SITTING HERE IN THIS COURTROOM TODAY.
            THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            THANK YOU, MISS CLARK.
            MR. DARDEN, ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED?
      MR. DARDEN:  WELL, THERE'S NO BETTER TIME THAN RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. DARDEN:  MAY I?
      THE COURT:  I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU WANTED SOME EXHIBITS BROUGHT UP.  BUT IF YOU'RE READY TO GO --
      MR. DARDEN:  I'M READY TO GO.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, SIR.
            PROCEED.
 
              (OPENING ARGUMENT BY MR. DARDEN)
 
      MR. DARDEN:  THANK YOU.
            GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD EVENING.
      MR. DARDEN:  YOU KNOW, THEY ASKED ME TO DO THE SUMMATION MARCIA CLARK JUST DID FOR YOU, BUT I TOLD THEM, NO, IT'S TOO LONG.  I'M NOT THE KIND OF PERSON WHO LIKES TO TALK THAT LONG AND MARCIA ISN'T EITHER, BUT SHE HAD TO.
            AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU PROBABLY GATHERED FROM HEARING HER TODAY IS THAT THIS CASE REALLY IS A SIMPLE CASE IN THIS ESSENCE. WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, THIS CASE REALLY IS A SIMPLE CASE.
            ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS USE THE TOOLS GOD GAVE YOU, THE TOOLS HE GAVE YOU TO USE OR UTILIZE WHENEVER YOU'RE CONFRONTED WITH A PROBLEM OR AN ISSUE.  ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. AND THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A COMPLEX SERIES OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND LAW AND SCIENCE AND ALL OF THAT.  NOT REALLY.  NOT REALLY.
            YOU HAVE TO QUESTION OR WONDER HOW IT IS A LAWYER CAN SUMMARIZE A CASE IN EIGHT HOURS WHEN PRESENTING THE CASE TOOK EIGHT MONTHS.  IT'S A SIMPLE CASE, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF SMOKE, A LOT OF SMOKE SCREENS, A LOT OF DIVERSIONS, A LOT OF DETRACTIONS, A LOT OF DISTRACTIONS, AND IN SOME RESPECT, THERE'S  BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO GET YOU TO LOSE FOCUS OF WHAT THE REAL ISSUES ARE IN THIS CASE.  AND THAT TAKES TIME.
            IF I COULD GIVE YOU ANY ADVICE AS JURORS, ANY ADVICE AT ALL, I WOULD SAY TO YOU, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.  WHEN YOU GET ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AND GO INTO THE JURY ROOM AND AFTER YOU PICK A FOREPERSON, TAKE THAT COMMON SENSE THAT GOD GAVE YOU, TAKE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION GAVE YOU AND THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE, GO INTO THAT JURY ROOM, SIT DOWN, SPREAD IT OUT.  AND USING THAT COMMON SENSE, ASK YOURSELF A QUESTION; WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW.  WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW?
            AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE SIMPLEST TERMS, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IS THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, BLOOD TRAIL FROM BUNDY, BLOOD IN HIS BATHROOM, BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS.  SIMPLE EVIDENCE.
            YOU CAN LOOK AT A CHART AND SEE WHAT THE DNA RESULTS ARE.  IT REALLY, REALLY WON'T BE THAT DIFFICULT AND WHEN YOU USE YOUR COMMON SENSE AND GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, PUT ASIDE ALL OF THE DISTRACTIONS AND ALL OF THE SMOKE THAT'S BEEN BLOWN THROUGHOUT THIS COURTROOM AND IN YOUR DIRECTION.
            NOW, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU.  AND UNFORTUNATELY, I WASN'T HERE DURING JURY SELECTION.  SO I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU AND INTRODUCE MYSELF TO YOU DURING VOIR DIRE, AND SO YOU WERE SORT OF GIVEN THE DARDEN SHOCK TREATMENT I GUESS.  YOU SAW ME LITERALLY  THE FIRST DAY YOU CAME INTO THE COURTROOM THE FIRST DAY WE BEGAN TAKING EVIDENCE LITERALLY, AND I GOT INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND WE DIDN'T GET TO TALK A LOT.
            WELL, LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU IN THE LIMITED TIME THAT I HAVE.  YOU ARE AN AMAZING GROUP OF PEOPLE.  YOU'VE BEEN SEQUESTERED NOW LONGER THAN ANY JURY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  I THINK JUDGE ITO ALLUDED TO THAT BEFORE.
            YOU SPENT MONTHS IN SEQUESTRATION.  I GUESS YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO WATCH YOUR 50 TELEVISION PROGRAMS OR FOOTBALL.  MAYBE YOU MISSED THE NBA SEASON.  I DON'T KNOW.
            BUT AS YOU SAT THERE IN SEQUESTRATION, THE REST OF US, THESE PEOPLE, WE ALL GOT ON WITH OUR LIVES.  WE WENT HOME EVERY NIGHT, SAW OUR FAMILY AND OUR FRIENDS.  WE CONTINUED THE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE HAD, AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DO THAT FOR EIGHT MONTHS.
            AND ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT IS THAT YOU ARE AN AMAZING GROUP OF PEOPLE, AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE PAID A VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT PRICE.  YOU HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE.  YOU HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO SEE TO IT THAT THIS CASE IS RESOLVED FAIRLY AND CORRECTLY AND YOU MADE A COMMITMENT TO SEE TO IT THAT THE LAW IS FOLLOWED, THAT THE POLICE FOLLOWED PROCEDURE AND THE LAW AND THAT THERE IS NO CONVICTION IN THIS CASE UNLESS THE  EVIDENCE IS PROVEN TO YOU, UNLESS HIS GUILT IS PROVEN TO YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD DO.  THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY SHOULD DO.
            A TRIAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, AND SOMETIMES THE TRUTH IS UNCOVERED OR REVEALED AT THE END OF A LONG ROAD, AT THE END OF A LONG JOURNEY.  AND THIS HAS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY.
            WELL, LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU; THAT TODAY -- TONIGHT, THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING US TONIGHT OR WATCHING ME, AND THEY HAVE LISTENED TO THE EVIDENCE AND THEY HAVE WATCHED THE WITNESSES TESTIFY HERE ON TELEVISION AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO.
            THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE I SUPPOSE WHO THINK THAT JUSTICE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE JUST TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AND SAY HE'S NOT GUILTY.  SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT JUSTICE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE JUST TO JUMP TO SOME CONCLUSION, SOME SILLY CONCLUSION, SOME CONCLUSION NOT BASED ON THE LAW AND FORGET ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.
            SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IS A CELEBRITY, THAT PERHAPS HE IS SOMEONE ABOVE THE LAW, THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SPECIAL RULES FOR HIM OR THAT SOMEHOW HE SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER DEFENDANT.  BUT  THAT'S NOT JUSTICE.
            AND THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT THINK BECAUSE FUHRMAN IS A RACIST, THAT WE OUGHT TO CHUCK THE LAW OUT OF THE WINDOW, THROW IT OUT OF THE WINDOW, PERHAPS IT SHOULDN'T BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE.
            WELL, THAT'S WRONG AND THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE, BECAUSE WE DON'T IGNORE THE LAW JUST BECAUSE OF THE STATUS OF A DEFENDANT, BECAUSE OF WHO HE IS OR BECAUSE OF WHO HE KNOWS.  THAT ISN'T JUSTICE.
            YOU'RE HERE TO ENSURE JUSTICE, I'M HERE TO ENSURE JUSTICE AND WE ALL KNOW THE RULES.  AND THE RULES SAY AND THE LAW SAYS THAT HE SHOULD NOT KILL, THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE, AND THE LAW SAYS THAT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT YOU SHOULD FIND HIM GUILTY.
            YOU HEARD MARCIA CLARK AND YOU'VE HEARD THE EVIDENCE AND YOU'VE SEEN THE EVIDENCE, AND YOU'RE REASONABLE PEOPLE.  AND, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW.  I MEAN, IF WE'RE HONEST WITH OURSELVES, WE KNOW, IF WE ARE. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHAT WE KNOW.  BUT WE KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH THAT WE KNOW IS THAT HE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE.
      MR. COCHRAN:  OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.  I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      MR. DARDEN:  NOW, THIS MAN, THIS DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, WE BELIEVE THAT, GIVEN THE STATE AND THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE, IS GUILTY.
            AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH VOTING GUILTY IN THIS CASE GIVEN THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE.  A VOTE OF GUILT IN THIS CASE ISN'T A VOTE FOR ANY INDEPENDENT GROUP IN PARTICULAR OR ANY INDEPENDENT GROUP AT ALL.  IT ISN'T A VOTE FOR THE PROSECUTION, FOR MARCIA AND I.  IT CERTAINLY ISN'T A VOTE FOR THE LAPD, AND IT'S NOT A VOTE AGAINST ANYONE.  IT'S NOT A VOTE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.  IT'S NOT A VOTE FOR THE VICTIMS OR THE VICTIMS' FAMILY.
            WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT JURY ROOM OPEN-MINDED AND FAIRLY AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSIDER THIS EVIDENCE AND THEN CAST A BALLOT, A VOTE FOR GUILT OR INNOCENCE BASED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THIS CASE AND ONLY ON THE LAW GIVEN TO YOU BY JUDGE ITO, WHEN YOU CAST A VOTE ON THAT BASIS, THEN YOU'RE VOTING FOR JUSTICE, YOU'RE VOTING FOR FAIRNESS, YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING UNDER THE LAW.  AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO.

 ******

            YOU HEARD FROM THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE AND THEY PRESENTED TESTIMONY ABOUT SLURS, EPITHETS AS THEY CALL THEM, A BUNCH OF NASTY, HATEFUL, LOW-DOWN LANGUAGE USED BY MARK FUHRMAN.  AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO CALL HIM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IF I CAN HELP IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T DESERVE THAT TITLE.  HE DOESN'T WARRANT THAT KIND OF RESPECT, NOT FROM ME.
            BUT THIS ISN'T THE CASE OF MARK FUHRMAN. THIS IS THE CASE OF O.J. SIMPSON.
            AND LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU, IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO.  AND I DON'T MEAN TO OFFEND YOU OR DEMEAN YOU, AND I HOPE THAT YOU DON'T FEEL THAT I AM.  BUT THIS IS THE CASE OF O.J. SIMPSON, NOT MARK FUHRMAN.  THE CASE OF MARK FUHRMAN, IF THERE'S TO BE A CASE, THAT'S A CASE FOR ANOTHER FORUM, NOT NECESSARILY A CASE FOR ANOTHER DAY, BECAUSE TODAY MAY BE THE DAY.  BUT IT IS A CASE FOR ANOTHER FORUM, ANOTHER JURY PERHAPS.
            THIS CASE IS ABOUT THIS DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, AND THE "M" WORD, MURDER; NOT ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN AND THE "N" WORD.  AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
            I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACT OF HIS MISSTATEMENTS OR LIES OR UNTRUTHS, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO TERM IT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT.  THAT'S THE LAW.  YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING FUHRMAN SAID ON THE WITNESS STAND BECAUSE THAT'S EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
            AND I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER IT.  I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE.  SO DON'T THINK THAT I'M SAYING, HEY, JUST OVERLOOK IT, JUST OVERLOOK WHAT HE SAID, JUST OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT HE LIED ABOUT HAVING USED THAT SLUR IN THE PAST 10 YEARS.
            BUT I AM ASKING YOU TO PUT IT IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE.  YOU DECIDE WHAT IT'S WORTH.  YOU DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS.  IF IT HELPS YOU IN ASSESSING HIS CREDIBILITY -- AND IT SHOULD, OR HIS LACK OF CREDIBILITY, I DON'T KNOW -- THEN YOU USE IT.
            BUT PLEASE JUST REMEMBER, FUHRMAN ISN'T THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE AND HIS USE OF THAT WORD IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  AND YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.  I HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT AS A LAWYER FOR THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT APPARENTLY WAS A VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT EVENT FOR THE DEFENSE.
 *****

[DARDEN DISCUSSES EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE BY O.J. AGAINST NICOLE]

            THEY WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE  CONSPIRED AGAINST O.J. SIMPSON.  NICOLE SAYS THEY HAD BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND NEVER DID ANYTHING TO HIM.  I DON'T KNOW.
            WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.  HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT TAKE?  IF THEY'D BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE THAT NIGHT, THEN THAT NIGHT WAS THE NINTH TIME.  NO ONE HAD EVER DONE ANYTHING TO HIM BEFORE.  I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS.
            BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK?  DO YOU THINK IT'S TIME TO THINK THAT PERHAPS THIS TIME, WE OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING?  EIGHT IS ENOUGH.  IF EIGHT ISN'T ENOUGH, NINE -- NINE IS CERTAINLY ENOUGH.
            NICOLE SAID IT WITH HER OWN MOUTH BACK THEN, "HE IS GOING TO KILL ME, HE IS GOING TO KILL ME."   AND SURE ENOUGH, HE HAS, LONG AFTER SHE MAKES THESE SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS TO OFFICER EDWARDS, AFTER SHE COMPLAINS THEY HAVE BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND THEY'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO HIM, THIS MAN, THE DEFENDANT, SEE.
            AND WE'RE SEEING THE DEFENDANT AT HOME AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW.  WE'RE SEEING THE PRIVATE SIDE OF HIM, THE PRIVATE SIDE I TOLD YOU I'D SHOW YOU.
            HE COMES OUT OF HIS HOUSE AND HE'S WEARING A BATHROBE 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.  AND HE SPEAKS TO OFFICER EDWARDS.
 
            NOW, WHEN HE SPEAKS TO OFFICER EDWARDS,  DOES HE ASK HIM, "HOW'S MY WIFE"?  NO.  DOES HE SAY, "I HOPE I DIDN'T HURT HER TOO BADLY"?  NO.
            WHAT DOES HE SAY?  WHAT DOES HE DO?  HE HUMILIATES HER.  REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID.  HE SAID, "I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN MY BED ANYMORE.  I GOT TWO OTHER WOMEN.  I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN MY BED ANYMORE."
            THAT WAS HIS RESPONSE.  AND THIS WAS NICOLE, HIS WIFE.  SHE HAD BEEN HIS WIFE FOUR YEARS.
            YOU RECALL OFFICER EDWARDS' TESTIMONY, THAT THIS DEFENDANT, HE WAS ANGRY, HE WAS MAD, HE WAS FIT TO BE TIED.  AND HE WAS YELLING AT OFFICER EDWARDS.
            AND THE DEFENDANT WAS ON ONE SIDE OF THE GATE.  HE WAS ON THE ROCKINGHAM SIDE ON HIS OWN PROPERTY.  OFFICER EDWARDS WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GATE.  AND THERE THEY ARE SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE GATE, AND THE DEFENDANT IS YELLING THESE THINGS TO OFFICER EDWARDS ABOUT HIS WIFE, SAYING THESE KINDS OF THINGS ABOUT HIS WIFE TO OFFICER EDWARDS WHO IS A STRANGER.
            AND OFFICER EDWARDS SAID TO THE DEFENDANT, "YOUR WIFE HAS BEEN BATTERED.  SHE IS INJURED.  I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ARREST YOU."
            WELL, THAT JUST SET THE DEFENDANT OFF AGAIN, JUST SET HIM OFF.
 
            LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.  THE FUSE IS  BURNING.  THE FUSE IS BURNING, FOLKS.  THE FUSE IS BURNING.  AND AT SOME POINT, THIS FUSE IS GOING TO RUN OUT AND IT IS GOING TO PLAY OUT.  IT IS GOING TO GET SO SHORT AND SO CLOSE TO THE BOMB THAT AT SOME POINT, THIS BOMB IS GOING TO EXPLODE.
            AND WHAT DOES THE DEFENDANT SAY WHEN OFFICER EDWARDS SAYS TO HIM, "I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ARREST YOU, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE YOU TO JAIL"? WHAT DOES THE DEFENDANT SAY?
            HE SAYS THE SAME THING NICOLE SAID IN A SENSE.  HE SAYS TO OFFICER EDWARDS -- THIS IS WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID.  YOU RECALL THIS TESTIMONY. OFFICER EDWARDS HEARD THE DEFENDANT SAY, "YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS?"
            NOW, LET'S JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.  IF NOTHING ELSE, WE NOW HAVE THE CONFIRMATION THAT WE NEED.  THAT IS THE CONFIRMATION OF THE FACT THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE.
            BUT WHAT IS THIS PART ABOUT, "AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS"?  WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  "NOW, YOU ARE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS, BUT YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE."
 
 
            AND I DON'T KNOW.  THIS IS THE EVIDENCE  IN THE CASE.  YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT THAT MEANS.  YOU CAN INTERPRET WHAT HE SAYS.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST TAKE IT LITERALLY.  YOU DECIDE WHAT THAT MEANS.  IT COULD MEAN A COUPLE THINGS.
            AND AFTER HE SAID THAT AND AFTER HE COMPLAINED TO OFFICER EDWARDS ABOUT THE FACT HE WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED FOR BEATING HIS WIFE, HE SAYS TO OFFICER EDWARDS, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER.  IT IS A FAMILY MATTER AND NOTHING MORE."
            WELL, WIFE BEATING IS NOT JUST A FAMILY MATTER, IS IT?  I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO TAKE SERIOUSLY?
            THAT'S ONE THING ABOUT SPOUSAL ABUSE. YOU KNOW, IT HAPPENS AND IT ALWAYS HAPPENS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.  AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY; NOBODY KNOWS WHAT GOES ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
            AND WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WENT ON BEHIND THE GATES OF THIS MAN'S ESTATE AT ROCKINGHAM, BUT WE DO KNOW THIS; THAT WHATEVER IT WAS, WHATEVER WENT ON THERE HAD GONE ON EIGHT TIMES PRIOR TO THIS TIME, RIGHT?  WE KNOW THAT.
            BUT HE SAYS IT'S A FAMILY MATTER.  HE MINIMIZES WHAT HAS HAPPENED.  HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THIS WOMAN.  HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHAT HE DID TO HER.
 
 
            WELL, OFFICER EDWARDS GIVES HIM THE STAR  TREATMENT.  HE TELLS HIM, "HEY, I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU TO JAIL.  GO BACK IN THE HOUSE AND GET DRESSED."
            OFFICER EDWARDS DID NOT INSIST ON ARRESTING HIM RIGHT THEN AND THERE.  HE LET HIM GO IN THE HOUSE ALONE TO GET DRESSED.  APPARENTLY THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID, BECAUSE A FEW MINUTES LATER, HE CAME BACK OUT YELLING AND COMPLAINING AND MOANING, COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING ARRESTED, SAYING MORE DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT HIS WIFE IN FRONT OF THIS STRANGER.
            WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, OFFICER EDWARDS HAD SENT FOR A SECOND CAR, SECOND POLICE VEHICLE, A TRANSPORT VEHICLE BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT NICOLE TO THE STATION IN ONE CAR AND THEY WERE GOING TO ARREST THIS MAN AND TAKE HIM TO THE STATION IN ANOTHER CAR.  AND AS THAT SECOND POLICE CAR ARRIVED AND AS OFFICER EDWARDS TURNED HIS ATTENTION TOWARD THAT SECOND POLICE CAR, THAT MEANT THAT HE TURNED HIS ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT.  AND WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT DO?
            REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY, REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED?  I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.  WHAT DID HE DO?  JUMPED IN THE CAR AND HE RAN.  REMEMBER THAT? HE WENT OUT THE OTHER GATE IN THE BENTLEY.  HE RAN. HE DROVE AWAY.  HE GOT AWAY.  HE DIDN'T GET ARRESTED.  HE AVOIDED RESPONSIBILITY THAT DAY FOR HAVING DONE WHAT HE DID TO NICOLE.
            "RESPONSIBILITY" IS AN IMPORTANT WORD,  ONE OF THE WORDS WE TEACH OUR -- I KNOW I TEACH MY KIDS ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY.  YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM -- YOU HAVE TO LET YOUR KIDS KNOW, HEY, YOU DO AN ACT, YOU'VE GOT TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, OKAY.  YOU'VE GOT TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.
            WELL, HE DIDN'T ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES THAT DAY.  HE DIDN'T ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.  HE JUMPED IN THAT BENTLEY, HE DROVE AWAY, HE SNUCK OFF. HE AVOIDED RESPONSIBILITY.  HE GOT AWAY FROM THE POLICE.  THEY TRIED TO CATCH HIM.  THEY COULDN'T. WELL, WE CAUGHT HIM THIS TIME.
            WELL, AFTER THE DEFENDANT GOT AWAY, EDWARDS ASKED NICOLE TO GO DOWN TO PARKER CENTER, TO COME FROM ROCKINGHAM ALL THE WAY DOWNTOWN TO PARKER CENTER SO HE COULD HAVE SOME PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF HER INJURIES, BUT SHE REFUSED.  REMEMBER WHAT SHE SAID?  SHE SAID, "NO.  I JUST WANT MY CHILDREN.  I WANT TO STAY HERE WITH MY CHILDREN.  I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE MY CHILDREN."
            AND SHE WAS BEATEN AND SHE WAS BRUISED AND SHE WAS HURT.  SHE STILL WANTED TO STAY WITH HER KIDS.  SHE WANTED TO BE WITH HER KIDS.
            AND EDWARDS SAID, "WELL, WILL YOU DO THIS FOR US?  WILL YOU JUST GO DOWN TO WEST L.A. STATION AND LET US PHOTOGRAPH YOUR INJURIES?  IT ONLY TAKES A FEW MINUTES."
 
            IT SEEMS AS IF SHE WAS MORE CONCERNED  ABOUT HER KIDS THAN SHE WAS DOING ANYTHING TO THE DEFENDANT.  SHE DIDN'T -- SHE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT DOCUMENTING HER OWN INJURIES AT THAT TIME.  SHE JUST WANTED TO BE WITH HER KIDS.
            BUT EDWARDS TOOK HER TO WEST L.A. STATION AND HE TOOK SOME POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER. REMEMBER THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?  BACK IN FEBRUARY I THINK IT WAS, I THINK I MARKED THOSE PEOPLE'S 4 AND 5.
            I WANT YOU TO GO BACK FOR A MOMENT WITH ME EIGHT MONTHS AGO.  TAKE A LOOK AT THESE INJURIES. KEEP IN MIND, THESE ARE POLAROIDS AND THEY'RE EIGHT YEARS OLD.  LOOK AT THESE INJURIES.  JUST LOOK AT WHAT YOU CAN SEE, WHICH ISN'T MUCH AT THIS POINT.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. DARDEN:  SEE THE SMALL CUT TO THE RIGHT SIDE FROM WHERE WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER UPPER LIP?  LOOK AT THE SWOLLEN LEFT CHEEK.  LOOK AT THE SCAR, THE SCRATCH, THE BRUISE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER FOREHEAD.  YOU SEE THAT?
            YOU'VE SEEN OTHER PICTURES OF HER.  YOU SAW A PICTURE OF HER WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE AND SMILING. REMEMBER THAT PICTURE?  I HAVE TO FIND IT FOR YOU TOMORROW.
 
 
            LOOK AT THAT PICTURE, THE ONE YOU'RE  LOOKING AT NOW.  WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ONE OF HER SMILING, YOU LOOK AT THOSE TWO PICTURES, YOU THINK IT HELPS YOU DISCERN JUST HOW BADLY BRUISED SHE WAS.
            AT SOME POINT, HE TOOK HER BACK HOME TO BE WITH HER KIDS.  THE DEFENDANT, WELL, THEY DIDN'T CATCH HIM THAT NIGHT.  AND THE NEXT DAY, NICOLE SPOKE TO RON SHIPP AND THE NEXT DAY AS WELL, THE DEFENDANT SPOKE TO DETECTIVE FARRELL.
            REMEMBER DETECTIVE FARRELL, THE DETECTIVE INVESTIGATING THIS CASE?  HE CALLED DETECTIVE FARRELL ON THE PHONE AND APOLOGIZED FOR THE INCIDENT AND EXPRESSED TO DETECTIVE FARRELL HIS DISMAY AT THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES.  YOU REMEMBER THAT.  HE CALLED FARRELL AND TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T REALIZE SHE HAD BEEN INJURED THAT MUCH.
            YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THE FULL EXTENT OF HER INJURIES AT THE TIME?  I DON'T KNOW.  YOU TELL ME. THAT'S A POLAROID.  THIS IS PEOPLE'S 29.  SHE DOESN'T QUITE LOOK LIKE THAT IN ANY OTHER PHOTOGRAPH YOU'VE SEEN IN THIS CASE, DOES SHE?
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. DARDEN:  THE FUSE WAS BURNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.  HE HAD INJURED HER, HE HAD HARMED HER AND HE HAD BEATEN HER, AND HE DID NOT FULLY REALIZE THE EXTENT OF HIS OWN ANGER, THE EXTENT OF HIS OWN RAGE AT THAT POINT.  HE HAD HURT HER IN WAYS THAT HE  APPARENTLY HIMSELF DIDN'T FULLY, FULLY COMPREHEND AT THE TIME.
            AND LATER ON, HE WROTE HER SOME LETTERS. HE WAS TRYING TO GET BACK ON HER GOOD SIDE.
            NOW, YOU MAY SEE THESE AS LETTERS OF APOLOGY.  WE SAY THESE ARE LETTERS OF MANIPULATION. WHAT IS HE REALLY ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? YOU'LL HAVE THE ORIGINAL LETTERS IN THE JURY ROOM.
            IN THE BEGINNING, HE EXPRESSES TO HER HOW SORRY HE IS.  ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW.  DOES HE SAY HE'S SORRY?  DOES HE SAY HE WAS WRONG?  HE SAYS HE WAS WRONG FOR HURTING HER AND THAT THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT HE DID, AND THEN HE GOES ON TO WRITE SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HERE.
            HE'S THINKING AND TRYING TO REALIZE HOW HE GOT SO CRAZY.  HE HAD SUCH EMOTIONAL FEELINGS TOWARDS HER THAT WAS HIGH AS ANY HE EVER FELT, AND IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF THOSE FEELINGS THAT HE REACTED SO EMOTIONALLY.  WITH ALL OF THAT EMOTION RUNNING IN HIM, HE SAYS HE DIDN'T REACT TOO WELL.
            IT'S JUST AS I SAID A MOMENT BEFORE.  HE DOESN'T FULLY REALIZE OR HE DIDN'T IN 1989 JUST HOW CRAZY HE GOT, HE COULD GET, HOW EMOTIONAL HE COULD GET, HOW PASSIONATE HE COULD GET.
            NOW, WHAT SET THIS WHOLE THING OFF?  WHAT HAPPENED IN 1989 THAT CAUSED HIM TO GET TO THE POINT THAT HE BEAT THIS WOMAN UP?
            WELL, RON SHIPP TESTIFIED ABOUT HIS  CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE.  NOW, IF YOU REFLECT BACK FOR A MOMENT ON THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT TO EDWARDS, THAT HE HAD TWO WOMEN, RIGHT, WHAT DOES SHIPP TELL YOU ABOUT HIS CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE?
            SHE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE OTHER TWO WOMEN. SHE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM.  SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE WITH HIM.  THAT'S WHAT LED TO THIS WHOLE THING IN 1989, HIS PASSION, HIS EMOTION.  AND WHEN THAT PASSION AND THAT EMOTION GETS OUT OF CONTROL -- AND HE WAS OUT OF CONTROL IN 1989 -- AND WHEN THAT FUSE STARTS BURNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND IT STARTS GETTING SHORTER AND SHORTER, SETS HIM OFF.
            HE WAS SET OFF THAT DAY IN 1989.  LOOK AT THIS LETTER.  YOU'LL HAVE THIS LETTER IN THE JURY ROOM, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT HE CAN'T ALWAYS CONTROL THE PASSION AND ANGER AND EMOTION HIMSELF.  SOMETHING ABOUT THIS WOMAN, THIS WOMAN, SHE DOES SOMETHING TO THIS MAN THAT CAUSES HIM TO LOSE CONTROL.
            AND HE LOST CONTROL.  HE LOST CONTROL OF HER BECAUSE IN 1992, SHE MOVED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, IN JANUARY OF 1992 AS I RECALL.  AND THE NEXT MONTH, I THINK IT'S FEBRUARY -- I DON'T KNOW.
            MAYBE I SHOULD PULL OUT THAT TIME LINE BOARD, JOHN, BECAUSE IN 1992, IN FEBRUARY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE.  WELL, YOU KNOW WHEN A WOMAN MOVES OUT OF THE HOUSE AND FILES FOR DIVORCE, I HAVE LEARNED IT MEANS SHE DOESN'T WANT YOU ANYMORE.  IT MEANS THAT THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG IN  THE RELATIONSHIP AND IT MEANS I THINK THAT PERHAPS IF YOU ARE THE OTHER PARTY TO THAT MARRIAGE, THAT PERHAPS YOU SHOULD BE SEEKING --
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
      MR. DARDEN:  -- COMPANIONSHIP ELSEWHERE.
            NOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN THIS CASE. SHE LEFT.  SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE, AND HE COULDN'T TAKE IT.
            YOU HEARD FROM KATHRYN BOWE AND HER HUSBAND, MR. COLBY.  REMEMBER MR. COLBY?  THEY LIVED AT THE CORNER ON GRETNA GREEN.
            IN 1992, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS APRIL 28TH AROUND 11:00 P.M. THAT NIGHT -- IT'S HERE ON THE CHART -- THEY LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW AND THEY SAW A FIGURE, A MAN, A MAN IN THE DARK.  IN THE DARKNESS, THEY SAW A MAN, AND THE MAN WAS OUT ON THE SIDEWALK AND HE WAS LOOKING AROUND AND HE WAS PACING A LITTLE BIT UP AND DOWN THE SIDEWALK.  HE WAS PACING, WALKING UP AND DOWN ON THE SIDEWALK.
            KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN PEOPLE PACE.  I DO IT A LOT.  BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS PERSON WAS DOING PACING OUT THERE ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT THEY THOUGHT THIS WAS UNUSUAL AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. WAS IT A SUNDAY NIGHT?  I THINK IT WAS A SUNDAY NIGHT.
 
 
            AND THEY WATCHED THIS PERSON AND THEY  WATCHED THIS PERSON, THIS MAN -- BY THE WAY, THIS MAN WAS ABOUT SIX FEET, SIX FOOT TWO, 200 POUNDS, AFRICAN AMERICAN.  THEY WATCHED THIS MAN IN THE DARK IN THE NIGHT PACING UP AND DOWN THE SIDEWALK, AND THEN THEY SAW THAT MAN WALK DOWN THE SIDEWALK, UP THE DRIVEWAY AND PEER THROUGH THE WINDOW OF NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN.  REMEMBER THAT TESTIMONY?
            HE DIDN'T HANDLE THAT DIVORCE -- THE FILING OF THAT DIVORCE TOO WELL NOW, DID HE?
            NOW, THEY MAY SAY, OH, WELL, HE -- YOU KNOW, HE LOOKED THROUGH A WINDOW.  BIG DEAL.
            THIS IS MORE THAN JUST LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW.  THIS IS STALKING.  WHEN PEOPLE COME UP TO YOUR WINDOW AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND THEY PEEK THROUGH IT AND THEY LOOK THROUGH IT AND THEY WATCH YOU, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG HERE.  THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE.  THIS IS OBSESSIVE CONDUCT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.  THIS IS OBSESSIVE CONDUCT. THIS IS STALKING.
            AND THE COLBY'S SAW THIS MAN, THEY SAW HIM DO THAT, THEY SAW HIM WALK BACK ON THE SIDEWALK, AND THEY BECAME SO CONCERNED ABOUT HIM THAT THEY TELEPHONED THE POLICE.  THEY CALLED THE POLICE.  AND AFTER THEY CALLED THE POLICE, THEY CONTINUED TO WATCH THROUGH THIS WINDOW TO WATCH THIS MAN.  THEY COULDN'T TELL WHO THE MAN WAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BUT AFTER A FEW MOMENTS, THEY COULD.
            WHO WAS THAT MAN?  HIM.  IT WAS THE  DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, STALKING NICOLE.  IT'S ALREADY APRIL, APRIL OF 1992.
            LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.  BY APRIL OF 1992, THIS WOMAN KNEW SHE WAS GOING TO DIE.  SHE TOLD EDWARDS THAT HE WAS GOING TO KILL HER.  SHE TOLD HIM THAT BACK IN 1989, AND APPARENTLY SHE BELIEVED THAT.
            YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM A D.A. INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE, MY INVESTIGATOR FROM MY OFFICE, MIKE STEVENS, AND MR. STEVENS TESTIFIED THAT IN DECEMBER OF 1994 AND WITH THE PERMISSION OF A JUDGE, HE SAID THAT HE WENT TO A BANK AND HE DRILLED A HOLE IN A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX.  YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?  AND IT WAS IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX THAT HE FOUND A LETTER THAT WE SHOWED YOU A MOMENT AGO.
            REMEMBER THAT, THE LETTER WHERE THE DEFENDANT SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW HE GOT SO CRAZY? THEY FOUND THAT LETTER AND THEY FOUND TWO OTHER LETTERS FROM THE DEFENDANT, FROM O.J. SIMPSON, TO NICOLE, ATTEMPTING TO GET BACK WITH HER, ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE HER TO TAKE HIM BACK, ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE HER THAT THINGS WOULD BE BETTER THE NEXT TIME.
            THEY FOUND THOSE LETTERS IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX AND THEY FOUND SOMETHING ELSE.  THEY FOUND A WILL.  THEY FOUND A WILL, THIS WOMAN'S WILL. IT HAD BEEN EXECUTED DURING 1990, WHICH MEANS SHE MUST HAVE BEEN ABOUT 30 YEARS OLD.  YOU KNOW MANY PEOPLE AT THE AGE OF 30 WHO EXECUTE WILLS?  BUT THEY  FIND HER WILL, HIS LETTERS AND SOMETHING ELSE.
            DO YOU HAVE THAT?
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. DARDEN:  THERE WAS SOME PHOTOGRAPHS, SOME PHOTOGRAPHS FROM BACK IN 1989, BECAUSE AFTER HE BEAT HER IN 1989, SHE CALLED HER SISTER, DENISE, AND DENISE CAME OVER AND SHE SHOWED DENISE THE INJURIES THIS MAN INFLICTED ON HER AND SHE ASKED DENISE TO TAKE PICTURES OF THOSE INJURIES, AND SHE PUT THOSE PICTURES IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX ALONG WITH HER WILL, ALONG WITH HER LETTERS.
            OKAY.  SHE PUT THOSE THINGS THERE FOR A REASON.  I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST LETTERS AND THEY'RE JUST PICTURES.  BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, YOU'D THINK THAT THE THINGS YOU PUT IN THAT BOX ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT.
            NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO INTERPRET THAT CONDUCT.  YOU CAN INTERPRET IT ANY WAY YOU WANT.  BUT LET ME SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU SHOULD INTERPRET IT THIS WAY.  SHE IS LEAVING YOU A ROAD MAP TO LET YOU KNOW WHO IT IS WHO WILL EVENTUALLY KILL HER.  SHE KNEW IN 1989.  SHE KNEW IT AND SHE WANTS YOU TO KNOW IT.  SHE KNEW WHO WAS GOING TO DO IT TO HER, BUT SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN.  BUT WHENEVER THAT EVENT ACTUALLY CAME, SHE WANTED YOU TO KNOW WHO DID  IT.
            THINK ABOUT THAT.  JUST THINK ABOUT THAT.  A WILL, PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER BEING BEATEN. OKAY.  YOU TELL ME.

 *******

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
                     9:15 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103            HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
 

                CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED)
 
BY MR. DARDEN:
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      MR. DARDEN:  I HOPE EVERYBODY -- I'M SORRY.
            MR. FAIRTLOUGH, WOULD YOU JUST BRIEFLY SHOW THAT TO COUNSEL, IF YOU CAN.
            I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A GOOD SLEEP LAST NIGHT.  IT WAS A LONG DAY YESTERDAY, AND I THANK YOU.
            LET ME THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR HEARING ME AGAIN THIS MORNING.  I DON'T EXPECT TO TAKE UP THE ENTIRE MORNING.
            IN FACT, WITH ANY LUCK, I WON'T TAKE UP MORE THAN HALF OF IT, BUT WE WILL HAVE TO SEE.
            WELL, YOU WILL RECALL WHERE WE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY.  I WAS TELLING YOU ABOUT THIS DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP, THIS MAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN, AND I TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS A SIMMERING RELATIONSHIP.  YOU KNOW, IT WAS -- IT WAS A SLOW BURN.  IT WAS A SLOW BURN.
            AND I DESCRIBED FOR YOU AND DISCUSSED WITH YOU SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD IN THIS CASE, TESTIMONY YOU HEARD FROM WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE 1985 INCIDENT INVOLVING THE BASEBALL BAT AND THE MERCEDES BENZ.
            WE TALKED ABOUT THE -- THE 1989 INCIDENT AND THE FACT THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT  TIMES BEFORE.  BOTH THE DEFENDANT HERE AND NICOLE BROWN BOTH -- BOTH ADMITTED THAT, SO I GUESS IT IS TRUE, RIGHT?
            WE TALKED ABOUT THE INCIDENT AT THE RED ONION WHEN THE DEFENDANT GRABBED NICOLE BY THE CROUCH IN FRONT OF A BAR FULL OF STRANGERS AND HUMILIATED HER.  WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
            WE TALKED ABOUT HIS ADMISSION TO SHIPP ABOUT HIS JEALOUSY AFTER THE 1985 INCIDENT.
            WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD FROM DENISE BROWN.  YOU REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY FROM DENISE BROWN WHEN SHE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF
THE -- THE REALLY, REALLY NASTY THINGS HE WOULD SAY TO NICOLE?
            AS YOU MAY RECALL, DENISE, DENISE BROWN, NICOLE'S SISTER, TESTIFIED THAT DURING THE TIME THAT SHE WAS PREGNANT THE DEFENDANT WOULD CALL HER NAMES.
            DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?  HE WOULD CALLER A FAT PIG AND HE WOULD CALL HER A FAT PIG IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
            I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SHOULD -- YOU SHOULD EXTRACT FROM THAT.  I MEAN, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING?
            I DON'T KNOW.  I WOULD SUGGEST, HOWEVER, THAT THAT IS SOME INDICATION OF HOW HE REALLY FELT ABOUT HER.
            YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU GET IN A RELATIONSHIP, PEOPLE GET IN A RELATIONSHIP, AND YOU  HAVE ONE -- ONE HALF OF THE RELATIONSHIP WHO IS DOMINANT AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER HALF WHO IS SOMEWHAT PASSIVE, AND THE DOMINANT HALF DOMINATES THE OTHER HALF AND WHAT -- WHAT EFFECT DO YOU SPOUSE THIS WOULD HAVE ON NICOLE, THAT IS, BEING CALLED A FAT PIG BY HER HUSBAND WHILE SHE IS PREGNANT?  WHAT AFFECT WOULD THAT HAVE ON HERSELF ESTEEM.
            BECAUSE YOU ARE PROBABLY WONDERING, WELL, HEY, IF HE DID ALL OF THESE THINGS TO HER, IF HE SAID ALL OF THESE THINGS TO HER, WHY DID SHE STAY?
            WELL, THERE IS OLD SONG AND THE WORDS USED TO GO THAT -- OH, I THINK IT WAS THE DRAMATICS, I CAN'T REALLY RECALL, BUT THERE WAS A COUPLE OF LINES IN THE SONG WHERE THEY SAID THE STRONG GIVE UP AND MOVE ON AND THE WEAK GIVE UP AND STAY.
            YOU KNOW, IF YOU BADGER A PERSON LONG ENOUGH, IF YOU BEAT THEM DOWN LONG ENOUGH, IF YOU WEAR THEM DOWN LONG ENOUGH, PRETTY SOON YOU STRIP THEM OF THEIR DIGNITY THEIR SELF ESTEEM, AND THEY ARE WEAK AND THEY ARE SUBMISSIVE AND THEY CAN'T GO; THEY CAN'T STAY.
            YOU KNOW HOW THAT IS.  EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW THAT IS.  WE'VE ALL BEEN IN BAD RELATIONSHIPS BEFORE.  YOU HAVE FRIEND, YOU SEE THEM IN THESE BAD RELATIONSHIPS.  WHY?  WHY DO THEY SAY?  WHY DO THEY STAY?
            USUALLY THEY FEEL THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.  THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A CHOICE.  THEY FORGOT THAT THEY HAD A CHOICE.  AND IN THEIR MINDS THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
            SHE IS A FAT PIG.
            BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY AND WE TALKED ABOUT JUSTICE AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS ABOUT AND I POINTED THE DEFENDANT OUT TO YOU AND I TOLD YOU HE KILLED HER AND YOU'VE HEARD THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
            HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN.  O.J. SIMPSON IS A MURDERER.  THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES.  THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES.  THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.

 *******

           AND I -- AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT TRANSPIRE AFTER MAY 22ND, 1994, YOU GET THE SENSE, DON'T YOU, THAT HE FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE? IT IS OVER.  IT IS OVER.  SHE CAN'T BE BOUGHT.  YOU CAN GIVE ME THIS EXPENSIVE GIFT IF YOU WANT TO, THAT IS FINE, BUT I'M NOT STAYING IN THIS RELATIONSHIP, TAKE IT BACK, AND SHE GAVE IT BACK TO HIM.
 
             AND THE DEFENSE WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK THAT -- THAT THIS WAS A -- BUT THERE IS NO DIG DEAL TO THIS BREAK-UP, THAT NICOLE BROWN WAS UPSET, THAT HE WASN'T UPSET ABOUT IT, BUT WAS HE?
            CHRISTIAN REICHARDT TESTIFIED FROM THE WITNESS STAND FOR THE DEFENSE AND HE TOLD YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN DEPRESSED DURING THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO THE MURDER ALSO.  HE HAD BEEN DEPRESSED BECAUSE OF HIS FAILING RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE.  HE WAS DEPRESSED BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T MAKE UP HER MIND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE WANTED TO STAY IN THE RELATIONSHIP.
            YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?  HE WAS DEPRESSED ABOUT THAT.  BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PERHAPS HIS DEPRESSION TURNED TO ANGER.
            DO YOU HAVE THE IRS LETTER?
            IN THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED -- AND WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THEM IN THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED, BUT WE KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT THERE WAS A LETTER THAT HE WROTE TO HER.  WE ASSUME THAT HE WROTE IT BECAUSE HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THE BACK.
            AND THIS LETTER HAS BEEN MARKED AS EVIDENCE AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH WILL GET THE EXHIBIT NUMBER.  THE ACTUAL LETTER HAS BEEN MARKED AS EVIDENCE, AND THE LETTER IS DATED JUNE 6TH, AND IT IS SIGNED O.J., O.J. SIMPSON, AND IN THE LETTER -- NOW REMEMBER THIS IS -- THERE ARE NO HARD FEELINGS HERE  IF YOU BELIEVE THE DEFENSE CASE.
            AND THIS LETTER BEGINS:
                 "ON THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCES I'M COMPELLED TO PUT YOU ON WRITTEN NOTICE THAT DO YOU NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO USE MY ADDRESS AT ROCKINGHAM AS YOUR RESIDENCE OR MAILING ADDRESS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INFORMATION AND TAX RETURNS FILED WITH ANY TAXING ENTITY."
            WELL WHAT IS THIS?  WHAT DOES THIS LETTER MEAN?  HOW IS THIS LETTER HELPFUL TO YOU?  HOW MANY TIMES DO WE BREAK UP WITH SOMEONE AND THEN SEND THEM A LETTER A FEW DAYS LATER OR TWO WEEKS LATER IN LEGALESE?
            AND WHAT ARE THE CHANGES IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE IS REFERRING TO?  THE CHANGE IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES IS THAT SHE HAS DECIDED THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH HIM ANY MORE AND NOW HE IS OUT TO HURT HER, HE IS GOING TO HURT HER.
            THIS LETTER IS PEOPLE'S 25, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
 

        MR. DARDEN:  DID NICOLE HAVE SOME KIND OF TAX PROBLEM?  LOOKS LIKE IT.  IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH HE SAYS:
                "I CANNOT TAKE PART IN ANY COURSE OF ACTION BY YOU THAT MIGHT BE MISLEADING TO THE IRS OR THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD."
            WHAT IS HE SUGGESTING TO HER?  HOW SHOULD SHE RECEIVE THIS LETTER?  AND LOOK AT THE CARBON COPY.
            MR. COCHRAN ASKED SOMEONE ON THE WITNESS STAND IF THEY KNEW THAT MARVIN GOODFRIEND WAS HIS ACCOUNTANT, AS I RECALL.  WE'VE HEARD THAT LEROY TAFT IS HIS LAWYER.  A CARBON COPY TO HIS LAWYER AND HIS ACCOUNTANT.
            WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?  THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN AMENABLE BREAK-UP?  NO HARD FEELINGS?  THIS IS CONTROL.  THIS IS A SUBTLE THREAT.
           AND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, FINE.  THE DEFENSE DISAGREES WITH ME, THAT IS FINE AS WELL.
            BUT LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.  WHEN THE DEFENSE BEGAN THE DEFENSE CASE -- WELL, NOT THE DEFENSE CASE, BUT WHEN MR. COCHRAN DID HIS OPENING STATEMENT, HE TOLD YOU ABOUT A WITNESS HE INTENDED TO CALL, AND THIS WITNESS SEEMED TO BE A PRETTY IMPORTANT WITNESS AND WOULD SEEM TO BE, GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE HEARD IN THIS CASE.
            HE TOLD YOU ABOUT A WOMAN NAMED  DR. LENORE WALKER AND HE SAID TO YOU AT PAGE 11783 THAT:
                "THERE IS AN EXPERT IN THE U.S. WHOSE NAME IS DR. LENORE WALKER AND THAT SHE IS BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE NO. 1 EXPERT IN AMERICA ON THE FIELD OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE."

 *****

            SO WHERE IS DR. WALKER TO COME HERE TO TESTIFY, TO TAKE -- TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND, TO SIT IN THE BLUE CHAIR AND TELL YOU THAT NONE OF THIS IS IMPORTANT, THAT EVERYTHING I'VE TOLD YOU FOR THE LAST THREE HOURS IS INSIGNIFICANT AND UNIMPORTANT?  WHERE IS SHE TO TELL YOU THAT HE DOES NOT SUFFER FROM SOME ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER?
            SHE AIN'T HERE.
            AND HAD SHE COME HERE AND EXPRESSED AN OPINION THAT THIS WAS UNIMPORTANT, WE WOULD HAVE CROSS-EXAMINED HER, BUT THEY CAN'T TOUCH THIS.  THEY CAN'T TOUCH THIS.
 *********

            AND SO I THINK WE HAVE COME FULL CIRCLE AT THIS POINT.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO KILL.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE HAD THE MOTIVE, THAT HE HAD A MOTIVE TO KILL.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU IN THIS TRIAL THAT HE WAS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF KILLING.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE HAD A REASON TO KILL.  WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE WOULD HAVE KILLED, COULD HAVE KILLED AND DID KILL THESE TWO PEOPLE.
            HE IS A MURDERER.  HE WAS ALSO ONE HELL OF A GREAT FOOTBALL PLAYER, BUT HE IS STILL A  MURDERER.
            AND SO WE HAVE COME FULL CIRCLE.
 

[DARDEN ATTEMPTS TO REBUT DEFENSE CASE]
 

          THERE WAS A LOT OF MINUTIA IN THIS CASE AND YOU KNOW IT WAS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN.  THE DEFENSE GOT LOST IN MINUTIA IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE YOU AND TO RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT.
 
             WELL, LET ME EXPLAIN JUSTICE TO YOU THIS WAY AND THEN I WILL SIT DOWN AND I WILL BE QUIET.
            THE PEOPLE PUT ON THEIR CASE, THE DEFENSE PUT ON THEIR CASE, AND I ASSERT THAT THE DEFENSE CASE IS A BUNCH OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS, ALL ABOUT DISTRACTING YOU FROM THE REAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
            SO IMAGINE THE SMOKE AND IMAGINE A BURNING HOUSE.  IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE STANDING IN FRONT OF A BURNING HOUSE, AND FROM INSIDE THAT BURNING HOUSE YOU CAN HEAR THE WAIL OF A BABY, A BABY'S CRY, A BABY IN FEAR, A BABY ABOUT TO LOSE ITS LIFE.  AND YOU CAN HEAR THAT BABY SCREAMING.  YOU CAN HEAR THAT WAIL.
            NOW, THAT BABY, THAT BABY IS JUSTICE. THIS IS BABY JUSTICE.  USUALLY JUSTICE IS A STRONG WOMAN, BUT IN THIS CASE JUSTICE IS JUST A BABY.  AND YOU HEAR THAT BABY AND YOU HEAR THAT WAIL AND YOU SEE THE SMOKE, YOU SEE THE DEFENSE.
            THERE IS ALL THIS SMOKE IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOU FEEL A SENSE -- YOU HAVE A SENSE OF JUSTICE AND YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES AND YOU HAVE A STRONG COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE AND TO THE LAW AND YOU WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING WHILE JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO PERISH, JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO BE LOST, BABY JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO BE LOST.
            AND SO YOU START TO WADE THROUGH THAT SMOKE TRYING TO GET TO THAT BABY.  YOU HAVE GOT TO SAVE THAT BABY, YOU HAVE TO SAVE BABY JUSTICE, AND  YOU HAPPEN TO RUN INTO SMOKE, FIND YOUR WAY THROUGH THE SMOKE, AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO RUN INTO A COUPLE OF DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ALONG THE WAY, JUST ASK THEM TO POLITELY STEP ASIDE AND LET YOU FIND YOUR WAY THROUGH THE SMOKE, BECAUSE THE SMOKE ISN'T OVER, OKAY?  THE SMOKE IS GOOD TO GET HEAVIER BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT TO TALK TO YOU.
            LET'S USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.  WADE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE.  GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
            AND PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING.
            IT HAS BEEN A HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND WE WILL WAIT FOR YOUR VERDICT.
 
 

              (CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. COCHRAN)
 
      MR. COCHRAN:  JUDGE ITO, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DEFENSE, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE PROSECUTION, THE GOLDMAN FAMILY, THE BROWN FAMILY AND TO THE SIMPSON FAMILY.
            GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD AFTERNOON.
      MR. COCHRAN:  THE DEFENDANT, MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, IS NOW AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THE CASE, IF YOU WILL, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.  WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS TO TRY AND DISCUSS THE REASONABLE INFERENCES WHICH I FEEL CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS EVIDENCE.
            AT THE OUTSET, LET ME JOIN WITH THE OTHERS IN THANKING YOU FOR THE SERVICE THAT YOU'VE RENDERED.  YOU ARE TRULY A MARVELOUS JURY, THE LONGEST SERVING JURY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, PERHAPS THE MOST PATIENT AND HEALTHY JURY WE'VE EVER SEEN.  I HOPE THAT YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR GOOD HEALTH CONTINUES.
            WE MET APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY AGO ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 1994.  I GUESS WE'VE BEEN TOGETHER LONGER THAN SOME RELATIONSHIPS AS IT WERE.
            BUT WE'VE HAD A UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP IN THIS MATTER IN THAT YOU'VE BEEN THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS.  WE HAVE BEEN ADVOCATES ON BOTH SIDES.  THE JUDGE HAS BEEN THE JUDGE OF THE LAW.  WE ALL  UNDERSTAND OUR VARIOUS ROLES IN THIS ENDEAVOR THAT I'M GOING TO CALL A JOURNEY TOWARD JUSTICE.  THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON AS I SEE TO ADDRESS YOU.
            THE FINAL TEST OF YOUR SERVICE AS JURORS WILL NOT LIE IN THE FACT THAT YOU'VE STAYED HERE MORE THAN A YEAR, BUT WILL LIE IN THE QUALITY OF THE VERDICT THAT YOU RENDER AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT VERDICT SPEAKS JUSTICE AS WE MOVE TOWARDS JUSTICE.
            NOW, YOU'LL RECALL DURING A PROCESS CALLED VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION, EACH OF YOU WERE THOROUGHLY QUESTIONED BY THE LAWYERS.  YOU PROBABLY THOUGHT, GEE, I WISH THEY'D LEAVE ME ALONE.  BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD I'M SURE THAT THIS IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.  OUR CLIENT, MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, IS ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE, AND SO WE HAD TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL, BOTH SIDES, IN TRYING TO GET PEOPLE WHO COULD BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES.
            YOU'LL RECALL THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT YOU KEEP AN OPEN MIND, WHICH I HOPE YOU STILL HAVE EVEN TO THIS DAY, THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE SWAYED BY SYMPATHY FOR OR PASSION AGAINST EITHER SIDE IN THIS CASE, THAT YOU WOULD GIVE BOTH SIDES OF THIS LAWSUIT THE BENEFIT OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL OPINION.
            NO ONE, NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE FACTS ARE.  THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR JOB TO DETERMINE.  IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AGE OR EXPERIENCE.  WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.  THIS IS ONE OF  THOSE JOBS WHERE YOU KIND OF LEARN ON THE JOB, AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT'S WHY VOIR DIRE WAS SO VERY IMPORTANT AS WE ASKED YOU ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU WERE SEQUESTERED, BEFORE YOU WERE ACTUALLY PICKED.
            NOW, EACH OF YOU FILLED OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS HONESTLY I'M SURE.  YOU KNOW, SISTER ROSE SAID A LONG TIME AGO, "HE WHO VIOLATES HIS OATH PROFANES THE DIVINITY OF FAITH HIMSELF."  AND, OF COURSE, BOTH SIDES OF THIS LAWSUIT HAVE FAITH THAT YOU'LL LIVE UP TO YOUR PROMISES AND I'M SURE YOU'LL DO THAT.
            YOU KNOW, ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID THAT JURY SERVICE IS THE HIGHEST ACT OF CITIZENSHIP.  SO IF IT'S ANY CONSOLATION TO YOU, YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT VERY HIGHEST ACT OF CITIZENSHIP.  AND SO AGAIN, WE APPLAUD YOU AND WE THANK YOU AS WE MOVE TOWARD JUSTICE.
            ONE OTHER ENTITY OR GROUP OF LADIES OR TWO LADIES THAT I SHOULD THANK ARE OUR MARVELOUS COURT REPORTERS.  THEY HAVE BEEN PATIENT WITH US. THEY'VE BEEN HERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.  WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THEM IN THEIR SERVICE AND I ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE THEM BECAUSE SOMETIMES I SPEAK RATHER RAPIDLY AND THEY HAVE A TOUGH TIME KEEPING UP WITH ME.  SO I TRUST THAT TODAY, IF I START TO SPEAK TOO FAST IN NY ZEAL, MISS MOXHAM AND CHRIS WILL BRING THAT TO MY ATTENTION.  I'M SURE THEY WILL.
            NOW, IN THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS WHERE WE'RE DISCUSSING THE REASONABLE INFERENCES OF THE EVIDENCE, I ASK YOU TO REMEMBER THAT WE'RE ALL ADVOCATES.  WE'RE ALL OFFICERS OF THIS COURT.
            I WILL RECALL THE EVIDENCE AND SPEAK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.  SHOULD I MISSTATE THAT EVIDENCE, PLEASE DON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST MR. SIMPSON.  I WILL NEVER INTENTIONALLY TO THAT.  IN FACT, I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT DURING MY PRESENTATION, UNLIKE MY LEARNED COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE, I'M GOING TO READ YOU TESTIMONY OF WHAT THE WITNESSES ACTUALLY SAID SO THERE WILL BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT CERTAIN KEY THINGS.
            BUT REMEMBER THAT WE ARE ALL ADVOCATES. AND I THINK IT WAS MISS CLARK WHO SAID SAYING IT SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.  I THINK THAT APPLIES VERY MUCH TO THEIR ARGUMENT.  ULTIMATELY, IT'S WHAT YOU DETERMINE TO BE THE FACTS IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT, AND ALL OF US CAN LIVE WITH THAT.
            YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO DO JUSTICE.  YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO ENSURE THAT THIS GREAT SYSTEM OF OURS WORKS.
            LISTEN FOR A MOMENT, WILL YOU, PLEASE. ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE IN HISTORY IS THE GREAT FREDERICK DOUGLAS.  HE SAID SHORTLY AFTER THE SLAVES WERE FREED, QUOTE, "IN A COMPOSITE NATION LIKE OURS AS BEFORE THE LAW, THERE SHOULD BE NO RICH, NO POOR, NO HIGH, NO LOW, NO WHITE, NO BLACK, BUT COMMON  COUNTRY, COMMON CITIZENSHIP, EQUAL RIGHTS AND A COMMON DESTINY."
            THIS MARVELOUS STATEMENT WAS MADE MORE THAN 100 YEARS AGO.  IT'S AN IDEAL WORTH STRIVING FOR AND ONE THAT WE STILL STRIVE FOR.  WE HAVEN'T REACHED THIS GOAL YET, BUT CERTAINLY IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS, WE'RE TRYING.  WITH A JURY SUCH AS THIS, WE HOPE WE CAN DO THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
            NOW, IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE AWARE THAT WE REPRESENT MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON.  THE PROSECUTION NEVER CALLS HIM MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON.  THEY CALL HIM DEFENDANT.
            I WANT TO TELL YOU RIGHT AT THE OUTSET THAT ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, LIKE ALL DEFENDANTS, IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT.  HE'S ENTITLED TO THE SAME DIGNITY AND RESPECT AS ALL THE REST OF US.  AS HE SITS OVER THERE NOW, HE'S CLOAKED IN A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
            YOU WILL DETERMINE THE FACTS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE'S SET FREE TO WALK OUT THOSE DOORS OR WHETHER HE SPENDS THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON. BUT HE'S ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON.  HE'S NOT JUST THE DEFENDANT, AND WE ON THE DEFENSE ARE PROUD, CONSIDER IT A PRIVILEGE TO HAVE BEEN PART OF REPRESENTING HIM IN THIS EXERCISE AND THIS JOURNEY TOWARDS JUSTICE, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT.
 
 
             FINALLY, I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE LENGTH THAT THIS JOURNEY HAS TAKEN.  BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE SEEKING JUSTICE, THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS. IF YOU WERE TO TRADE PLACES WITH EITHER SIDE, YOU'D WANT SOMEONE TO FIGHT HARD FOR YOU AND VIGOROUSLY, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS A PERSON WHO MAINTAINED THEIR INNOCENCE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
            SOME OF YOU IN VOIR DIRE TALKED ABOUT THAT.  YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN OTHER CASES WHERE YOU FELT THE LAWYERS DIDN'T STAND UP.  WELL, I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT IN THIS CASE, ON BOTH SIDES, YOU FELT THE LAWYERS DID THEIR BEST TO REPRESENT THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS.  AND WE WILL CONTINUE I'M SURE TO DO THAT SO THAT ALTHOUGH I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTH OF THE TRIAL, I HOPE AND I TRUST THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT IN A JOURNEY TOWARDS JUSTICE, THERE IS NO SHORTCUT.
            FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ASKED YOU AT THE VERY BEGINNING TO DON'T COMPROMISE.  THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR THE TIMID OR THE WEAK OF HEART.  THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR THE NAIVE.  THIS IS A CASE FOR COURAGEOUS CITIZENS WHO BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
            AND WHILE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THINK WITH ME FOR A MOMENT HOW MANY TIMES YOU HEARD MY LEARNED ADVERSARY SAY THE DEFENSE DIDN'T PROVE, THE DEFENSE DIDN'T DO THIS, DEFENSE  DIDN'T DO THAT.
            REMEMBER BACK IN VOIR DIRE?  WHAT DID THE JUDGE TELL US?  JUDGE ITO SAID THE DEFENSE COULD SIT HERE AND DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  ONE OF YOU IS FROM MISSOURI, AND HE REMINDED YOU -- WHO'S FROM MISSOURI HERE -- SAYING TO THE PROSECUTION, YOU SHOW US.
            NOW, WE DIDN'T DO THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS YOU SEE -- YOU HEARD FROM THE JURY INSTRUCTION.  AND AT THE END, I WILL SHOW YOU SOME OTHERS.
            WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.  WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.  THIS IS THE PROSECUTION'S BURDEN, AND WE CAN'T LET THEM TURN THE CONSTITUTION ON ITS HEAD.  WE CAN'T LET THEM GET AWAY FROM THEIR BURDEN.
            IT'S MY JOB -- ONE OF MY JOBS IS TO REMIND YOU OF THAT AND TO REMIND THEM OF THAT.  BUT THAT'S THEIR BURDEN.  THEY MUST PROVE MR. SIMPSON GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND TO A MORAL CERTAINTY, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT A REASONABLE DOUBT MEANS.
            AND SO NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ANALYZE THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AGREE WITH ONE THING THAT MR. DARDEN SAID.  TO THIS TASK, I ASK YOU TO BRING YOUR COMMON SENSE.  COLLECTIVELY, THE 14 OF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 500 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.  I KNOW YOU'RE ALL YOUNG, BUT ADD THAT BY 14 -- YOU WON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST ME I DON'T THINK -- 500 YEARS OF  EXPERIENCE.  YOU DIDN'T LEAVE YOUR COMMON SENSE OUT IN THAT HALLWAY WHEN YOU CAME IN HERE.  WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO APPLY IT TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.
            I'D LIKE TO COMMENT AND TO COMPLIMENT MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN ON WHAT I THOUGHT WERE FINE ARGUMENTS YESTERDAY.  I DON'T AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT THEY SAID, BUT I LISTENED INTENTLY, AS I HOPE YOU'LL DO WITH ME.  AND TOGETHER, HOPEFULLY THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING TO BE HELPFUL TO YOU IN TRYING TO ARRIVE AT A DECISION IN THIS CASE WHERE YOU DON'T COMPROMISE, WHERE YOU DON'T DO VIOLENCE TO YOUR CONSCIOUS, BUT YOU DO THE RIGHT THING.  AND YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING.
            LET ME ASK EACH OF YOU A QUESTION.  HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED OF SOMETHING?  HAVE YOU EVER BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED?  EVER HAD TO SIT THERE AND TAKE IT AND WATCH THE PROCEEDINGS AND WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT, ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT YOU DIDN'T DO IT?
            ALL YOU COULD DO DURING SUCH A PROCESS IS TO REALLY MAINTAIN YOUR DIGNITY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? KNOWING THAT YOU WERE INNOCENT, BUT MAINTAINING YOUR DIGNITY AND REMEMBERING ALWAYS THAT ALL YOU'RE LEFT WITH AFTER A CRISIS IS YOUR CONDUCT DURING.  SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE ARE PROUD TO REPRESENT THIS MAN WHO'S MAINTAINED HIS INNOCENCE AND WHO HAS CONDUCTED HIMSELF WITH DIGNITY THROUGHOUT THESE  PROCEEDINGS.
            NOW, LAST NIGHT, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES, TWO WORDS CAME TO MIND. AND I WANT TO -- I ASKED MY WIFE THIS MORNING TO GET THE DICTIONARY OUT AND LOOK UP TWO WORDS.  THE TWO WORDS WERE "SPECULATIVE" AND "CYNICAL."  LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THOSE WORDS THAT SHE GOT FOR ME.
 
            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. COCHRAN:  I ASKED HER -- I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS CASE -- TO GO TO WEBSTER'S.  AND I WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SPECULATE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE CYNICAL, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT MY COLLEAGUES' ARGUMENTS AND THEIR APPROACH TO THIS CASE AND THEIR VIEW OF THIS CASE.
            "CYNICAL" IS DESCRIBED AS CONTEMPTUOUSLY DISTRUSTFUL OF HUMAN NATURE AND MOTIVES, GLOOMY DISTRUSTFUL VIEW OF LIFE.  AND TO SPECULATE -- TO SPECULATE, TO ENGAGE IN CONJECTURE AND TO SURMISE OR -- IS TO TAKE TO BE THE TRUTH ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
            I MENTION THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS TO YOU BECAUSE I FELT THAT MUCH OF WHAT WE HEARD YESTERDAY AND AGAIN THIS MORNING WAS MERE SPECULATION.
            UNDERSTAND THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN; THAT NONE OF US IN THIS COURTROOM WERE OUT AT 875 BUNDY ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 AFTER 10:30 OR 10:45 IN THE  EVENING, SO THAT EVERYTHING WE SAY TO YOU IS OUR BEST EFFORT TO PIECE TOGETHER WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS CASE.
            WHEN PEOPLE THEORIZE ABOUT THINGS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT SHORT FUSES, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT'S JUST THAT.  IT'S SPECULATION.  PEOPLE SEE THINGS THAT ARE TOTALLY CYNICAL.  MAYBE THAT'S THEIR VIEW OF THE WORLD.  NOT EVERYBODY SHARES THAT VIEW.
            NOW, IN THIS CASE -- AND THIS IS A HOMICIDE CASE AND A VERY, VERY, VERY SERIOUS CASE. AND OF COURSE, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
            IT IS A SAD FACT THAT IN AMERICAN SOCIETY, A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EACH YEAR.  VIOLENCE UNFORTUNATELY HAS BECOME A WAY OF LIFE IN AMERICA.  AND SO WHEN THIS SORT OF TRAGEDY DOES IN FACT HAPPEN, IT BECOMES THE BUSINESS OF THE POLICE TO STEP UP AND STEP IN AND TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE MATTER.
            A GOOD EFFICIENT, COMPETENT, NONCORRUPT POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL CAREFULLY SET ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF INVESTIGATING HOMICIDES.  THEY WON'T RUSH TO JUDGMENT.  THEY WON'T BE BOUND BY AN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ALL COSTS.  THEY WILL SET ABOUT TRYING TO APPREHEND THE KILLER OR KILLERS AND TRYING TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT FROM SUSPICION.
 
             IN THIS CASE, THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES HAD AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DEMAND EXACTLY JUST THAT IN THIS CASE.  BUT IT WAS CLEAR UNFORTUNATELY THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS ANOTHER AGENDA.  FROM THE VERY FIRST ORDERS ISSUED BY THE LAPD SO-CALLED BRASS, THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH THEIR OWN IMAGES, THE PUBLICITY THAT MIGHT BE GENERATED FROM THIS CASE THAN THEY WERE IN DOING PROFESSIONAL POLICE WORK.  THAT'S WHY THIS CASE HAS BECOME SUCH A HALLMARK AND THAT'S WHY MR. SIMPSON IS THE ONE ON TRIAL.
            BUT YOUR VERDICT IN THIS CASE WILL GO FAR BEYOND THE WALLS OF DEPARTMENT 103 BECAUSE YOUR VERDICT TALKS ABOUT JUSTICE IN AMERICA AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE POLICE AND WHETHER THEY'RE ABOVE THE LAW AND IT LOOKS AT THE POLICE PERHAPS AS THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LOOKED AT VERY RECENTLY.  REMEMBER, I TOLD YOU THIS IS NOT FOR THE NAIVE, THE FAINT OF HEART OR THE TIMID.
            SO IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROFESSIONAL POLICE WORK TOOK A BACKSEAT RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING.  UNTRAINED OFFICERS TRAMPLED -- REMEMBER, I USED THE WORD IN OPENING STATEMENT -- THEY TRAIPSED THROUGH THE EVIDENCE.
            AND IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT AT THE BEGINNING, BUT LATER ON IN THIS TRIAL, WE HEARD MR. GOLDBERG, TALKING TO WITNESSES, USE MY WORDS, "TRAIPSING" THROUGH THE WITNESS SCENE, THAT SCENE THERE AT  BUNDY.  HE USED OUR WORDS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD. WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.  WE WERE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE VIDEOS.
            THEY DELAYED UNCONSCIONABLY ROUTINE PROCEDURES IN NOTIFYING THE CORONERS.  THEY DIDN'T CALL THE CRIMINALIST OUT ON TIME AND YES, THEY ALLOWED THIS INVESTIGATION TO BE INFECTED BY A DISHONEST AND CORRUPT DETECTIVE.  THEY DID THAT IN THIS CASE.  AND THEY MAY TRY TO BACK AWAY FROM IT ALL THEY WANT, BUT THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE, TO THIS CASE AND THE RESOLUTION OF MY CLIENT'S INNOCENCE.
            BECAUSE OF THEIR BUNGLING, THEY IGNORED THE OBVIOUS CLUES.  THEY DIDN'T PICK UP PAPER AT THE SCENE WITH PRINTS ON IT.  BECAUSE OF THEIR VANITY, THEY VERY SOON PRETENDED TO SOLVE THIS CRIME AND WE THINK IMPLICATED AN INNOCENT MAN, AND THEY NEVER, THEY NEVER EVER LOOKED FOR ANYONE ELSE.  WE THINK IF THEY HAD DONE THEIR JOB AS WE HAVE DONE, MR. SIMPSON WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED EARLY ON.
            AND SO THIS CASE IS NOT -- LET ME SAY IT AT THE OUTSET -- IS NOT ABOUT ATTACKING THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.  WE'RE NOT ANTI-POLICE IN MAKING THESE STATEMENTS.  YOU'RE NOT ANTI-POLICE. WE ALL NEED THE POLICE.  I JUST SAID WE HAVE SO MUCH CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, WE NEED THE POLICE.
 
 
             BUT WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT WE MUST DEMAND, WHAT ALL OF US SHOULD HAVE ARE HONEST, EFFECTIVE, NONBIASED POLICE OFFICERS.  WHO COULD DEMAND LESS? ANY OF YOU SAY THAT'S NOT WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE?
            AND SO LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED HERE THIS AFTERNOON.
            THE DEFENSE HAS ONE OPPORTUNITY BASICALLY TO ADDRESS YOU.  THIS IS AFTER THE PROSECUTORS ARE FINISHED.  I WILL ADDRESS YOU FIRST, AND AFTER I'M CONCLUDED -- AND I WILL TALK GENERALLY ABOUT THE LAY WITNESSES AND OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND WHAT YOU'VE HEARD.  I WILL TRY NOT TO BORE YOU.  I'LL STRIVE TO BE HONEST IN MY DISCUSSIONS, TO BE RELEVANT, TO BE CONCISE OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT HERE.
            WHEN I'M FINISHED, MR. BARRY SCHECK WILL COME BEFORE YOU AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE FORENSIC ISSUES.  AND THEN FINALLY, AFTER MR. SCHECK FINISHES, I'LL COME BACK AND CONCLUDE SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS REGARDING WHAT YOU'VE HEARD OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO DAYS AT ANY RATE.
            NOW, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION BEARS THE BURDEN IN THIS CASE AND IN ALL CASES, MISS CLARK WILL ARGUE LAST TO SEEK TO REBUT THAT WHICH WE BRING UP.  PRESUMABLY, SHE WON'T BE BACK UP HERE TALKING ABOUT ALL KINDS OF NEW THINGS, BUT SEEK TO REBUT THAT WHICH IS BEING ARGUED.
 
 
             AND LET ME TELL YOU UP FRONT, IF SHE BRINGS UP ANYTHING, WE MAY BE PRECLUDED FROM STANDING UP SAYING, "WAIT A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR.  HERE'S THE ANSWER TO THAT."  BUT YOU CAN THEN SUBSTITUTE YOUR COMMON SENSE, YOUR JUDGMENT IN THAT PLACE, AND THAT'S REQUIRED IN THIS JOURNEY TOWARD JUSTICE.
            NOW, AT THE OUTSET, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS TIME LINE FOR THE DEFENSE.  I SAID EARLIER THAT MR. DARDEN DID A GOOD JOB IN HIS ARGUMENT, BUT ONE THING HE TENDED TO TRIP OVER AND STUMBLE OVER WAS WHEN HE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT OUR CASE.  HE DOESN'T KNOW OUR CASE LIKE WE KNOW OUR CASE.
            IT WAS INTERESTING, WASN'T IT, BECAUSE FIRST HE STOOD UP AND STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE TIME LINE BEING AT 10:15.  THEN HE SAID, WELL, THEY DIDN'T PROVE ANYTHING, BUT, "GOLLY, WELL, IT MAY HAVE BEEN AS LATE AS 10:30."
            THAT'S INTERESTING, ISN'T IT?  NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE.
            YOU LOOK BACK AND SEE WHAT MISS CLARK PROMISED YOU A YEAR AGO.  10:15.  10:15 WAS ALL THEY TALKED ABOUT, AND THEY WERE GOING TO USE, BECAUSE OF THE INCOMPETENCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION, THE WAIL OF A DOG.  SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN RELEGATED TO IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THIS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION.
 
 
             BUT HAVING SAID THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING IN THIS CASE, WE DID IN FACT.  SO MR. DARDEN CAN TALK ALL HE WANTED TO ABOUT HIS THEORIES ABOUT MOTIVE.  THEY'RE JUST THAT, HIS SPECULATIVE THEORIES ABOUT MOTIVE.  BUT WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THE END, HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT MOTIVE, WAS HE?  HE WAS TRYING TO TALK ABOUT OUR TIME LINE.
            WHY WOULD HE DO THAT?  LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY HE WOULD.
            BECAUSE THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE CALLED MANY WITNESSES WHO CORROBORATED EACH OTHER AND WHO SHATTERED THE PROSECUTION'S TIME LINE.  NOW, THESE ARE WITNESSES TO A PERSON WHO WERE KNOWN BY THE PROSECUTION, BUT DISCARDED BY THE PROSECUTION.  WHY? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FIT THEIR TORTURED, NARROW WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY.
            SO WHEN YOU INVISUALIZE FOR ME THAT JIG-SAW PUZZLE WHERE THEY WANT TO REDUCE THIS CASE DOWN TO A JIG-SAW PUZZLE, THE PART THAT DEALS WITH OPPORTUNITY IS THE TIME LINE.  AND WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH THAT BECAUSE IN A SEARCH FOR TRUTH, LET'S LOOK FOR THE TRUTH.  NOT SOME CONTORTED, TWISTED TRUTH, BUT THE REAL TRUTH, THE FACTS THAT YOU HEARD DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
            WE THINK AFTER YOU LOOK AT THIS TIME LINE FOR THE DEFENSE, YOU WILL AGREE WITH OUR EARLIER ANALYSIS.  THIS IS A CASE ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, A CASE WHERE THERE'S BEEN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ALL  COSTS, AND IN THE WORDS OF DR. HENRY LEE, SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE PROSECUTION'S CASE.
            LET'S START OFF WITH FRANCESKA HARMON. FRANCESKA HARMON IS A LADY WHO LEFT THE DINNER PARTY ON DOROTHY AT ABOUT 10:20 P.M.  SHE DROVE WEST ON DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND TURNED NORTH ON BUNDY.  SO SHE WOULD BE HEADING NORTH TOWARD 875.  SHE SAW NOTHING, HEARD NOTHING, NO BARKING DOGS, LADY KNOWN, OF COURSE, TO BOTH SIDES.
            AND SO YOU SEE THIS GRAPHIC REGARDING FRANCESKA HARMON.  AND I THINK TO FAMILIARIZE YOU WITH THAT, I THINK AT 10:20, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT'S THE APPROXIMATE TIME THAT SHE WOULD PASS BY OR NEAR NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HOME THERE.  YOU SEE IT WITH THE "X" MARKED THERE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPHIC. THAT'S MISS HARMON.
            WE FOLLOWED FRANCESKA HARMON WITH ELLEN AARONSON AND DAN MANDEL, REMEMBER, THE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN ON THEIR FIRST DATE.  THEY HAD GONE TO MEZZALUNA.  AND THEY WERE INTERESTING YOUNG PEOPLE. I THINK YOU WOULD FIND THEM CREDIBLE.
            BY THE WAY, YOU HOLD ALL WITNESSES UP TO THE SAME STANDARD.  NO SIDE HAS A PRIORITY ON THE TRUTH.
            THESE ARE WITNESSES KNOWN TO BOTH SIDES. WE'RE THE ONES, HOWEVER, WHO ELECTED TO CALL THEM AND BRING THEM HERE FOR YOU.
 
             YOU KNOW, HOW THEY WALKED HOME FROM THIS FIRST DATE AT MEZZALUNA, WALKING DIRECTLY BY THE WALKWAY AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, AND THEY SAID THEY PASSED BY THERE.  REMEMBER, THEY WERE CLEAR, THEY PASSED BY THERE AT 10:25.  AND YOU'LL SEE THE LITTLE KIND OF PURPLE LINES SHOWS YOU THE ROUTE THEY TOOK.
            SO THEY PASSED RIGHT IN FRONT OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HOME AT 10:25.  AND YOU REMEMBER, THEY CONTINUED ON.  SO THEY WERE OVER ON DARLINGTON STREET BY 10:29.  SHE SAID THAT IT TOOK THEM ABOUT FOUR MINUTES FROM THE TIME THEY PASSED 875 SOUTH BUNDY TO GET HOME THAT EVENING.  THIS WAS THEIR FIRST DATE AND I GUESS, AS I RECALL, THIS WAS ALSO THEIR LAST DATE.  THEY SAW NO BLOOD, THEY SAW NO BARKING DOGS.
            I SUBMIT TO YOU, IF THE BODIES HAD BEEN THERE, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN.  NOW, WHY DO I SAY THAT?  I SAY THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTACT PRINT IN EVIDENCE -- AND I'M GOING TO ASK MR. HARRIS, IF HE CAN, TO SHOW US THIS CONTACT PRINT.  THIS IS AN ITEM YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE BACK IN THE JURY ROOM.
            THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY MR. ROKAHR AT NIGHT AND IT WILL LET YOU SEE, WHEN MR. HARRIS GETS IT INTO FOCUS, THAT SCENE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, WHAT YOU COULD SEE WITH REGARD TO THIS BODY.
            YOUR HONOR, YOU MAY WANT TO CUT THE FEED ON PART OF THIS.
            33, HOWARD.
             (BRIEF PAUSE.)
 
      MR. COCHRAN:  NOW -- AND THIS EXHIBIT IS WHAT NUMBER, MR. -- DO YOU HAVE IT?  I BELIEVE IT MAY BE 86.  I'LL GET IT FOR YOU AS SOON AS HE TAKES IT OFF, YOUR HONOR.
            NOW, THIS EXHIBIT -- AND WE'LL TRY TO GIVE THEM TO YOUR HONOR WHEN WE FIRST GET THEM UP THERE.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
      MR. COCHRAN:  THIS EXHIBIT NO. 86 WAS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE GOT LATE IN THE TRIAL FROM MR. ROKAHR, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, WHO WAS CALLED BY US. YOU SEE THAT DOCUMENT OVER THERE?  THAT'S A CONTACT SHEET.
            REMEMBER, WE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS IN SEQUENCE, AND THIS FIRST ROLL WERE TAKEN AT NIGHT.  THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ROLE FOR YOU AS THIS CASE PROGRESSES.  THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH AT NIGHT OF WHAT YOU COULD SEE FROM ACROSS THE STREET.
            AND THERE WERE LIGHTS IN AND AROUND THERE.  AND SO WHEN MR. DARDEN STANDS UP HERE AS AN ADVOCATE AND TELLS YOU IT WAS PITCH BLACK AND YOU COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING, THIS IS THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE SUN CAME UP.  THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN AT NIGHT.  IT'S NOT PITCH BLACK.
 
             WE KNOW ALSO THAT, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE, BLOOD HAD FLOWED DOWN THAT WALKWAY.  THERE WERE BLOODY PAW PRINTS THAT WENT SOUTHBOUND ON BUNDY THERE.  SO YOU SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH.  YOU SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
            NOW, YOU CAN BE AN ADVOCATE.  WE'RE ALL SWORN TO DO THE RIGHT THING.  WE TALKED ABOUT HIS OATH.  YOUR OATH IS ALSO TO TELL THE TRUTH.
            IT'S NOT PITCH BLACK.  WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE.  AND I AM GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT THROUGHOUT WHERE THEY HAVE MISLED YOU AND HAVE SAID THINGS NOT CORRECT.  I'M GOING TO TRY AND STRAIGHTEN IT OUT FOR YOU.
            MR. HARRIS, WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE COURT NOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.
      MR. HARRIS:  1369.
      MR. COCHRAN:  NO. 1369.  AND THAT'S ROKAHR.
            WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO SOME OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS ON THAT, BUT YOU'LL RECALL HIS TESTIMONY.
            AND THE REASON WHY 1369 IS SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT AT 10:25, MANDEL AND AARONSON WALKED PASSED THERE.  IF THERE WAS BLOOD DOWN ON THAT SIDEWALK, IF THERE HAD BEEN -- A KILLING HAD TAKEN PLACE, IF THERE WERE DOGS BARKING OR WAILING, DON'T YOU THINK GIVEN THAT, THAT HAD YOU BEEN OUT THERE, YOU'D SEE IT?
 
             SO THE TIME HAS COME NOW TO STOP ALL THIS FOLLY AND FANTASY.  LET'S DEAL IN REALITY AND IN THE FACTS OF WHAT TOOK PLACE AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES.  I DON'T WANT YOU TO SPECULATE OR THEORIZE.  WHEN I SIT DOWN, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FACTS ARE OF THIS CASE.
            MR. HARRIS, YOU CAN TAKE THAT DOWN.
            AFTER THAT, WE HAD DENISE PILMAK AND JUDY TEALANDER.  YOU KNOW, AND I THINK, AGAIN, AS ADVOCATES, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO TREAT ALL OF THESE WITNESSES WITH RESPECT.  THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T ASK TO COME DOWN HERE.  THESE PEOPLE DON'T ASK TO BE MALIGNED.  I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY WANTS THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE OR TWO, AND MOST OF THEM WERE CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION.
            SO WHEN DENISE PILMAK, THE LADY WHO WORE TWO WATCHES, COMES IN HERE AND TELLS YOU -- I ASK YOU TO JUDGE HER CREDIBILITY LIKE YOU DO ALL THE WITNESSES THE COURT HAS INSTRUCTED YOU.
            YOU HOLD ALL WITNESSES UP TO THE SAME STANDARD.  YOU LOOK AT THE REASONABLENESS OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.  YOU LOOK AT THEIR BIAS OR INTEREST.  YOU LOOK AT THEIR DEMEANOR ON THE STAND. YOU USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.  YOU USE YOUR VISCERAL REACTION, IF I CAN USE THAT WORD, TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THIS PERSON IS TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.
 
             NONE OF THESE PEOPLE KNOW OR KNEW O.J. SIMPSON WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE TOGETHER.  THEY DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER.  THEY'RE WITNESSES AVAILABLE TO BOTH SIDES.  BUT IN THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, WE'RE THE ONES WHO SUBPOENAED THEM AND BROUGHT THEM IN.
            LET'S LOOK AT DENISE PILMAK.  SHE TELLS YOU THAT SHE WAS AT HOME WITH HER FRIEND, JUDY TEALANDER.  SHE IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM 875 SOUTH BUNDY.  SHE'S SOUTH AND ACROSS THE STREET.  YOU'LL RECALL THAT.
            SHE SPOKE OF HOW EERILY QUIET -- REMEMBER THOSE WORDS?  IT WAS AT ABOUT 10:24 P.M. WHEN TEALANDER LEFT HER HOUSE, AND SHE REMEMBERED THAT BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO GET TEALANDER OUT OF THERE. SHE HAD BEEN THERE ALL DAY AND SHE WANTED TO USE HER COMPUTER OR SOMETHING TO TYPE SOME LETTERS.  REMEMBER THAT?
            SO SHE WENT OUTSIDE ON THE PORCH WITH TEALANDER, AS I RECALL.  AND PILMAK JUST DIDN'T COME TO YOU AND TELL YOU THAT.  PILMAK DID SOMETHING ELSE.  SHE --
            AND I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S EXHIBIT 1237.  SHE SHOWED US --
      THE COURT:  PHONE RECORDS.
      MR. COCHRAN:  THE PHONE RECORD, YOUR HONOR.
            SHE SHOWED US THAT SHE GOT ON THE PHONE AS SOON AS PILMAK LEFT AND CALLED HER MOTHER,  REMEMBER, SHE SAID IN GARDENA.  AND YOU LOOK THERE ON JUNE 12TH AT 10:25 P.M., SHE MADE A CALL TO GARDENA. SHE WAS ABLE TO FIX THE EXACT TIME THAT HER FRIEND LEFT.
            AND SHE SAID TO US SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING; THAT IT WAS QUIET WHEN HER FRIEND LEFT AND THE QUIET CONTINUED FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 10 MINUTES.  SO THAT WOULD BE 10:25 TO 10:35 AT THE EARLIEST.  SHE SAYS THAT AT 10:35 IS THE FIRST TIME SHE HEARD DOGS BARKING LOUDLY THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT.
            AND SO THAT SHE, AS YOU WILL SEE, ALONG WITH ROBERT HEIDSTRA CONFIRM EACH OTHER.  THEY DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW EACH OTHER, BUT THEY CONFIRM EACH OTHER AS TO WHEN THIS BARKING REALLY, REALLY BEGAN.
            NOW, THEY WEREN'T LAYING IN BED AND HAD BEEN ASLEEP LIKE EVA STEIN.  THEY WEREN'T LIKE MISS ELSIE TESTER, WHO IS ACROSS THE STREET WHO DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING.  THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO WERE OUTSIDE OR IN THAT AREA WHO CAN COME IN HERE AND TELL YOU WHY THEY REMEMBER THESE PARTICULAR TIMES.  THEY WERE WIDE AWAKE, UP AND ABOUT, OUTSIDE AROUND THE TIME WHEN THIS BARKING TOOK PLACE.
            THEN WE CALL THIS MAN, ROBERT HEIDSTRA. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT CAME OUT THAT ROBERT HEIDSTRA HAD BEEN TALKING TO THE PROSECUTION, REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID?
 
             NOW, THIS IS THE MAN -- WHO IS AN INTERESTING MAN -- WHO DETAILS CARS.  HE'S THE MAN WHO IS WELL-KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION.  REMEMBER, HE TALKED TO DETECTIVE PAYNE, ALMOST RIGHT AWAY DURING THE INVESTIGATION TO PAYNE AND HE TOLD PAYNE THE SAME THING HE TOLD YOU IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL.  THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.
            HE SAYS HE LIVES NEARBY AND HE HAS THESE TWO ELDERLY DOGS, ONE OF WHOM I RECALL WAS 14 YEARS OF AGE.  AND SO THESE DOGS WALK KIND OF SLOWLY. REMEMBER THAT.  HE WALKS AND HE TAKES THIS ROUTE.
            NOW, THAT GRAPHIC UP THERE SHOWS YOU THE ROUTE HE TAKES.  REMEMBER, HE TOLD YOU HE LEFT HOME A LITTLE BIT LATE THAT PARTICULAR SUNDAY.  10:15, HE LEAVES HOME AND HE PROCEEDS ON THIS ROUTE AND, YOU KNOW, HE'S IN THAT ALLEYWAY THAT RUNS PARALLEL TO BUNDY AND HE KNOWS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.  HE'S BEEN DOING THIS FOR MORE THAN 14 YEARS.  HE KNOWS NOT ONLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HE KNOWS THE DOGS, HE KNOWS THEIR BARKS, HE KNOWS THE GATES, HE KNOWS WHEN THEY CLANK, HE KNOWS ALL OF THAT.
            THIS IS AN INTERESTING SITUATION. WOULDN'T YOU HAVE THOUGHT THAT -- OF ALL THE WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL, IN THIS JOURNEY TOWARDS JUSTICE, THIS IS THE ONLY WITNESS WHO EVER HEARD ANY VOICES.  BUT THEY DIDN'T CALL HIM.  YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT IN THEIR TIME LINE AS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE.
            AND SO HE TELLS YOU THAT.  AND YOU'LL RECALL, HE'S DIRECTLY OPPOSITE MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDO IN THAT ALLEY WHEN HE HEARS WHAT HE BELIEVES IS THE AKITA START BARKING.  AND THAT'S AT ABOUT 10:35 P.M.  HE RECOGNIZES HE SAYS THE AKITA BARK SINCE HE WALKS THAT WAY, THAT SAME WAY EACH AND EVERY EVENING.
            SO WHILE IN THAT ALLEYWAY, EAST OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY, HE HEARS A VOICE YELL, "HEY, HEY, HEY," AND HE SAYS HE THEN HEARS A GATE SLAM.  NOW, HE GOES ON AND SAYS AT ABOUT 10:40, 10:45, HE SEES THIS WHITE VEHICLE WHICH HE DESCRIBES CLEARLY AS A VAN OR A JEEP.
            NOW, THEY WILL TRY AND TELL YOU ALL THESE THINGS ABOUT IT BEING SOME BRONCO, BUT HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A BRONCO.  HE SAID A VAN OR A JEEP. AND THE IMPORTANT PART WAS -- IS WHAT HE TELLS THE DETECTIVE.  BUT HE SAYS IT GOES SOUTHBOUND ON BUNDY AWAY FROM, THIS IS WHERE MR. SIMPSON LIVED.
            AND CAN YOU IMAGINE, IN THIS AREA IN WEST LOS ANGELES AND BRENTWOOD, THE NUMBER OF WHITE VEHICLES THERE ARE AND MUST BE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA?
            BUT THE REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T CALL HIM IS BECAUSE AT 10:45, AT 10:45, O.J. SIMPSON CANNOT BE GUILTY OF THIS CRIME, CAN HE?  HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN?
 
             WELL, YESTERDAY, IN HER ZEAL AND ADVOCACY, MISS CLARK TRIED TO PUSH THE TIME BACK FROM 10:40 OR 10:45 THAT KATO HEARD THOSE THUMPS.  SHE TRIED IN HER CHART THERE TO PUSH IT BACK, REMEMBER, TO 10:53.  SOME OF YOU PROBABLY WERE SURPRISED.
            THERE'S BEEN NO TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT.  SO LET ME TELL YOU -- LET ME QUOTE FOR YOU.
            COUNSEL, THIS IS PAGE 19873.  THIS IS MISS CLARK TALKING TO ONE OF HER FAVORITE WITNESSES, MR. KATO KAELIN.
                "BY MISS CLARK:  AND WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT PICTURE WHEN THE THUMPS OCCURRED?
      "THE PICTURE TILTED FROM -- THAT WOULD BE RIGHT TO LEFT.
      "THE PICTURE MOVED?
                "ANSWER:  YES, IT DID.
                "AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HEARD THE   THUMPS ON THE WALL, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL        FERRERA?"
            REMEMBER, HE STARTED TO CALL HIS FRIEND, CALLED HIS GIRLFRIEND.
                "ABOUT A HALF HOUR."
            THIS IS AFTER HE WENT BACK IN THE HOUSE, HE CALLED HIS GIRLFRIEND.
 
 
                "SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?"
            ANSWER BY MR. KAELIN:
                "AT ABOUT 10:40."
            AT ABOUT 10:40.  NOW, THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE DOGS FIRST START TO BARK OVER THERE, ABOUT 10:40.
            "IS THAT EXACT 10:40," MISS CLARK SAYS.
                "WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER.  I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40.
      "QUESTION:  DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?
      "ANSWER:  YES.
      "QUESTION:  OKAY.  AND IS THAT
      CORRECT?
      "ANSWER:  YES."
            NOW, THAT'S THEIR WITNESS.  THAT'S THEIR WITNESS.  THAT'S WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.
            THERE'S NO QUESTION HE'S THERE.  THEY KNOW HE'S THERE.  YOU KNOW HE'S THERE.  THEY DON'T CALL HIM.  WHAT ABOUT THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH?  CAN THEY HANDLE THE TRUTH?  YOU WILL BE MAKING THAT KIND OF DECISION.
 
 
            AND SO WE THEN KNOW, ACCORDING TO THIS, THAT BY THE TIME HEIDSTRA SEES THIS VEHICLE TURN SOUTH ON BUNDY, KATO KAELIN HAS ALREADY HEARD THE THREE THUMPS ON THE ROCKINGHAM WALL OUTSIDE OF HIS ROOM.  YOU KNOW, THAT'S SO INTERESTING BECAUSE  MISS CLARK TRIED TO CHANGE HOW THOSE THUMPS SOUNDED.
            NOW, REMEMBER -- THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NEVER FORGET PROBABLY.  I WON'T COME ALL THE WAY OVER THERE, BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN DUPLICATE -- KATO KAELIN SAID -- HERE'S HOW HE SAID THOSE THUMPS SOUNDED, (INDICATING) ONE, TWO, THREE, EXCEPT HE USED THAT THICK PLACE UP THERE.  HE SAID THEY WERE THUMPS, ALMOST LIKE A SIGNAL; ONE, TWO, THREE (INDICATING) IS WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.  AND, OF COURSE, YOU'LL RECALL THAT.  YOUR NOTES ARE MUCH BETTER THAN OURS I'M SURE.
            APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR ZEAL AND THEIR OBSESSION TO WIN WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON IS SO AMAZING THAT HE CAN BE IN TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE MILES APART.
            AND WHEN DARDEN WAS TALKING TO YOU TODAY, REMEMBER, HE USED HEIDSTRA TO SAY, "WELL, ON A SUNDAY EVENING, YOU COULD MAKE IT OVER THERE IN ABOUT FOUR MINUTES."  REMEMBER HE SAID THAT?
            WELL, IN THEIR OWN -- -- IN THEIR OWN DRIVE-THROUGH THAT VANNATTER DID BETWEEN FIVE AND SIX MINUTES -- YOU SAW IT.  IT TOOK CLOSE TO SIX MINUTES.  HE DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT AGAIN TODAY.
            AND IF YOU WANT TO GET A FLAVOR FOR HOW -- WE HEARD THE WORD DESPERATE A COUPLE OF TIMES, BUT HOW WITNESSES WERE TREATED -- THESE ARE ORDINARY WITNESSES, REGULAR CITIZENS.
            LET ME SHARE WITH YOU A TRANSCRIPT REGARDING HEIDSTRA.
            COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING AT 36368 THROUGH 36370.
            THIS IS HOW MR. DARDEN TREATED THIS WITNESS WHO HELPED TO SHATTER THEIR TIME LINE AND ESTABLISH O.J. SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE.
                "DIDN'T YOU TELL US YESTERDAY THAT THE VOICE WAS A YOUTHFUL VOICE?
                "YEAH.  SOUNDED LIKE A YOUNG VOICE.
                "OKAY.  WHEN YOU HEARD THAT VOICE, YOU THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS THE VOICE OF A YOUNG WHITE MALE, DIDN'T YOU?"
            AND THERE WAS AN OBJECTION YOU MAY RECALL.
                "THE VOICE SOUNDED LIKE THE VOICE OF A WHITE MALE," MR. DARDEN SAID.
 
 
 
                "ANSWER:   HOW COULD I SAY THAT IT IS A WHITE MALE?  I DON'T KNOW THE VOICE.  IT COULD BE ANYBODY THERE.
                "QUESTION:  DID YOU EVER TELL
MR. STEVENS, MY INVESTIGATOR, THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE A WHITE MALE?
                "ANSWER:  NO.  NEVER SAW MR. STEVENS COME IN HERE AND SAY THAT.
                "NEVER SAID THAT?
      "ANSWER:  I DON'T RECALL THAT AT ALL.  I SAID IT WAS A CLEAR VOICE, BUT NEVER WHAT KIND OF VOICE, WHITE OR BROWN OR YELLOW.
                "AND THEN THERE WAS THAT SECOND VOICE, CORRECT?
                "RIGHT.
                "AND THAT SECOND VOICE, THAT VOICE SOUNDED DEEPER THAN THE FIRST VOICE, DIDN'T IT?
                "ANSWER:  A LITTLE BIT, BUT I
COULDN'T HARDLY HEAR IT WITH THE DOGS, THE COMMOTION WITH TWO DOGS THERE.  IT WAS VERY SHORT.
                "DID YOU EVER TELL ANYONE THAT
THE SECOND VOICE WAS A DEEP VOICE?
 
                "ANSWER:  WAS DEEP, WAS DEEPER
THAN THE OTHER ONE, THAN, 'HEY, HEY, HEY.'"
            OKAY.  THEN WE GET TO THE QUESTION AT LINE 22, COUNSEL.
                "THE SECOND VOICE THAT YOU HEARD SOUNDED LIKE THE VOICE OF A BLACK MAN; IS THAT CORRECT?"
            OBJECTION.
                "THE WITNESS:  OF COURSE NOT."
            NOW, YOU KNOW, WE CAN BE ADVOCATES. THOSE QUESTIONS -- NOBODY EVER CAME IN TO IMPEACH THAT MAN.
            HE TOLD YOU HE HEARD TWO VOICES.  HE TOLD  YOU WHEN THIS TOOK PLACE.  HE TOLD YOU WHY, BECAUSE HE WALKS HIS DOGS.  HE KNOWS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
            A SEARCH FOR TRUTH.  YOU SEE, THEIR JOB IS NOT TO JUST TRY TO CONVICT.  THEIR JOB AS PROSECUTORS IS TO MAKE SURE THE INNOCENT GO FREE ALSO, TO MAKE SURE ALL THE WITNESSES COME TO YOUR ATTENTION AS WE'VE HAD TO DO IN THIS CASE.
            SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN WITNESSES WHO CAME BEFORE YOU WERE OFTENTIMES TREATED ROUGHLY AND RIDICULED AND ATTACKED BY THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR OBSESSION TO WIN.
            YOU DON'T THINK HEIDSTRA WAS ATTACKED? REMEMBER HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTION, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, "ARE YOU A CITIZEN HERE," BECAUSE HE WAS FROM FRANCE APPARENTLY AND SOMETHING ABOUT HIS JOB AND HIS LITTLE APARTMENT BECAUSE HE'S A CAR DETAILER.
            EVERYBODY IS ENTITLED TO DIGNITY.  THAT'S WHAT WE FOUGHT FOR IN THIS COUNTRY.  YOU DON'T TREAT WITNESSES WHO JUST COME IN HERE -- THEY DON'T GET PAID TO TELL THE TRUTH LIKE THAT -- JUST PURELY AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SAYING WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY IN YOUR CONTORTED VERSION OF WHAT THE TRUTH OUGHT TO BE.
            BUT YOU SAW THAT YOURSELF.  I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT.
            INTERESTING ENOUGH, THEY CHOSE NOT TO MENTION EVEN ONE OF THE DEFENSE WITNESSES IN MISS CLARK'S DISCUSSION OF HER TIME LINE.  THE  PROSECUTORS NOTED THAT NONE OF THEIR TIME LINE WITNESSES ASKED TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  WELL, NONE OF THE WITNESSES WE CALLED ASKED TO BE CALLED IN THIS CASE.  THEY CAME FORWARD.  YOU SAW HOW THEY WERE TREATED, AND YET, THEY TOLD YOU WHAT THEY OBSERVED.
            BUT PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THEM IS, THESE AREN'T ANY FAMILY MEMBERS. THESE AREN'T PEOPLE WHO KNOW O.J. SIMPSON.  THESE ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO HAPPENED TO BE OUT THERE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT.  AND I THINK YOU CAN NOW SEE FROM THAT GRAPHIC THAT THEY ALL PASSED BY THERE.
            WE TRIED TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS WE COULD.  IT'S COMMON SENSE.  IT'S COMMON SENSE JUST LIKE HE SAID.  IT BECOMES VERY, VERY CLEAR RIGHT AT THE OUTSET.
            SO IF YOU ACCEPT THE PROSECUTION'S SCENARIO, IT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR O.J. SIMPSON TO COMMIT THESE MURDERS GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THAT WE UNDERSTAND.
            LET ME JUST SUCCINCT IT AT THE VERY BEGINNING TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I AM GOING ON THIS.
            REMEMBER BODZIAK THEY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SO MUCH?  F. LEE BAILEY CROSS-EXAMINED BODZIAK THE FIRST TIME HE WAS HERE.  BAILEY GOT HIM TO SAY THIS REMARKABLE THING ABOUT WHOEVER LEFT OUT THAT BACK GATE TURNED AND WENT BACK THE OTHER WAY.  IT'S PRETTY INTERESTING BECAUSE -- I DIDN'T SEE ALL THOSE PRINTS,  BUT THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.
            THEY WENT BACK TO THE SCENE.  REMEMBER THAT?  THAT'S WHAT BODZIAK HAD SEEN.
            DARDEN SAID THIS MORNING THE KILLER OR KILLERS THAT WENT THAT WAY, THEY WEREN'T IN ANY HURRY.  THEY WENT THAT WAY AND THEN CAME BACK.
            YOU TAKE THAT ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE REGARDING THIS STRUGGLE TOOK BETWEEN FIVE TO 15 MINUTES.  NOW, THAT'S WHAT DR. HENRY LEE, DR. MICHAEL BADEN SAID.  THEY NOT ONLY TOLD YOU THAT, THEY SHOWED YOU WHY THAT WAS TRUE.
            YOU KNOW, WHILE I'M ABOUT IT, JUST TO DIGRESS FOR JUST A MOMENT, MR. DARDEN TALKED THIS MORNING ABOUT CALLING WITNESSES OR NOT CALLING WITNESSES.  ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?  NOW, THEY'RE THE PROSECUTORS.  THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE BURDEN. IN THE HISTORY OF MAN RUNNETH, NOT TO THE CONTRARY.
            NOBODY AROUND HERE CAN REMEMBER ANY TIME THAT THE CORONER WHO DID THE AUTOPSY, THE ACTUAL AUTOPSY ON THESE BODIES WASN'T CALLED BY THESE PROSECUTORS.  WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WAS?  THEY DIDN'T CALL THE CORONER.  THEY CHOSE INSTEAD TO CALL DR. LAKSHMANAN WHO CAME IN HERE.
            THEY SHOWED YOU WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT HIM.  THEY TALKED ABOUT THIS MAN SO BADLY.  I MEAN FOR EIGHT DAYS, WE HEARD DR. LAKSHMANAN TALK TO YOU. THEY TALK ABOUT LENGTH OF TIME IN THIS TRIAL.  LET ME PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU.
            FOR EIGHT DAYS, DR. LAKSHMANAN SAT ON THAT STAND AND WENT THROUGH DIRECT EXAMINATION BY BRIAN KELBERG.  CHECK YOUR NOTES IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT.  BOB SHAPIRO GOT UP AND TOOK THREE AND A HALF HOURS AND DEMOLISHED HIM, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, LAKSHMANAN TOLD YOU THIS:
      "WELL, THESE WERE DEATHS THAT WERE CAUSED BY STAB WOUNDS AND THE TIME OF DEATH WAS BETWEEN 9:00 AND 12:00."
            REMEMBER ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT BIG TICKET ITEMS, BIG TICKET ITEMS?  AND WHEN YOU GET BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM, YOU WILL HAVE A LOT OF FUN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ALL THOSE RED AND BLUE MARKS THAT THEY DREW OVER THE CORONER.
            THEY SPENT EIGHT DAYS TRASHING THEIR OWN CORONER AND THEY DIDN'T CALL HIM.  WHY IS THAT IN THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH?  THEY CALL SOMEBODY ELSE WHO'S NOT EVEN THERE AT THE AUTOPSIES WHO HAS THE BENEFIT OF OUR EXPERTS, MICHAEL BADEN AND BARBARA WOLF, WHO POINT OUT TO HIM THE MISTAKES THAT GOLDEN HAS MADE. HE THEN RUNS IN HERE AND TESTIFIES ABOUT THOSE MISTAKES THAT WE HAD DISCOVERED.
            REMEMBER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IN THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH, OUR EXPERTS WERE IN PLACE RIGHT AWAY.  O.J. SIMPSON WAS PAYING FOR THESE EXPERTS TO FIND THE KILLER OR KILLERS.
            AND YOU'LL RECALL THE EVIDENCE THAT DR. LEE, MICHAEL BADEN, BARBARA WOLF WERE OFFERED  THEM AT THE BEGINNING.  SO THE IDEA IS FROM THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH.  AND SO I MENTION THAT PARENTHETICALLY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
            YOU TALK ABOUT NOT CALLING WITNESSES IN EVERY MURDER CASE, IT'S BASIC THAT YOU'VE GOT TO CALL THE CORONER.  BUT THEY DID A NUMBER OF THINGS IN THIS CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT HAD NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE.
            OF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS, FOUR DETECTIVES GOING TO THE SCENE TO NOTIFY SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT EVEN A NEXT OF KIN.  A DETECTIVE CARRIES BLOOD 25 OR 30 MILES AROUND IN HIS POCKET.
            THEY DO THINGS THAT YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE IN THIS CASE.  IS IT BECAUSE IT'S ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON?
            AND SO AS WE LOOK THEN AT THE TIME LINE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS TIME LINE, I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THESE WORDS.  LIKE THE DEFINING MOMENT IN THIS TRIAL, THE DAY MR. DARDEN ASKED MR. SIMPSON TO TRY ON THOSE GLOVES AND THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT, REMEMBER THESE WORDS; IF IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.  AND WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THAT THROUGHOUT.
            SO TO SUMMARIZE, IF YOU TAKE THE WITNESSES THAT WE PRESENTED WHO STAND UNIMPEACHED, UNIMPEACHED, AND IF YOU ARE LEFT WITH DOGS STARTING TO BARK AT 10:35 OR 10:40, 10:40 LET'S SAY -- AND WE  KNOW FROM THE MOST QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS, HENRY LEE AND MICHAEL BADEN, THIS WAS A STRUGGLE THAT TOOK FROM FIVE TO 15 MINUTES.  IT'S ALREADY 10:55.  AND REMEMBER, THE THUMPS WERE AT 10:40 OR 10:45 -- O.J. SIMPSON COULD NOT BE GUILTY.  HE IS THEN ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL.

 *********

            CONTINUING ON, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT MR. SIMPSON EVER TRIED TO HIDE A KNIFE OR CLOTHES OR ANYTHING ELSE ON HIS PROPERTY. YOU'LL RECALL THAT FUHRMAN -- AND WHEN I GET TO FUHRMAN, WE'LL BE SPENDING SOME TIME ON HIM AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE.  BUT ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAID WAS THAT HE ENCOUNTERED COBWEBS FURTHER DOWN THAT WALKWAY, INDICATING, IF THAT PART IS TRUE -- AND I DON'T VOUCH FOR HIM AT ALL -- THERE HAD BEEN NOBODY DOWN THAT PATHWAY FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
            AND SO SHE TALKS ABOUT O.J. BEING VERY, VERY RECOGNIZABLE.  SHE TALKS ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON GETTING DRESSED UP TO GO COMMIT THESE MURDERS.
            JUST BEFORE WE BREAK FOR OUR BREAK, I WAS THINKING -- I WAS THINKING LAST NIGHT ABOUT THIS CASE AND THEIR THEORY AND HOW IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AND HOW IT DIDN'T FIT AND HOW SOMETHING IS WRONG.  IT OCCURRED TO ME HOW THEY WERE GOING TO COME HERE, STAND UP HERE AND TELL YOU HOW O.J. SIMPSON WAS GOING TO DISGUISE HIMSELF.
            HE WAS GOING TO PUT ON A KNIT CAP AND SOME DARK CLOTHES, AND HE WAS GOING TO GET IN HIS WHITE BRONCO, THIS RECOGNIZABLE PERSON, AND GO OVER AND KILL HIS WIFE.  THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE.  THAT'S HOW SILLY THEIR ARGUMENT IS.
            AND I SAID TO MYSELF, MAYBE I CAN DEMONSTRATE THIS GRAPHICALLY.  LET ME SHOW YOU SOMETHING.  THIS IS A KNIT CAP.  LET ME PUT THIS KNIT  CAP ON (INDICATING).
            YOU HAVE SEEN ME FOR A YEAR.  IF I PUT THIS KNIT CAP ON, WHO AM I?  I'M STILL JOHNNIE COCHRAN WITH A KNIT CAP.
            AND IF YOU LOOKED AT O.J. SIMPSON OVER THERE -- AND HE HAS A RATHER LARGE HEAD -- O.J. SIMPSON IN A KNIT CAP FROM TWO BLOCKS AWAY IS STILL O.J. SIMPSON.  IT'S NO DISGUISE.  IT'S NO DISGUISE. IT MAKES NO SENSE.  IT DOESN'T FIT.  IF IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.
  *****
 

            THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.  WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THIS CASE, PROVED THINGS, HOWEVER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.
            SO IF A WITNESS WASN'T CALLED, DON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST O.J. SIMPSON.  YOU HOLD THAT AGAINST ME.  AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HOLD THAT AGAINST ME BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.
            AND REMEMBER, THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY INSTRUCTED YOU AS FOLLOWS, AND LET ME READ IT TO YOU AGAIN SO THAT WE MAKE THIS CLEAR.
            MAYBE MR. DARDEN WILL REMEMBER THIS.
                "THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EACH ELEMENT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION AND THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A PERPETRATOR OF ANY SUCH CRIMES -- SUCH CHARGED CRIME.  THE DEFENDANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE HIMSELF INNOCENT OR TO PROVE THAT ANOTHER PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIMES CHARGED."
            WELL, THAT LAW IS NOT JUST FOR O.J. SIMPSON.  THAT IS THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR EVERYONE, AND THEY KNOW IT.
            I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING IN THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH, IN YOUR COURAGE, WE CANNOT LET THEM TURN THE CONSTITUTION ON ITS HEAD.
            I AM GOING TO BE THE REMINDER OF THAT.

 *************

            SO THEY TOOK THAT VIDEO -- YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLY ON.  LAPD SHOULD ALWAYS TAKE VIDEOS OF EVERYTHING AT THAT CRIME SCENE.  THEY DON'T DO THAT.  BUT THEY TOOK THIS VIDEO NOT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO HELP MR. SIMPSON.  IF ANYTHING WAS MISSING OR GOT BROKEN, THIS WAS A CIVIL LIABILITY VIDEO. REMEMBER, THEY WERE GOING AROUND TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE MISSING OF WHATEVER IF THERE WAS EVER A SUIT LATER ON.
 
            BUT THEY GOT HOISTED BY THEIR OWN PETARD AGAIN BECAUSE THE VIDEO HAS THE COUNTER AND THE NUMBER.  THEY WILL NEVER, EVER BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE TESTIMONY IN BLACK AND WHITE AS WHEN THEY WENT UPSTAIRS AND COLLECTED  THEM.
            THOSE SOCKS FROM THE BEGINNING IS GOING TO BRING THEM DOWN.  SO THOSE ARE THE SOCKS, THESE SOCKS.  NO DIRT, NO SOIL, NO BERRIES, NO TRACE. NOBODY SEES ANY BLOOD UNTIL AUGUST 4TH.  ALL THESE MIRACULOUS THINGS START HAPPENING, AND THEN -- MR. SCHECK WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THIS.  THEN WE FIND OUT IT HAS EDTA IN IT.
            IS IT PLANTED ALONG WITH THAT BACK GATE? HOW WOULD IT BE ON THERE?  WHY DIDN'T THEY SEE THE BLOOD BEFORE THAT?  THERE'S A BIG FIGHT HERE.  WHERE IS THE DIRT?  WHY WOULD MR. SIMPSON HAVE ON THESE KIND OF SOCKS WITH A SWEAT OUTFIT?
            WAIT A MINUTE.  NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LIKE FROM THE FASHION POLICE TO KNOW THAT.  YOU DON'T WEAR THOSE KINDS OF SOCKS.  YOU WEAR THOSE KIND OF SOCKS WITH A SUIT.  YOU DON'T WEAR THOSE KIND OF SOCKS WITH A SWEAT OUTFIT.
            DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU THAT THOSE SOCKS WERE IN THAT HAMPER FROM SATURDAY NIGHT WHEN MR. SIMPSON WENT TO THAT FORMAL EVENT?  THOSE KIND OF SOCKS IS WHAT YOU WEAR WITH YOUR TUXEDO WHEN HE WAS DRESSED WITH THOSE OTHER LADIES.  THEY WENT AND TOOK IT OUT OF THE HAMPER AND STAGED IT THERE, AND YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENED.
            IS THAT NOT REASONABLE UNDER THESE FACTS?  I THINK YOU'LL AGREE IT IS.  IT'S THE ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION.  IT'S POSED THERE.  AND THE  REASON FOR DOING THIS IS BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT OF PLACE.
            BUT ISN'T THAT INTERESTING, IN THE HAMPER IN WHICH LUPER WENT AND THEY ALL WENT, THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANYTHING ELSE?  YOU'D THINK THE POLICE WOULD ASK MR. SIMPSON, "WHAT WERE YOU WEARING?  IN ADDITION TO THE SUIT, WHAT WERE YOU WEARING THAT NIGHT?"
            THEY DIDN'T TAKE ONE THING.  YET WE HEAR ALL THIS TALK ABOUT, I WONDER WHERE THE CLOTHES WENT, I WONDER WHERE THE CLOTHES WENT.  YOU'D THINK MR. SIMPSON, WHO TOLD THEM EVERYTHING, COOPERATED WITH THEM FULLY, TOLD THEM, LIKE HE TOLD THEM ABOUT THOSE SHOES, WHAT HE WAS WEARING.  THEY DIDN'T BOTHER COLLECTING THOSE, DID THEY?  NO TOWELS, NO NOTHING.
            SHE'S WORRIED ABOUT HIM TAKING THIS QUICK SHOWER.  IF HE TOOK A SHOWER, THERE'S SO MUCH BLOOD, HE'S COVERED WITH BLOOD, WHY DIDN'T THEY BRING THE TOWELS IN HERE?  SOMETHING IS WRONG IN THIS CASE.  IT JUST DOESN'T FIT.  WHEN IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.
            SO THE SOCKS -- I COULD TALK ABOUT THESE SOCKS FOREVER, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE MR. SCHECK WILL TALK ABOUT THE FORENSIC ASPECT OF IT.  BUT LET ME JUST REMIND YOU OF TWO QUICK MORE THINGS.
            DR. HERBERT MAC DONELL CAME IN HERE AND HE TOLD YOU THERE WAS NO SPLATTER OR SPATTER ON THESE SOCKS.  THESE SOCKS HAD COMPRESSION TRANSFER, AND HE  USED HIS HANDS TO SHOW YOU SOMEBODY TOOK THOSE SOCKS AND THEY PUT SOMETHING ON THEM AND IT WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO SIDE 3.
            NOW, WITH ALL THEIR EXPERTS BRINGING PEOPLE BACK THREE, FOUR TIMES, THEY NEVER HAD ANYBODY TO CONTRAVENE THAT.  HOW DID THAT GET OVER TO SIDE 3? HOW DID IT GET OVER THERE?  IT WOULDN'T GET THERE IF THERE WAS A LEG IN THE SOCK.  CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN THAT?  CAN ANY OF YOU EXPLAIN THAT?  MAYBE MISS CLARK CAN EXPLAIN THAT.  EXPERTS CAN'T EXPLAIN IT. SOMETHING IS WRONG.
            THEN FINALLY THE EDTA WHICH INDICATES THE ANTICOAGULANT FROM A PURPLE TOP TUBE IS WHERE THAT BLOOD IS FROM.  THE SOCKS, AS YOU KNOW, ARE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO GET EMOTIONAL ABOUT BECAUSE WE'VE KNOWN ABOUT THESE SOCKS FOR SOME TIME.  THIS IS TO SAY THE LEAST DISTURBING.  IT'S WORSE THAN THAT THOUGH.
            IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, I TOLD YOU ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE COMPROMISED, CONTAMINATED AND CORRUPTED AND I TOLD YOU SOMETHING THEN.  I SAID IN THIS CASE, THERE'S SOMETHING EVEN FAR MORE SINISTER. THE SOCKS ARE ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT.
            NOW, IF YOU WANT TO BE FAIR DECIDING THIS CASE, YOU'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH THESE SOCKS.  YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO SEE THEM.  LOOK FOR THE DIRT THAT YOU EXPECT ON THEM.  LOOK FOR THE SPATTER THAT YOU EXPECT ON THEM.  LOOK AND SEE WHY IT WENT OVER TO SIDE 3.  THERE'S A LEG IN IT.
            NOW, ISN'T IT INTERESTING HOW YOU GET THIS BLOOD ON THIS SOCK WITH YOUR PANTS?  YOUR PANTS HAVE TO BE ALMOST UP.  THIS WOULD TAKE A REAL CONTORTION TO DO IT.  THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD EXPLAIN IT.  SO LET'S JUST LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS AND MR. SCHECK WILL PICK UP ON THAT.

[DISCUSSING FURHMAN'S TESTIMONY]

            AND THEN MY COLLEAGUE, LEE BAILEY, WHO CAN'T BE WITH US TODAY, BUT GOD BLESS HIM, WHEREVER HE IS, DID HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS INDIVIDUAL AND HE ASKED SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS.  SOME OF YOU PROBABLY WONDERED, "I WONDER WHY HE'S ASKING THAT."
            HE ASKED THIS MAN WHETHER OR NOT HE EVER MET KATHLEEN BELL.  OF COURSE, HE LIED ABOUT THAT.
      "NEVER MET THIS WOMAN.  I DON'T RECOGNIZE HER.  I DON'T KNOW HER,  GEE, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT."
            BOY, AND HE SOUNDED REALLY CONVINCING, DIDN'T HE?
 
 
 
            HE SAYS, QUOTE:
      "I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THIS WOMAN AS ANYBODY I HAVE EVER MET."
            THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.  THEN BAILEY SAYS:
      "HAVE YOU USED THAT WORD, REFERRING TO THE 'N' WORD, IN THE PAST 10 YEARS?
      "NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
      "YOU MEAN, IF YOU CALL SOMEONE A NIGGER, YOU HAD FORGOTTEN IT?
      "I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION THE WAY IT'S PHRASED, SIR."
             AND THEY GO ON.  HE SAYS, "WELL --" AND THEN PINS HIM DOWN.
                "I WANT YOU TO ASSUME THAT PERHAPS AT SOME TIME SINCE 1985 OR '86, YOU ADDRESSED A MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE AS A NIGGER.  IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT ACT ON YOUR PART?
                "ANSWER:  NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
                "ARE YOU, THEREFORE, SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NOT USED THAT WORD IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
 
      "ANSWER:  YES.  THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
                "QUESTION:  AND YOU SAY UNDER
OATH THAT YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY BLACK          PERSON AS A NIGGER OR SPOKEN ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE AS NIGGERS IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
                "THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, SIR.
                "SO THAT ANYONE WHO COMES TO
THIS COURT AND QUOTES YOU AS USING THAT WORD IN DEALING WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS  WOULD BE A LIAR; WOULD THEY NOT, DETECTIVE       FUHRMAN?
                "YES, THEY WOULD.
                "ALL OF THEM, CORRECT?
                "ALL OF THEM."
            THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD YOU UNDER OATH IN THIS CASE.  DID HE LIE?  DID HE LIE?  DID HE LIE UNDER OATH?  DID THIS KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS LIE  UNDER OATH?  AND I'M GOING TO END THIS PART AND RESUME WITH HIM TOMORROW MORNING.  DID HE LIE?
            AND THEY TRY TO TELL YOU IT'S NOT IMPORTANT.  LET'S REMEMBER THIS MAN.  THIS IS THE MAN WHO WAS OFF THIS CASE SHORTLY AFTER 2:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING RIGHT AFTER HE GOT ON IT.  THIS IS THE MAN WHO DIDN'T WANT TO BE OFF THIS CASE.  THIS IS THE MAN, WHEN THEY'RE RINGING THE DOOR BELL AT ASHFORD, WHO GOES FOR A WALK.  AND HE DESCRIBES HOW HE'S STROLLING.
            LET ME QUOTE HIM FOR YOU.  HERE'S WHAT HE SAYS:
      "I WAS JUST STROLLING ALONG LOOKING AT THE HOUSE.  MAYBE I COULD SEE SOME MOVEMENT INSIDE.  I WAS JUST WALKING WHILE THE OTHER THREE DETECTIVES WERE DOWN THERE."
            AND THAT'S WHEN HE WALKS DOWN AND HE'S THE ONE WHO SAYS THE BRONCO WAS PARKED ASKEW AND HE SEES SOME SPOT ON THE DOOR.  HE MAKES ALL OF THE DISCOVERIES.
            HE'S GOT TO BE THE BIG MAN BECAUSE HE'S HAD IT IN FOR O.J. BECAUSE OF HIS VIEWS SINCE '85. THIS IS THE MAN, HE'S THE GUY WHO CLIMBS OVER THE FENCE.  HE'S THE GUY WHO GOES IN AND TALKS TO KATO KAELIN WHILE THE OTHER DETECTIVES ARE TALKING TO THE FAMILY.  HE'S THE GUY WHO'S SHINING A LIGHT IN KATO KAELIN'S EYES.  HE'S THE GUY LOOKING AT SHOES AND LOOKING FOR SUSPECTS.  HE'S THE GUY WHO'S DOING THESE  THINGS.
            HE'S THE GUY WHO SAYS, "I DON'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT THE THUMPS ON THE WALL."  HE'S THE GUY WHO'S OFF THIS CASE WHO'S SUPPOSEDLY THERE TO HELP THIS MAN, OUR CLIENT, O.J. SIMPSON, WHO THEN GOES OUT ALL BY HIMSELF, ALL BY HIMSELF.
 
            NOW, HE'S WORRIED ABOUT BODIES OR SUSPECTS OR WHATEVER.  HE DOESN'T EVEN TAKE OUT HIS GUN.  HE GOES AROUND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AND LO AND BEHOLD, HE CLAIMS HE FINDS THIS GLOVE AND HE SAYS THE GLOVE IS STILL MOIST AND STICKY.
            NOW, UNDER THEIR THEORY, AT 10:40, 10:45, THAT GLOVE IS DROPPED.  HOW MANY HOURS IS THAT?  IT'S NOW AFTER 6:00 O'CLOCK.  SO WHAT IS THAT?  SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS.  THE TESTIMONY ABOUT DRYING TIME AROUND HERE, NO DEW POINT THAT NIGHT.   WHY WOULD IT BE MOIST AND STICKY UNLESS HE BROUGHT IT OVER THERE AND PLANTED IT THERE TO TRY TO MAKE THIS CASE?  AND THERE IS A CAUCASIAN HAIR ON THAT GLOVE.
            THIS MAN CANNOT BE TRUSTED.  HE IS SINFUL TO THE PROSECUTION, AND FOR THEM TO SAY HE'S NOT IMPORTANT IS UNTRUE AND YOU WILL NOT FALL FOR IT, BECAUSE AS GUARDIANS OF JUSTICE HERE, WE CAN'T LET IT HAPPEN.
 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1995
                     9:01 A.M.

 
                CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED)
 
 ****

         THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION DURING THIS FIRST PART OF MY ARGUMENT.
            I HOPE THAT DURING THIS PHASE OF IT I HAVE DEMONSTRATED TO YOU THAT THIS REALLY IS A CASE ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AN OBSESSION TO WIN, AT ALL COSTS, A WILLINGNESS TO DISTORT, TWIST, THEORIZE IN ANY FASHION TO TRY TO GET YOU TO VOTE GUILTY IN THIS CASE WHERE IT IS NOT WARRANTED, THAT THESE METAPHORS ABOUT AN OCEAN OF EVIDENCE OR A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE IS LITTLE MORE THAN A TINY, TINY STREAM, IF AT ALL, THAT POINTS EQUALLY TOWARD INNOCENCE, THAT ANY MOUNTAIN HAS LONG AGO BEEN REDUCED TO LITTLE MORE THAN A MOLEHILL UNDER AN AVALANCHE OF LIES AND COMPLEXITY AND CONSPIRACY.
            THIS IS WHAT WE'VE SHOWN YOU.
            AND SO AS GREAT AS AMERICA IS, WE HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE POINT WHERE THERE IS EQUALITY IN RIGHTS OR EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
            I STARTED OFF TALKING TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FREDERICK DOUGLAS AND WHAT HE SAID MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, FOR THERE ARE STILL THE MARK  FUHRMANS IN THIS WORLD, IN THIS COUNTRY, WHO HATE AND ARE YET EMBRACED BY PEOPLE IN POWER.
            BUT YOU AND I, FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND IDEALS AND FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL, MUST CONTINUE TO FIGHT TO EXPOSE HATE AND GENOCIDAL RACISM AND THESE TENDENCIES.
            WE THEN BECOME THE GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY, FOR IF WE AS THE PEOPLE DON'T CONTINUE TO HOLD A MIRROR UP TO THE FACE OF AMERICA AND SAY THIS IS WHAT YOU PROMISED, THIS IS WHAT YOU DELIVERED, IF YOU DON'T SPEAK OUT, IF YOU DON'T STAND UP, IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT'S RIGHT, THIS KIND OF CONDUCT WILL CONTINUE ON FOREVER AND WE WILL NEVER HAVE AN IDEAL SOCIETY, ONE THAT LIVES OUT THE TRUE MEANING OF THE CREED OF THE CONSTITUTION OR OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
            I'M GOING TO TAKE MY SEAT, BUT I GET ONE LAST TIME TO ADDRESS YOU, AS I SAID BEFORE.
            THIS IS A CASE ABOUT AN INNOCENT MAN WRONGFULLY ACCUSED.  YOU HAVE SEEN HIM NOW FOR A YEAR AND TWO DAYS.  YOU OBSERVED HIM DURING GOOD TIMES AND THE BAD TIMES.
            SOON IT WILL BE YOUR TURN.  YOU HAVE THE KEYS TO HIS FUTURE.  YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE BY WHICH YOU CAN ACQUIT THIS MAN.  YOU HAVE NOT ONLY THE PATIENCE, BUT THE INTEGRITY AND THE COURAGE TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
            WE BELIEVE YOU WILL DO THE RIGHT THING,  AND THE RIGHT THING IS TO FIND THIS MAN NOT GUILTY ON BOTH OF THESE CHARGES.
            THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.
            I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION.
 

                     CLOSING ARGUMENT
 
BY MR. SCHECK:

            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, GOOD MORNING.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      MR. SCHECK:  LET ME JOIN WITH EVERYBODY IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
            I CAN -- THE FRUSTRATION, THE LONELINESS, THE SACRIFICE YOU HAVE MADE IN THIS SEQUESTRATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE UNDERSTAND OR WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
            AS THE JUDGE HAS POINTED OUT A NUMBER OF TIMES, MY COLLEAGUE, MR. NEUFELD AND I, WE ARE FROM NEW YORK CITY.  MORE SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE FROM BROOKLYN, AND WE'VE BEEN OUT HERE QUITE UNEXPECTEDLY FOR A LOT OF MONTHS.
            AND I REMEMBER WHEN THAT DETECTIVE FROM CHICAGO TESTIFIED ABOUT HAVING THOSE KEYS THAT YOU STICK IN AND OUT OF THE DOORS AND LITTLE LIGHTS GO ON, UMM, EVERY DAY GOING IN AND OUT OF THOSE DOORS AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY, EVERYTHING REPEATING ITSELF, THE MONOTONY, THE LONELINESS, THE FRUSTRATION.
            WE SIT AROUND AND WE TALK SOMETIMES IN AMAZEMENT AT HOW YOU DEAL WITH THIS AND HOW APPRECIATIVE WE ARE AND -- WELL, IT IS JUST REALLY A HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO PRESENT THIS CASE TO YOU.
            AND AS LAWYERS THAT DEALT WITH SOME OF THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS DETAILED AND COMPLICATED, AND I'M SURE I SPEAK FOR MYSELF, MR. BLASIER, MR. NEUFELD, MR. CLARKE, FOR THE PROSECUTION, MR. GOLDBERG, THAT WE HAD A JOB.
            OUR JOB WAS TO MAKE IT SIMPLE, TO MAKE IT COGENT WITHOUT SACRIFICING ANY MEANINGFUL DETAIL. THAT IS OUR JOB.
            AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW APPRECIATIVE WE ARE BECAUSE YOU PAID ATTENTION, YOU WERE PATIENT, YOU FOLLOWED THE EVIDENCE.  I KNOW THAT.  I WATCHED IT.

[SCHECK DISCUSSES THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE]

            AND OF COURSE YOU KNOW THE BRONCO.  HOW CAN YOU TRUST THE BRONCO?  CHAIN OF CUSTODY.  HOW CAN YOU TRUST THAT?  THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN TRUST ABOUT THE BRONCO AND HOW THEY HANDLED IT.
            THEN THE GLOVES.  THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT. THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT.  THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT.
            REASONABLE DOUBT.

 ****************

            SO WHAT I'VE TRIED TO DO IN MY REMARKS IS REVIEW WITH YOU ESSENTIAL PIECES, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE.
            AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.  WE DON'T HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS CASE.
            AND EACH ESSENTIAL PIECE, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY, THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT AND SOME, SOME OF THESE ARE SO PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING IN TERMS OF THE MANUFACTURING OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THAT I'M SURE YOU REALLY CAN'T ABIDE IT, NOT IN THIS COUNTRY, NOT IN THIS DEMOCRACY CAN WE ALLOW DISHONEST MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE TO LIE AT THE HEART OF A CASE LIKE THIS.
            IT CANNOT BE.  YOU CANNOT TRUST.  I MEAN, YOU CANNOT GO BACK AND SAY, WELL, MAYBE THEY PLANTED EVIDENCE ON THE GLOVE.  MAYBE ON THE BACK GATE.  OH, THERE IS BLOOD MISSING.  BIG DEAL.  HOW CAN THAT BE A BIG DEAL?
            THAT IS -- MANY, MANY REASONABLE DOUBTS IMBEDDED IN ALL OF THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE IS A FOURTH C, CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, BUT THERE IS A FOURTH C THAT GOES ALONG WITH HOW THESE THINGS HAPPENED THAT RELATES TO THIS TESTIMONY, AND THE FOURTH C HAS TO DO WITH COVER-UP, AND I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE STATEMENTS OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE COVER-UP OF MR. FUHRMAN THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU SO ELOQUENTLY IN THE LAST TWO DAYS.

 *****

            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.  I'VE TRIED TO REASON THROUGH THIS EVIDENCE, DRAWING THE FAIR INFERENCES AS BEST WE COULD LOOKING AT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE, AND I JUST THINK THERE IS VERY LITTLE QUESTION HERE, IS THERE?
            SO MUCH OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE JUST SHOT THROUGH WITH REASONABLE DOUBT. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG.  THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE.
            SOMEBODY MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  THERE IS HISSING BLOOD.  THERE IS EDTA.  THERE IS QUESTIONS, SERIOUS DEEPLY TROUBLING QUESTIONS.
            YOU MUST DISTRUST IT.  YOU HAVE TO DISTRUST IT.
            YOU CANNOT RENDER A VERDICT IN THIS CASE OF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ON THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IF YOU DO, NO ONE IS SAFE, NO ONE.
            THE CONSTITUTION MEANS NOTHING.
            THIS CANNOT, WILL NOT, SHALL NOT HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY WITH YOU GOOD PEOPLE.
            IT JUST WON'T.
            THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, MR. SCHECK.
 

CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR COCHRAN (CONTINUED)

 ********
 

            AND YOU HEARD ALL ABOUT BRUNO MAGLI SHOES AND BRUNO MAGLI SHOES AND WE SEARCHED ALL AROUND THE  WORLD AND WE WENT TO BLOOMINGDALES, AND WHAT WE DID WE FIND THERE IS NOBODY WHO EVER SOLD O.J. SIMPSON ANY BRUNO MAGLI SHOES.
            THEY SEARCHED.  THEY TRIED.  THEY NEVER SOLD HIM ANY SHOES, SO THEY ARE BACK TALKING ABOUT BRUNO MAGLI SHOES.  I MEAN, THERE MUST BE EVERY OTHER HOUSE IN BRENTWOOD.  I GUESS IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO AFFORD SOME BRUNO MAGLIS SHOES, I GUESS THEY COULD.
            THAT IS THEIR CASE.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD ANY BRUNO MAGLI SHOES EVER.  IN FACT, WHEN LANGE IS LOOKING FOR THE CLOTHES AND O.J. SIMPSON SAYS THIS IS WHAT HE WORE, HERE ARE THE TENNIS SHOES, HE TOOK ONLY TENNIS SHOES THAT NIGHT.
            THERE ARE -- IS NO EVIDENCE THAT O.J. SIMPSON EVER OWNED ANY BRUNO MAGLI SHOES, AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT.
 
 ********

            THIS CASE IS A TRAGEDY FOR EVERYBODY, FOR CERTAINLY THE VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES, FOR THE SIMPSON'S FAMILY, AND THEY ARE VICTIMS, TOO, BECAUSE THEY LOST THE EX DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, FOR THE DEFENDANT.
            HE HAS BEEN IN CUSTODY SINCE JUNE OF 1994 FOR A CRIME THAT HE DIDN'T COMMIT.
            SOMEONE HAS TAKEN THESE CHILDREN'S MOTHER.  I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOUR DECISION DOESN'T TAKE THEIR FATHER AND THAT JUSTICE IS FINALLY ACHIEVED IN THIS CASE.
 
 

            NOW, AS IT COMES TIME FOR ME TO CONCLUDE MY REMARKS, I MAY NEVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AGAIN TO SPEAK TO YOU, CERTAINLY NOT IN THIS SETTING, MAYBE WHEN THE CASE IS OVER.
            AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MANY, MANY TIMES, THESE ARE VERY HEAVY BURDENS PLACED UPON THE PEOPLE, AND FOR GOOD REASON, TO PROVE THIS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
            AS SUCH IT IS MISS CLARK'S DUTY TO ANSWER FOR YOU AS BEST SHE CAN ANY LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE EVIDENCE WHICH WE BELIEVE CASTS DOUBT UPON MR. SIMPSON'S GUILT.
            THERE MAY BE 1000 SUCH QUESTIONS IN A  CASE LIKE THIS WHICH COULD BE PUT TO HER, BUT WE INTEND NO SUCH EXERCISE.  I DO THINK, AFTER CAREFUL DELIBERATION, THAT IT MIGHT BE FAIR TO SUGGEST FIFTEEN QUESTIONS, JUST FIFTEEN QUESTIONS WHICH LITERALLY HANG IN THE AIR IN THIS COURTROOM AT THIS MOMENT.
            AND AS THE TIME APPROACHES FOR YOU TO DECIDE THIS CASE, FOR US TO HAND THE BATON TO YOU.
            I OFFER THESE QUESTIONS NOW AS A MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGE TO THE PROSECUTION, THE PROSECUTION WHICH CLAIMS THAT IT HAS MET ITS BURDEN IN THIS CASE.
            IF THAT BURDEN HAS IN FACT BEEN MET, YOU WILL BE GIVEN LOGICAL, SENSIBLE, CREDIBLE, SATISFYING ANSWERS TO EACH OF THESE FIFTEEN QUESTIONS.  IF THE QUESTIONS ARE OVERWHELMING AND UNANSWERABLE, THEY WILL BE IGNORED OR YOU WILL BE TOLD THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS NO OBLIGATION TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
            IF YOU ARE GIVEN ANYTHING LESS THAN A COMPLETE SENSIBLE AND SATISFACTORY RESPONSE, SATISFYING YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO THESE FIFTEEN QUESTIONS, YOU WILL QUICKLY REALIZE THAT THE CASE REALLY IS TRANSPARENT AND YOU WILL THINK ABOUT THE SCENARIO THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH FOR YOU AND THAT -- THE TERM SMOKE AND MIRRORS THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE DEFENSE.
            WE PROVED REAL HARD THINGS FOR YOU, THINGS THAT YOU CAN SEE, THINGS YOU COULD TAKE BACK  IN THAT JURY ROOM.
            AND ACCORDINGLY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND MR. SIMPSON NOT GUILTY.
            WHEN I'M CONCLUDED, FOR MISS CLARK'S CONVENIENCE, SHOULD SHE DECIDE TO DEAL WITH THESE VERY TROUBLESOME QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO LEAVE HER A WRITTEN LIST OF THESE QUESTIONS HERE WHEN I CONCLUDE.
            LET ME GO OVER THESE FIFTEEN QUESTIONS WITH YOU JUST BRIEFLY.

[COCHRAN PRESENTS 15 QUESTIONS]

          IN TIMES LIKE THESE WE OFTEN TURN TO THE BIBLE FOR SOME ANSWERS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHEN YOU'VE GOT SITUATIONS LIKE THIS AND YOU WANT TO GET AN ANSWER AND YOU WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND.
            I HAPPEN TO REALLY LIKE THE BOOK OF PROVERBS AND IN PROVERBS IT TALKS A LOT ABOUT FALSE WITNESSES.
            IT SAYS THAT A FALSE WITNESS SHALL NOT BE UNPUNISHED AND HE THAT SPEAKETH LIES SHALL NOT ESCAPE.
            THAT MEANT A LOT TO ME IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE WAS MARK FUHRMAN ACTING LIKE A CHOIRBOY, MAKING YOU BELIEVE HE WAS THE BEST WITNESS THAT WALKED IN HERE, GENERALLY APPLAUDED FOR HIS WONDERFUL PERFORMANCE.
            IT TURNS OUT HE WAS THE BIGGEST LIAR IN  THIS COURTROOM DURING THIS PROCESS, FOR THE BIBLE HAD ALREADY TOLD US THE ANSWER, THAT A FALSE WITNESS SHALL NOT BE UNPUNISHED AND HE THAT SPEAKETH LIES SHALL NOT ESCAPE.
            IN THAT SAME BOOK IT TELLS US THAT A FAITHFUL WITNESS WILL NOT LIE BUT A FALSE WITNESS WILL UTTER LIES.
            FINALLY IN PROVERBS IT SAYS THAT HE THAT SPEAKETH THE TRUTH SHOWETH THE FORTHRIGHTFULNESS BUT A FALSE WITNESS SHOWS DECEIT.
            SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRUTH, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRUTH AND LIES AND CONSPIRACIES AND COVER-UPS, I ALWAYS THINK ABOUT ONE OF MY FAVORITE POEMS, WHICH I THINK IS SO VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS CASE.
            YOU KNOW WHEN THINGS ARE AT THE DARKEST THERE IS ALWAYS LIGHT THE NEXT DAY.  IN YOUR LIFE, IN ALL OF OUR LIVES, YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TRANSFORM MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S DARK YESTERDAY INTO BRIGHT TOMORROW.  YOU HAVE THAT CAPACITY.  YOU HAVE THAT POWER IN YOUR HAND.
            AND JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL SAID IT BEST ABOUT WRONG AND EVIL.  HE SAID THAT TRUTH FOREVER ON THE SCAFFOLD, WRONG FOREVER ON THE THROWN, YET THAT SCAFFOLD SWAYS THE FUTURE AND BEYOND THE DIM UNKNOWN STANDETH GOD WITHIN THE SHADOWS, KEEPING WATCH ABOVE HIS OWN.
            YOU WALK WITH THAT EVERYDAY, YOU CARRY  THAT WITH YOU AND THINGS WILL COME TO YOU AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO REVEAL PEOPLE WHO COME TO YOU IN UNIFORMS AND HIGH POSITIONS WHO LIE AND ARE CORRUPT.
            THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE AND SO THE TRUTH IS NOW OUT.  IT IS NOW UP TO YOU.  WE ARE GOING TO PASS THIS BATON TO YOU SOON.
            YOU WILL DO THE RIGHT THING.  YOU HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT FOR JUSTICE.  YOU WILL DO THE RIGHT THING.
            I WILL SOME DAY GO ON TO OTHER CASES, NO DOUBT AS WILL MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN.  JUDGE ITO WILL TRY ANOTHER CASE SOME DAY, I HOPE, BUT THIS IS O.J. SIMPSON'S ONE DAY IN COURT.
            BY YOUR DECISION YOU CONTROL HIS VERY LIFE YOUR HANDS.  TREAT IT CAREFULLY.  TREAT IT FAIRLY.  BE FAIR.
            DON'T BE PART OF THIS CONTINUING COVER-UP.  DO THE RIGHT THING REMEMBERING THAT IF IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT, THAT IF THESE MESSENGERS HAVE LIED TO YOU, YOU CAN'T TRUST THEIR MESSAGE, THAT THIS HAS BEEN A SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
            THAT NO MATTER HOW BAD IT LOOKS, IF TRUTH IS OUT THERE ON A SCAFFOLD AND WRONG IS IN HERE ON THE THRONE, WHEN THAT SCAFFOLD SWAYS THE FUTURE AND BEYOND THE DIM UNKNOWN STANDETH THE SAME GOD FOR ALL PEOPLE KEEPING WATCH ABOVE HIS OWN.
            HE WATCHES ALL OF US AND HE WILL WATCH YOU IN YOUR DECISION.
            THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
            GOD BLESS YOU.
[close]
« Last Edit: March 05, 2024, 09:51:42 am by Nightwing »

Offline Yovko

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Yovko
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #67 on: March 05, 2024, 09:48:21 am »
Spoiler
Official Statment Pumti Finally didnt loose a flag

 8) 8) 8) PROFESSIONAL FLAGGING

And because the other team was utter shite
I take personal offense to that statement.
1v1 me in among US Dan hit the button!!!!

saw US in all caps and my eyes widened just for it to be an among us mentioned and not USA mentioned 💔
I feel your pain, Yovko hates me for being born on that continent.
[close]
I wear my tags with Honor in the 84th and that is why my howitzer shots NEVER MISS!!
@84th @GlennofNW Can we get a statement on Yovko´s claim of never missing a howitzer shot

I can confirm Yovko never misses. If the howitzer doesn’t get a kill, it’s because the enemy tanked.
This is a lie. I've seen him miss with my own eyes
Your eyesight is not what it used to be old man  ;D ;D ;D

Offline Pumti

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • Stand Brave Men!
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Pummo
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #68 on: March 06, 2024, 01:07:45 pm »
Can it be confirmed that this thread is the most lit and active on the regimental forum? :o 8)

Offline Ambiguous

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 11216
  • Lieutenant of the 92nd
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 92nd_Lt_Ambiguous
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #69 on: March 06, 2024, 02:03:01 pm »
Can it be confirmed that this thread is the most lit and active on the regimental forum? :o 8)
PTS DENIED

Offline Steinmann

  • King of Börk
  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 7177
  • Mutual Owning with Elsse.
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #70 on: March 06, 2024, 03:13:45 pm »
bring back 25th sunday events

Offline Pumti

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • Stand Brave Men!
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Pummo
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #71 on: March 06, 2024, 06:57:17 pm »
bring back 25th sunday events

The 25th sunday events will return, only when Tavington returns  8)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2024, 07:44:21 pm by Pumti »

Offline Pumti

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • Stand Brave Men!
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Pummo
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #72 on: March 06, 2024, 09:33:25 pm »
Let us repeat the wise words from the 33rd historical event this evening:

“But srsly plz ban the 92nd”

- In memory of all the regs that was banned this evening march 6th 2024  :'( 8)

Offline StockholmDE

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2828
  • Ex 66th Gren / Former 92nd Grenadier Ens
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Stockholm
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #73 on: March 07, 2024, 12:50:27 am »
LCpl Nightwing  :o


Offline 12th_Official

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 12th South Essex Regiment of Foot
« Reply #74 on: March 08, 2024, 05:44:35 pm »
LCpl Nightwing  :o
Yes :) Yovko´s recommendation
12th South Essex Regiment of Foot