Thank you, sir.

At 6:30 in the morning, it is reported to Detective Vannatter that Mark Fuhrman has found a glove on the south side of Mr. Simpson's home. Each detective individually walks out and looks at that glove. That glove is tacky; it is moist; and it is described as such.

The evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, that if that glove had been dropped there at 11 o'clock the night preceding, it would have been dry by 2 o'clock in the morning.

The evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, that there was absolutely not a blood drop around that glove. There was no blood drop around it at all.

The evidence will be, that indicates it was placed there.

The evidence will be, relative to that glove, that there was no insect activity or leaves or anything else on it.

That would have been on it, had that glove been placed there or dropped there the evening preceding at 10:30. The evidence at the laboratory, subsequently I will deal with in a moment.

What next occurs is that Detective Vannatter sends Detective Fuhrman back to Bundy to see if there's a match. And you'll see the picture with Detective Fuhrman that was taken out hours before at Bundy, with his hand two or three inches from the glove. He didn't -- there was no real issue of match when Detective Fuhrman left Rockingham, went back to Bundy, and then came back to Rockingham to report that the gloves were, in fact, a match.

And then, ladies and gentlemen, we're now at about 7 o'clock in the morning. The evidence will be, seven hours after they have discovered all of this evidence at 875 South Bundy, there has been no criminalist there, that's the real detectives that gather the evidence.

There has been no real detective on the scene because they've all been at Rockingham, and that evidence has been uncollected. In fact, the criminalists don't go to Bundy; they go to Rockingham at 7 o'clock in the morning. About 7:10 they arrive there.

There hasn't been a coroner. The coroner's been called, canceled, and the coroner is called again at 8:00. And the coroner gets to Bundy at 9 o'clock. That's nine hours after they were notified of the deaths.

And the criminalists gather some blood evidence at Bundy. And you'll hear all that blood evidence is consistent with the small cut that Mr. Simpson endured the previous night that he told LAPD about on the 13th, before he knew what was at his house.

They gathered some blood. They went back over to Bundy -- not back over; I apologize. They went to Bundy for the first time ten hours after they'd been notified of those crimes.

You will hear from experts that know crime investigation, obviously a lot better than I do, that one of the things you don't do is, you don't send a criminalist from one crime scene to the other, because you risk contamination.

You will hear that not only did the criminalist go back from one crime scene to the next, but the detectives obviously -- Vannatter, Lange, Phillips, Fuhrman -- there's Gonzalez -- he was at both places. He was back and forth. And you risk, obviously, contaminating the crime scene from one to the other. And so at 10 o'clock, or shortly thereafter, Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, the two criminalists at 875 South Bundy, to collect evidence.

This is a scene that was described by the people who discovered the body of Nicole Brown Simpson as being a river of blood. There was an immense amount. You, unfortunately, will have to look at those pictures, but it's part of the evidence. And we don't want to put you through it, but we have to.

In any event, what occurs then is, this collection of evidence takes place.

Phil, can you pull up the 875.

Thank you.

This small area is where the murders occurred. This is all dirt and plants. This is tile that is grouted, and you will see it in the pictures. It's outdoor tile, kind of -- I think the tiles are eleven and a half inches wide -- square. And the two criminalists who are on this crime scene for a total period of five hours before they release this crime scene, they released this crime scene before they released Mr. Simpson's house.

In the area where Mr. Goldman fought valiantly for his life, there are all sorts of blood stains, blood drops, blood spatter, and blood-smear evidence. The LAPD criminalists collected none, not any of it.

Objection. Outside the scope of Order No. 11, specifically September 17.

I think that was technique, not absence of.

Overruled.

Thank you.

Now, they collected some blood that were drops in the area. They found, ladies and gentlemen, not one drop, not one specimen of blood consistent with O.J. Simpson. Not one.

They found up in an area above the steps, a drop of blood of Mr. Simpson that had 33 nanograms of DNA. I'll try to explain a little bit about DNA.

Let me suggest to that you DNA degrades over a period of time, that the average amount of DNA in a fresh drop of blood is between one thousand -- pardon me -- 1,500 and 2,000 nanograms.

The drops of blood that they collected that they say had Mr. Simpson's DNA in it that went along this walkway which were not to the left of the bloody shoe prints, only one contained from 33 nanograms of DNA. Keep in mind the reference is 1,500 to 2,000 to 1.8 nanograms of DNA.

If Mr. Simpson had never been at this house again, the evidence will be the fact that his DNA, even though it was of a minute quantity, would be of significance.

It is not of significance, the evidence will show, because that's a place where he was. He was there with his kids; he was there with the dog; he picked up the dog; he took his kids places; he was in and out of there all the time.

The evidence will be, ladies and gentlemen, that the LAPD tampered with the evidence at the crime scene. And there was, as I told you, an envelope with the glasses of Judy Brown. You will see pictures. They moved it.

Now, there isn't going to be any evidence of why no one will come forward and tell you that they, in fact, moved it, and they had a reason. But one of the cardinal rules is, you'll hear from experts and criminologists, you recognize the evidence; you document and collect the evidence, and then you remove it. That's the collection process after you recognized, but you don't move it.

The evidence will show that the glove, the Bundy glove that was underneath this little plant-like thing, that was tampered with. Totally turned around and moved. And we see that in pictures.

The evidence will show that there were blood drops. Nicole had a dress on, a black dress on, that was kind of backless down a couple of feet, and she was in -- her body was in a fetal position, kind of, but with her back kind of in, to where you could look down and see her back if you looked straight down.

There were blood drops, significant blood drops on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson. The significance of that, ladies and gentlemen, is they could not have been hers. They could have been the perpetrator of these crimes.

LAPD never collected them. They were washed off by the coroner.

The evidence will indicate to you that they failed to collect blood on the back gate.

Now, I want to just be brief. I want to try to finish, and I know you've heard me a long time, and I again apologize.

The detectives, criminalists go to the scene. They go all the way through this walkway. It goes all the way back to the alleyway. This is an alley. Okay.

This walkway goes along the side of the house, goes all the way to the back. There's a locked back gate. And the garages, as you might guess, or might anticipate, are in the back.

For example, two of the blood drops -- they collected a total of five blood drops down that walkway. Five blood drops.

They -- from the back gate, there is a photograph, and item No. 117 -- you'll hear a lot about that before this is over -- item 117 was not there. Item 117 was not on the back gate July 3, 1994. Three weeks after the crimes occurred, that blood drop was collected. And interestingly enough, that blood drop had more DNA in it, five times more DNA in it, than any other blood drop they had collected.

Now, if in fact they were all dropped at the same time, the night of the murders, they would all have been within ranges of the same amount of DNA.

Then, ladies and gentlemen, the evidence relative to the gathering of all of the items that were in the area. The envelope, as I say, was moved. The envelope had glasses in it. The envelope was never dusted for prints, to this day. They never took any fingerprints off of it, the glasses inside. And glass is a very good source to get latent fingerprints. It was never dusted for fingerprints, ever.

In fact, ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk to you a little bit about the glasses, because as I mentioned a little earlier, Mr. Simpson, through his attorneys, offered the services of some forensic scientists, including Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf. It was refused. He offered to take a polygraph. It was refused.

On the day of June 22, I believe, Mr. Baden, Dr. Baden, Dr. Wolf are examining evidence. They open the envelope and they see the glasses, and there are two lenses in the glasses. You'd anticipate that.

By February, I believe 18 -- and I may be wrong on that -- of 1995, Judge Ito orders those glasses to be inspected and the evidence to be inspected by Dr. Henry Lee.

There's one lens. Nobody knows where the other lens went. All we know is, we don't have any fingerprints, and there were no prints taken from it. And we don't know where it was removed, we don't know who removed it, and nobody will testify in this case why it's missing.

There was a triangular piece of paper that is photographed very close to the envelope. It has blood-pattern evidence on it. And you can see it from the photographs, blood-pattern evidence by the people that know far more than I is significant, because you can tell movement and you can type it. Of course, you can determine whether or not it is the perpetrator's blood. You can do a lot of investigation and testing. That triangular piece of paper may have had significant evidence on the other side.

Nobody ever saw it again. It's just totally missing.

There was in this area a menu from a take-out restaurant to see if they can call the restaurant missing, never processed by LAPD.

The evidence, ladies and gentlemen, will indicate that there were, besides the tampering and moving of pieces of evidence, a failure to collect evidence at the scene that could have exculpated my client.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola.  Now, my recollection is that Andrea Mazzola had never collected blood before, and this was the third crime scene that she's ever processed. And the paperwork of the LAPD indicated that she was in charge.

In any event, these people, after they've spent three hours at Mr. Simpson's place, and then there are five hours at the Bundy residence, go back to Mr. Simpson's to take a -- to do more collection of evidence.

Now, mind you that they had been there from 7:00 to 10:00. At 4:30 in the afternoon, Dennis Fung recovers the socks on a throw rug that is directly adjacent to Mr. Simpson's -- it's right at the foot of his bed, if you will. The whole bedroom is carpeted, basically, a white carpet. There is a throw rug right at the foot of the bed: The socks, two socks, sitting there on this throw rug.

Now, those socks, ladies and gentlemen, when Willie Ford, who was a videographer for the LAPD -- now mind you, they did not videotape the 875 South Bundy crime scene; they videotaped the interior of Mr. Simpson's house. And the given reason for that was because in case they broke something, they wanted to have a videotape of it.

In any event, Mr. Ford testified that when he videotaped, will testify when he videotaped Mr. Simpson's room at 4:30, those socks weren't there at 4:30.

Dennis Fung says he found the socks. Mind you, Mr. Fung and Ms. Mazzola were there for three hours that morning.

Now, the evidence will indicate that those socks were then booked into evidence, with no blood detected on those socks.

On again that June 22 date, I believe it is when Mr. -- Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf examined some evidence. They were retained by Mr. Simpson. They looked at the socks. No blood.

When there was a meeting -- I believe it was June 29, 1994 -- I think there were three criminalists there. I believe, if memory serves, it was Colin Yamauchi, it was Michele Kestler, who is the head of the LAPD crime lab, and Greg Matheson. They inspected the socks, among other items of evidence, to see what tests were going to be run on those socks.

And they indicate on the form, no blood detected.

None obvious.

And then, ladies and gentlemen, the date, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, is August 4, 1994, and there are copious amounts of blood on the socks, readily visible.

At that time, the defense of Mr. Simpson raised the issue of planting.  And at that time, ladies and gentlemen, the LA District Attorney's office indicated they were going to send these socks to the FBI to see if EDTA was on them. And the reason was, because if that was blood from the missing CC and a half of Mr. Simpson's blood from the vial taken by Spano Peratis, it should have EDTA in it.

And I want to go back for just a moment before I revisit the socks issue, and tell you about the blood vial that was taken out of Mr. Simpson's arm on June 13 at 2:30 in the afternoon.

That was a purple-top vial with EDTA in it, as Mr. Petrocelli explained to you. That's the anti-clotting chemical that's put in the tubes because when our blood gets to oxygen, it clots, it coagulates. That's how we heal, mend ourselves. And obviously, for testing purposes, as he said, you have the EDTA to keep the blood viscous and fluid.

So when Vannatter gets -- when the blood sample is taken from Mr. Simpson, the 8 cc's of blood, Mr. Vannatter asked to take custody of it.

And he's given custody of that vial, which is unsealed. We will prove to you that that vial was unsealed.

Mr. Vannatter has been an LAPD detective for years. He knows the regulations. Evidence is to be booked as soon as possible. He was in the building, where he could book the evidence, Parker Center, Los Angeles Police Department, downtown Los Angeles. He did not. He could have gone a mile away to Piper Tech, which is what I think is kind of an ugly brick building over the freeway. The helicopters you always see on it. He could have booked it there. Detective Vannatter didn't. He left -- he says he put this unsealed vial of Mr. Simpson's reference blood in his pocket, went upstairs to chat with Lange and have a cup of coffee, and then drive out to Rockingham to give this vial of blood of Mr. Simpson's -- to Dennis Fung.

The evidence will be that he didn't know if Dennis Fung was at Rockingham. He didn't know if he completed his investigation. He never radioed.

But he said he wanted to give this important piece of evidence to Mr. Fung so that he could book it into evidence.

And you will hear testimony, ladies and gentlemen, that he takes this vial of blood, he then gives this vial of blood to Dennis Fung, and he does it in the presence of Andrea Mazzola. And her testimony is, I didn't see it; I closed my eyes.

The vial of blood is put in a trash bag, put in the evidence van, and left there, ultimately taken downtown, left out on a table in an unlocked room, the same room where all of the blood that had been checked from Bundy and Rockingham was.

And the evidence will be that there was, after the next day, on the 14th, after Colin Yamauchi commenced his work on this blood, he spills some. And then he started to process it. There was 1.5 cc's missing, between 45,000 and 60,000 nanograms of DNA unaccounted for.

And the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, is that on the 13th, after Mr. Fung and Ms. Mazzola had a very long day, they came back to LAPD Crime Lab to put swatches into drying tubes. And let me explain that just briefly, if I may.

When you collect a dried sample of blood, you take -- it's like a cotton swatch, and you dampen it and you put it over the -- you attach it to the blood stain or drop or whatever. And it soaks, does whatever capillary action, whatever, and the blood goes into the swatch.

The swatch is then placed in a plastic bag. And if proper techniques are done, it is then immediately taken to an area where the temperature is low, not high, because DNA degrades in high temperatures, and then it is processed. That is, it is dried. The swatches are then dried and then they're processed.

The evidence will be that what happened to the blood swatches that Andrea Mazzola and Mr. Fung went -- took back to the LAPD Crime Lab was, once they got back there, they did exactly what they were supposed to do: They took the swatches and they put them in a drying tube for overnight drying, so they'd be drying.

On the 14th, the morning of the 14th, they -- those swatches were taken out of the drying tube, and they're put in bindles -- they call them bindles. It's just like a piece of paper folded up. And the swatches soak that.

Andrea Mazzola testified that every time she puts a swatch -- and she did it with Dennis Fung, so I don't want to mislead you -- every time that she puts a swatch into a bindle, she puts her initials on it.

And then, of course, when the defense gets to investigate, to see the evidence pursuant to a court order in the criminal case, there is not one bindle that has an initial of Andrea Mazzola.

And more importantly, when the swatches are ultimately transferred to the Department of Justice, there was a wet transfer. That means that after these swatches were dried, somebody substituted wet swatches that hadn't dried, for the dry swatches that were in those bindles, and sent it to be tested.

That is corruption of evidence.

The evidence will be, ladies and gentlemen, that the day of the 14th, Colin Yamauchi is processing O.J. Simpson's reference blood. Now, you will hear from experts that you don't process reference blood first, you process reference blood last.

And the reason you do that is because reference blood taken out of Mr. Simpson's arm is so rich in DNA, that if it spills, it can contaminate everything and ruin all of the evidence that you have there.

And so on the 14th, Colin Yamauchi takes the top off of the vial of Mr. Simpson's blood and spills it. And spills it on his hand, on a Chem Wipe. And you will hear that that spill can contaminate every piece of evidence in this case. It is because they process the evidence in the same place, in the same location.

And, ladies and gentlemen, I want to get through this. And I know you want that to occur, as well.

After Colin Yamauchi had processed this blood, it was then shipped to laboratories with proper procedures.

And I'm not here to criticize LAPD, but I've got to tell you, they don't have any procedural manual. They've had one in a draft form for years before they tried the Simpson criminal matter. They just don't have one.

Colin Yamauchi is a nice man. He doesn't try to do poorly; he just did, the evidence will be.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk a little bit about DNA. I want to tell you what DNA is and what it isn't, to my knowledge, and then I want to talk about the Bruno Magli shoes and a time line, and I want to sit down.

Quit smiling out there. (Indicating to the audience.)

In any event, DNA, as it's used in criminal detective work, is not the same substance, but the test and what is done are not the same as, for example, DNA for organ transplant.

It is a relatively new type of testing within the last ten years. We are at the infancy level of DNA testing, in using tests that are now viable, to help solve crimes.

They will be far better ten years from now, but let me tell you what we have now and had in 1994, as I understand it.

Mr. Blasier will tell you during the trial and explain it to you. And you've got to stay with him; it's very important. But what you have is, you have a double helix, as I understand it. And if you unwind this double helix, you have this in each cell that we have. As a human being, you have things that if you put them under a microscope, look like ladders. And there are in each cell, 3 billion of these rungs to these ladders.

And what you do in the testing that we have now is, you look at most of these 3 billion, somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000, and you take them down the ladder in different sections, one from the male and one from the female who produced the human being that you're testing.

And if one molecule is different, it's a different human being. So it is not, the evidence will be, a test of uniqueness at all; it is a test of exclusion. And by that, I mean it can exclude somebody, but it is not like a dermal fingerprint which you and I have that's unique.

Which reminds me of one thing. And I want to go back. And I apologize greatly, but it's important.

LAPD did find prints at the crime scene on Bundy. They were unable to identify nine identifiable fingerprints. They weren't O.J. Simpson's.

Now, those are unique. And what that uniqueness or individualization means is, that if I put my finger here and they take a print, it means I've been there, because nobody else has got my print. And that's what law enforcement and crime-solving attempts to do, so no insignificant pattern is too individualized.

Some things, like hair and fiber, are class definitions. And Mr. Petrocelli used the word "match." He used it for hair and fiber; he used it for blood; he used it in each of those instances.

And again, I think Mr. Blasier will talk to you about this with far more intelligence than I have.

The word "match" is a form of art. For example, you cannot tell if your own head hairs will have similarities, but they don't; they're not an identical match, and they're not individualizing like a dermal fingerprint.

So I want to get back to DNA for a minute. DNA is not a test of uniqueness, but a test of exclusion.

And if you take -- and let's talk about PCR testing. PCR testing's greatest advantage is, you can take a speck that you cannot see, and you can chemically make a jillion more of that speck. It's kind of like a chemical Xerox machine, if you will.

The problem with it is, that's the advantage. You can take a very little speck and you can get a DNA readback on it. The problem with it is exactly the reason that it is an advantage. If you have any contamination in that speck, what you do is magnify it the same amount that you magnify the sample that you're trying to test.

And so this case is not about -- the evidence will show it's not about the fact that we think DNA is a bad test. It's not about the fact that we don't think DNA reliable. DNA is as reliable as the gathering, the collection, and the preservation of evidence before you test it.

And every bit of evidence in this case went through LAPD Laboratory. And you will hear from and expert who was in the LAPD lab who tested blood-sample items that, unfortunately, the LAPD lab is a cesspool of contamination.

And let me explain that to you. Let me tell you, the strongest evidence that supports exactly what he said -- in PCR testing, I think it's DQ Alpha -- that there are six alleles. And an allele is a group of these molecules taken off this ladder, okay? It's a group.

And under this particular type of testing, this PCR DQ Alpha testing, there are six alleles that are recognized and known in human beings. They can appear at different parts and whatever. I'll tell you more.

What is important about that is that those six alleles appear in every piece of evidence, blood evidence tested by the DQ Alpha method.

When they shouldn't appear, they appear. And in the reference blood -- in the reference blood of O.J. Simpson that was taken on the th, he has obviously certain alleles in his DNA.

On the 14th, an autopsy was performed on both of the victims. And reference blood was obtained from their bodies.

Interestingly, that reference blood was given to none other than Detective Philip Vannatter. You will hear that for the first time in the history of Gary Siglar's career in the coroner's office, a detective asked for the reference blood, and he gave it to him.

The alleles that are consistent with Mr. Simpson's blood are in both the reference blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and they don't belong there.

In fact, you will hear testimony, and it will even be agreed to by the expert for the plaintiffs, that the contamination in LAPD, Dr. Bradley Popovich disagrees with our expert on how it gets there, but they both agree that the alleles appear that shouldn't appear.

And when you get contamination in a laboratory, you will hear that what you are supposed to do is to wash down all of the surface areas with bleach, wash the tools with bleach, change the chemicals.

It never occurs at LAPD. They don't even have a procedure for that.

Another way to eliminate contamination is to have what are known as substrate controls. And because of the time and my lack of knowledge, I am not going to go into the substrate controls, except to tell you that LAPD doesn't use them all the time, so they don't know if they're contaminated or not.

And that is what the blood evidence is about. You cannot trust -- the evidence will show you, you cannot trust the blood evidence in this case.

Now, the evidence I want to just briefly touch upon is some I evidence in the Bronco.

The Bronco is impounded. There is two drops of blood taken, something less than that. There is a smear, blood stain that some experts label as smear on the steering wheel, that's not O.J. Simpson's blood; it's not Ron Goldman's blood; it's not Nicole Brown Simpson's blood. Nobody knows whose it is.

Now, there are a couple of small stains, and we will explain those stains to you in some detail, and why they're not indicative of any indication of Mr. Simpson's involvement in the crime.

But I want to get to one issue, as we are getting late in the day, and that is the issue of discovery of new, additional blood evidence in the Bronco on August 26, 1994. That is over two months from the time of the murder.

And let me tell you what happened. The Bronco is towed into the prison yard. They find, basically, Mr. Simpson's blood in the Bronco.  That's not incriminating. Mr. Simpson's in the Bronco all the time. He said he cut himself and bled the night before.

There is one small portion of blood; it's minute. And you will hear that it was interpreted to have some alleles of Ron Goldman's blood. But that study, that test, was invalid.

And hence, they have no evidence of any victim's blood in the Bronco.

August 26, 1994, Michele Kestler, the director of the LAPD Crime Lab, calls and tells a Time Life photographer that she is going to conduct an inspection of the Bronco, and she goes down to Viertell's, where it's in the tow yard. And she, with this made-for-media event, looks for and finds blood that has never been found before, but that now has the victim's blood on it. And in the ensuing, that is, the previous ten or twelve weeks, that Bronco has been without any security whatsoever.

There are two individuals you'll hear testify that they got into the Bronco by pushing the button and opening the door. One of them stole the receipt out of the Bronco.

They looked for blood in the Bronco and they found none of the blood that was on the console that Michele Kestler found on August 26, 1994.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is most. I've gone through virtually all of the physical evidence in this case. And I want to suggest to you a couple things. And that is, that we will go through all of the evidence in some detail. But before I conclude my remarks, I've got to talk about the Bruno Magli shoes.

Phil, put up that 1075, please.

There are footprints. They are of a Bruno Magli size 12 shoe. Mr. Simpson didn't produce any Bruno Magli size 12 shoes when Mr. Petrocelli asked him to produce the Bruno Magli shoes, because he doesn't have any and never had any.

The evidence will be, ladies and gentlemen, that after the investigation of these murders took place, the days after June 12, 1994, there were efforts made, of course, to find a murder weapon and bloody clothes. The crime scene was bloody. There was obviously a murder weapon someplace. And there were efforts made for -- extensive efforts made to find bloody clothes and a murder weapon.

In fact, you'll hear testimony that they enlisted the Boy Scouts. Every off-duty LAPD detective was enlisted to walk from Bundy to Rockingham to search in the bushes, to see if they could find any clothes or knife, whatsoever. In fact, they went in the sewers, ladies and gentlemen, to look for clothes and a knife.

They enlisted the Chicago Police Department in Chicago to look for bloody clothes and a bloody knife or any knife.

And of course, they found nothing. They found nothing at all.

They then enlisted, if my memory serves the Interpol, the International Police, to look for -- find receipt, to find some evidence, to find something about these Bruno Magli shoes. They enlisted -- it was everywhere throughout the United States, throughout the world, a search to find any evidence that tied my client to Bruno Magli shoes. And none was found.

Now, with the criminal trial, you will hear that a photographer, Harry Scull, out of Buffalo, New York, produced a photograph that was not given to any police department; it's not given to any prosecutorial agency; it's not even given to Mr. Petrocelli. It's given to the National Enquirer for money.

And you will hear that this photograph is a phony. It isn't real. It was doctored. And it was doctored sometime -- and there are other marks on it that are irrefutable. If you know what a contact sheet is, if you take a 35-millimeter roll of film and take the film out on a contact sheet, and they're all on the same sheet, this photo is out of alignment with the others. This photo has a double edge on one side, indicating that they've duplicated the negative.

This photo has a different color. Now, in part of the photograph, it's a white shirt that Mr. Simpson has on.

This photograph has a different grain, texture, in parts of the photograph. This photograph indicates to everyone who's ever looked at it, that the shoes that Mr. Simpson is wearing are indeed Bruno Maglis, and they're dry and the weather report in Buffalo is that it had rained for hours. And these shoes are absolutely dry. It's an as Astro Turf field. When you walk on Astro Turf after it's wet, you get all kinds of residue on you. There's no residue.

The photograph is a phony.

Now, I want to try to conclude. It's been a long day for all of us, my talking to you a little bit about it. And I request your attention for about 15 more minutes. You've been very kind to me, and I really appreciate it.

At 10:40, Robert Heidstra hears the "Hey, hey, hey."

At 10:55, Alan Park sees O.J. Simpson walking into his house, after Mr. Simpson has deposited his suit bag and looked into his golf cover bag for the shoes.

And by the way, he will not say he was hurting. He will not say anything of the sort.

And where he first sees him is in the way between the driveway and right here. And you can see that -- I agree with Mr. Petrocelli, that you're right there, you can see right into that area. You can see Mr. Simpson walking back into the house. And this was indicating to the diagram of Rockingham Avenue.

The evidence you'll hear from our experts is that it took, as I suggested to you earlier, ten to fifteen minutes for these homicides to take place.

Let's take the shorter period of time. Let's take ten minutes. That would be 10:50. It takes six minutes -- let's say he sped; he's in a hurry. Let's say four minutes. That gets him -- if he is gunning his Bronco, that gets him to the house at 10:54.

The evidence will show that if he was going to try to avoid the limousine driver that was here, he wouldn't park here he'd parked down here.

The Bronco is here. He could not have had time, if he had the motive, which he never did have, to kill two people, drive from 875 South Bundy to Rockingham, get rid of bloody clothes, get rid of a murder weapon that's never been found, and be walking back into his house at 10:55. It's not possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, a human body has approximately, give or take, about two gallons of blood to ten units of blood in them. When you cut the carotids of a human being, it is awash in blood. When you stab somebody and are in close to stab somebody 30 times and put up a fight, you are not only awash in blood, you are hit.

Ron Goldman was a very strong, physical young man. O.J. Simpson does not have a bruise on his body. Not one. And, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Simpson is a man like all men who loves his kids. Mr. Simpson would not, could not ever kill Nicole and leave her body where his children would find the horror of her in a pool of blood.

The evidence will be, ladies and gentlemen -- and I am sure that when you hear all the evidence, we will prove what we've told you today: That you will conclude that Mr. Simpson was wrongfully accused; that Mr. Simpson did not, could not kill anyone.

His cuts, his hands, not seeing his demeanor while going to Chicago, his entire -- what occurred in that period, he doesn't have to account for this time. He's an adult, a free American.

And, ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in this case is compelling. You can't trust the blood evidence. And Mr. Simpson will take the stand and he will be here as long as Mr. Petrocelli wants to examine him. And if you believe Mr. Simpson, if you believe O.J. Simpson, you must find him not responsible. Even that, you look at the time line. Mr. Simpson had no time to commit these crimes whatsoever.

And when this case is all done, and it's all finished, I'm confident you'll conclude my client is no murderer.

Thank you very much.