Morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard the evidence in this case and now we're about to hear closing arguments by the attorneys for each side.

I want to remind you that what the attorneys argue to you, what they state to you at this stage of the proceedings are not evidence. Whatever they argue, whatever they refer to with regards to the evidence, that it is their opinion as to what they believe the evidence showed or did not show and how they feel that the jury should rule with regards to the nature of the evidence, and how the jury should apply the law to that state of the evidence as they perceive it.

Evidence is only that which you heard from the witness stand and the graphic and other types of evidence that we denote as evidence that we've received in the trial.

You are the sole judges as to what the evidence means and what it established, what it did not establish.

You must not consider what the attorneys state to you as the evidence.

The reason that the Court instructs you every day not to allow any outside interference with the evidence gathering process by jurors is precisely to ensure that you do not go outside of the trial for your information.

What you decide this case upon has to be that which was received in the trial and you cannot rely on any information received elsewhere.

So that is why you must not permit radio, television, newspaper, magazine, or word of mouth information about this case, that was not received in the trial itself, to affect your judgment in any way.

When I tell you that the statements of the attorneys do not constitute evidence and the statements of what they say the law is is not what the law is, it's not my intention to tell you to disregard what the attorneys say. This is the last chance that they have to directly talk to you about the case and it's very important to both sides that you pay close attention to what their views are of what the evidence was and how you should apply the law to this case.

At the end of the case, after the attorneys have argued to you, I will instruct you as to what the law is that you will apply to the evidence as you find it to be.

And I'll also be giving you a special verdict form which you will fill out according to the instructions that are directly on the instruction forms themselves.

And in this fashion, you will be reaching your decision in this case.

So at this time, Mr. Petrocelli, I will invite you or Mr. Kelly or any other plaintiffs' counsel to commence their opening portion of the closing argument.

Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Good morning.

Your Honor, defense counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I first would like to extend our appreciation to Your Honor and your excellent staff. This has been a long trial and we are greatly appreciative of the way that you have conducted these proceedings. But it is you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to whom we owe the deepest debt of gratitude. You have given up the last four months of your lives at great personal sacrifice to be here and to make a commitment to serve on this jury. You have been here every day, taking notes, listening attentively, focusing on all the evidence that has come in, and for that we are extremely grateful. We thank you.

We are here to determine responsibility for the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Two vital people who had most of their lives ahead of them.

Here they are in life. (Indicating to Elmo). Steve.

By now, today, Ron Goldman would have been 29 years old, and I think he would have had that restaurant that he wanted to open shaped in the design of an ankh, the Egyptian symbol for eternal life, which Ron always wore around his neck and even had tattooed on his shoulder.

You want to put the other picture up? (Indicating to Elmo). Nicole Brown Simpson would have been 37 years old.

Not on a day unlike today, I think she would have, like she did every day, gotten up and taken care of her children, feed them, take them to school, karate lessons, dance lessons, bring them home, feed them dinner, play with them, put them to bed.

Okay.

Ron Goldman will never get to open his restaurant, ladies and gentlemen.

And Nicole Brown Simpson will never see her children grow up.

Because on a Sunday evening in 1994, these two vital people, their lives came to a sudden end in a few moments of uncontrollable rage.

Here they are in death (indicating to Elmo).

I apologize for the photograph.

Nicole, as you can imagine, was helpless at the hands of this enraged man, and she died within moments of the gaping cut to her throat. Ron Goldman, instead of running from danger, tried to help a friend, but he too was defenseless against this powerful man with a 6-inch knife stabbing over and over and over again until Ron collapsed to the ground and died with his eyes still open. Now, had Ron lived, ladies and gentlemen, he'd have been on this witness stand and he would have relived what happened that night and he would have told us what he saw.

I object. This is improper evidence.

Your Honor --

Overruled. It's argument.

But that is why Ron Goldman was killed. So he could not tell you what he saw that evening.

But even though Ron and Nicole's voices will not be heard in this courtroom, they will not be on that stand, their last struggling moments to stay alive, ladies and gentlemen, provided us the key evidence necessary to identify their killer.

They managed to get a glove pulled off, a hat to drop off, they managed to dig nails into the left hand of this man, cause other injuries to his hand, forcing him to drop his blood next to their bodies as he tried to get away.

And by their blood, they forced him to step, step, step as he walked to the back, leaving shoe prints that are just like fingerprints in this case that tell us who did this, who did this unspeakable tragedy.

So these crucial pieces of evidence after all are the voices of Ron and Nicole speaking to us from their graves, telling us, telling all of you, that there is a killer in this courtroom (indicating to Mr. Simpson.)

That is the man who attacked them, who confronted them, and who killed them on that Sunday evening in June. The defendant, Orenthal Simpson.

You heard his voice on the witness stand, ladies and gentlemen. You heard his voice on the witness stand. He took the stand about a week or so ago, about one full day in his defense.

Now, by that time, we the plaintiffs had presented overwhelming and highly incriminating evidence that Mr. Simpson committed these murders on June 12.

We did not merely prove that he did these things by a preponderance of the evidence, which, as you will hear later on as the Judge will instruct you, is the burden of proof that we have to meet in this case.

We didn't prove it merely by clear and convincing evidence, which is yet another burden of proof.

We didn't prove it merely by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof that applies in criminal cases.

We proved it to a certainty. We proved it beyond any doubt.

So what did Mr. Simpson say about all this evidence when he took the stand?

What did his fine lawyer, Mr. Baker, ask him about?

Did Mr. Simpson explain why his blood and his DNA were found dripped on the ground near the two victims. Did he talk about that?

Did he explain why his glove was found next to these two murdered people? Did he explain that?

Did he explain why his other glove was found back at his house? Did he talk about that?

Did he explain why his hat, his knit cap, was at the murder scene? Why it had his head hairs in it? Why it had his clothing fibers? Did he explain any of that? Not one word.

Did he explain why his blood was in his car that night? Did he explain why Ron Goldman's blood was in his car that night? Why Nicole's blood was in his car that night? Did he say anything about this?

Did he talk about why his blood, O.J. Simpson's blood, was dripped on the driveway of his property that night? In his foyer? Up in his bathroom right next to his bedroom? Did he talk about that?

Did he explain why his socks had his blood, why his socks had Nicole's blood on them, on both socks? Not one word did you hear when we waited to hear.

Did he talk about what happened to those brown Aris leather light gloves, size extra large, that we saw him wearing in those photos of him at the football games? The ones that are identical to the murder gloves.

Now, if they are not the murder gloves, as he says, why didn't he bring them to court? Why didn't he bring them here and say here are my gloves. I am innocent. Did he say any of that? Did he talk about that?

Did he say anything about the 30 photographs, over 30 photographs in fact, of him wearing those "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes that he swore to you, under oath on that witness stand, that he never owned and never wore? Did he talk about those photos?

No, he didn't.

Did he explain, by the way, how one of those photos could be a fake if it was published eight months before the murders in a Buffalo sports newspaper? Did you hear anything about that?

You didn't hear a word.

If those were not the shoes he was really wearing, as he said, did he come here that day and bring his shoes that he did wear that day at the football game? Did he bring them to court? Did he show them to you? Did he say here are the shoes I was wearing; I wasn't wearing those ugly ass shoes. I was wearing these shoes. Did he bring those shoes here to show them to you to prove his innocence?

How about a photograph. Did he produce a single photograph?

This guy's got to be one of the most photographed people in the world, perhaps. Sitting there on a side line, with thousands of cameras, television cameras.

Did he bring a photograph wearing the shoes he claims he was really wearing?

Not one.

Did he explain to you how he could cut himself the night of the murders between 10 and 11, at the time these murders occurred, on his left finger, and yet not know how?

"I don't know how I cut myself."

Did he even talk about that?

Did he explain to you last week how he could cut himself so badly in Chicago, he claims so bad as to leave a permanent scar on that finger, and yet not know how he did it?

Did he talk about that?

This was his chance to tell us what the answers were. Confronted with all this evidence, highly incriminating, conclusively incriminating evidence, pointing right at him, and what did he choose to say, what did he choose to tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury?

Well, he talked about his accomplishments as a football player. How he won the Heismann trophy. Ran 2,003 yards in one NFL season. How he broke records and received awards. We heard all about that.

We heard about his work for Hertz, Chevrolet, the jobs as a broadcaster, as an actor.

He dropped some names of famous people he socialized with. I'm sure you remember that. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and people like that.

Talked and talked and talked about golf. A lot about golf.

And he went to great lengths, ladies and gentlemen, to talk about his character. Remember how he was asked, and you heard Mr. Baker say in his opening statement about this Hall of Fame speech, about how a guy's character will always endure.

Well, you heard about that.

We heard about how he always tries to help others.

We heard that he still goes to his mother for advice.

And then he talked of his honesty, and he told us, looking you straight in the eye, right here, and said, I have never, ever attempted to tell a lie about anything important in my life. Now, we heard him say that. He talked about Nicole, too, of course. About how he tried to be a good husband to her. About how he was a good father to their children. And about how he would never harm her. These are the things Mr. Baker asked him about and these are the things he spoke about. The bottom line here, ladies and gentlemen, is that they would like you to believe that that handsome man with the charming smile, the expensive suit, who's lived the life of fame, celebrity and fortune, and who claims to be dedicated to his family, flawless in character, incapable of telling a lie, that that man could not possibly be responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. But it is that very same sense of superiority, ladies and gentlemen, that Mr. Simpson has attained that explains why he has absolutely no sense of responsibility for his actions or his obligation to tell the truth or for anything else. He'll talk about responsibility. Can you put the picture up? (Photo is displayed on Elmo.) What kind of man, ladies and gentlemen, confronted with this bruised and battered picture of Nicole, says, I take full responsibility for causing all those injuries, but I didn't hit her, I didn't strike her, I didn't slap her, I didn't do anything wrong, I was just defending myself, I was just trying to get her out of my bedroom. What kind of man, who has shared a bedroom with his wife for 10 years, calls it my bedroom, my house, my property, me. What kind of man takes a baseball bat to his wife's car, right in front of her, and then says he was not upset, he was not out of control, he was not in a state of rage, and she wasn't upset at all, not the slightest, even though she went to call the police for help. What kind of man kicks open a door so hard as to break it in pieces and then says it was just a reflex, and actually went on to blame it on his kids, saying they had broken it before. What kind of man says his deceased wife's, voice on a 911 tape, which we played in court, what kind of man says his wife is lying on that tape when she says she's afraid and when she says that he's going to beat the shit out of her, to use her words. What kind of man says his deceased wife is lying when you heard her voice trembling on that tape. What kind of man says cheating on your wife isn't a lie, which is what he said. What kind of man says that his wife's most private writings about her feelings and attitudes, in fact her last written words, which I will show you later on, are a, quote, pack of lies, end of quotes. What kind of man, when shown 30 photographs of him wearing those Bruno Magli shoes, looks you straight in the eye with a straight face and says that's me, it's my head, that's my jacket, that's my tie, that's my shirt, those are my arms, that's my hands, that's my belt, pants, not my shoes, those are people I know that I'm taking pictures with, but no, not my shoes, I wasn't wearing those shoes. What kind of man says that to you with a straight face? What kind of man says that virtually every other person in this case who testified on the stand against him is either lying or mistaken, and he's right. What kind of man would try to ruin the lives of innocent people just doing their jobs, accusing them of fabricating evidence, planting evidence, committing perjury, just to protect himself. And what kind of man comes into court and looks you straight in the eye and says I never lied about anything important in my life, and then lied about everything important in this case. Well, let me tell you what kind of man says those things, ladies and gentlemen. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. You can take that down, Steve (indicating to Elmo). A guilty man. A guilty man. A man with no remorse. A man with no conscience. This man is so obsessed with trying to salvage his image and protect himself that he'll come into this courtroom, knowing the whole world is watching, and he will smear the name and reputation of the mother of his children while she rests in her grave. This is a man, ladies and gentlemen, who I submit to you has lied and lied and lied to you about every important fact in this case. Every one. Did you notice, by the way, how Mr. Baker referred to Mr. Simpson on the witness stand as O.J. and Juice, even though every other witness was addressed by his or her formal name? We all know Mr. Baker is a very experienced lawyer, and I'm sure that was no accident. O.J. Simpson has been marketing, manufacturing, packaging and selling his image to the American public for over 30 years. And know what they tried to do in this courtroom, he and his defense team, to sell you an image, O.J., Juice, an image, a personality. I even asked him, are you an actor? He says no, I'm a personality. Now, we are not here, though, in this important trial to be sold anything and we're not here to talk about O.J. and Juice and talk about images. We're here to talk about a man named Simpson, a deeply flawed man named Simpson, and what he did on June 12, 1994. And in the final analysis, that's what this case is all about, ladies and gentlemen. It's about fixing responsibility for the deaths of these two innocent victims. And we would all agree that in this society we all have to accept responsibility, we all have to be accountable for what we do. All of you folks, you are responsible in your lives, to your families, at your jobs, on this jury. You get up every morning, you come here, you listen, you concentrate, you focus, you take notes. If you break the rules, you know there are consequences such as being discharged from the jury. You understand your responsibility. You accept it. Now, those are the rules that we all have to abide by. Those rules don't change, ladies and gentlemen, if a person has won the Heismann trophy or has broken football records. You all agreed when this case began that you would treat Mr. Simpson by the same standards and responsibility, the same rules as anybody, as you would want to be treated, and I have no doubt that you will do so. And I submit to you that when you judge Mr. Simpson by the same rules, by the same standards of responsibility that you would judge any other person, what you saw in this courtroom, what you heard in this courtroom, can only lead you to conclude, ladies and gentlemen, that this man is responsible for killing two people on June 12, that he's utterly incapable of accepting responsibility for his actions, that he can not and will not tell the truth either. Therefore it is up to you, all of you, to fix responsibility on him for what he did for the sake of the victims, their families, and for some small measure of justice. Now, I'd like to begin by looking at the most incriminating of the evidence that we have presented to you. And that's the evidence that was found at 875 South Bundy, which is of course where Nicole lived, where the murders occurred, as we know. To summarize, ladies and gentlemen, at Bundy we have a substantial amount of blood evidence, DNA evidence matching Mr. Simpson's DNA. We have his shoe prints, those unique shoe prints, one of a kind, size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, leading away from the bodies to the back. These are the shoes that Mr. Simpson owned, wore, and lied to you about, as you saw from the photos and his testimony. We also have a single Aris leather light brown glove, extra large, found at the scene between the bodies, and of course Mr. Simpson owned such a glove, as you saw from the photos. We have hair and fiber evidence at Bundy. We have head hairs of Mr. Simpson in a hat just like hats that he owned. We have blue-black -- dark blue-black cotton fibers found on Mr. Goldman's shirt which matched fibers found on Mr. Simpson's socks in his bedroom and on the glove that he dropped at his home in Rockingham, the same blue-black cotton fiber matching, meaning that he was the common source, the messenger between all three of these places. We also had this rare unique carpet fiber that was found at Bundy, and it was -- and it matched the carpet fiber in Mr. Simpson's Bronco: You have blood; you have shoes, you have hair and fiber; you have everything that you need. Now, I'm going to put up a board in a second and go over this evidence in a little more detail, but I want to mention a few things, a few sort of obvious observations. Bundy is the home of Nicole Brown Simpson. These murders didn't occur at -- in a dark alley or parking lot or convenience store; they occurred right at her home, not far from her front door, which was left wide open, with the lights on inside, you'll remember the testimony. There's no evidence of a burglary here, robbery, vandalism, or rape, or any kind of sexual assault. We're not dealing with any of that here. Nothing on the victims' person: Their jewelry, their personal effects, nothing was taken; nothing was removed; nothing inside the home was touched or disturbed; nothing was stolen; nothing was ransacked. Nicole had a very expensive Ferrari out in the garage, another car out there, a Jeep Cherokee. None of that was touched. The children were upstairs, asleep in their bedrooms, unharmed. There's no evidence that anybody touched or tried to hurt those children. There's no evidence that Nicole was expecting anyone, either. Ron Goldman went there at the very last minute, when he was asked by Nicole, right before 10 o'clock, to drop off a pair of glasses. Nobody knew Ron Goldman was going to Nicole's condominium on his way to meet some friends; only he knew, Nicole knew, and Karen Crawford, who worked at Mezzaluna. She knew when she took the call from Nicole and saw Ron leave. So it is very clear that Nicole Brown Simpson was the target of this attack. By someone who knew she would be home and someone who knew where she lived. It's not a gunshot killing. We're talking about a killing by a knife, up close, by a person, obviously from these wounds, in a state of rage, a rage killing. And all these signs, ladies and gentlemen point directly to a person who knew Nicole, knew where to find her, and had no reason to go to her house that night except to confront her, and had no reason to expect Ron Goldman, who showed up unexpectedly. There's no such person other than O.J. Simpson, ladies and gentlemen. And all the physical evidence proves that it was him. Can we put out the Bundy board. (Exhibit referred to was displayed on the Elmo screen.)

I'd like to go over this evidence in a little bit of detail, because this is the most critical evidence in the case (indicating to board displayed on the Elmo screen), all at Bundy, all where the murders occurred. What we have, of course, are the blood drops that were leaving the scene of the -- of where the bodies were found, going out towards the alley (indicating), and then one drop right over here on the other side of the rear (indicating), indicate -- we have the blood drops on the rear gate, as the killer bled a few drops as he went through that gate. These blood drops (indicating), of course, are on the left side of the shoe prints. They're on the left side of the shoe prints, indicating that the person who dropped this blood was injured on his left side, such as a left finger or left hand. We have the shoe prints. Of course, it's unique prints made in Nicole's blood. What you need to understand, ladies and gentlemen, is, that shoe made that footprint, that is a perfect match -- and there's not any testimony in this case disputing that; nobody challenges that -- that shoe made that shoe print. If he's wearing that shoe, he did it. Those are the gloves identical to one of the gloves found here. A left glove was found here, and the right glove was found at Rockingham, gloves identical to these two gloves which you see Mr. Simpson wearing. And indeed, if these are not the murder gloves, he could have and should have brought those gloves to court. And he didn't. You have here a hat just like the hat Mr. Simpson has at his house, the one that was recovered from his bedroom by the police, just like that one. In that hat, we had various hair and fiber evidence, which I will go over with you. And, of course, we have the cuts from the left finger -- left fingers, dropping blood on the left side of the shoe prints. So, you see, it's all here, ladies and gentlemen. There are some fibers here -- there's some blue-black cotton fibers that were found on Mr. Goldman's shirt, matching fiber found on the sock in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, and another one on the glove at Rockingham: The same blue-black cotton fiber which, we submit to you, is consistent with a blue-black cotton sweat suit, which we have proved to you that Mr. Simpson owned at the time.

I object. There's been no testimony of blue-black anything.

There has, Your Honor.

Overruled.

Mr. Simpson owned a sweat suit at the time. I'll go over that with you in a bit. He tried to lie to you, to say he didn't have one, until we called in witnesses to impeach him. And we'll go over that. So, we have his gloves, his hat, the sweat suit, his shoes, his cuts, his blood, his hair, his fibers. It's all here; it's all at Bundy. Now, let me talk to you a little bit about the blood evidence, because it obviously is so crucial and it is so incriminating, and I just want to discuss it briefly. I won't do it justice. Mr. Lambert put on that evidence through our expert witnesses; and let me go over just a little bit with you. The five blood drops that you have there that left a trail to the left of shoe prints, were tested by three different laboratories: The Los Angeles Police Department's Scientific Investigation Division, the California Department of Justice, and the Cellmark Laboratory back east, where Dr. Robin Cotton works. Gary Sims works for the Department of Justice. And you heard from Collin Yamauchi, from the LAPD's lab, the SID lab. All three labs tested these blood drops. And all three got the very same results; there's no differences in the results. All three separate labs, acting independently, got the same results. And all three labs found that these blood drops matched Mr. Simpson's DNA pattern. Okay. They tested these blood drops at 12 different genetic markers: The DQ Alpha location, D1S80, five polymarker locations, and five RFLP locations. All -- at all 12 of these genetic markers or locations where the DNA was tested, the DNA pattern matched Mr. Simpson at all 12. Now, this alone, ladies and gentlemen, is conclusive proof that that's his blood. We'll bring out the frequency board in a minute. But at a minimum -- at a minimum, now -- only one out of a 170 million people in the world would have these DNA patterns. And O.J. Simpson is one of them. The defense in this case -- it's important you understand this -- they don't contest these results; they don't contest that these DNA test results matched Mr. Simpson's blood. Do you remember when Mr. Lambert read to you something called Defendant's Responses to Request for Admissions? I don't know if it was very exciting, but he sat here and read to you -- those were the defense's admissions to his -- those blood-test results. And they're conclusive on this issue. And they establish that those blood drops are Mr. Simpson's blood. And you have to accept that. They don't contest it.

Your Honor, I object. That's improper. That isn't what we admitted to.

Overruled. Overruled.

Understand something: All the defense can say -- they can say is -- they haven't presented any evidence -- all they can say is that if you get around these test results, showing his blood is at -- the evidence, these blood drops had to have been planted or somehow contaminated. And if you don't buy into any of that, and his blood's there, and he did it, unless they can prove to you how his blood got in those labs. There hasn't been one, not one iota of evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that any of those blood drops were planted. In the first place, as you'll remember from the police testimony and the criminalists, these blood drops were collected on the morning of June 13 at Bundy, when Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola went out there. Mr. Simpson didn't even give his blood to the Los Angeles Police Department until 3:30 in the afternoon that same day, after all the blood in this case was collected. So they didn't have his blood to go to Bundy and start dropping blood drops. They didn't have it. He didn't give them his blood until 3:30. And these were all collected beforehand. So they could not have been planted there. And remember the testimony that the blood drops were fresh when they were found, that was given by Dennis Fung, it was still reddish in color? And his testimony is unrefuted about that. And, Mr. Simpson, of course, gave you no explanation how his blood could have gotten there innocently. He had no innocent explanation for why his blood was at Bundy. In fact, he had no innocent explanation for any of this evidence, nothing. He had no innocent explanation for anything. He tries to also say, ladies and gentlemen, that why the blood -- these test results showed my blood was because there was a contamination in the lab. He tried to ask a lot of questions of witnesses about that. First of all, as we proved from the experts, when blood is contaminated, it doesn't turn somebody's blood into O.J. Simpson's blood. So just saying contamination didn't mean much; his blood just didn't show up because there's some contamination involved. Moreover, you heard the evidence from Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark, Gary Sims of DOJ, Brad -- Dr. Brad Popovich. There isn't any evidence of any contamination. None. They reviewed the work in this case. Dr. Popovich reviewed all blood work in this case, and said there's no evidence of any contamination. None. The test results are reliable, they're accurate, and they're unaffected by contamination. Those were his words. And he came on the stand and he gave that testimony just last week. And he reviewed all the work in this case, unaffected by contamination. There's no evidence of contamination in this case. I'm going to talk to you a little bit later on about why we have these arguments of -- about conspiracy and planting and contamination. And I'm going to show you how these arguments were born. But let me just tell you something: There isn't any evidence to support any of this stuff. Their expert, Dr. John Gerdes -- this was the guy they put on the witness stand -- he's the guy that represents mainly rapists and murderers if you recall. He's the guy -- he testifies for them, I should say. He's the guy who said -- tried to say there was some contamination, but finally had to concede that if there was contamination, it would have showed up on the substrate controls. Throughout this whole process of collecting blood evidence, there were these control swatches taken every step of the way of collection and testing. If there's any contamination, if Mr. Simpson's blood is somehow accidentally being put on the various blood swatches in this case, it would also show up on these control swatches. And every single one of these control swatches, their expert had to admit in the end, was completely free of contamination. Zero contamination on any control swatches. And that's really the end of discussion about contamination. If Mr. Simpson's blood is not on the control swatches, there's no contamination. Blood stain 52, by the way, that one Robin -- Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark testified -- that's the one right outside the back gate -- on that stain alone, she was able to obtain what she called a 5-probe RFLP match, which means she tested the DNA at five different locations. That's a very, very significant match under this RFLP test. And in the entire population, the number of people who could have had this 5-probe RFLP match is somewhere between one out of every 170 million and one out of every 2.2 billion. And Mr. Simpson is such a person who has that 5-probe match. That blood stain alone, number 52, is sufficient to show Mr. Simpson is responsible for these murders. He has no innocent explanation why his blood and his DNA were found at Bundy right after the murders. Now, on the back gate -- you heard a lot of testimony about the blood on the back gate. Gary Sims, from the Department of Justice, tested the back-gate blood, and he did a 9-probe RFLP match on that back-gate stain. And he found that it matched Simpson's DNA pattern. A 9-probe match -- I'll show you the frequencies. And they're very, very high. Again, their expert, Dr. Gerdes, admitted that that result could not be the result of contamination. That 9-probe match could not have come about by contamination. It's conclusive proof that Simpson's blood is on the back gate. They don't really quarrel with that. What they say is, it was planted there. Let me explain something about this back-gate planting argument, okay? If blood evidence at Bundy was checked on the morning of June 13, and these three stains on the back gate were overlooked and they were not collected until July 3 -- the criminalists, Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, did not go here and here and here to pick up stains; they just didn't do it. However, we know they were -- they were not planted, because four or five police officers, who we brought in here to testify, said they saw blood on the back gate. They saw blood, these blood stains on the back gate when they came to the crime scene, to either secure it or to investigate it. In fact -- I know it's been a long trial and it's hard to remember all this -- but the very first officer on the scene, Robert Riske, one of the first witnesses in our case, he saw the blood on the back gate, and he wrote it down in his notes. And it's right there in his notes, if you want to take a look at it. And that's exhibit -- What's that, 833, Steve?

Yes.

833. Okay. You want to bring out the results board real fast? And I'll move on to the hair and fiber evidence.

Your Honor, is this a good place for a break?

You want to take a break now?

Let me get through the blood, and then before we go to the next topic --

Okay. (Board entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Bundy Crime Scene, Exhibit 833, displayed.)

Again, these are the blood drops tested by the various labs. (Indicating.) It's five Bundy stains, and then it's three back-gate stains, and you'll see the labs, DOJ and Cellmark, that did the various tests, and the matches that they came up with. This is Nicole (indicating). This is a shoe print in Nicole Brown Simpson's blood (indicating). This is why it comes up with Nicole Brown. All the rest of them are O.J. Simpson. No, the defense does not challenge these results. They have had an expert who was around when some of this testing was done. He didn't come in here and testify. They don't contest any of these results; they agree with these results. They have no evidence of contamination. Dr. Popovich reviewed our experts' -- reviewed all this, and testified -- said no contamination. Dr. Henry Lee testified for the defense. He said he had no problems about DNA in this case. And you'll see the frequencies up there. The defense did not challenge any of the frequencies, either, ladies and gentlemen. They did not bring in a geneticist, population geneticist or statistician. The frequencies are undisputed. And they show that this blood is all O.J. Simpson's blood. This is a good place, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Remember, during argument -- you cannot discuss this case until the Court gives the case to you, after instructions. Don't talk about the argument among yourselves, or the evidence. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.)

We're trying to cool down a little here, Your Honor.