That's true. So people who knew him knew something was bothering this man and things were not going well. And indeed, when he was asked about the recital by the police the next day, he said, look, we have problems, always had problems. Problem relationship. When Mr. Simpson returns from that recital, he returns alone, while his family goes to dinner just a short distance away. He picks up this message, and who knows what kind of impact that had on his state of mind at that time, but we know one thing, it had such a profound impact that he will lie to you in the face of absolute records and notes from his own therapist or counselor and statements from his own friends. It was that important an element, what happened to him that night, that ultimately made him lose control at 10 o'clock or 10:30, that he wants to lie in the face of black-and-white records. When he got home from that recital -- you heard Mr. Kaelin, who bumped into him, who said that Mr. Simpson told him Nicole was playing, quote, hardball, end of quotes, with him in regard to the children. And I suspect Nicole was playing a little hardball with him because Mr. Simpson was playing some big time hardball with her. Writing her a letter, he gave her two options, come up with all your savings and give it to the government right now or move out of the house with the children. Those were the two options she had. So I suspect he was playing a little hardball. After he picked up this message, Mr. Simpson then, as you can see, made some other phone calls. 7:32, he called Gretchen Stockdale, another name from the past, a woman he had known, and he leaves a message saying that he's -- hey, Gretchen, it's O.J., I'm unattached for the first time in my life, or words to that effect. But right after he gets a message from Paula dumping him, Nicole doesn't want to have anything to do with him, he's trying to get in touch with somebody, make some connection, have somebody, gets an answering machine, and he says he's unattached for the first time in his life. I guess that further shows us that he's lying about not having received Paula's message. And then he makes more phone calls, and then we get to 9 o'clock. You can see how incessantly he's trying to get in touch with Paula. By the way, at 8:55 -- can you put that up -- he called his message machine again, retrieved a phone call from Paula. 8:55. Can you show the numbers? Not only 6:56, but 8:55, two times. God knows what went through his mind when he hung up on that phone call. Then he calls Nicole immediately, he said, at 9 o'clock. We don't see phone calls from him to Nicole because we don't have local phone call records. We don't know how many times he called her. We don't know how long they spoke. The only thing we have, ladies and gentlemen, the only thing we have to tell us what contact he had with her is him. Nothing else, just his words. So what does he say about the 9 o'clock phone call? Oh, he just called to congratulate Sydney and say let's go to Knott's Berry Farm. He said he had absolutely no conversation with Nicole at all, no argument, nothing. In fact, they didn't talk, he said. He said, can I speak to Sydney, is she asleep, or words to that effect. Sydney takes the phone. And he hangs up after he speaks to his daughter and that's the end of the call. That's what he says. There's nobody here to contradict that. But I tell you that even accepting that version of the conversation, that doesn't sound like things are all too well. How about how is dinner? How did the kids enjoy dinner? How was the family? What did your mom have to say? Where'd you guys go to eat? Wasn't that recital terrific? Wasn't Sydney wonderful at the recital? Wasn't she beautiful? Did you see how she danced? Did you take any pictures? Do you have any video? How about all those things? None of that was said. Isn't that normal conversation between two people, even if -- even if their romantic relationship has come to an end. Wouldn't that be normal conversation? Mr. Simpson will probably never tell us what happened in that conversation, nor will he ever tell us what happened in the next hour and a half. But I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, and there's absolutely no question about this, next time he saw Nicole Brown Simpson after he hung up that phone, he had a knife to her throat. That's the next time he saw her. He had a knife in his hand. And who can imagine the words of hatred, revenge, that he last spoke to her. Who can imagine? Rage. Words of rage. (Pause.) In the end, it all comes down to this: There's blood, there's hair, there's fibers, there's cuts, there's sweatsuits, there's hats, there's no alibi, there's plenty of time, and there's motive. And that's on our side of the scale. What's on his side? His word that he didn't do it, his credibility, his truth telling. This is what's on his side. Did he tell the truth to you? He's lied to you about everything important in this case, covered his tracks and hid his guilt. The Judge will read you a jury instruction that states as follows. Forgive me for reading it. A witness willfully false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. Is to be distrusted. You may reject the entire testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely on a material point unless from all of the evidence you believe that the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars. What this means is that if you believe O.J. Simpson lied to you on just one important point, and that's what the word material is, you can reject his entire testimony. In fact, if you believe that he was willfully false in one part of his testimony, you are obligated to distrust his testimony in other parts. We have a case here where this man has been willfully false in all parts of his testimony. Can you bring out the board, Joe. (Exhibit board is displayed.)

Apart from the physical evidence that tells us he is lying, for him to be innocent and for him to be believed, you have to disbelieve all of them. Either Simpson is lying or all of these witnesses and documents are lying or mistaken or faked. All these people, all these writings, all these photographs, they either have to be fraudulent, lying, altered, mistaken. Bottom line, they all have to be wrong, and only he is right. And here's the man who told you that he never, ever even attempted to tell a lie about anything important. A man who wrote in his autobiography, quote, I am a pretty effective liar, end of quotes. And then tried to disavow it. First by saying he didn't read it, and then by saying it was a joke. I'm not going to take the time to go through this in the interests of saving time. You've heard all these witnesses. You've seen all these documents in one form or another. These people have to be wrong. Whether it be Nicole's diaries, Nicole herself --

I'm going to object to that, Your Honor. That's improper argument. That goes -- only goes to her state of mind.

You'll get your chance to argue. Overruled.

As to her state of mind, Mr. Baker. These photos all have to be false, police all have to be liars, mistaken about everything they did. His own counselor, Lenore Walker, she's wrong, all those things she wrote in her notes, they're wrong. Medical records of Nicole's '89 beating, wrong. People who witnessed domestic violence incidents, wrong. GTE telephone records showing he picked up the message, wrong. His good friend, Jackie Cooper, about obsessing about Nicole, wrong. His lawyer, Skip Taft, who saw the cut on his fourth finger the day when he came back from Chicago, wrong. And then he agreed to lie for Mr. Simpson. His lawyer friend of, what, 20, 30 years, Robert Kardashian, wrong. Lied. He lied. He lied when he said Simpson asked him to go get the golf clubs. That was a lie. Everybody. I don't want to take the time. And Orenthal James Simpson, I guess he's got to be a liar, too, because he told us how mistaken he was when he told the police all those things that he now wants to recant, all the things in the police statement, all the times he said he cut his finger in Los Angeles. I was wrong. I was assuming. When he said he was driving over to Paula's after the recital. I was wrong, that wasn't Sunday, that was Saturday. When he said he picked up Paula's message. Oh, I was wrong about that, too, I didn't pick it up. So I guess he's a liar. Can you bring out the next board. (A demonstrative board containing of Flammer and Scull photos is displayed.)

And then if all that's not enough, this is just a good illustration of how a liar gets trapped in his lies. As you heard in Court, I took this man's deposition early in 1996, at a time he believed it would never surface, a photograph of him wearing the murder shoes. February 1996, January 1996, at a time when he believed there would never surface a photograph, he felt confident, because none had come to light. And so I asked him in his deposition about those Bruno Magli shoes, and he was emphatic. I would never wear those "ugly ass shoes." He was emphatic. Left no room, no room for doubt. I would never wear them. Then a couple months later, a young photographer finds a photograph among his many, many photographs of O.J. Simpson over the years, young kid, 25 years old, Harry Scull, and guess what, a couple months later, he's wearing the shoes. He's got a problem now, doesn't he? What's he going to do? How does he get out of this one? That picture came out in about March or April. Well, maybe I could say those are not Bruno Magli. That's not going to work. They're going to get an expert. You know what, you can see the sole on that shoe. That is not going to work. Think of something else. Hum, what else is there? That's a Bruno Magli. That sure looks like me. I was at that game. Those are my clothes. I got it. The picture's a fake, it's a fraud. Okay. Let's work on that one. So what does he do? Better get somebody in here to say that's a fraud. Scour the country. Let's get the -- let's find a photographic expert, top guy. Hey, there's this guy used to work at the FBI named Jerry Richards, let's call him up.

There's no evidence of this, Your Honor. He's just making this up.

Sustained.

Who did he bring in here? Who did he bring in here? He had the wherewithal, the motivation, the resources, to hire the best person in the world to come in here and tell you that picture was a -- picture is a fake. And I'm telling the truth. He has the best lawyers in this courtroom. He could have hired the best experts. He brought in a guy named Groden, I think, Robert Groden. You heard Robert Groden. What did Robert Groden say? Well, first of all, Robert Groden never testified as an expert before, ever, in court. Never. First time. His occupation is writing about the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy; and even so, sold autopsy pictures of a deceased president to the tabloids. He was working giving guided tours of the Kennedy assassination, complete with sounds of bullets firing, peddling videos in Dealey Plaza. And this guy comes in here 2,000 bucks a day -- that's why he came in here; they paid him $2,000 a day -- gets up on this stand, tells us that picture's a phony. That's what he did. Hey, that picture's a phony. By it's why he didn't show you that picture was a phony; he told you that picture was a phony. He said, the frame -- that frame was longer than the others; it had a suspicious blue line; it was out alignment; it had a false edge; and it had some strange marks on it. That's what he said. Okay. We'll have to deal with that now because we've got this expert on the stand. So we bring in a man named Gerry Richards, a true experts witness. Who is Gerry Richards? He used to work for the FBI for a lot of years, headed up their photo lab, held high positions in numerous professional photographic organizations. This man was not only -- Robert Groden was not only not a member of those organizations, he never heard of them. He never heard of these professional organizations. And Gerry Richards didn't tell you; Gerry Richards showed you the key frame is exactly the same length as the other frames. Many frames had blue lines because they were typical of scratches. He showed you; he didn't tell you. Several sets of frames were out of alignment because of a perfectly natural movement of the film in the camera. And this so-called false edge was merely the -- He wants to get this right, my partner. Mr. Gelblum handled this, as you will remember. Underexposed photograph of the lines of the football field, complete with the red, white, and blue marks on the 20-yard line, nothing suspicious if you know what you're doing. Robert Groden didn't even know, when he used his own Xerox machine to blow up the negative, to try to measure it, and that when it blows up three or four times, it distorts in dimensions and proportions. He didn't even know that. So that's the guy they come in here with and tell you -- and base their whole case on that picture's a fraud. And remember what I said earlier. We have evidence, after evidence, after evidence, after evidence. You can find this man liable on the basis of one blood drop at Bundy. You don't need anything more than that. But they rest their whole case on that picture being a phony. If you think that picture is real, if you believe Gerry Richards over Robert Groden, he is guilty; he is the killer. And he's got nowhere to run anymore. (Indicating to Mr. Simpson.) And if that were not enough, even during this trial, we have 30 more pictures that a photographer has undeveloped in his basement in Buffalo, where Mr. Simpson worked a lot of years. And they'll try to tell you, oh, how suspicious it is that these photos are emerging; how suspicious is this? Where were they two and a half years ago? Well, do you think all this is suspicious? These are people that know Mr. Simpson. He identified some of them. You think all these pictures are frauds? So now, when we confronted him with these photographs -- and understand something: He took this witness stand in his own defense, with his whole case riding on this one point; his case, not ours, his case, his whole case riding on this one point. Did his lawyer ask him a single question about these photographs? What's more telling than that? Not even his lawyer would ask him. Did he ask him a single question? No. I had to ask him. I walked up here and asked him about those photographs. And maybe for the first time in life, I guess he realized he was out of room to run. Yeah, I was there. Those -- That's me. Those are people I know. Those are my clothes, not my shoes. Not my shoes. Wait a minute, Mr. Simpson. Can you reach that for me, because I can't. (Indicating to Joe.) (Joe removes magazine from demonstrative display board)

Are you saying these are all fakes?

I'm going to object, Your Honor. That's not the law in this state.

You can make --

Overruled.

You can make Mr. Simpson compensate my client, that man, that grieving man, for what he has suffered: The loss of companionship, support, love, and affection that he enjoyed with his son; gone forever, ladies and gentlemen. And I am not going to tell you, or even suggest to you how much you should award him. I'm just going to leave it up to your good judgment. I'd like to play for you one more time, one of Fred Goldman's last treasures that he has, he will always have to remember his son by. Can you play it, Steve. (Videotape played.)

There was a sixteenth-century poet, named Guillaume Du Bartas, who best expressed a relationship between a father and son in a few simple words. Let me read them to you. My lovely living boy, My hope, my happiness, My love, my life, my joy. Fred Goldman's lovely, living boy is no more.

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (A bench conference was held which was not reported.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.)

Mr. Kelly.

Yes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Good morning.

PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING ARGUMENT

I also want to thank you for the time and attention you've given this case, and looking at all the notebooks each of you have is a testimonial to all the time and effort you've put in on this case. And we all understand that it's been an extraordinary sacrifice for all of you, it's been a lot of hard work, not only in the courtroom, but to avoid this outside the courtroom, too, which called for a certain amount of effort. And we just all appreciate your time and your effort, at this point. Now, the first thing I want to reiterate right now is the fact that we will never know with certainty, nor are we required to prove, what exactly caused Mr. Simpson to kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman that night. To wantonly and maliciously kill someone, to take someone's life, this errant behavior, in and of itself, defies human sensibility. Unless Mr. Simpson tells us, which he hasn't up to this point, we'll never know what twisted his state of mind to act in that manner that night. What we do ask of you is for you to use your collective human experiences and common sense to weigh certain evidence you have here before you, and make certain determinations. What I want to talk to you about is the evidence regarding who Mr. Simpson was, who Nicole Brown Simpson was, and the nature of that relationship over a course of many years, because that also holds a lot of answers to this case. I would suggest, that during the course of this trial, the defense has staked out the position that Mr. Simpson loved Nicole, that he was not capable of killing her, and would never be capable of killing her with two children sleeping upstairs. What we believe the evidence demonstrates is not only that he was capable of killing her, but Nicole believed he was capable of killing her, even with children sleeping upstairs. Now, during opening statements, and when Mr. Simpson testified, himself, you heard a certain quote, and I think it went something like this: Fame is a vapor, popularity is an accident, money takes wings, but only one thing endures, and that's character. And we agree that character endures. Whether it's good character or bad character, it endures. And we've learned a lot about Mr. Simpson's character; we know it was formidable, we know it was complex, and we also know it was frightening. And we've seen occasions when a sick, twisted mind would trigger the fury of an animal and the actions of a coward. And Mr. Simpson is a coward. You've heard about the public Mr. Simpson, the polished veneer. I mean, how many times are you going to hear about the fact he won a Heismann Trophy, he shattered professional football rushing records, he was a spokesman for corporate America, and a commentator for the networks. But, ladies and gentlemen, winning the Heismann Trophy doesn't give you a license to kill. You also heard about the private Mr. Simpson. You've seen and you've heard that he would not always control his rage, his temper, during the course of this relationship with Nicole; he battered her. And you've seen and heard from Nicole herself, that she lived in fear of him. He did not treat Nicole the way he expected the world to treat him. When we revisit this evidence, we are not in any way suggesting simply that what happened on June 12, 1994, was an instance of abuse that escalated to murder. Nor are we trying to tell you simply that since he had hit her on previous occasions, he killed her that night. Rather, what we believe the evidence shows is that Nicole was the subject of violent outbursts from this man, outbursts, and on occasion he could not control regardless of what the circumstances were or who was there. Before I get there, I want to address one other thing. When Mr. Simpson was on the stand, and I think this says a lot about his character and the kind of man Mr. Simpson is, he told you people after he had separated from Nicole, when she had left him, that Nicole came to him and indicated she was pregnant. This was never corroborated by anybody or anything and had nothing to do with this case, but I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that if that had ever been true, the last person in the world Nicole would have told was this man. And if he had ever found out, this man would never, ever, have let that go. This man had a mind like Krazy Glue, and he didn't let go of things. They stuck. He also told you about the time he was shamelessly peeping into Nicole's window late at night, sneaking around, looking in. What does he tell you? The next day, he said, I shook the guy's hand. After that I'd see him, I'd talk to him about his golf. If you listen to that 1993 tape, October '93, 18 months later and that man exploded about that incident. Exploded. And the only reason Mr. Simpson talked about these things on the stand, ladies and gentlemen, is to cheapen Nicole's life in front of you people. To talk about the murdered mother of his children, the mother that he murdered; that one purpose, to cheapen her life. Don't buy it. Nicole was precious. She was a gem. She was a total package. And to Mr. Simpson, she was the Heismann Trophy of women. But just like that trophy, an object to him. She was a great mother. You've heard that from everybody. She was a great daughter. She was a great sister. She was a great friend. She was beautiful. She was happy. And she was healthy. She was everything Mr. Simpson was not. She was private. She was caring. She was sensitive. And during the two incidences where the police got involved prior to the murders, the one thing you'll hear is that Nicole's only concern was the fact that these two children, Sydney and Justin, were in the house. And diametrically opposed to Nicole's concern about those two children in the house, was Mr. Simpson. His only concern was him and him and more him. And one of the hardest things to understand and learn about, probably, is a relationship between a man and woman, husband and wife. That's been part of the exercise here. But at different times both Nicole and Mr. Simpson have given us insight into this relationship. Both of them, at different times, both of them in a sense, both of them at unguarded moments. Mr. Simpson, on June 13, 1994, when he was talking to the police, he stated it's always been a problem relationship. And Nicole, when she was talking to the police on October 25, 1993, after things had calmed down there a little bit, she says we haven't communicated in 15 years. One thing Nicole and Mr. Simpson agreed upon, contrary to Mr. Simpson's testimony on the stand here, was the relationship was less than perfect. With regard to some of these incidences; first of all, you heard that, back in 1983, from India Allen, she was at Dr. Shipp's animal hospital, and Nicole was there, she was there, and her two-seater Mercedes, the white one. India Allen testified how she was bringing the two chows out to the car, walking along with her, and Mr. Simpson pulled up in his dark-colored Rolls Royce, at that time, and India Allen described Nicole; spandex, fur coat, headband, sunglasses. With all due respect to my client, you couldn't make up an outfit like that. But in any event, she described Mr. Simpson's demeanor and his appearance as he pulled up in that car and parked sideways to Nicole's car. And she described how he approached the car; his anger, his clinched fist, how he grabbed the fur coat, struggled with her, and slapped her, slapped her in public with other people standing there, knocking her sunglasses off and her headband off, right there in the middle of the day. India Allen testified other people were there. Someone was loading dog food into the car at the same time. She remembered clearly. She told the story many times over the years to her family. For years. She remembered it so clearly because of the celebrity status of Mr. Simpson. And what did Mr. Simpson tell you on the stand? That it couldn't have happened. Why? Because of Nicole's headband, because of the fur coat, and because of her spandex. He said she only wore a headband when she played tennis. You all heard that Nicole was a fitness freak. She has spandex on. She wants to keep the hair out of her eyes just like when you play tennis, you wear a headband. With regard to the fur coat, he didn't deny she owned one. He learned his lesson with the pictures. Obviously, he just said she would only wear it in cold weather like in Colorado and places. It's interesting when you hear what predicated this argument and ultimately this physical fight, was that coat, that he didn't want her wearing it. And finally, and most remarkably, Mr. Simpson said that Nicole didn't own gold spandex. What I find so remarkable about this is he can't remember his own designer shoes in 1993, but he remembers what color spandex she owned in 1983. Next we hear in '84 where Mark Day of Westec Company is called to the Rockingham residence. He arrives there; Nicole's upset, there's a bat, there's damage to the car, there's a cracked windshield. Mr. Simpson doesn't deny any of this happening. He just says it happened during a normal conversation. Well, I would suggest that Mr. Simpson with a bat in his hand and a cracked windshield could be quite menacing. And there would be only one reason Nicole would call for security, and that was because she was frightened. Mr. Simpson said I pay for everything around Rockingham regardless of who broke it or what it was, so I don't know why, in this instance, she would call security to make sure he paid for this. She called for one reason only. In 1986 -- and you'll remember that Mr. Simpson testified specifically that between 1985 and 1987 their relationship was great. In 1986 you heard that Mr. Aguilar was walking along the beach; Victoria Beach. This is a man who knew Mr. Simpson from his days at USC, knew very well who he was, familiar with him, saw him on the beach that day. You heard Nicole and Mr. Simpson engaged in conversation. And the next thing he sees is that same lighting quick right hand across Nicole's face. The same right hand that India Allen had witnessed three years ago. And that right hand, this time, drops Nicole like a stone to the sand. Now, try to imagine the humiliation of being struck in public, of lying in the sand, ears ringing, eyes tearing, with your husband standing over you, eight inches taller, 100 pounds heavier. This is a reflection of the relationship. This should let you think about Nicole's state of mind with regard to this. Simpson said -- he told us this long story about playing golf in the morning and putting chairs out on the beach and everything else. Then he went on to say specifically that he was not down in Victoria Beach on July 3, 1987, he was not down in Victoria Beach on July 1, 1986, but he never, ever, mentioned July 28th. You can have that checked back and read back, if you want, ladies and gentlemen. Just ignores that day which is around the time Mr. Aguilar testified that this incident happened. Now, at this time, this '85 to '87 period, is when Mr. Simpson, as I said, said the relationship was great. As you recall, Sydney was born October of '85. In '87, Justin hadn't been born yet. Now, contrary to how Mr. Simpson said the relationship was -- I'd like you to look at something that reflects on how Nicole saw the relationship at that time. Steve, 732