Defendant's response. Our response; we admitted that. This is what we didn't admit. Admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiffs' definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time whether an item was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of the collection or any other point in time. Now, that's kind of confusing. I'll grant you that. A bunch of lawyers get together, work out a compromise. Maybe it's not too clear. But what that tells you, you can't deny this, is that we have maintained from the very beginning of this case that you cannot rely on this physical evidence, that what was picked up off the ground is not necessarily the same thing that went to a lab, that went to a third lab. What we were willing to admit was that when a piece of evidence, whatever it was, whatever had happened to it, got to a particular lab such as DOJ or Cellmark, and they did their tests on it, they got a particular result. That's what we did admit. Not that it was what was actually picked up off the ground, or that it was in the same condition. That's what this whole case is about. Mr. Petrocelli's argument, much of it, was conclusory statements of we proved everything. They proved nothing. We proved everything to a certainty. Much of the argument was a clear request for your emotional verdict, not a factual verdict. Now, let me tell you what I'm going to do. Actually, let me tell you what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to talk all day. Maybe I'll even finish before lunch, if I'm lucky. I'm not going to talk about every single piece of evidence. You've already had a sense of the police conduct, as I mentioned before. You've seen that almost every police witness in this case, almost every plaintiffs' witness, has changed their testimony over time, over the years, over the two and a half years since this crime occurred. That it always gets better. Criminal cases are not like fine wine. It doesn't get better over time. It's not supposed to. When people come in here and change their testimony, and say, oh, gosh, I was wrong, you know, really was worse for Mr. Simpson than I originally said, you're allowed to take those inconsistencies and tell whether the witness was incorrect, misrecollected. And you understand there's an instruction -- lots of people suffer, or anybody -- all of us can suffer from innocent misrecollection. For instance, as Mr. Baker mentioned yesterday with Allan Park and some of his observations, it's not our contention that he was lying, it's our contention that his recollection is simply wrong. There's always going to be conflicts in a case. It doesn't mean one party is lying to you. Sometimes, it doesn't always mean that at all. We're human beings we; see things differently. You can have a room full of people and have something happen right in front of them, and if you all write down a statement of what you saw, it's not going to be the same. I'm not going to prove anything to you to an absolute certainty. Mr. Petrocelli said he proved his case to an absolute certainty. I'm not going to promise you that. Nobody can do that. Nobody can do that. Of course the Judge is going to tell you that the burden is on them to prove before they're entitled to any recovery of money in this case. That's about money. What I'm going to do is I'm going to go over some of the facts with you, some of them in some detail. Mr. Petrocelli did not go over many of the facts and much of the physical evidence in a lot of detail. I'm going to do that with a number of items to give you now. My suggestion is that you should look at some of this evidence and what you can infer, and conclude from what you've heard and what you've seen in the last several months. And again, I will try to give you transcript references where I have those. Our defense in this case on the physical evidence is very, very simple. You can't trust it. You can't trust it because it's been compromised, it's been corrupted by the Los Angeles Police Department, evidence has been tampered with, it's been planted. Now, am I going to produce an eyewitness to you to show that Mark Fuhrman picked up a glove at Bundy and took it over and swiped it on the console of the Bronco and then put it in the back walkway so he could get a search warrant? No. No.
You don't have eyewitnesses to those kinds of things, folks. I'm going to explain to you when I go over some of the instructions in a minute, how those kinds of things can be proved and what you're allowed to consider and what you should consider in deciding, hey, is that likely what happened, could that have happened, should I accept that or should I reject that? What I am going to point out to you is the many facts that we have in this case that show that this evidence is -- this physical evidence cannot be trusted. I'm going to go through the DNA materials in some detail to show you just how questionable this DNA evidence is. I mean, this is supposedly the central part of their case. We talked about DNA in some detail. I'm going to do it again. It's very complicated stuff. I want you to understand it. I want you to understand the important parts of it. That's very important. If all you have is an expert coming in who knows more about DNA than you do and tells you this is what it says, that's not good enough. That's not good enough. It is our position that the way in which this evidence was collected and kept at LAPD for, in some cases several months, makes it not worthy of trust, that it should not be used as proof in a case of this seriousness. Now, let me tell you a little bit about how our system works and how a defense works and how we try to convince you of things. Maybe this will give you a little better idea of how our evidence comes out. Most of our evidence comes out through cross-examination of their witnesses. So, in essence, you're hearing really both sides of the case at the same time to a certain extent. When the crime occurs, the police are called. Okay. That's natural. The police get there first. The police generally close off a crime scene like they did here. They immediately put up yellow tape or do what they have to do to surround the scene so that nobody else but the police can be there. Policemen are human. Many of them are honest. Many of them are great policemen. Some of them are dishonest. Maybe many of them are incompetent. They make mistakes. They're the ones who talk to the witnesses initially. They take the first statements and then they write down at some later time what they recall the witness telling them, which is not a particularly good way of memorializing what a witness says that very first time, which is possibly the most important time, before they've had a chance to have other things influence their mind to change their perception of what they thought they saw. The best thing to do would be to tape-record witnesses. And that's usually not done by LAPD out in the field. You'd have too accurate a statement. They decide at some point who's our suspect, who we think did it, and in this case it's obvious, I submit to you, that they decided that Mr. Simpson was guilty before they even went to Rockingham for the first time. I think that's clear from the evidence. Then what do they do? If they get a lead that looks like it might point -- help their case, they'll go around the world. And they did in this case. They went to Italy to make shoes. They went to Scotland Yard. They have access to police agencies all over the world. If there's any lead that comes in that's inconsistent with their theory, what do they do? A lot of times they don't do anything. Sometimes they'll check it out, try and neutralize it. That's just the way the system works. Now, they have access to the crime scene, for instance, at Bundy here, any time they want. They just go there. They come back whenever they want. This was -- as you know, this was a very emotional case and the tremendous amount of publicity was just -- still is, it's just unreal, and it put some -- it's made your job a lot harder, quite frankly, because there's a lot of what I'll call "schmaltz" out there, stuff that just is not true and doesn't make sense, that you probably have been exposed to in the last two and a half years, and you have a tough job putting all that out of your mind. Anyway, when they're done with the crime scene, they close it down and it's washed down, like this scene was, and LAPD, as you've noticed, didn't even take a videotape of this crime scene to preserve -- to help better preserve --
It's all excluded by the Court's order. No evidence about videotaping -- not videotaping.
I'll talk about the videotape that they did do. They took a videotape, a Willie Ford tape, that we're going to look at later. The reason they do that, and the only reason we did that, was in case someone said they broke a dish when they did break a dish. That's for insurance purposes. That's what they did a video of, and that's all. Now, when we get involved, they don't let us go over and -- and be at the crime scene with them. Mechanically, it wouldn't work well. I mean I'm not suggesting that that's a negative thing. That's just the way it works. By the time the defense gets involved, it's like the ballgame's over, the stadium's closed, the people have gone home, and now you come in and see what you can find out, and that's what we do, and we review whatever material is available. Eventually we'll get reports from the police. We dig and we try to gather information. That may involve going through thousands and thousands of documents, like this case. This case involved a huge amount of paper. We are subjected to such things as when -- Dr. Baden told you that he went to the crime lab to look at certain physical evidence, he wasn't allowed to touch it, he wasn't allowed to take it out of the bag, he wasn't allowed to take a picture of it. That was because of Detective Vannatter. Detective Vannatter is the one who told him that. That is not a very satisfactory way of gathering information. What you're going to see, and the facts that I'm going to bring up to you, the evidence that we have put on through cross-examination and through direct examination, when we had to call back most of their witnesses, you will be able to draw certain inferences from as to the value of this evidence. And we submit to you that you will reject it. An analogy I can think of is that we're trying to do one of those paint by the numbers pictures, and the picture that we have that's our defense is that we have a picture of corruption, of contamination, of planting, of tampering. And we don't have all the paint. We're not going to be able to paint you a complete picture of all of that. We're going to be able to paint some of it, from which you're going to be able to infer, we submit, that we can't trust this evidence. We can't go to the FBI and go up to Bodziak and say, Bill, let's go have lunch and talk about these shoes. We don't have access to that kind of information. The picture that they're required to paint is different. They have the burden of proof in the case, as I told you. It's up to them to paint their picture. We will present our evidence to show that this evidence cannot be trusted. There's a -- Dr. Henry Lee likes to make the statement or used the statement, I don't know if he used it here, but if you have a plate of spaghetti and you find a cockroach in it, you don't have to really go and look for a second one to know that you can discard the plate of spaghetti. All you need to do is find the first one, and discard the rest of it. Now, let me tell you a little bit about some of the instructions that are very important here. You've all heard on television the term circumstantial evidence. This is primarily a circumstantial evidence case. No eyewitnesses. And you're going to be given an instruction that tells you what circumstantial evidence is, and I'm going to read you a little part of it here. "Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence proves a fact without an inference, and if true" -- and by the way, you don't need to write this down because the Judge will give you this and you'll have access to this. "Direct evidence proves a fact without an inference, and if true, conclusively establishes that fact. "Circumstantial evidence proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as to the degree of proof required. Each one is a reasonable method of proof. Each is respected for such convincing force as it may carry." That's a lot of legalese. And I'll give you a real easy example. If you're walking down the street in the fall, and you're on the East Coast and it's a fall day, and you see smoke coming from your neighbor's backyard, that's circumstantial evidence that something's going on in the backyard. You can make some inferences that maybe they're barbecuing something, maybe they're burning some leaves. There are several things that could explain that. Those are all reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence. And what the law allows you to do is make those inferences and say, okay, that's logical, I know this fact is logical that I know this second fact. On the other hand, with circumstantial evidence you can oftentimes jump to the wrong conclusion. I don't -- I think it was mentioned during voir dire, and some of you may be aware, that I'm the only attorney from the defense team that was in the criminal case as well, and because of -- and you probably noticed when I was here before Christmas, and now I have (indicating to chest) a brace on. You can see it when I bend over. Several of the media outlets put 2 and 2 together and got 4, and said, why is it that Mr. Blasier, who is the only attorney from the criminal case, has to wear a bulletproof vest. That's what they thought they saw. That's what they thought they saw. So that's an example of how you can come to the wrong conclusion based on circumstantial evidence. Weighing -- oh, here's a good one. "Failure to produce available stronger evidence. If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered by a party when it was within such party's ability to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust." Now, we're going to talk about EDTA and we're going to talk about items that were tested and items that were not tested, and we're going to suggest to you that the police department in this case had plenty of opportunity to disprove any planting theory by testing a lot of this evidence for EDTA, and they tested two pieces and they found EDTA, and they stopped looking. We'll talk about that more. If you find that a party willfully suppressed evidence in order to prevent its being presented in this trial, you may consider that fact in determining what inferences to draw from the evidence. It's up to you. It's up to you. That's my cockroach instruction. If you find a cockroach in your spaghetti, you're entitled to reject it all if you want to. You don't have to. You're entitled to. We submit that you should. "Failure to deny or explain adverse evidence in determining what inferences to draw from the evidence. You may consider, among other things, a party's failure to explain or deny such evidence." We put on evidence about the Rokahr-Fuhrman pointing picture. And we'll talk about that some more. That was not rebutted. We put on evidence that --
We put on evidence that some of the evidence at the Bundy scene was tampered with, and when I say tampered with, I'm referring to the envelope and the glove. And we'll look at that. They have been changed. Their positions have been changed a lot of times. You say, well, they were moved. We don't know if -- when you have two pictures and it's in one position in one place, different position in the second place, we don't know that it was just moved. It could have been picked up, could have been taken somewhere, something could have been done with it and replaced, so that -- no one came in to tell you that, oh, this is how that happened. No one came in to explain that. Now, how you decide who's telling you the truth, there's a long instruction the Judge will give you. I'm not going to read all of it. It's just a little bit about believability of witnesses. And this says, in part, "In determining the believability of a witness, you may consider any matter that has a tendency and reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the testimony of the witness, including, but not limited to." Then there's a list of things that you'll get. The one that I want to highlight to you is, "A statement previously made by the witness that is consistent or inconsistent with the testimony of the witness." And again, we heard that from witness after witness after witness. And this instruction tells you that you're allowed to say -- you're allowed to conclude, I don't believe that person, I'm sorry, I don't believe that person, I've heard too many versions of this. "Witness willfully false in one part" -- Mr. Petrocelli read that to you. I'm not going to read it to you again. You're entitled to reject the entirety of a witness's testimony if you think that the person's lied to you. Makes sense. That's what the Judge will tell you. Now, experts. We heard a lot of testimony from experts, and there are a couple of instructions that tell you -- that give you some guidance on how do we sift through all this stuff. The experts are just human beings who have certain special knowledge. I'm sure some of you have technical-type jobs that you know more about than other people do, and that makes you an expert in that particular area. And what the -- what the instruction says, in part, "In determining what weight to give each and any such opinion, you should consider the qualifications and believability of the witness, the facts or materials upon which each opinion is based, and the reasons for each opinion. "You are not bound by an opinion if you give such opinion" -- I'm sorry -- "the weight to which you find it deserves." Now, nothing in that instruction about money. Nothing in there that says that if one expert gets $150 an hour and another one gets $3,000 a day, that you're supposed to believe one of them more. Nothing in there about that. Nothing in there about that. We saw Dr. Popovich come in here and admit that the taxpayers of Los Angeles County paid him $30,000 in the criminal case and he never said a word in court. I'm not suggesting to you that that's bad. I'm not suggesting to you at all that you make up your mind about an expert based on money. In fact, it's just the opposite. I don't really think that's that significant. Mr. Petrocelli made what I consider very insulting comments about Dr. Baden in his comment, well, the defense pays him $100,00 so he'll say something in their favor. Dr. Baden told you that he, in the criminal case, was out here 70 times -- or 70 days I think it was, and worked hundreds of hours on this case and was paid around 100,000, as I recall. Well, I want Mr. Petrocelli to tell you what one of their senior partners would cost for 70 days and hundreds of hours. I can tell you it would be a heck of a lot more than $100,000. I don't think that's how you should judge the testimony. That's up to you. All right. Couple more concepts before we get into some of the details here. There's a term that I think came up in the computer industry called GIGO, G-I-G-O. Can you put that slide up, Phil. (Document displayed on the Elmo screen.) What it means is, garbage in, garbage out. Very simple. Means you can't -- when you put something into a system, what you get out of it is only as good as what went into it. And that's what our position is on the physical evidence in this case: No better than the way it was collected and preserved and kept. A lot of times -- there are a lot of comments from some of the experts about concordance; and that is the idea that, geez, these things were tested by several different labs, and they got the same results. Boy, that must means they must be right. That's not really, necessarily, the meaning of concordance. The idea of concordance is, you start fresh; you've got a piece of evidence on the ground. And from that point, it is split up and sent to different places, without being processed at one place first. Then you truly have two separate tests on the same piece of evidence that you can place much more reliance on. In this case, we have -- Put on the next slide, would you Phil, please. (Mr. P. Baker complies.)
We have basically three crime scenes: We have Rockingham, Bundy, and the Bronco. And when the LAPD or the D.
A.'s office decided they needed outside help, and they went to the Department of Justice, the FBI, and Cellmark. But what you need to understand, and what's critical here, and was not talked about by Mr. Petrocelli, is -- Put on the next slide, please. (Mr. P. Baker complies.) MR.BLASIER: Everything went through LAPD. Everything. There was not a single FBI expert called to the scene, as I recall, to pick up anything off the ground. It was all collected and went through LAPD. And it ain't gonna get any better than it was when it was at LAPD. Okay. Let's talk briefly about -- about the crime lab. You heard some things about the LAPD crime lab -- and this is a big county, big county. They don't even have a manual that tells them how to do things. They've -- they've got a draft manual for years. Years. They've had it. They don't even have a manual that tells their people how to collect things. And you know enough about DNA now to know how sensitive it is and how important it is to have controls and to do things right. If you want to have any faith at all in anything that you get out at the end, you got to do it right. No uniform way to do things. They have terrible documentation in terms of trying to reconstruct what they did, when. We've heard about them preserving blood in a trash bag on the counter overnight. And we'll talk more about that. We've seen them alter documents in respect to the blood vial changing from 17 to 18, because it looked like it might have been tampered with, because it was given a number after the tennis shoes. We'll talk a little more about that later. The lab is not accredited; they are not accountable to anyone. They are not required to be monitored by anyone. We know that, in this case -- you know, it's funny, in the context of blood, they -- a number of people were asked, do you keep track of how much blood you collect when you collect blood as part of a case? Of course not. Of course not. Good heavens. You realize -- you realize the importance of -- of the victim's blood and the suspect's blood in this case now. They don't even consider that something that they should even think about. We don't keep track of that. There's no accountability here. There's no accountability here. We cannot trust it. Okay. I want to go to the Rockingham -- Can we get the Rockingham board with the blood drops in the driveway? Would you like to take a break, Judge?
I'm trying to keep kind of chronological order here a little bit. This is where criminalists were first sent. We'll talk about why that happened, while they're bringing that board out. Let me preface my remarks by saying, you know, you remember we started out in this case, the LAPD did, with Andrea Mazzola as the officer in charge. Andrea Mazzola had only been to two crime scenes previously. It is absolutely ludicrous, in a crime this serious, that their procedure would allow for a criminalist of so little experience to be the officer in charge. Now, they claim they changed that designation, I believe, on the way to Rockingham, even though the paperwork still shows her as the officer in charge. And at Rockingham, they still made her basically do all of the work. (Counsel displays board entitled Blood Drops at 360 North Rockingham Avenue, June 13, 1994.)
The least experienced person there, doing all the work. Now, Mr. Baker's going to talk more about the police going over the wall and those aspects, so I'm not going to go into that in any detail at all. But think about this: They've got a crime scene at Bundy, with two people who are -- who have bled to death. I mean, that's what they think is the cause of death, the manner of death. There's about six pints of blood in a body. Twelve pints of blood, total, in this case. And the victims, in a very gory, very bloody scene. And what do they call the criminalist for? They call the criminalist to Rockingham because of a speck of something that may be blood that's smaller than your fingernail. You tell me: Have they made up their minds yet who's guilty? Have they made up their minds yet? Of course they have. Of course they have. And they've got to get into the house, so they call Fung and Mazzola to Rockingham first, and they let everything sit at Bundy. Already been sitting all night, where things at the crime scene change: Bodies change over time. You lose evidence. It doesn't get better. You try to get there fast. You try to get there and do your job first. Not what happened here. We have Mazzola and Fung going to Rockingham first. Now, we've had testimony about police officer after police officer going back and forth from Bundy to Rockingham, Gonzalez playing with the dog, goes back to Rockingham. I mean, come on, folks.
Mr. Petrocelli, you're going to have ample time to make your rebuttal. This is argument.
My recollection is, that comes from a report from Ron Phillips, who they're asking you to believe. In any event, you got him going back and forth -- you got the detectives going back and forth; you got people going from one scene to the other. What are these folks thinking about? They're not thinking about trying to preserve the integrity of each individual scene. They're police officers out there, trying to catch the bad guy. They're not thinking. We have a dog that's wandering around Rockingham. And I -- when I asked that question, I didn't -- I thought it was -- I thought it was the dog Kato. And I apologize to you. I found out it was -- I was wrong; it wasn't the dog Kato. Doesn't matter it was another dog. I think it might have been Chachi. You don't let a dog run around your crime scene while you're trying to collect evidence. Come on, folks. This is common sense. This is common sense. It's absolutely silly. This is a disaster. These crime scenes, these are disasters in the way these were processed. Now, Mr. Petrocelli gave his theory yesterday of how this happened -- the day before yesterday. I keep forgetting. Page 116. Do you have that?
MR. P. BAKER: Yep. (Document displayed on the Elmo screen.)
This, I believe, was his -- if I recall, what was his only explanation for how Mr. Simpson supposedly got into the house -- that Mr. Park and Kato Kaelin -- O.J. Simpson gets on his property at 10:51, bumps into or crashes into, or runs into this wall, where it's extremely dark and no light, drops a glove, comes back up the alley to where his car is parked in the driveway, puts a bag there -- a bag never again seen to this day, presumably because it's got murder weapon and murder clothes -- I assume that's what he was trying to get you to infer -- and he makes a bee-line inside his front door. And that's when Allan Park sees him for the first time. And that's 10:55. And so we know he's home around 10:51, and he's actually seen at 10:55. Trying to get my arms around that last night. Trying to figure out could this work, I mean, could this really work this way? And I started thinking about, okay, here's the theory: We've got blood; we've got -- we've got five drops of blood at Bundy. Somebody, presumably walking out the back, dropped five drops of blood. At Rockingham, there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight -- and I think three in the foyer -- 11 -- maybe got 11 drops of blood at Rockingham. Now, we all know that when you cut yourself, you bleed the most first -- you bleed the most first, and then the cut stops bleeding. So why do we have five drops at Bundy and 11 or 12 at Rockingham, which supposedly is sometime after the murders have been committed? Period of time after that. Now, can I have the right-handed glove over there, please. I'm just using this for illustrative purposes. (Counsel places right glove on his own hand.)
You have to make some sense out of this before you're entitled to give any money for this. Okay. We've got -- we've got -- the killer there starts out with two gloves and ends up with one glove. Now, if I'm a killer and I'm going to kill somebody, I'm going have my fists like this (indicating closed fist). Nobody is going to be able to pull a glove off me. Let's say it did. The glove comes off. As I recall the testimony, there was not much blood -- or a lot less blood on the -- the Bundy glove as the Rockingham glove. And their theory is that the glove comes off, presumably early; then Mr. Simpson cuts his finger and does the rest of the killing with his bare hand. Of course, you don't see any of his blood around the bodies or on the bodies. The coroner washed the bodies, so we'll never know whose blood might have been on the bodies. They didn't think there to preserve much of the blood around where the bodies were. Can't prove that theory. So anyway, you've got -- you've got a right-hand glove now, and you've got a left hand that's bleeding. What do you do with it if you want to stop the bleeding? You do this (indicating). You hold it. If you do that, you're going to find Mr. Simpson's blood in the palm. There is none. There is none. What blood -- what very small amounts of blood that were consistent with Mr. Simpson's DQ Alpha are down around the wrist area? And we'll talk again in a little bit about Mr. Yamauchi handling the glove right after the reference vial -- right after he opens the reference vial. We'll talk about that later. So I don't have any blood at all where you would expect it, in the palm. Now, how do I drive my car? My hand, supposedly, is still bleeding, because it's still bleeding at Rockingham, bleeding worse at Rockingham. Takes, four, five minutes to drive between the two places. There's going to be 10, 20 drops of blood in the Bronco if I drive like this. (Indicating.) There aren't. There aren't. You could see the pictures. There's some blood in the Bronco. We'll talk about that, not a lot. And as you know, there was only one sample that they could do an RFLP test on, which is the one that requires a little more blood. That was, they had to put three stains together. All the blood in the Bronco was a very, very small amount. In any event, so what am I doing when I'm driving from Bundy to Rockingham with this scenario? How am I avoiding getting blood from my left hand onto the glove? What am I doing with the glove? Now --
There were several pair produced in the criminal case by Aris Isotoner. That's what this is. Is there something wrong with that? Excuse me. Where was I? Oh, how do I get this off? How do I get this off? I do this. (Mr. Blasier pulls glove off from fingers.) Mr. Simpson's blood would be up here in the fingers, not there, not there (indicating). That's how I take the gloves off. You don't take the gloves off from the wrist; you don't do this (indicating). And if he had done it that way, there would be a heck of a lot more blood down here in this area that could be attributable to Mr. Simpson, believe me, especially if he's still bleeding -- bleeding more now than when he was at Bundy. So this doesn't work, either. Now, he somehow gets back to the back of -- by the air conditioner, presumably, and drops the glove. Now, you remember Mr. Petrocelli says he then drops the bag by the Bentley? Well, what is he trying to tell you there? He's trying to tell that you Mr. Simpson has already cleaned up; and another inference that I drew from it, that he's already cleaned up, and that the murder weapon and the clothing are inside this bag. Well, what the heck is he doing with the glove? If he's already cleaned up, why is the glove someplace where it could fall on the ground by the air conditioner? And there is no evidence that anything happened back by that air conditioner. None whatsoever. Just a glove. Just a glove. Your Honor, could we take a break at this point?
THE COURT: Okay. Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.)
Thank you, Your Honor. CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued) BY MR. BLASIER: Okay. Where were we? We got this right-hand glove just dropping out of something. Now, here's another question. If O.J. Simpson changed his clothes after the killings, but before he went home, and put them in this bag, what did he change into? Because his left finger is still bleeding. Look at all the blood on the driveway. Where's the second set of bloody clothing that you would have if he had changed earlier. Where is it? Where is it? Now, and again, you remember the -- The glove was found way back. And, Dan, could you just hold up that other chart just for a minute. I want to demonstrate the scale of that. The distance -- that's not the one with the distance on it. I think -- it was my recollection it was 220 feet. 220, 280 feet. I'm not sure. Something like that. (The board entitled 360 North Rockingham Avenue and blood drops 360 North Rockingham Avenue, June 13, 1994 is displayed.)
Long distance from that grate where that blood was found. And there was nothing from the garage back to where the glove was found. And glove was sitting there with no dirt on it, still moist, described as appeared moist in the morning, no evidence of insect activity, no cobwebs, just sitting there, no evidence of any blood drops along that pathway that would be consistent if Mr. Simpson was still bleeding. Where are the blood drops over there? You can take that down, Dan. The blood that's there appears to be going from the Bronco area to the front door, or the other way around. You can't -- I mean, you can't tell which way that's going. It could be going both ways. Who knows. But it has -- it's not going toward the garage, which is where the significant area is. And how about this one. How does Mr. Simpson leave all of these blood drops while Mark and Kato are right there. Remember now, according to Mr. Petrocelli's theory, this all happens -- the blood here at Rockingham gets there while they're there. Yet they don't see a cut. They don't see him bleeding. It just doesn't work that way. Put that theory back up there, Phil. (Document displayed on Elmo.)
Actually, I guess I can. How does he get -- he's still bleeding as profusely as they suggest after he gets back from the killings, how did he stop that in the five or six-minute period, whatever period of time it was from when he supposedly goes inside and then comes out to leave in the limo, how does he stop the bleeding? How does he stop the bleeding? And where's the blood on the inside? There is no blood on the carpet going upstairs, there is no blood on the switch plates, there is no blood on the door, no blood upstairs, there is no blood in the bedroom. We'll talk about the socks later. Now, there was one described as, I believe, one drop of blood in the bathroom on the floor, not drops like Mr. Petrocelli said in his opening. And I don't recall if there was any testimony at all about whether that was fresh or not; if that looked fresh or not. I don't believe there was. But, you know, your notes are -- you should follow your notes. Having a man's blood in his own bathroom is not something particularly unusual, by the way. In any event, where is all the blood? I mean, we got all this blood out in the driveway. Where is it in the house? Now, if he hasn't changed clothes, and he is still wearing the bloody clothing, and he's got these Bruno Magli's on, and he gets by Park and Kato bleeding profusely, although they don't see any of that, there's going to be blood in the carpeting going upstairs from his shoes, plush carpeting, you heard that there's going to be blood there. Wasn't any. Wasn't any blood on the back door. If he's still bleeding, why isn't there blood on the back door? Doesn't make sense. His theory doesn't work. Well, he said there's blood in the sink. No. There's a presumptive test that shows the possibility of blood in the sink. No blood. They don't find blood. There was no confirmatory testing of any such thing. And that's not unusual at all, to get a presumptive test positive in a sink. Come on, folks, use your common sense. If he's still bleeding there profusely by the time he gets back to Rockingham, where's the blood on towels? If he cleaned up upstairs, where are the towels and the hamper that's covered with blood? They don't exist. There aren't any. Nothing was collected from the bathroom because there was nothing there of any value. No second set of clothes with blood on them. No towels with blood on them. Nothing. Except the socks. We'll talk about the socks a lot. Okay. Let's go to the Bundy board, with the drops around it. (The board entitled Blood drops at Bundy -June 13, 1994.)
Yeah. I also want to see the envelope -- two envelope pictures and the two glove pictures. Okay. Now, recall that we've got -- Fung and Mazzola already were on their way to Bundy; I think it was 10 o'clock when they got there. The coroner has finally been called and is there. We've got all the evidence there, and what happens? The coroners get in and take the bodies before or in the middle of Fung and Mazzola trying to process the crime scene. And you saw a couple of videos, they were from the media, that was -- you saw how many people were walking around that scene while it was being processed. There were a lot of people. You saw Phil Vannatter with his clipboard. There were a lot of detectives catching bad guys. That's what they do; they go to crime scenes and get bad guys. And they're all there mucking about and messing up the scene. Could you hold up the two envelope pictures. (Photographs of envelope displayed.
This is just to remind you that -- and we know this from Mr. Rokahr's photographs. At some point -- and we don't know when, we weren't there. At some point that envelope got moved or picked up or taken somewhere. And you know what's interesting about that envelope, it's never been fingerprinted. Wonder why. Wonder why. Why? Cause they might find somebody's prints on it that would be very embarrassing. Never been fingerprinted. Okay. Put that down. Now, the glove. Same thing. That's it. You can see here that the glove here on -- on my left has the label this way, going right along the tile. And over here, right around the time it was collected as No. 102, it's got the label someplace else, a different orientation, it's obviously been moved, picked up, altered. I can't tell you that. I can't tell you that. I wasn't there. But I can tell you from those pictures, somebody did something to it, and they haven't explained it, they have not told you how that happened. And they have not brought a witness in to explain that. Maybe they think it's not important, but you make up your own mind. This is critical evidence at this crime scene, I'm telling you. And I think -- if you look it, it may not be terribly clear, I think -- and you can look at these pictures in your deliberations, I think the hat's been moved, too. But I'll let you decide that. Okay. You can take those down. Do we have the piece of paper pictures? While we're gathering a couple more exhibits, I wanted to make a comment. Mr. Baker, he alluded to the fact that this was OJ's dog, Kato, or that OJ had purchased the dog for the family. The dog knew OJ, and I would submit to you, that dogs, contrary to what we'd like to believe in the Lassie and Timmy scenario, dogs are not particularly smart, and I would submit to you that if OJ Simpson was the killer, the dog would have followed him out the back, would have followed him out the back and not gone out the front. In any event, what do you have there for me? Oh, piece of paper. Do we have the one that we can put on the Elmo, Phil? Okay. One thing before -- Dan, why don't you move a little bit (indicating to Elmo). Remember we looked at probability imprint evidence on the pole to the right of the cap. (indicating to Elmo) Now, I don't know if you can see it. Can you get in? (Indicating to Elmo.) (Elmo is adjusted.) Again, you have to look at these things very carefully over and over and over again. I'm not sure this is the one that you can see it very well on, but you guys remember when we looked at this and saw these parallel line imprints that appear to be the same as the parallel line imprints on the envelope and this piece of paper? Put the piece of paper on.
MR. P. BAKER: He has the board.
I'm sorry. Oh, you have the board. Now, you have seen this on the Elmo, so we won't put it on the Elmo. You can see it better. But you got parallel line imprints, you got this piece of paper that Detective Lange, by the way, just simply lied to you about. It disappeared. It flat disappeared. He didn't examine that. If he examined that, that would have been one of the first things collected good heavens. It was right between the two bodies. It was right between the two bodies, and it's got imprint evidence, it's got blood evidence on it. Who knows what's written on the back? Maybe what's written on the back, if there is something written on the back, had something to do with why these killings occurred. Who knows? We'll never know. We'll never know. Because somebody -- the integrity of the scene was such that somebody could get it, make that disappear, and nobody notices it until the defense in the criminal case sees it in the picture. Where did this go? Detective Lange. Oh, well, I picked it up and I looked at it, and it sure didn't have any evidentiary value to me; no fiber evidence, nothing. I can tell that. I'm Detective Lange. Come on, folks. That's ridiculous. It was lost. It was lost because they cannot -- they cannot show you that that crime scene has integrity in it. There's so many people, the cops, walking all over the place. Mr. Petrocelli made a comment in his closing, well, nothing was touched in the house; no evidence of anything being touched in the house. How do we know that? Well, we do know, of course, that there was no ransacking. Give you that. Do you remember who the first person on the scene was? Officer Riske. Officer Riske comes in, and what did he do? What's the first thing he does? You got these horrible bodies lying there, tremendously bloody crime scene, and you got the door open and the lights on; and what does he do? He decides to go in. And the first thing he does is ruin two clues; he picks up the phone obliterating any fingerprints that might be on it, and he screws up any redial capabilities, of pushing the redial button, to see who was the last person that Nicole talked to. Maybe she talked to somebody and maybe that would help solve this crime. So that's the first thing he does. He's the first guy on the scene and he screws up two things walking in the door. Now, is he going to tell you there's no hair and fiber evidence on the inside of that condominium? No. Of course, he's not. By the time they even start thinking about processing the scene, with everybody inside the condominium, it's no longer of any value, whatsoever, as a potential crime scene. Fung and Mazzola. You can look at fiber evidence all you want. Come on. You're not going to find it because the cops have been going in and they've been using it as a command post, almost. They've been using the phone. That's how they've been getting access to the bodies. This entire crime scene should have been the entire condominium, the entire condominium. Suppose we have Mr. Simpson's left glove off, hand cut severely, bleeding a lot. No bloody fingerprints. No bloody fingerprints at all, identifiable or unidentifiable, on that -- on the -- I'm not positive about that, but certainly none of Mr. Simpson's fingerprints there. I don't think that he testified that any fingerprint was in blood. You sure would expect it if their scenario is correct. Oh, the blanket. I'd like to mention it a little bit -- mention it a little bit more. The idea here of the blanket is when you bring it outside, and Detective Lange did this to cover up the body, and I mean it's the compassionate thing to do, okay, but when you spread the blanket, however you do it, you create wind currents and that causes hair and fiber evidence, if there is any of any value, to potentially move from one thing to another. To move around. It compromises the scene. Whether it did here, who knows? The fact that it may have come from the dryer is even worse. You people who do your own laundry, when you put something in the dryer with other things, especially something like a blanket, you're going to pick up things. So I can't -- I'm not going to sit here and tell you that that ruined some evidence. I don't know. All I can tell you is that it was a stupid thing to do. It shows you their ineptness. It shows you their lack of care, their lack of understanding of the importance of this stuff, and is relevant to the integrity of all of this evidence. And, of course, they leave it there. And it's also put over the body of Nicole Brown Simpson thus obliterating some of the blood on her body that might have been from the perpetrator. That's gone. They could have -- The coroner, of course, screwed it up; they washed the bodies without preserving any blood that was on the bodies that might have been from the perpetrator. But there very well could have been a transfer onto that blanket. But they didn't save the blanket either. Okay. Let's -- oh, can you get the chart with the blood drops and the shoe prints?
Take a quick look at that. While he's he doing that -- Dan, I'm going to need that later, but --
While he's doing that, let me remind you of some of the other things that we were able to find in the video of Dennis Fung bringing the Rockingham glove to the Bundy scene and stepping over the body to take it to Detective Lange. Of course, Detective Lange just lied about that. He said, no, that was the crime-scene truck I remember it not like I think it was. He said, as I recall, that happened at the crime-scene truck. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't have had him bring it into the scene. We want to protect the scene. You saw it on the video. You saw Fung carrying the Rockingham glove over the bodies at Bundy. Now, can I prove to you that something -- that that contaminated something? I can't. Can't prove that to you. But that's a fact from which you can draw inferences, if you choose to. One of many about the integrity of this evidence. Now, here we have the diagram of the blood drops and the shoe prints. The first blood drop -- let me see if I can get over here.
All right. Okay. Clearly, we have number 52 out here -- or actually 52 is out in back (indicating to board entitled "Shoe Prints at Bundy June 13, 1994"). 52 out here is not to the left of any shoe prints. In fact, it's way near the corner, indicating that the person's walking out. It wouldn't be from their left side. It would be from more likely the right side. This is very close to that wall. You can check the pictures. It's very close to this -- this wall. This one's not near any shoe prints. No shoe prints whatsoever. Can you pull it this way a little bit?
Yeah. I'm just going to stand up and do this. It's -- we're -- All right. The first blood drop is found here, and that's the one that I will grant you is in the vicinity of that shoe print. I'll grant you that one. Here's a second one. We got some shoe prints around it, but you can't tell -- you can't say that's to the left of a shoe print. You just can't simply say that. Possible. But you can't say that. You simply can't say that about that piece of evidence. So, let's see, that's one, that's two. Three, look at this one, it's to the right -- well, actually, I take that back. We don't know about this one because I think this was one that Bodziak said he couldn't tell which direction it was. So it could be. But it sure isn't certain that that's to the left of the print. Could be to the right. Could be to the right. And then we have the two at the end that aren't near any shoe print. So I offer that to you just to illustrate that just saying it doesn't make it so. I want to change to a different subject. Talk about fingernails. You want to pass this right down, please (indicating to glove.) (Mr. Gelblum hands glove back to defense counsel.)
You can take that down. Can you get that EAP chart ready, Phil. Remember that testimony about fingernail scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson? And they were tested by Greg Matheson, who I submit to you is a very honest man and does a good job. And he tested those, he tested the scrapings from the fingernails of Nicole Brown Simpson and he found blood with an EAP type B. Let's talk a little bit more about what that means. EAP is just another genetic marker. We've been talking about them all for months now. It just happens to be one of them. And it happens to be one where we have some differences or we know that none of the people, none of the victims, neither Nicole nor Ron Goldman, nor O.J. Simpson have an EAP type B. So, if there is an EAP type B from the fingernail scrapings of Nicole Brown Simpson, it came from somebody else. It came from somebody else. Somebody other than Mr. Simpson, Ms. Simpson or Ronald Goldman. And of course there was a brief bit of testimony about EAP type B blood being found on the knife at some point after the murders. Do we have -- do you have the serology report? First let me show you what Greg Matheson did. And again, this is the first set of serology notes that he did for the conventional serology work that he did. And we've got a report here that says, first of all, "Problem, no match to anyone." (Document displayed on Elmo.)
"Problem, no match to anyone." Got to do something about that problem. Maybe Mr. Simpson didn't do it. "Problem, no match to anyone." So we go down and we see at 84 and 85, you can tell -- I'm sorry -- 84A, B, you can tell from our copy here that that's been highlighted. That's what they're talking about, "Problem, no match to anyone." And let's go to the results page of Greg Matheson's report where he gives the types. There you go (indicating to Elmo). Let's go down to 84A and B in the right -- why don't you show the top of the document so we know that the right-hand column is the EAP. There you go. There you go. So we go down to 84A and B. Type B, that's his professional opinion when he writes the report, that that's what it is. That that's what it is. If that's correct, if he is right in his professional judgment, I got a stranger -- we got a stranger submitting blood under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails. Now, let me give you their answer to it. Not going to mislead you. They tried to explain it. Got to come up with an explanation. Doesn't fit our theory. This is -- this is not the police department kind of working to find the truth. This is adversarial. This is adversarial. This is the police department against O.J. Simpson, okay. Don't lose that -- don't ever lose sight of that. All right. So what their explanation is, well, let's see, is there any way that we can say that that's something other than a B. And Greg Matheson comes in and says, well, maybe, maybe that's a BA, 'cause Nicole was a BA, maybe it's really her blood and somehow it got from a BA to a B. Okay. So we -- we had some testimony about that. Scientific testimony. Phil, why don't you put up the EAP chart, and put up the red blood cell one. Now, let me give you one of their responses. Go ahead and just zoom in on the blood cell and the DNA. There you go. One of their explanations was, hey, we tested -- Cellmark, I think Dr. Cotton said, we tested it, we did DNA tests on that, and it came back consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson. Well, of course it did. Of course it did. When you take scrapings from your fingernails, you're going to get your DNA. Not necessarily from your blood. From skin, from cells. Remember, every cell in the body except red blood cells has DNA. So that doesn't answer it. That doesn't answer it at all. I'd be surprised if they didn't find her DNA under there. So that's not the answer. That doesn't say, oh, well, therefore this blood type B -- EAP B has to be hers. Doesn't help you at all. Because remember, the EAP marker that we're looking at, we're looking at the red blood cells that don't even have DNA. So it's apples and oranges. It's apples and oranges. You can't -- you can't search a tomato truck and say there aren't any oranges on that tomato truck when you're only looking at tomatoes. Okay. So let's go to the next chart. So we clearly can have from Nicole Simpson, DNA from her, as well as blood from somebody else, maybe a very, very small amount, with a different type from anybody in the case that we know of. How did that get there, if that's correct? So Matheson says now, no, that's a degraded -- that's a degraded BA, I think. My professional opinion, that's a degraded BA. So -- and I got to get into this science stuff with you folks, I know it's technical, but I want you to understand it because you're the ones that are going to decide this. I don't want you to decide it based on some conclusory statements someone told you about. I want you to have some understanding of what's going on here. So go to the next slide. Okay. Greg Matheson and I went through this. Nicole Brown Simpson's EAP type is a BA, which looks like the one on the left with the four bands. The four bands. Called A1, A2, B1, B2 bands. You remember that? The unknown type found under her nails, and this is Greg Matheson's professional opinion, looks like on the right. Two bands in that are B, in the area B. You don't have to understand how they get from sample to this -- this kind of a chart, but all you need to understand is that what they found was a B pattern that has two bands at the place where you would expect to find a B. Let's go to the next one. (Document displayed on Elmo.) Now, when I questioned Greg Matheson about what is the -- what's your -- what's your authority for saying that BA can degrade to a B, he said, well, you know, the literature talks about that. And it does, the scientific literature talks a little bit about that. But what did it tell you. It says that when a BA degrades, what happens is you start losing bands from the top down. Go to the next chart. So you have a BA. It's gradually degrading now. One more point. Remember, I think Greg Matheson said, you know, one of the reasons I think this is a degraded BA is because Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails were in blood. They all weren't. Look at the pictures. One of them was. The other wasn't. Okay. So we move down the column -- go down to the next chart. If you follow the scientific literature that studied this, you see that after your -- you got 4 bands, the next thing you're going to get is 3 bands. That's still called a BA. It's degrading but it's still a BA. Go to the next one, please. Next you get two bands. Next you get two bands. That's called a BA also. It's a degraded BA but it's a BA. Go to the next one. Finally, you get a BA degrading at the very far right and a one band to a B. And this is how it can happen. This is how you can have a BA turn into a B. And the literature says this and it describes that. Go to the next one. Not a two banded B pattern. You can't have that. That's not what the literature says. That's not how it works according to the scientists who have studied this. Next slide. This is an EAP type B two banded. Not a degraded BA. It's somebody else's. It's somebody else's. Next slide, please. Whose is it? I can't tell you. Not my client's. It's not my client's. That's exculpatory evidence. It's not my client's. You're entitled to infer from that that she had somebody else's blood under her fingernails from the struggle. Okay, let's go to hair and fiber. I'm going to be fairly quick on this because hair and fiber is, as you've been told, a very, very subjective area, and the kind of judgments that are made by people like Douglas Deedrick, you can't really -- you can't really -- it's very subjective, the characteristics that they look at. Let me mention first why the idea of hair and fiber evidence in this case is one of very little value. We've got a place where O.J. Simpson hangs out at. We've got the Bronco that goes back and forth. We've got Nicole -- Arnelle told you that Nicole drove the Bronco. We've got Nicole and Arnelle -- we've got Arnelle driving the Bronco, and the kids back and forth and the dogs back and forth. What you've got here is an environment that has been frequented by people coming from the Bronco, particularly O.J. Simpson. Okay. So you've already got a place where you would expect to find carpet fibers, hair fibers. Not unusual at all. And in fact they did collect a soil sample. It's called an environmental study. It's the first step if you want to really check this out, if you really want to find out what's the frequency with which you're going to find that person's hair and fiber there anyway is an environmental study. You collect it and then you analyze it. Well, what do we have here? They collected it. They've never looked at it. That might hurt their case. They've never been looked at. Police never analyzed, scientific investigation division never looked at it. They didn't care. Might have hurt their case. Now, hair. Deedrick admits to you that he can't tell you -- all he can say is, you know, I got this hair here and I got this hair here and I looked at them under a microscope and I saw some things that appear to be similar. And the characteristics that they're talking about is the curl, things called cuticles, there's a lot -- a long list of things about hair. They aren't unique at all. They are very subjective. When you talk about ovoid bodies, I think was one of them, you remember the strands of hair with kind of like footballs in it. You never -- you never have an exact match between one hair and another. Every hair is different. Every hair on your own head, my head -- what I have left -- is different. All you can say is that, you know, it could come from the same person. That's all you can say. And that ain't much. 'Cause it could come from somebody else, too. Okay. You could say it could come from him but it might not. And he can't tell you how many other people it might have come from, okay. No way to tell. This is not significant evidence, I'll submit to you. And you remember Mr. Leonard when Deedrick put his acetate over the chart and when he says it's a match -- by the way, we're going to talk about terminology. Match -- when he says something is a match, doesn't mean it's the same. I mean somebody came up to me and said, you know, this matches that, I would -- my common sense interpretation is that means that they're the same. Not in forensic science. Not in forensic science. We don't like that kind of precision. It's a match because it could be the same or similar, could be similar, not even the same. And consider again how they do this. They have two layers of whatever length, they blow it up, magnify it 400 or 800 times I believe, and look along the hair and see if they can find the spot that looks similar, and that's what they take a picture of, is that little spot. They don't show you the rest of it. The scale of the photos that you were seeing, if you saw the entire hair, would be all around the hair. Okay. Blue-black cotton fiber. The only significance of this is that there was a blue-black cotton fiber that could have come from the same source. Again, maybe not. I can't say. Found on several items. On the sock -- I forget the other items. And the plaintiffs spent a great deal of time trying to establish that Mr. Simpson had a blue-black cotton sweatsuit. So what do we have? They bring in Leslie Gardiner. She's their witness who's going to come in and say that Mr. Simpson has a blue-black cotton sweatsuit, presumably. And what happens? She comes in and she's asked what kind of material was this material that Mr. Simpson wore in this video. Cashmere. Cashmere isn't cotton, folks. Cashmere comes from some other animal. I don't even know what it looks like. But it ain't cotton. So what happens next? Well, the plaintiffs don't like this. She said the wrong thing. So they bring her back. They bring her back. And the second time, her testimony is different. She's been taken to the woodshed. She now returns and says wait a minute, the cashmere -- let's forget the cashmere, that didn't fit, now I remember that, now I remember that, it didn't fit. After she admits that what she told Mr. Leonard in the hallway before her first testimony is that what this item of clothing was, was a combination of cotton and polyester fibers, which again, is not cotton. Cotton and polyester is cotton and polyester together; it's not cotton, and it doesn't have any white piping down the front of it. And it's not blue-black. Absolutely worthless. Bronco carpet fiber. Do we have the Bronco carpet chart, please. (Board entitled Bronco Carpet, LAPD Item 33, was displayed.)
Mr. Petrocelli told you in his argument that this piece of carpeting was cut out of the Bronco on June 14 and was put away, by itself, and sealed and/or frozen, and nothing was done to it for some time -- I think he said until September, is my recollection. Look at that. That is a large piece of carpet. That is a good-size piece of carpet. If any one of you have cut carpet, you know that the strands come off the sides; that's the nature of carpeting. You cut a big piece of carpeting like that and do anything to it, you're going to get carpet fibers. What does LAPD do for a carpeting too big for that bag? They roll it up in a piece of paper, a piece of butcher paper, try to tape it up, and they put it in a relatively small box -- we had it in here, you remember -- with, I think it was, 43 other evidentiary items. 43 other items: The glove, the hat, the other items that they were going to do comparisons on. And lo and behold, when we get the knit cap to the FBI in Washington, after it's been looked at several times from the same box as that carpeting, they find debris that came out of the knit cap, a Bronco fiber. Big deal. Big deal. That is not useful evidence. That is not the way to store evidence. If you're going to compare two things together, you keep them apart. It's common sense. Okay. Real quickly, let's go to pathology. Do you have the chart -- do we have the Spitz chart?
MR. P. BAKER: Yeah.
I'm going to talk briefly about pathology. Oh. Oh, okay. One more thing. And hair and fiber.
No. We have another chart that I meant to show you. And this is what they didn't find in terms of hair and fiber on articles and whatever. And this, we submit to you, is exculpatory evidence that's in the Bronco. There was no hair consistent with Nicole in the Bronco or with Ron Goldman. In the Bronco, there was no fiber consistent with the glove, no fiber consistent with Mr. Goldman's clothing. If Mr. Simpson had been in a violent struggle with Mr. Goldman, he likely would have had fibers from his clothing on him. And those, presumably, could have transferred to the Bronco. No such thing. No fiber consistent with the dress that Nicole was wearing, as well. Again, been in a violent struggle with her, with bodily contact, might expect to find that. Doesn't exist. Next chart. Both gloves no hair consistent with OJ Simpson on the Bundy glove, no hair consistent with OJ Simpson on the Rockingham glove. Okay. And, by the way, we're he not contesting that these are the murder gloves, if anybody implied that to you. We certainly didn't. Both gloves, no hair consistent with OJ Simpson -- on the Bundy glove; no hair consistent with OJ Simpson on the Rockingham glove. The socks, no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman, no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson. The socks fibers, no fiber consistent with either glove, no fiber consistent with Mr. Goldman's clothing, no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson. Okay. Dr. Spitz's pathology here, I mean, there's no big secret as to how these people died. They were stabbed and they bled to death. That was easy. That part was easy. What do the pathologists here try to do for you? They're trying to give you some information that might help you in deciding some issues. Time of death. The coroner wasn't called for hours. There's just no real help here in terms of the pathologist's ability to tell you anything. The duration of struggle. That's one thing that we talked about. The duration of the event, which is another issue which we talked about, which we think is the more important issue: Not the duration of the struggle, but the duration of the whole event. How long was the perpetrator or perpetrators there? Because that's significant to whether Mr. Simpson had time to do this clean-up, to get home, stop his bleeding go to the airport. So let's have the chart from Dr. Spitz. Dr. Spitz, you will recall, was extremely combative on cross-examination. I submit to you that that's evidence you can consider in deciding whether he is here as an impartial expert or whether he has a bias. He has the answer to how every blow was inflected in this case in virtually every order. And he didn't write a single note -- didn't write a single piece of paper down, nothing -- nothing to show his analysis. He just came in he had all the answers. All the answers. (Board displayed illustrates drawing of a body dissected in half.)
You can't trust it because it's been compromised, it's been corrupted by the Los Angeles Police Department, evidence has been tampered with, it's been planted.
Am I going to produce an eyewitness to you to show that Mark Fuhrman picked up a glove at Bundy and took it over and swiped it on the console of the Bronco and then put it in the back walkway so he could get a search warrant? No.
If you have a plate of spaghetti and you find a cockroach in it, you don't have to really go and look for a second one to know that you can discard the plate of spaghetti.
The police department in this case had plenty of opportunity to disprove any planting theory by testing a lot of this evidence for EDTA, and they tested two pieces and they found EDTA, and they stopped looking.
Several of the media outlets put 2 and 2 together and got 4, and said, why is it that Mr. Blasier, who is the only attorney from the criminal case, has to wear a bulletproof vest. That's what they thought they saw.