📄 Closing argument — Blasier (part 3) — Thursday, January 23, 1997
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\23\CLOSING-ARGUMENT-BLASIER-PART-.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 47 of 57

Closing argument — Blasier (part 3)

Date: Thursday, January 23, 1997 • Utterances: 22
Defense attorney Robert Blasier delivers a portion of his closing argument focused on the forensic medical evidence surrounding Ron Goldman's death, challenging Dr. Spitz's testimony about the cause and sequence of wounds. He argues the timeline of the killings is longer than plaintiffs suggest and implies the possibility of multiple perpetrators. The segment ends with Blasier about to launch into DNA evidence, accompanied by a courtroom skirmish over tinker toys he brought as demonstratives.
1 MR. BLASIER:

I submit many of the scenarios that were shown with left arm held under your chin, if that had been the way this happened, the perpetrator would have struck himself in the arm. But nevertheless, this stuff has limited value. Let me tell you folks, it has limited value. It's up to you to decide how much you want to put into this. There are only a few points here to talk about. One point I would make is that you notice Mr. Petrocelli keeps talking about this being a rage killing. That isn't what Dr. Spitz was seemingly describing; he was describing something very professional, very fast, knew what they were doing: Killed two people in one minute, 15 seconds. That's it. Gone. And he says -- and the reason he testifies that way is because they need to have a short -- a short event, okay, in my opinion. Now, what does he do? He comes in and he says that the cause of death for Ronald Goldman was the wound to the aorta and -- that's abdominal wound in the lower back, with the knife penetrating the aorta and the peritoneal sac -- and Mr. Goldman bleeding to death through internal bleeding in the space behind the retroperitoneal sac. Remember? Dr. Baden brought in the plastic bag that is similar to the peritoneal sac, which is very thin, cellophane-like, which contains the abdomen. And behind -- and the aorta runs right against it. And behind that is the retroperitoneal space. In doctors' terms, like we have lawyers' terms, we have a special language. And Dr. Spitz, his whole opinion is based on the fact that there were, I think -- I thought he said a quart, two quarts -- I forget the amount -- a lot of blood in the retroperitoneal space. And his evidence for that was this tissue picture. Do you have that handy? (Displaying on Elmo.

2 MR. BLASIER:

His only evidence for it was this piece of the aorta, which is a very small piece of tissue, which he never looked at. By the way, I don't believe all he had was this picture. This does not demonstrate that there was massive amounts of blood in the area where he described. And Dr. Golden, who was not brought here by the plaintiffs, could have been, if he -- if he disagreed -- if he agreed with Dr. Spitz, they could have bought Dr. Golden in here. In fact, Dr. Golden agreed with Dr. Baden; he didn't see any massive bleeding back there. His only evidence is this picture of tissue, period. That's it. That's all he has. The autopsy report describes that wound as one of the last wounds. In terms of sequence in their report, that's important. That's important. And why is this -- why is this important at all? It's important on the issue of the -- on the length of this event. Now, Dr. Baden -- and this chart, by the way, is exceedingly misleading, because where the knife area is, penetrates the aorta, and then penetrates the -- there's a space there. Would you point to that space down between the retroperitoneal sac and the aorta? Yeah. There is no space there in our body; it's right against it. It's right against it. So that when you cut through the aorta, you're going to make the same size cut into the abdomen. (Mr. Leonard indicated to board.)

3 MR. BLASIER:

There would be massive bleeding coming from that kind of wound if there was a lot of blood pumping through a person's body at the time that wound was made, and you would find a lot of blood in the and abdomen. There wasn't. There was one to 200 cc's. That was the whole point of that. There was not much blood in the abdomen. And there's no evidence of massive bleeding in the space behind that, as well. And what can you infer from that -- and Dr. Baden, you know, changed his times a couple of times about how long Mr. Goldman would be standing up. We can't tell. We don't have that. I think Mr. Petrocelli conceded that yesterday. We really we can't say. We can't say. All we can tell you is that there was a certain period of time, which Dr. Baden estimates as five to ten -- I think maybe he had gone up to -- appears five to ten minutes between the first wound to Mr. Goldman's neck and the last wound to the aorta. Could it be that the perpetrator or perpetrators, in a short struggle, inflicted all the wounds, started to leave one of them, come back, did the last wound? That's one inference you can draw from that. The importance of that evidence is the time of the event, not the time of the struggle. And we also note there's the issue about blood on the perpetrators, perpetrator. We know that there was blood transferred between the two victims. Remember? There were -- I believe it was 16 different transfers of Nicole Brown Simpson's blood getting on Ron Goldman's clothing and Ron Goldman's blood getting on Nicole Brown Simpson's clothing. What does that tell you? You can infer from that, that they had some contact; that they had some contact. That's one thing I can infer from that reasonably circumstantial evidence, that they had some contact during this struggle. Why is there no more screaming? Can one person do this? Can one person control these two people who, I submit to you, were interacting, without somebody screaming more? I think not. I think not. I think one of the persons had to have been restrained, or you would have heard evidence of from Heidstra and other people of more struggle.

4

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll give you a ten-minute recess. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.)

5 MR. BLASIER:

Thank you, Your Honor. CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued)

6 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. Let me just correct one misimpression I may have given you. Obviously, there is significant controversy about the Bundy glove. All that happened after -- while I was gone at Christmas. We're not contesting that the right-hand glove, the Rockingham glove, was part of the murder, but there's now significant question whether what they brought here is the Bundy glove.

7 MR. PETROCELLI:

I object to that. He just said they weren't contesting both gloves.

8 MR. BLASIER:

I misspoke.

9 THE COURT:

I agree with you.

10 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's not a very good one.

11 MR. BAKER:

I think his gratuitous comments ought to be stricken. His opinions can be given to this jury when Mr. Petrocelli has an opportunity.

12 MR. PETROCELLI:

Talk about wood-shedding, Mr. Baker.

13 THE COURT:

Mr. Petrocelli --

14 MR. BAKER:

I'm sick of his comments. Save those for rebuttal.

15 MR. BLASIER:

Can we go on guys? Bring me my tinker toys. You're going to guess what we're going to talk about next.

KEY QUOTE
16 MR. PETROCELLI:

None of this stuff is in evidence. I guess if they're toys, I don't have any objection.

17 MR. BAKER:

Do you feel compelled to make a comment every time, Mr. Petrocelli?

18 MR. PETROCELLI:

Not in evidence, Your Honor. I don't know what he's doing.

19 MR. BLASIER:

I told them before, Your Honor. He said these were okay.

20 MR. PETROCELLI:

I haven't seen these.

21 THE COURT:

You may use them. Go ahead.

22 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. I'd like to talk about DN

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

MR. BLASIER
Killed two people in one minute, 15 seconds. That's it. Gone. And he says -- and the reason he testifies that way is because they need to have a short -- a short event, okay, in my opinion.
Blasier argues Petrocelli's 'rage killing' narrative required a compressed timeline, and that Dr. Spitz's testimony was shaped to serve that need rather than reflect the evidence.
MR. BLASIER
There were -- I believe it was 16 different transfers of Nicole Brown Simpson's blood getting on Ron Goldman's clothing and Ron Goldman's blood getting on Nicole Brown Simpson's clothing. What does that tell you? You can infer from that, that they had some contact.
Blasier uses blood transfer evidence to argue the two victims were interacting during the struggle, supporting a longer, more complex event.
MR. BLASIER
Can one person do this? Can one person control these two people who, I submit to you, were interacting, without somebody screaming more? I think not. I think not.
Core defense argument that a lone killer could not have controlled both victims simultaneously — pointing toward multiple perpetrators.
MR. BLASIER
Bring me my tinker toys. You're going to guess what we're going to talk about next.
Signals the transition to DNA argument; the casual theater drew immediate objection from Petrocelli and revealed tension between counsel.

Evidence (7)

Informal
Tissue picture of aorta displayed on Elmo — small piece used by Dr. Spitz as only evidence for massive retroperitoneal bleeding
challenged
Informal
Anatomical chart showing knife penetration of aorta and retroperitoneal space
challenged as 'exceedingly misleading' — no actual space exists between aorta and retroperitoneal sac
Informal
Plastic bag used by Dr. Baden to demonstrate peritoneal sac (thin, cellophane-like)
discussed
Informal
Blood transfer evidence — 16 cross-transfers between Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman clothing
discussed
Informal
Rockingham glove
defense stipulated this was part of the murder
Informal
Bundy glove
authenticity challenged — Blasier notes 'significant question whether what they brought here is the Bundy glove'
+ 1 more

Notable Exchanges (2)

MR. BLASIERMR. PETROCELLIMR. BAKERTHE COURT
After Blasier misspoke saying the defense wasn't contesting 'both gloves,' Petrocelli objected, Blasier conceded the misstatement, but then Baker and Petrocelli traded barbs ('wood-shedding,' gratuitous comments), culminating in Baker saying 'I'm sick of his comments' before Blasier cut off the bickering.
heated
MR. BLASIERMR. PETROCELLI
Petrocelli objected to tinker toys as not in evidence; Blasier said he had pre-cleared them; Petrocelli said he hadn't seen them; court allowed them.
strategic

Light Moments (2)

MR. BLASIER
Blasier asks his co-counsel to bring out 'tinker toys' as demonstratives, telling the jury 'You're going to guess what we're going to talk about next.'
MR. PETROCELLI
Petrocelli, upon seeing the tinker toys, quipped 'None of this stuff is in evidence. I guess if they're toys, I don't have any objection.'

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Dr. Spitz
evidence insufficiency and bias
Blasier argues Spitz's entire opinion about cause of death rested on a single small tissue photograph he 'never looked at,' and that Spitz shaped his timeline testimony to fit the plaintiffs' need for a short killing event.
⚔ Dr. Spitz
adverse witness comparison
Blasier notes plaintiffs could have called Dr. Golden — the original coroner — but didn't, because Golden agreed with defense expert Dr. Baden that there was no massive retroperitoneal bleeding.
⚔ Dr. Baden
prior inconsistent statement
Blasier notes Baden 'changed his times a couple of times about how long Mr. Goldman would be standing up,' and that even Petrocelli conceded the timing couldn't be established with certainty.

Witness Demeanor

(Displaying on Elmo.)
(Mr. Leonard indicated to board.)
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

Objections

3 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)
Proceeding 8857 • 22 utterances
Civil Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 JAN 23, 1997 📄 Closing argument — Blasier (pa
JAN 23, 1997 KRT DvH TD