for questioning. Mr. Simpson then does whatever he can do to get on the first plane that he can get on, and he gets on a plane in about -- under an hour from the hotel to the airport. It's during that period of time that he cuts the middle finger of his left hand. You've seen the pictures in Chicago, you've seen the towel, you've seen the glass in the sink, you've seen that. And you have also seen that there is not one person who saw a cut on his hand, either hand, before the cut that he got in Chicago when he was rushing around on the -- phone, and half they're trying to piece together what had happened and trying to get out of town. So OJ Simpson flies back. He's met at the airport by Skip Taft and Kathy Randa, and he goes to Rockingham. At Rockingham he has his duffel bag when he gets out of Skip's car and he goes into Rockingham. And that's all he has. Kathy's got the Louis Vuitton bag. The police won't even let her inside Mr. Simpson's place, nor will they take the bag. So she's there with the bag. Skip's car is locked, and subsequently that bag is given to Bob Kardashian. The police absolutely never asked for it. Never asked for it at all. It is subsequently brought to the criminal trial along with the golf bag, along with the bag that Mr. Simpson had golf balls in; not at the request of the LAPD, not at the request of anybody else, but the request of OJ Simpson. He then goes into the compound. Well, let me just back up one minute. If any one of those items had any blood in them at all, you would have heard about it. You know they were tested by the LAPD, and you know there was absolutely not one drop of blood in any of those items, or it would have been in this case, in the criminal case. You would have heard from the witness stand. You didn't because there was none. So OJ Simpson gets into the compound. Vannatter tells Thompson to cuff him. Vannatter lied. He said he didn't tell Thompson to handcuff him. Thompson said, yes, he did. I wouldn't have done it on my own. You can rest assured. Why do you think Vannatter wanted OJ handcuffed? He wanted him handcuffed so he could take the handcuffs off and be the good guy, and he could be OJ's pal; and then we'll go down and we'll get a statement from you, OJ, and oh, don't have to worry about a lawyer, you don't have to worry about anything, we just want to get through this. Remember him saying that on the tape? We just want to get through this and let you go, OJ We just want to get through this. This was their guy. This was their big cahuna. This was the guy they wanted to blame for this crime. And they were going to do it. So they get the handcuffs off of OJ Obviously, he agrees to go down to Parker Center. He agrees to have a statement taken without his attorneys being present; says I've got nothing to hide. This is not the consciousness of guilt, ladies and gentlemen, this is the consciousness of innocence. What does he say? Mr. Petrocelli indicated to you that he never mentioned that he was cut in Chicago. Phil, put that up. Page 158, I think.
MR. P. BAKER: You have the statement.
How did you do it in Chicago. Oh, I broke a glass. It was -- I just was -- you had what -- one of you guys had just called me. I was in the bathroom. I kind of went bonkers for a little bit. I cut it, it was cut before. I think I just opened it. Obviously, he isn't sure exactly where, but he certainly mentioned that he has cut his hand in Chicago and tells him. And he is certain that he has had blood on his little finger when he's in his house the night before, just before he's leaving. Think about it, ladies and gentlemen. When he has this blood on his finger and -- he sees a drop of blood and he takes a paper towel and wipes it off, think about it for an instance. That's just after he's gotten back in from getting his phone equipment out of the Bronco. That is the only thing that makes any sense to explain blood drops down the driveway, exactly what Mr. Simpson was doing. He cut himself in the Bronco and he dropped some blood coming down the driveway. It makes no sense, absolutely none, for him coming over the Cyclone fence, going down the south walkway, without any blood whatsoever, and then all of the sudden, going -- being seen going in the entranceway. There's no blood. None whatsoever. And yet there is blood here, which is fully explained by Mr. Simpson's cut -- going out just before he's leaving to get his charging equipment out of the Bronco. I want to go back to Parker Center. Back at Parker Center the interrogation without Mr. Simpson's lawyers goes on. And you heard Mr. Simpson tell you that they stopped and started that tape before they ever restarted it and tape-recorded it. And the point being that they interrogated him first, then they interrogated him again. And he told them, ladies and gentlemen, he told them, besides the cut, he said -- although Vannatter and Lange testified he never asked what happened, what went on, what was going on -- Phil, put up page 23. (Document displayed on Elmo.)
He said (reading:) You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea what happened. When you said to my daughter -- said something to me today that somebody else might have been involved, I have absolutely no idea what happened. I don't know how, why or what. You guys haven't told me anything. Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit. Vannatter says, well, we don't know a lot of answers to those questions yet ourselves, OJ Of course, they knew the answers to the questions. They were lying to him because he was the primary suspect. But OJ had asked them, and asked them, and asked them; and they wouldn't tell him. Then they come in here and say it's consciousness of guilt. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a fraud. He asked them. They wouldn't admit it so that they could use it in a courtroom to convict OJ Simpson. It doesn't work then. It's not going to work now. Then they talk about blood. Phil, you'll want to go up to the same page. I guess it's down. I'm sorry. Phil, you take mine. (indicating to document.) We got blood on and in your car. We got blood in your house. It's sort of a problem. OJ says, well, take my blood test and we'll see. Is that a guilty man? Immediately they mention blood, he says take my blood, we'll see. And so, of course, they do, ladies and gentlemen. They do take his blood. And we're going to talk about that in a minute. One other thing. If he has such knowledge that he had been to Nicole's house, he had killed these two people in cold blood that evening, and he was asked, as he was asked --I think page 22, Phil -- about whether he had ever left any blood at Nicole's house, what would he have said? Sure. I'm over there, the dog and I, we got in a scuffle, and I may have dropped some blood someplace. What did he say? Do you recall having cut your finger last time you were at Nicole's house. "
No. Now, he could have -- if he had been the killer, wouldn't he have conformed his testimony -- wouldn't he have said, gee, I think I did cut my hand. I was over there picking up the dog last week and I cut my hand. But no, he didn't. He said, no, I didn't cut my hand, because he didn't cut his hand, and because he wasn't the killer, and he wasn't over there. Now, let's chat just a little bit about -- let's discuss what -- you can pull that down. Let's discuss the -- oh, I'm sorry. One more thing. I apologize for going back, but page 15 -- I'm sorry, the --
MR. P. BAKER: 382?
When they're asking about how he cut himself. I didn't -- here's a man giving his statement, had very few hours sleep, absolutely distraught, and they ask him about the cuts. Again, I wasn't aware -- wasn't aware that I, you know, I was trying to get out of the house. I didn't pay any attention to it. I saw it when I was in the kitchen. I grabbed a napkin or something that was there. Then I didn't think about it after that. That was -- that was last night after you got home, after the recital when you were running around. That was last night when I was -- I don't know what I was -- I was in and out of the car getting junk out of the car. I was in the house. I was throwing hangers and stuff in my suitcase. I was doing my little crazy -- what I do. I mean I do it. Everybody's ever picked me up says that OJ's a whirlwind at the end, he's running, he's grabbing things, and Vannatter says yeah. And when they asked him about going to the Bronco, he says, I went to the Bronco to get my phone or whatever, that is, meaning, of course, the phone apparatus, because he already had his phone, he called at 10 o'clock at night right next to his Bentley to Paula Barbieri and will you'll recall that Mr. Petrocelli had said he was in his Bronco -- he was in his Bronco when he made that 10:03 phone call to Paula Barbieri. And you know and I know that if he had been in the car when that call was made at 10:03, there would have been somebody on this witness stand who would have said, I analyzed the sound from the tape that was on Paula's answering machine when he left the message --
Objection, zero evidence of any tape being in evidence in this case. There is no such tape and he knows it. And he is going way out of bounds.
Your Honor, make him point to the evidence where there's such a tape. Make him point to it.
Point to it. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:) (Reporter reads the record as follows:) . . . you'll recall that Mr. Petrocelli had said he was in his Bronco -- he was in his Bronco when he made that 10:03 phone call to Paula Barbieri.
They didn't analyze anything Let's stay within the record.
MR. P. BAKER: There was a tape made by Paula Barbieri's answering machine. It was analyzed by the LAPD and they couldn't identify whether there's a Bronco.
Excuse me, folks. Would you step out in the hallway. (Indicating to jurors.) (Laughter from audience.) (Jurors leave courtroom.) (The following proceedings resume at the bench:)
There is no such tape. There's been no evidence of any tape. He's referring to a tape in the possession of the LAPD. There's never been a drop of evidence in this case that they ever had a tape, that they ever analyzed it. It's not true. And it's certainly not in this record. They are trying to imply to the jury that there was a tape that the police looked at it, they analyzed it, and they determined that the call didn't come from the cell phone. That's exactly what he's arguing. I want this jury admonished.
There's no evidence in this record.
MR. P. BAKER: There is a tape that was made from a 10:03 call left on Paula Barbieri's answering machine. It was analyzed the by the LAPD. They couldn't identify whether there were any car noises in it. That information was leaked to CNN in October of 1994. Mr. Petrocelli knows he gets on the stand he doesn't want to cross-examine OJ Simpson about the letter on 732 and it's only limited --
What's the matter with you?
MR. P. BAKER: I'm hot. There's a portion in this tape that was made, he knows it, that was leaked to the LAPD. There was no Bronco sounds. That evidence should be in front of the jury.
KEY QUOTETo my knowledge -- excuse me, let me answer the Judge's questions. If there was such a tape, I'd be all over that tape, and I'd bring it into Court, Your Honor. I don't know about it. But that's not the point. It's not in evidence in this case.
And I want the jury admonished.
MR. P. BAKER: If that's his standing I want all the portions of 732 --
THE COURT: I going to rule that there is no tape in evidence. Bring the jury back in. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) (Jurors resumed their respective seats.)
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the end of the case. This is closing argument, and like during the trial, even in the closing argument phase, it is improper for attorneys to interject themselves and make argument before you on questions that concern whether or not something exists or does not exist. That should be done out of your hearing because we don't know at the point they're making the argument whether or not there is or is not -- the particular subject matter that is being debated, exists or does not exist. So I am admonishing both sides not to make speaking objections and speaking argument. And even at side bench you heard voices raised. That's improper. There are certain allowances I am making because of the heat of the battle, but even making allowances for the heat of the moment, the heat of the battle, these are supposed to be lawyers who have been in practice for a long time, or even a short time, and it's totally inappropriate to carry on in that fashion. It's getting evidence or argument before you that ought not be before you. So whatever you heard at the side bench or from counsel table during the last interchange you are to disregard it. Everybody understand that? JURORS: Yes, sir. Yes.
Okay. There was an objection made with regards to Mr. Baker's argument about some tape. There's been no evidence of any tape. You are to disregard any argument regarding any tape with respect to Ms. Barbieri. Everybody understand that? JURORS: Yes, sir.
There's no evidence, but the imagination of Mr. Petrocelli that OJ Simpson was in his Bronco at 10:03 driving the vehicle. There is testimony from OJ Simpson that he was beside his car, in the area, hitting golf balls out of his car and chipping golf balls, a few of them, before he went out the gate, and around and back in his front door. That's the evidence. His figment of his imagination that he was in the Bronco is just that. Now, let me go back to Parker Center and to the afternoon of June 13, 1994. Now, we know that Lange and Vannatter, detectives of 40 plus years experience -- and they've got their guy, they've got the suspect they want right there, they've got OJ Simpson, and they've got a cut on the middle finger of his left hand. They questioned him about it. They then take him downstairs at Parker Center, draw blood, and have him photographed. Now, Mr. Petrocelli would have you believe that these experienced detectives of 40 plus years didn't look at his hands. They had tunnel vision. They only looked at the cut on the hand that they could see, in the middle of the left finger. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is ridiculous and it's ludicrous. They looked, as OJ said, at both of his hands, turned them inside out and looked at them, and inspected them, and there was one cut. One cut, middle finger, on the joint. You've seen the pictures. They posed OJ Simpson for the pictures. And the reason, of course, that he's got to have more cuts on his hands is because he's got no bruises. If he's got no cuts, it's clear he didn't do it. He's got to try to elevate you to believe that these cuts were there. It just makes no common sense. It makes no more common sense that these cuts were there than it makes for Werner Spitz to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, of this jury, that none of these are cuts; they are all -- every one of them are fingernail gouges. And it's one that's on the inside of his hand that was there after he was arrested, the inside of the ring finger of the left hand, which seems to go from outward to inward. In other words, it goes laterally, or the same direction as the finger. And Werner Spitz couldn't figure out how grabbing like this would have (indicating) gouged that particular cut. And the reason, of course, he couldn't, is because it didn't happen that way. And the gouge that is down here on the hand that Dr. Spitz says is up here, and got totally confused -- but everything according to him is a fingernail gouge mark, and it just isn't so, he cut his hand, the middle finger of his left hand, in Chicago. You've seen the glass. You've seen the bloody linen. You've seen the towels. And that's what happened. And you also heard that that's what occurred. When he walked out of the hotel and asked to get a band-aid, when he's trying to get a cab in his fervent efforts to try to get back to Los Angeles. And I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, the cuts as well as the bruises are a problem that the plaintiffs' try to work around. They can't get around it because OJ Simpson simply is innocent. At 3:30 they get the blood. They get 8 cc's of OJ Simpson's reference blood. Vannatter, who we know has misrepresented the truth under oath on this witness stand, and to a Judge to get a search warrant, takes the blood. He can book it right there. He can book it in Parker Center. He takes it. He can book it at SID which is about a mile away. He doesn't do either. He testifies to you on the witness stand that he takes the vial, takes it upstairs to where his desk is, and gets an analyzed evidence envelope out of his drawer and places it in his drawer and -- or in the envelope, pardon me. Wait a minute. Did you ever take that envelope down to Thano Peratis? No. It's got his signature. Oh, well I guess I made a mistake. He never seals it. Why not? Why doesn't he seal the envelope leave it with Peratis or in the alternative book it right there at Parker Center or take it to S.I.D. and the reason is it's because he wants to take blood out of it and does. You know you can get Thano Peratis after he's only done this for about 20 years because now they've got a big hole in their case. There missing 30,000 nanograms of DN
You can get him -- you can twist him, come in and say gee whiz, it wasn't 7.9 to 8.1 as I testified under penalty of perjury on two occasions. It was really only six and a half. And low and behold, we are now not missing 30,000 nanograms of DN
Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't wash. How could in one case all of this happen if there wasn't some effort being made by Vannatter and Fuhrman to frame OJ Simpson? How could it have happened? How could you have all of these problems; missing blood? How could it be that after the autopsy, never happened before. Siglar testified never happened before. Vannatter gets the reference vials of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Never happened before. And lo and behold on those vials, unlike the reference vial of OJ, there isn't even a semblance of how much blood was in those vials. And think of all of the items of evidence from the coroner's office after the autopsies are done 60, 70, every one, every one of those items of evidence is picked up by SID except the reference vials of blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman who's picked up by Vannatter. Happenstance? I don't think so. Then what happens, ladies and gentlemen? Then what happens? In this case, as you all know, it seems to be like a fine wine; the evidence seems to get better as the case goes on, for the prosecution. We have blood in the Bronco. We have a lot of blood in the Bronco. We have blood at the most amazing places. Back behind the console. We have blood on the console. Drops on the console that turn into smears, and nobody's been in it. How does that happen? It doesn't happen unless somebody smears it. How are blood drops on the side rail of the driver's door of the Bronco seen by Daniel Gonzalez unless he opens the door? You absolutely can't see it. You saw where the -- like every other car door in, there's a little seal, it goes up, then there's a little seal so that water doesn't come directly into the automobile. Just like every other automobile. Absolutely can't be seen. How does this all happen in this case? And the socks, ladies and gentlemen, isn't it absolutely incredulous that of the 32 pieces of clothes found at Rockingham that purportedly incriminate OJ Simpson, both of them are found, and there isn't one blood drop on any surrounding area, the Rockingham glove and the socks. Isn't it incredulous? When you look at those photos, there isn't one piece of clothing around them. They sit like a sore thumb in the middle of this rug, right in the middle of his bedroom, right aft -- right aft of his bed. Didn't look like anybody sat on that bed to me. And I think Bob Blasier proved it to you. Those socks were planted after Willie Ford had been in that room. He didn't see them. How can you miss them? He never saw them. And think about the socks. If you look at the recital tape, you'll see OJ isn't in any Bruno Magli shoes. Goes home, changes, gets into Reeboks, goes and gets a burger." Then he comes home and he changes into Bruno Magli shoes. Give me a break. And he changes into dress socks. And then these dress socks, I mean that's what you want, I guess dress socks and then these dress socks, ladies and gentlemen, are planted. And then to prove how much they're planted, you look at June 22, 1994, when Baden and Wolf are there. These are two criminalists. They have been requested to look at the evidence for the defense. And Vannatter's standing over them and he won't let them take them out of the cellophane holder that they're in. They look at them. They can't find any blood. That's what they're looking for. On the 29th, when three experienced criminalists are looking, doing a blood search, those aren't my words, those are their words, they're doing a blood search on those socks, Colin Yamauchi, Michelle Kestler and Greg Matheson, "None obvious." Not any blood on those socks. We wouldn't have held them up to the light, we're doing a blood search, and we put them on dark carpet so we can see it or something. I mean, come on, it makes no sense. Then, when they find them on August 14, there is copious amounts of blood. It goes through side 1 to side 2 to side 3, and then when it gets to side 3, it is bonded in the fibers on side 3. And I want to talk to you a little bit about the EDTA that's found on those socks, but I think first we've got to talk just a little bit about more planted evidence. And that's the back gate. Now, you went through with me when Detective Lange was on the witness stand, and Lange had notes of every blood drop down the walkway at Bundy, he had notes on every one of them. He even draws a picture of the gate and indicates which way it opens. Do you want to put that up, Phil. Here we're going through the blood drops. Down here he puts the gate. Finds not one drop of blood on the gate. And the next thing we know, July 3, 1994, there's blood drops on the gate, and, ladies and gentlemen, they have more nanograms of DNA than anything else except the socks. 16 Why is that? That is because it's planted. And so when the allegations of planting come out, what happens? You've seen the letter Rock Harmon writes to Roger Martz at the FBI to do a test to determine if in fact EDTA is on the samples of the back gate and the socks. This to me, ladies and gentlemen, is so crucial, and I want to take my time and go through it with you. He says we want you to determine the absence -- presence or absence of EDTA on the socks and the back gate to refute the allegations of planting. So Roger Martz does that. He does a test. And he finds EDTA on both samples. That could only come from a purple-top test tube. This is obviously absolutely devastating to the prosecution. It refutes what the prosecution says. So what does the FBI do? Roger Martz said, I tested my own blood, it came out with essentially the same reading. But, contrary to FBI procedures, he erases his computer run so nobody can come back and look, and at the time that he -- that he says that, the time he says that, no one knows that EDTA is undetectable in the human blood. Those tests haven't been devised yet. So Martz believes he's got carte blanche to say, I tested my own blood and it was about the same levels. That, therefore, explains why there was EDTA on the back gate and the socks. They're the same levels, so it isn't planted, okay. Now, think about it for a minute. If he thought for one second there was any possibility of ghosting or this cross-over effect you heard Terry Lee testify to, if there was one second that he thought that that was, in fact, the reason for the reading of EDTA, what would he have done? He would have gone back and retested those items or tested some other items, because he was 19 years in the laboratory, and he knew this wasn't any cross-over effect, he knew that he had EDTA in these samples. It was totally consistent with planting, because there was EDTA from a purple-top test tube, and both of those samples are dynamite evidence and they had to get rid of it somehow. Now, Mr. Petrocelli -- we got that thing in opening -- there's a board in there, Phil. This is what he told you in opening: A man named Roger Martz, a scientist from the FBI, he has a machine called a mass spectrometer, he can test blood samples to see if it has EDT
We will call Mr. Martz. He will testify he examined the blood taken from the socks and the blood taken from the back gate to see if there was EDTA in there that could have come from a reference sample that had EDTA in it, that is, if there were high dosages or high concentrations. Mr. Martz conducted these tests on his machine and he determined conclusively, and will so testify, that the blood on the back gate and on the socks could not have come from an EDTA-treated test tube, and therefore could not have been planted. Where was he? Mr. Lambert told you that he was going to bring it. Where was he? He wouldn't come because of the fact that now it is known that you can't have EDTA in your blood. And so his second test relative to his blood to try to explain away the planting is absolutely invalid. And he knows it, and he wouldn't come because he wouldn't come in here and testify to you that a lab manager of 19 years got cross-over effect or ghosting, that is, residue from the machine, EDTA in the machine came out on the next test. If these people were so confident that EDTA wasn't in those samples, why didn't they test everything? Why? They can get the FBI to jump through hoops. We can't get them to return a phone call. Why didn't they test everything? They didn't test everything because they didn't want to know the answer. They figured that they could get around this with you. They figured they could get Dr. Terry Lee to come in here and tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that it was ghosting, it was a cross-over effect from the machine. Remember what he put in his notes? I thought it was very, very telling. We've got to find a way to explain around it. That's basically what he said. And his way to explain around it was it was left over in the machine. Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in this case is simply not trustworthy. It is not trustworthy. It's not worthy of belief. They had all the opportunity in the world to do that. They did not do it. They wouldn't do it. And think about -- think about the gloves for a minute. Mr. Petrocelli says, well, why didn't they have OJ Simpson put on the gloves? You could see they were too tight. You could see it on the video. He could have had him put on the gloves. He didn't ask him. Those gloves are too tight. They wouldn't have fallen off. They wouldn't have been dropped. You know, isn't it absolutely incredible that they dropped one right at the beginning of the crime scene so everybody can see it in Bundy. And the hat stuck underneath the rail. And doesn't it defy credulity that the other one just happens to be at their number one suspect's house, in an area where nobody would be, where it doesn't belong. But it links the crime scene. Incredible. And you didn't see any scratches on OJ Simpson's hand. How can you pull those things off? Do you think that some killer is going to be trying to pull off gloves or is he going to be trying to attack. How did they come off and fall at such convenient places, to link a crime scene? And, you know, I didn't -- I didn't have Mr. Fung say that there were cuts on both of those gloves. He said that. When I switched subjects to the gloves, he said, well, there were cuts on them. And then he said that the cut was underneath this piece of stucco. And there is no cut underneath the piece of stucco, the stucco's gone, there's no stucco, there's no cut on the glove that's here. You look at the wear difference. You make your own decision. But I'll tell you something, ladies and gentlemen, the purported expert that they got in here to testify that the gloves were solid, and that's evidence that you ought to rely on, that man wanted to be in this case more than anybody. I mean he flies out here, he wants to be invited to the victory party, he wants everybody's cards, he wants memorabilia from the case. He's not to be trusted. But the gloves do not link crime scenes, and the reason they don't is, it's clear, it's beyond the pale, the Rockingham glove is planted. There's just no question about it. Now, you know, the contamination of the evidence, Bob Blasier told you about that, and can you imagine how every bit of evidence in this case, you take item 5823, it's got a 1.3 allele, to them that's cross-hybridization. I mean there's an explanation for everything that went wrong. And everything went wrong. And it went wrong because somebody was playing with the evidence. Think about it. OJ Simpson's reference vial, Nicole Brown Simpson's reference vial, Ron Goldman's reference vial, these are clean samples, there is absolutely no way contamination can get into those samples unless LAPD contaminates them. And then you look at them, you have got OJ Simpson's alleles in both Nicole Brown Simpson's blood and Ron Goldman's blood. How does this happen? LAPD doesn't even have a manual at SID. They really don't -- you know, they say the substrate controls clear everything up. That is our defense, we couldn't have contaminated everything because the substrate controls were all clean. Now, isn't that incredible? Isn't that absolutely unbelievable? This is a lab that has no set rules at all. For example, brings OJ Simpson's reference vial out as the first thing they work on, spills that, doesn't wash the table with bleach, doesn't change paper, doesn't know when they change gloves. This lab contaminated both reference vials of blood, and we've told you, ladies and gentlemen, once it's contaminated, it doesn't matter who tests it. I don't care if the FBI tests it, Cellmark tests it, Department of Justice tests it, it's contaminated and it's going to remain contaminated thereafter. And the substrate controls that they say all were clean, they were all perfect, there was nothing on them whatsoever. Now, can you imagine that? You saw the tape of Mazzola, how she collects samples. You saw on the board, if there was one substrate control, it was meaning not unlike diluted blood, and yet everything wasn't just without any DNA, it was perfect. It was immaculate, as if it had never been done, as if it had never been accomplished at all, because it's their savior. And, ladies and gentlemen, you can't trust it. If you can't trust the messenger -- and believe me, the messenger in this case -- we have one messenger that came to testify. We have one messenger that didn't. The messenger that came to testify is named Vannatter, and Vannatter is not to be trusted, and he had all the blood. Every bit of it. And if you can't trust the messenger, you can't trust the message. And then, ladies and gentlemen, and I'm taking a lot of your time, and I apologize, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that if Dennis Fung is at SID and Phil Vannatter wants to get into SID and wants Dennis Fung out of there and Dennis Fung is going to hold his ground and protect the evidence of the People, that's absolutely ridiculous to assume that. This evidence is contaminated, it's tampered with and it's planted, it's not at all worthy of belief, it's not at all worthy of belief to destroy a human being's life, and that's what the LAPD and the plaintiffs want to do in this case. Now, one thing you ought to put in perspective about the LAPD and the SID crime lab, you've heard early on, within two days of these murders, OJ Simpson makes available, at his cost, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael Baden, two renowned criminalists -- one is a forensic pathologist, rather, and Henry Lee, perhaps the most famous criminalist in the world, is relied upon by the government of Taiwan, by virtually every governor in the 50 states and by the FBI. Let the chips fall where they may. Look at the evidence, examine the evidence, analyze the evidence, and come to some conclusions. And LAPD turns them away. LAPD wouldn't even let Henry Lee in the lab, wouldn't even give him a microscope that he can see anything with. Why? Why, if they have nothing to hide? Why? And the reason is, they have a lot to hide. This evidence was contaminated early on. They knew it was contaminated early on. And they didn't want anybody finding out about it. They knew that they had tampered with, contaminated, planted evidence. If not, why not let your lab and all of the evidence be exposed to the light of day? Maybe they can tell you. Now, I want to, just for a moment, talk about reality, and it may seem somewhat harsh to do this, but this is a lawsuit. I just want to talk a little bit about the parties in this lawsuit. Fred Goldman is obviously a party, and you've heard that he has a wrongful death claim and a battery claim, and the battery claim is the springboard to try to get to the punitive damages phase or the second phase of the trial against OJ Simpson. He stipulated that there's $100 in damages. That is the amount of clothing that Ron Goldman was wearing.
He has not stipulated to $100 in damages on all counts, Your Honor. That's incorrect.
On the battery count. And Mr. Petrocelli got up here and told you in a very emotional appeal that Ron Goldman would probably be opening his restaurant now and he would be going into his restaurant. Let's examine reality. Fred Goldman, for reasons that he called tough love, didn't help his son go through bankruptcy, and he had to go through bankruptcy. Ron Goldman wouldn't have a restaurant now. He'd be lucky to have a credit card. Don't buy into this emotional idea, because it isn't reality. Mr. Petrocelli's well aware that sympathy, passion and prejudice are not to be considered, and yet he very dramatically wanted to read a poem to invoke your sympathy. That's not part of your deliberations. I'd like to introduce Mr. Kelly to his real client. He got up here before you and said it was Nicole. His real client, ladies and gentlemen, as was testified to correctly by Judy Brown on the witness stand, is the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson. The two beneficiaries and the only beneficiaries of that estate are Justin Simpson and Sydney Brooke Simpson, Mr. Simpson's children. Children who he just got back. That's who his real client is. But he wanted to talk about Nicole and to talk about sympathy. And Sharon Rufo, Sharon Rufo hadn't seen her son in about 12 to 14 years. She was -- and she suffered a loss. I'm not saying she didn't. First time in the history of my being in a trial that a plaintiff hasn't got on the witness stand and testified. Sharon Rufo was here the other day. She was here for final argument. She wasn't here to testify, to tell you about her loss. She did that by way of deposition. She was here for opening statement. But she didn't come to testify about what her loss was. Hadn't had a phone call, talked to her son in a couple of years. Now, those are the parties, those are the people suing OJ Simpson. And it is interesting that -- you talk about not helping your son through bankruptcy, not getting him out of jail, and that's tough love. And it's interesting that you vilify OJ Simpson, Mr. Petrocelli does, for trying to get his wife to pay her taxes so that his ex-wife -- her house can never be taken away. That's something to be vilified. That's just what has happened. What allows that to occur, ladies and gentlemen, what allows that to occur is that the media has told the world that it is politically correct to be anti-OJ Simpson. And you, ladies and gentlemen, are the buffers, you are justice by the people, you have the job of analyzing the evidence in this case and weighing that evidence and whether it makes any common sense, in determining whether or not OJ Simpson committed these crimes. And, you know, we talked about -- we talked about the week after the 12th, OJ Simpson is heavily medicated and he's at his friend Kardashian's house and -- and he writes this suicide note. And Mr. Petrocelli would have you conclude that he was guilty, that he was trying to escape. And what I was able to conclude from that, and you can as well, is, fortunately for Mr. Petrocelli, he has never experienced the kind of grief that Mr. Simpson was experiencing. It kind of wraps around your skull and it presses on it and it's an omnipresent headache and it drops to the pit of your stomach and you're depressed and it comes in waves and you don't know if will ever leave and you don't know what to do and you don't know how to do it, you don't know how to act, you don't know what to do and you don't know if it will ever go away. And then superimposed upon the grief from losing his ex-wife is the media, convicting him in the court of public opinion of killing two people that he had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with. And all of that has been brought onto Mr. Simpson. And so he says to his friend, take me to Nicole, and they get in Al Cowlings' Bronco and they go down to the cemetery, and they can't get in, and OJ doesn't kill himself, thank God. Mr. Petrocelli would have you believe that it was Detective Lange who saved his life. Detective Lange didn't even go upstairs to see if he was bleeding to death when he was there on the 13th. Detective Lange didn't save his life at all. What saved his life were two things, ladies and gentlemen: One is faith, and two is innocence. And that's what saved his life. That was not a man trying to escape. That was a man who was in total despair, who wanted to end, as he told you, the pain. And, fortunately, he didn't kill himself. I want to just discuss two final points and then -- you've indulged my speaking long enough. On the issue of motive, which we have to go back to because they simply haven't proved any motive, and they've taken an immense amount of your time, I want to remind you of one other thing relative to that issue. And that is, Nicole had close friends, she ran with them every morning, she had nannies and housekeepers all her life, you didn't see one of them come in here and testify to these what they would have you believe to be seriatim abuses. And the reason that they didn't come in here and testify is because they never occurred. They got people who wanted their 15 minutes of fame. And we certainly would never deny the '89 incident. But that '89 incident does not, five and a half years later, manifest itself into a double murder, when there's absolutely no motivation. And we have to go back and discuss briefly -- briefly, the time line. And we have to discuss that because before -- before it was politically correct to -- to be anti-OJ, Heidstra testified that at 10:40 is when he was across the alley from Nicole's condo. (Reading:)
So that we're clear, Mr. Heidstra, is there any doubt in your mind that you were in that alley and was walking parallel to Bundy on the night of June 12, 1994?
Any doubt in your mind that when you stopped behind the house, it was approximately 10:40? Any doubt?
No, no doubt about it. And so from 10:40, if it took to 10 or 15 minutes, that it obviously had to take to do these heinous crimes -- you're at 10:50, 10:55, and another six minutes, and you're at 11 o'clock, to get from Bundy to Rockingham. And, of course, OJ Simpson is seen, at the latest, 10:54, 10:55, walking into his house, after he came down and dropped his garment bag, after he'd been upstairs and dropped his garment bag over his golf bag. And that's when he is seen. And there is absolutely no time -- And, ladies and gentlemen, the car, the Blazer-like vehicle that turned right on Bundy that had no relationship to the crime one way or the other, certainly, Mr. Simpson would never have gone that way. And it was too early for the crimes to have ever been completed. There simply wasn't any time whatsoever for him to do it, because we knew, according to the plaintiffs' theory, giving them -- we knew at 10:40, when you hear the "hey, hey, hey," Ron Goldman's alive. The gate clangs, and he's alive. There is no time, if it were Mr. Simpson, for him to do it, go through all of that caged-in area and tussle, keep Ron Goldman quiet while he allegedly murders Nicole, keep himself away from Ron Goldman so he doesn't get a bruise on him. Not while he's murdering Nicole and not while he's in this horrific struggle with Ron Goldman's life, without a bruise, and then speed off in the wrong direction, with no time to get to his house. And then, ladies and gentlemen, follow through with -- follow with me, and let's go through it. If he goes over the cyclone fence, and he got -- allegedly changed clothes -- what, in God's name, has he changed into? If his clothes are already going into his bag, they're going to be placed into the Bentley, what has he changed into, and where did they go? Where would you leave the bag? In the direct light of the parking lamps that were on of Allan Park? And how, in God's name, ladies and gentlemen, did OJ Simpson, if he were the murderer, come back from Bundy in this huge white elephant called a Bronco, drive it up to Rockingham? And Allan Park, who is extra vigilant, tying to find OJ Simpson, never hears the noise of that vehicle, never hears -- never sees any lights, never hears a door slam, nothing. How did it happen? Well, it doesn't happen, because that car was sitting there the whole time, because Mr. Simpson had been upstairs, taking a shower. And think about it. If he'd taken a shower, and he had to take a shower after he came back, they didn't find any blood in his plumbing, not one drop in the sink, no. They took away the plumbing in his house. They did it in his wash room. They scoured the sewers. They had every inch of the route from Bundy to Rockingham scoured for clothing. They couldn't find any. Why not? Because Mr. Simpson is innocent. He didn't do it. How could he have possibly killed these people and dropped all his stuff around, got rid of the murder weapon, the shoes, the clothes -- kept the socks, though, kept the socks -- and how could it have happened? It clearly didn't. It clearly didn't. And, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Petrocelli has said to you, Mr. Goldman, Fred Goldman, can't get his son back; he can't get his life back. That's very true. He can't. And that's sad, and that is something we all feel for him. You can't give him his son back. You can't give Ron Goldman's life back. But you can give back Mr. Simpson his life. He has been ridiculed. He has been tried in the press. And it's only the jury -- it's only justice by the people who will listen to the facts of this case without an agenda -- without an agenda to sell magazines, newspapers, or air time -- that can render a verdict, like was done before, and give him his life back, and give Justin and Sydney their dad back. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Five minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.)
Thank you. If it please the Court. Morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Good morning.
Right now, what I'm getting up here for is to take part of what we call rebuttal; that is, I just want to touch on some of the arguments that Mr. Baker has made over the course of a couple days here. And after I touch on these certain things in a more general sense, Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Lambert will be getting up and responding in kind to the comments he made, and responding in some detail to things he put out to you during the course of his argument. The first thing I want to touch upon is the outrage that Mr. Baker expressed by the fact that the first time around in our closing arguments, that we, the plaintiffs, did not address the issue of police malfeasance. Then Mr. Baker went on to implore you people to simply look at the evidence and use your common sense. And the fact of the matter is that, if you do look at the evidence and you use your common sense, there is absolutely no indication of police malfeasance. What we did hear from Mr. Baker and his cohorts, both during their cross-examination of a number of witnesses and during their closing argument, you heard a lot of what-ifs, could have beens, maybes, possibles. But that's not evidence. You people know you are not to engage in speculation, you are not to engage in conjecture, and you are certainly not to engage in sheer fantasy. And that's what the defense is asking you to do. Now, a couple other things with regard to the Flammer photographs, which the defense claim was a fake. The other line in the sand they drew was this issue of Vannatter, with the blood, that it is -- it has been planted. And they felt that because he had handled Mr. Simpson's blood exemplar, and that he had handled Nicole's blood exemplar, and he had handled Ron's blood exemplar, that there was something extraordinarily sinister and wrong with what he did. And Mr. Baker then complained that while we did, right up front -- we put Vannatter on the stand and we took this issue head on. We wanted you to see exactly when, and under what circumstances, Mr. Vannatter came to be in possession of Mr. Simpson's blood exemplar. And then we moved on. And we wanted to let you know when, why. And when he transported that blood in the evidence envelope, straight out to Rockingham to Dennis Fung, and lo and behold, you -- and people were treated to a video of Detective Vannatter walking into Rockingham with that vial in an evidence envelope in front of the entire world. Also, when he was on the stand, we put the other issues right out there. You heard about when he picked up Ron and Nicole's blood exemplars. You saw the logbook, exactly when and under whose supervision he signed out both of those blood exemplars. And only minutes later, you also saw the logbook when he signed in and under whose supervision, those blood exemplars at SID. Now, Mr. Baker would prefer to talk about Rockingham in terms of Mr. Vannatter in this jumping over the wall to you people, till you people are dizzy. But it has nothing to do with the case. Couple other observations, also. I will agree with Mr. Leonard that he is a hard-headed Irishman, but even Mr. Leonard could not look you right in the eye and say those 30 photos are a fake. What he did was work around it, punch around the edges. And he coined a catchy phrase. He said, they came too late and they cost too much. Well, ladies and gentlemen, they came just in the nick of time, and those pictures are priceless. They're priceless. And in their evidentiary value to you, that you people, as fact-finders of the case, get to consider and weigh during your deliberations. And Mr. Leonard, himself, after all that, indicated that if you don't believe those photos are a fake, then you're free to conclude that it was Mr. Simpson who waded through those victims' blood that night on Bundy. Because --
Mr. Baker also urged you not to be guided by sympathy, prejudice or passion. He said we've subjected you to a ploy played upon your sympathies. Well, you know, ladies and gentlemen, we have, and we have in a certain sense. We have in the sense that this case and the facts of this case are sad. They're very, very, very sad. And it's a fact, it's a true -- true fact that, when Sydney and Justin wake up in the middle of the night, frightened, they won't have Nicole to hold them. And when they're sick or they're lonely or they're having trouble in school, it's a fact that she won't be there to touch them or stroke their hair. And Ron Goldman, what a great kid. It's a fact that he was cut down in his prime, just trying to protect this woman, this mother. The only sympathy being sought in this case is by the defense for Mr. Simpson, because in the face of overwhelming evidence -- physical evidence, forensic evidence, and testimonial evidence -- he's asking you to simply feel -- feel that his client did not commit these murders. They want to you be blinded to the evidence. Another thing Mr. Baker commented upon was that this courtroom was not a level playing field. He wants to you believe that. Well, Mr. Simpson had his battery of talented lawyers in here. And they brought back any witnesses they wanted. And they put up any experts they wanted to challenge any part of our case. Not the Flammer photos, mind you, but any other part of their case that they wanted to challenge, they wanted those experts in. But I'll tell you: This courtroom is a level playing field; it's only the score that's lopsided right now. Well, Mr. Baker addressed five specific incidents that we presented where Mr. Simpson lost his self-control, where sometimes he was physical, other times simply frightening to Nicole. He talked about '83, India Allen. That wouldn't have happened because she would have called the police. Well, I think we know by now what would have happened -- the police came in here and testified about that -- it would have been a conspiracy; it would have been a frame-up. And this guy would have been lying. Because in '84, Nicole did call security, and Mark Day responded to the house, and he did come in here. And he was lying. In '86, on Victoria Beach, Aguilar was lying. And in '89, New Year's Eve morning, Nicole was lying. And in '93, the tapes are lying. The tapes are lying when Nicole says she was scared. Now, Mr. Baker did something else. He alludes to the fact that we should have brought in Nicole's friends or housekeepers or people to talk about other incidents. Now, just a little aside. If you people haven't figured out by now, I'm from New York, and Mr. Baker sort of, I think, suggested that in itself had some sinister connotations. Yeah, I'm from New York. I grew up in the midwest. And we had a saying there. The saying was, you can't ride the same horse going in two different directions. That's what Mr. Baker wants to do: He wants to tell you two different things out of each side of his mouth. On the one hand, he wants to say you should have brought in every witness you had, every piece of evidence you had; you should have brought in one more witness. But no matter how many witnesses we brought in, how much proof, he says they were lying; they wanted their 15 minutes of fame; it was a frame-up; it was a conspiracy. Now, if we wanted to start with Nicole's friends that certainly where we would manufacture witnesses if we wanted to. But it also will suggest that if Mr. Baker was so confident that Nicole's friends wouldn't say these things, these were other people he could have brought in. He knew how to do that. He knew how to do it, just the way we knew how to do it. But what did we do? We didn't bring in Nicole's friends; we brought in Mr. Simpson's very best friend, his life-long friend. And what did he tell you? He wasn't lying. He told you that Nicole had told him -- this is Al Cowlings I'm talking about -- Al Cowlings got on the stand and finally admitted -- finally admitted that Nicole had told him that Simpson had hit her and pulled her hair. So, once again, either Mr. Cowlings, Simpson's best friend, is lying about that, too, or Nicole was lying, and that it never happened. And by the way, about these -- everybody -- how everybody gets on the stand and lies. You even heard how Judy Brown was, in Mr. Baker's words, busted. She was busted. The mother of her murdered child being referred to as being busted. I think that speaks volumes of the defense's attitude in this case. But what we did, ladies and gentlemen, is, we presented you with the most unbiased witnesses you could hear from: Mr. Simpson's closest friend, Nicole, in her writings, in her letters, in her diaries, in her tapes. And from her photographs. Now, importantly Mr. Baker keeps referring to the lack of a motive here. And Mr. Petrocelli is going to address that in some detail in the future, too. But what I think Mr. Baker was trying to say is, what we have here is the absence of a good reason to kill, and that this presumes that there was a logical mind inside the head of someone who committed a most illogical act. He's saying there should be some sort of cause and effect. Well, I'll tell you, we've heard of many times where Mr. Simpson was moved to violence, was moved to frightening actions, with no reason whatsoever. In '83, he slapped Nicole in the face. Did he have a good reason? In '84, he cracked her windshield. Did he have a good reason? In '86, he slapped her in the face. Did he give you a good reason? In '89, he beat and battered her. Did he give you a good reason? And in '93, he scared her; he frightened her. Did he give you a good reason? No, he did not. In '93, Nicole was scared. Scared to death. And for good reason. Keep in mind that as of June 12, 1994, Nicole was rejecting Mr. Simpson. She was keeping the kids away from him at the recital. She publicly embarrassed him in front of family and in front of friends. Now, I'm not saying that you would -- I'm not saying that he would -- you know, I'm saying -- nor am I saying that anybody would kill for that reason. But the bottom line is here, ladies and gentlemen. You heard it was a problem relationship with the history of violence; that Mr. Simpson was emotionally entangled with this woman; he was angry at her. He had a reason to be angry at her, in his mind, and he had the opportunity to kill. And lo and behold, Nicole was found dead. And he wants us to give you a reason. When, since the beginning of time, has a man killed a woman with a good reason? When, since the beginning of time, has a husband killed a wife or an ex-husband killed an ex-wife and had a good reason? There's not a scintilla of evidence that Nicole had any problem relationship with anybody else, that anybody else was violent towards her, that anybody else was angry with her. And there's only one person that she feared, and that fear was escalating, right up to the last days of her life. The person she feared, the person that caused her to call a shelter, was Mr. Simpson. Now, one other thing. I'm a little surprised Mr. Baker brought it up. But like he said, we can't tip-toe around these things; we have to address them. This was about this cause of action, my client -- Mr. Baker indicated that he wanted to introduce me to my client. Well, just a little bit about that. You'll hear from the Court that this is what we call a survival action, meaning that if Nicole survived the battery that night, she would have had the right to bring this action herself. Mr. Baker's right: His client murdered my client. She didn't survive, so she's not my client right now. That sort of reminds me of that old story about the young man who's getting ready to be sentenced for the murder of his parents, and he's standing before the judge, and when asked if there's anything else to say, the one thing he comes up with is, Judge, be lenient with me; I killed my parents, but forgive me. I'm now an orphan. That's basically what Mr. Baker was saying. The estate brought the action; the children are the beneficiaries. Since the beginning of time, one of nature's most lasting lessons has been that a mother protects her young. In life, Nicole couldn't do enough to love, protect and cherish these kids. And she went one step further, though: She made provisions in the event she died or was killed --
He brought it up. He talked about the cause of action. I have a right to explain a little. He mentioned the kids and the estate. And I'll be done in a minute.
The estate is Nicole's legacy. It's her final effort to protect these children. These children will never kiss their mother goodnight again. Mother's Day will only mean putting flowers on Nicole's grave. And all we're asking you now is for you to give Nicole that eternal comfort, let her rest in peace, knowing that her children are provided for in this one small way. Just bring these children under Nicole's wing; let them be protected by an angel. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion about the case. (At 11:58 a.m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1997 1:40 PM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.)
Your Honor, relative to the rebuttal argument, there's a couple boards in the back that the plaintiffs apparently intends to use, and it says "Simpson says," and then it has certain lines in there put in quote marks. These are not what Mr. Simpson said. There has been no testimony in all of the thousands of pages that Mr. Simpson said these things. They are trying to essentially, I guess, put these words in his mouth. I would object to any new boards whatsoever in their rebuttal argument.
It's completely appropriate, Your Honor, a board listing his defense, his argument, and there's no way anybody could ever think he said those things. I will make it absolutely clear he didn't say those things. Those are his seven points. I would never tell a lie, et cetera, the things that he said that we're going to run through in our rebuttal.
One other thing, Your Honor. I would object to Mr. Lambert arguing. He didn't argue at the beginning. And it seems to me in the rules that we have from September of 1996, that only one person can argue that did the argument in the opening argument.
It's rebuttal, I assume, to Mr. Blasier. You may resume. (Jurors resume their respective seats.)
We're getting there. I'm going to speak to you for a bit. Then I'm going to have my partner, Mr. Lambert, respond to some of the points Mr. Blasier made. Then I'm going to come back and wrap it up and I'll be the last lawyer you'll hear from. And then the good Judge will instruct you. Then you'll retire for your deliberations. But hang on, we're getting there. I'd like you to think about this question; what does a man do when his blood is found dripped all over the murder scene? When his hat is found next to the victims bodies? When his glove is found there? When his hair is found there? When his clothing fibers are found there? When carpet fibers from his car are found there? When shoe prints in one of the victims blood are found there; his shoe prints? When his blood is found in his car? When his blood is found dripped all over his driveway? When his blood is found dripped inside of his house? When his blood is found on his socks? When one of the victim's blood is found on his socks? When the other glove is found on his property; and when that glove has on it his blood, the blood of each of the victims, the hair from each of the victims, clothing, fibers, carpet fibers? When he has no alibi? When he was involved in a deeply conflicted relationship with one of the murdered victims? When he is seen in photos wearing the possible murder clothes? When he is seen in photos wearing the possible murder gloves? When he is seen in photos wearing the murder shoes that he lied and lied about? And when he has injuries all over his left hand? Now, what does he do? What does this guy do; especially if this man has money and resources? What does he do? He hires an army of lawyers, experts, investigators, consultants, you name it; he hires them all, and they sit down, and they figure out what to say about all of this evidence. Just like Mr. Simpson admitted on that stand that Lenore Walker figured out his words, figured out what to say about the night of the murders, and about his alibi. And what you have heard in this courtroom, ladies and gentlemen, from the defense over the last four months, and from these lawyers over the last two days, is what a guilty man has to say in response to all of this evidence. It was all planted. It's all contaminated. All of the photos are fake. All the law enforcement people are corrupt or incompetent. Every witnesses who gets on that stand and testifies against me is lying or mistaken. There's a conspiracy the likes of which has never before been witnessed, all to get me. That's what a guilty man does. And what's the reason? Why? Why would there be this conspiracy? Why would people do such a thing? Why would they all gang up and conspire to frame an innocent man; particularly a celebrity who's got a lot of money and who's going to draw massive attention, maybe the highest profile case ever? And people, innocent people who are doing their jobs, criminalists, lab technicians, patrol officers, rookies, seasoned detectives, FBI agents, coroner, assistant coroner; all these people have to be in on this to one extent or another, either they're in on it by planting and fabricating and making up evidence, or they got on that witness stand and lied. That's what you have to believe, ladies and gentlemen. That's what they're trying to sell you. You know there's an old expression; necessity is the mother of invention. I'm sure you've all heard that. What does that mean? That means when it's necessary, you'd better come up with something. And that's what you have heard; inventions. Inventions. They have invented argument. They have invented defenses that have no basis in reality. They have no facts to support them. They have no evidence. They're made up. What you just heard Mr. Baker describe for you were police officers, planted evidence, and gloves, and this and that. And we're going to get into that in detail because boy, we couldn't wait to hear him try to explain this so we could get the opportunity to let you know, once and for all, that this whole thing that we've heard about from the moment Mr. Baker started asking you questions in jury selection, from the moment he made his opening statement, and all the questions he asked charged with all this inflammatory language about planting and conspiracy and all this stuff. We couldn't wait for the day, finally, when we got a chance to hear him lay it out. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a fraud. It's a fraud on you. It's a big lie. It never happened. It's what -- it never happened. It's what guilty men do. They've been doing it for hundreds of years. They've refined it to a new art form because they've got the money. They got big shot experts, fancy lawyers come in here, figure out all the little discrepancies in the documents. Oh, they didn't pick up this, they didn't pick up that. Let's say this, let's say that. Making it up as they go along. In fact, I don't know if you picked up on this, but you saw with your very own eyes one of these invented defenses being made up right here in Court. Do you remember this business about Dennis Fung testifying about the glove, the Bundy glove, and he was shown a photograph that he'd never seen before? He said hum, can't tell what that is. This doesn't look like the glove I picked up. He was speculating on the witness stand which he shouldn't be doing. He hadn't seen these photos before. Now, no one has questioned since day one, nobody, since the beginning of this case, the beginning of the criminal case, that those two gloves, the one at Bundy and the one at Rockingham, were worn by the killer; they're the murder gloves. Mr. Simpson is trying to say they're not his, even though we have photos. But nobody's ever questioned that they were the murder gloves. Mr. Blasier sat here and said to you, and I quote, "And by the way, we're not contesting that these are the murder gloves, if anybody implied that to you, we certainly didn't." End of quotes. Last week, page 75. Then after a break, after he got a chance to speak to Mr. Baker and Mr. Simpson, he comes back and he says, oh, got to make a correction, maybe we are challenging the Bundy glove. Maybe we are. Wait a second. How can we challenge the Bundy glove? He must have been thinking the same number is stitched into that glove is stitched into the Rockingham glove. They're a pair. Planting the Bundy glove isn't helpful. The Rockingham glove is 'cause that's put on Mr. Simpson's property. What is this theory? I don't know. Minor detail. Don't worry about it. In that little episode we caught a glimpse of what has been going on in this case for two and a half years. Taking a witness's testimony out of context, taking discrepant recollections, which happens all the time. One police officer says, well, I saw it here. Another says I saw it there. Taking all of this and trying to build this massive, sinister, incredibly illegal conspiracy, and trying to sell that to you to try to get you to pretend that all that physical evidence that I described in the beginning of this argument doesn't exist. Throw it all away. Ignore it all. Believe me, I'm telling the truth. Everybody else is lying. And we're going to talk about how there is zero evidence of any conspiracy. There is zero evidence of any planting. We're going to talk about that. Let me tell you something else the defense does. Another one of their techniques -- and you'll see it when you go back and deliberate and say, well, what about this, what about that, you'll remember that this is a technique that they employ. They say, you know, on the one hand there's all this evidence, extraordinary amounts of evidence, and it's all planted, faked, contaminated, it's all no good. Then they say but on the other hand there should be more evidence if Simpson is really guilty. There should be more. Where's the knife? Where's the bloody sweat suit? There should be more footprints. There should be a greater blood trail. That's another argument they left. Ladies and gentlemen, there's no requirement in the law that there be all this evidence. Look in your jury instructions. You won't see it. There's no requirement. One blood drop, if it's not planted -- if you believe the blood drop was not planted, one blood drop is enough. One hair in his hat at the crime scene is enough. One shoe print is enough. One of those is enough. Let me make sure you're all clear on something, 'cause they like to be vague about this. For Mr. Simpson to be innocent, you have to find that every single bit of evidence that we present, every bit of it --
This is not the consciousness of guilt, ladies and gentlemen, this is the consciousness of innocence.
The evidence in this case is simply not trustworthy. It is not trustworthy. It's not worthy of belief.
If you can't trust the messenger — and believe me, the messenger in this case — we have one messenger that came to testify. We have one messenger that didn't... Vannatter is not to be trusted, and he had all the blood. Every bit of it. And if you can't trust the messenger, you can't trust the message.
What saved his life were two things, ladies and gentlemen: One is faith, and two is innocence.
I'm hot.