police officer planted or did anything cheating with any evidence? I did not testify. All right so that statement is correct, correct. Their own leading expert, the great Henry Lee, he says that there is no scientific evidence to connect any planting by the LAPD.
I object. He said there's no scientific fact. He never said anything about circumstantial evidence.
Now let's take a look at the Bundy results board because this will show in even more detail why this planting theory could not possibly be true. Now, you remember that Colin Yamauchi testified that the very morning that Dennis Fung put these swatches into the bindles -- remember Dennis comes in the day after collecting them early that morning, puts them into bindles. Right after he's done, Colin Yamauchi takes them out and does DNA tests on them right that morning, starting at 10 o'clock in the morning. And you see he got test results on 48, 50 and 52, all of those test results showing Mr. Simpson's DN
He's already got a match to Mr. Simpson at 10 o'clock that morning. That's the same results all of the other labs ultimately got when they tested swatches later on. So when the swatches get sent to Cellmark and to DOJ, they're all getting test results that are just like the one that Colin Yamauchi got. So what does that tell us? That tells us, ladies and gentlemen, that if there was any planting, it had to be done before them, because obviously, if Colin Yamauchi is getting O.J. Simpson's DNA test results, if their theory is right, it had to be planted before Colin started, okay. Well, who are they saying did it? Who possibly could have planted it? Are they saying Colin Yamauchi did it? Or Dennis Fung? Or Greg Matheson? Are they saying one of those people was involved in doing the evidence tampering? It could have been the police department, we know that, because you remember that this -- all this evidence was kept in the evidence processing room that night. They kept making points about oh, well, the cabinet that it was left to dry in, the test tube that was left to dry in was unlocked. Well, the room was locked. The whole evidence processing room is locked. As you heard from Matheson and Fung, the only people that can get access to that are members of the scientific investigation. They have little cards that you have to use to access that room. And whenever you access it with a card, a computer records your card number. So they know who went in and at what time they went in. So we know precisely who accessed that.
You want to approach. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter.)
There was no evidence of computer records. There was no evidence of the cards. There was nothing before this jury. He's just making it up.
Where are the computer cards? I have not seen one computer card. (Mr. Gelblum approaches with computer screen.)
That's fine. Where does it say there was a card that -- (Counsel and Court review transcript.)
The number of cards assigned to the -- this is the whole thing about the computer cards.
MR. BAKER: He said there is a printout. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)
Thank you, Your honor. As I was saying, there's no evidence that any of the police officers could have or did have access to the evidence processing room that night. Only Fung, Yamauchi, Mazzola, Matheson, the people that work there, the scientific investigation department members. So there's simply no way that any one of the people that they point the finger at, there's no way that Fuhrman or Vannatter and the police officers could have gotten in there and done anything. And think about it. Even if they had gotten in, what would they be able to do? They didn't know which one of these bindles represented Simpson's or the supposed killer's blood as opposed to other blood. Remember Yamauchi told you that he had to have Fung tell him which of the bindles to process that morning? Only Dennis Fung knew which ones represented important evidence and which ones didn't. Fung would have to be involved in any of these massive conspiracies they're talking about. You saw Dennis Fung. Did you think he was involved with some conspiracy to frame Mr. Simpson? I don't think so. In addition, this is something they never talked to you about, their own evidence conclusively establishes that this blood from Bundy could not possibly have been planted. Why do I say that? Remember how much time they spent with Robin Cotton, our DNA expert, and Gary Sims, the other DNA expert, about the fact that the Bundy blood drops were degraded. Remember all of that? They asked both of them over and over again: Well, isn't it true that the blood drops at Bundy were very degraded? And Cotton and Sims said, yeah, they were pretty degraded, which is not too unusual to crime scene blood samples. You pick them up off the ground, there's dirt, there's debris, there's vegetation down there, it degrades the blood. So they were degraded. It's true they were, but we were still able to get results. But they were degraded. And remember how they went through over and over again with a bunch of witnesses to tell you how few the number of nanograms were in the Bundy blood drops. Remember they kept bringing up there were only 2 nanograms, there was -- one was only 1.7 in this one. Teeny-tiny amount. And a drop of blood has 3,000 nanograms in it. And remember how they even said, and it's been made clear, that the reference vial of Mr. Simpson's blood, taken fresh out of an arm of a living person, that's not degraded at all. So how can they explain that? How can they explain to you that when the labs got the swatches from the Bundy blood drops and tested them, they all saw degraded blood? If someone had taken the blood out of the reference vial and put it on swatches and put them in the bindles, it wouldn't have been degraded. The labs would have seen no degraded blood. But they saw degraded blood because they didn't see planted blood. They saw blood collected at the crime scene, blood left there by Mr. Simpson when he completed the murders. So you can forget planting in the lab as well as planting at the crime scene. Those blood drops weren't planted. Now, let's talk a little bit about the blood on the back gate. Here at Bundy, too -- let me get this out of the way. It's another point that they spent a lot of time on trying to prove that blood was planted on this back gate. What do they say? What's the evidence that they've tried to present on this point? First they say, well, it wasn't collected until later, it wasn't collected until July 3, putting a sinister spin on that. Secondly they say, well, it doesn't show up in this one photograph we have that was taken on June 13. And third, back to the nanogram defense, they say it has more nanograms than the Bundy blood drops do. Let's take those arguments one at a time. First, the argument that it was not collected until July 3. Well, in the first place, you know that at least six police officers, Riske, Terrazas, Rossi, Thompson, Phillips and Lange, all six of those people testified on this witness stand in front of you, under oath, that they saw the blood on that back gate on the night of June the 13. All six of them. Are they all lying? It's even in the notes of Officer Riske that he took that night. Could you put up page 2 of 833, Steve. Here it is. Officer Riske's notes taken that night describing what he sees, blood on the west gate. He saw it. He wrote it down that night. Were they already planning a conspiracy ahead of time when he wrote it down that night? Of course not. They claim in defense of this, they say, well, we can point out some -- some minor differences between the testimony of the officers as to exactly where they saw the blood. Remember they had them up there trying to draw circles on the picture two years later about exactly where the blood was? Does that prove that the officers are lying? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, the Court is going to instruct you on this point. Can you put up 2.21, Steve. Here's one of the instructions the Judge will be reading you later on. There it is. "Discrepancies in a witness's testimony or between" -- you're going to have to get it back so I can read it -- "or between such witness's testimony and that of other witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that any such witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not uncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to an important matter or only to something trivial should be considered by you." Those kinds of discrepancies, minor discrepancies, between actually where somebody saw the blood, proved that the officers are telling the truth. If there was some grand conspiracy to frame Mr. Simpson, they'd have all gotten together and said let's tell exactly the same story, let's all make sure that we're all putting the little circle in the same spot. What you saw on the witness stand is honest witnesses telling you what they remember, two years later. The fact of the matter is, all these police officers saw that blood that night because it was there that night. Now, it's true that Fung and Mazzola didn't pick it up. That's too bad. It was a mistake. But it doesn't prove anything was planted. Let's talk about the photograph. Steve, can you put the photograph up for me. This is a thing that they showed you all the time. You know, they showed a lot of witnesses this, and they said, well, this photograph proves that -- proves that the blood wasn't there, because you can only see this one drop. I can't see it. But when you look up close, I guess you can see the one drop. But let's look at where the cops were. These are the photographs taken on July 3, when it was finally collected. You see the big drop, the one -- it's on the other side of the fence. It's on the other side of this fence here so you're not going to see that drop in that photograph. And you can see this one drop, you can see 115. There it is, right there, 115. Look close. There it is, 115, so you can see that one. The only one you can't see in that photograph is this one, 116, which is up around the curve and very hard to see. And I also point out to you in this photograph you can't see this rust here either. That rust has obviously been there a long time. Where is it in the photograph? It's not there. It's because it's taken from a long distance, it's bled out in the production of the photograph. That's why you don't see it. There's nothing at all sinister about that. And let's talk a little bit about why the police would even consider planting any evidence on the back gate on July the 3. Remember, by then we already had these DNA results. The labs had already tested. They already had DNA matching Mr. Simpson's DN
Remember Robin Cotton at Cellmark got a five probe match on evidence item 52, one of the Bundy blood drops. Five probe match. One out of every 170 million people could have the DNA that she found in items 52, including Mr. Simpson. They didn't need to plant anything on the back gate. They had plenty of evidence from the five Bundy blood drops that they already tested by July the 3. It would be silly to plant anything else at this time.
Objection. That misstates the evidence. 52 wasn't tested by Cellmark until a long time after that.
Finally, more nanograms. All of -- Dr. Robin Cotton, Gary Sims, and Brad Popovich explained to you that the difference in nanograms collected at a crime scene is common and due to environmental factors. In this case, for example, the blood evidence that was found on the ground at Bundy and on the ground at Rockingham, in the driveways and in the sidewalks of those two places, was all degraded, because what degrades DNA are enzymes, and it's in vegetable matter, it's in dirt, it's in the kind of things that's in the ground. So all of that stuff got degraded. The blood that was in cleaner places wasn't degraded. For example, you remember at Rockingham, evidence item number 12 is in the foyer of Mr. Simpson's house. And you've seen the pictures of the nice clean hardwood floor that the blood dropped on. That wasn't very degraded. Robin Cotton could get an RFLP test on that. Similarly, the blood on this back gate, it was up off the ground, air dried when it wasn't collected. You know, once it's dried, it stops degrading. So it simply wasn't as degraded as the stuff on the ground was. That's why they got a few more nanograms out of that. Simple explanation given to you by the experts. You know, when you think about these -- these arguments they're making about the blood at Bundy, you heard Mr. Blasier say, well, our defense to all of this evidence is that it was compromised, contaminated, you know all of these things. He's using the wrong letter of the alphabet. That isn't really what their defense is to this stuff. Their defense to all of this evidence really should start with D. It's desperation. It's deception. It's dishonesty. They don't have a defense to these blood drops. These blood drops do prove that Mr. Simpson was at that crime scene that night. It's his blood there. He left it there when he was committing the murders. Now let me go on from Bundy -- from the Bundy blood for a minute and talk about the Bundy glove. This is -- this is one of the newest inventions out of the very inventive minds of the defense. They, as you know, showed Mr. Fung recently this photograph of the Bundy glove, and said gee, doesn't that look like a cut in the glove or a tear in the glove? They didn't show him the other photographs of course, which were close-ups of that little spot on the glove, which clearly show that it's not a tear at all, but it's an object sitting up on top of the glove. Steve, do you have the big photograph? I'll just use this one (indicating to photograph). These are all in evidence. You'll get a chance to look at them when you're back there. As you can tell from this photograph, this is not a tear in this glove. This is an object sitting on top of it. You can see the shadow, as Gerald Richards, the FBI expert pointed out to you, you can see the dirt, there's dirt all around the glove. This is more dirt here. You can even see a blond hair intertwined all the way through this dirt and this little object. So that clearly is not a tear. Never was a tear. They played a little bit of a trick on Mr. Fung. Showed him a photograph taken from further away, got him to say, yeah, it looked like a tear. When Mr. Fung got off the stand and had a chance to see the other photographs and had a chance to see the close-up, had a chance to see the glove has a brown lining, not white lining, and that it couldn't be the lining of the glove showing through, he realized he had been tricked. There is no tear in that glove and there never has been. Then we put on Greg Matheson and Gerald Richards and that subject -- remember them? Gerald Richards, the retired FBI expert, he said that was something sitting on top of the glove, it's not a tear. Did they call a photographic expert back to tell you it was a tear? No. Maybe they were afraid to put Mr. Groden back on the stand. By then you'd already seen him talking about shoe photographs, and he wasn't very believable. So I doubt they wanted to subject him to another round of cross-examination. But they didn't put anybody on to try to tell you that was a tear. Moreover, you remember Mr. Matheson got up and showed you, by comparing the crime-scene photographs of that glove at Bundy to the glove here in evidence, he pointed out you can see the stains on that glove at Bundy that are still on the glove right now. You can -- you can still see them right now. Steve, why don't you show us the Aris label. Remember this one particularly (indicating to Elmo), this is the Aris label in that glove, and Mr. Matheson pointed out how these stains, you can still see them today. They're faded a little because it's been a while, but those stains are still there, still on -- still on that glove. This is the uncontradicted testimony. He wasn't even cross-examined on this subject. The uncontradicted testimony of Greg Matheson. And what do they think of Greg Matheson? Will you put up the quote, Steve, please. This is what Mr. Blasier told you in his argument. By Greg Matheson, who I submit to you is a very honest man and does a good job. That's about the one thing that Mr. Blasier said in his closing argument that I agree with. Matheson is an honest man. He is telling the truth. And when he told you this photograph -- this glove here in evidence is the same glove that was found at Bundy, he was telling you the truth. Finally, on this point, remember that Richard Rubin, the glove expert, long time ago, seems like now, he was in here once, and Mr. Rubin told us that these gloves are absolutely a pair, the gloves at Bundy and Rockingham, no doubt about it, absolutely a pair. In fact, as Mr. Petrocelli pointed out, they have numbers stenciled on the inside of the glove that are put on at the time of manufacture that absolutely identify them as a pair. Did they call anybody to rebut that?
I object. That wasn't the evidence, that they absolutely identified them as a pair, the numbers.
They called no other expert. So there's really no doubt that these two gloves are a pair. Matheson said so. Rubin said so. They don't have anybody to rebut that. So you can put out of your mind this newest invention that somehow the Bundy glove has been tampered with. There's nothing to it. Now, when you're thinking about the Bundy evidence, also take into account a lot of the evidence that they haven't said anything about. You know, they try to imply that this blood evidence got planted. But as Mr. Petrocelli pointed out, they haven't said a thing about that shoe print. There's a picture of it right up there. See that photograph? It's item 56. Because --
The shoe print was photographed earlier that morning. Is that just a coincidence, that the real killer was wearing size 12 Bruno Magli shoes? Is that just a coincidence? They admit he wears size 12. We've proved to you he wears Bruno Maglis, although he lied about it. That evidence alone should make you judge any of their planting theories with a huge grain of salt, because they can't explain that at all. Now, how about the hair and fiber at Bundy? Did they try to say that was planted? They didn't have the temerity to try to say that somebody went around and planted hair and fibers. So what did they say about that? Well it's unimportant evidence; it really doesn't matter. Neat first argument. Argument number 18: They said, well, Doug Deedrick -- that's another FBI agent who came in to talk about the hair and fiber -- well, he was just making subjective judgment, that he's biased because he's got pictures of the Goldmans in his office. Remember? That was their argument about Deedrick. And number 38, they said, well, in any event, that they're there, certainly, because Mr. Simpson visited Nicole's house, so it's innocent to have hair and fiber there. If hair and fiber evidence is so unimportant, why does the FBI have an entire unit devoted to hair and fiber analysis? If it's so unimportant, why does Dr. Henry Lee, the world's leading expert that they're telling us about, why does he analyze and rely upon hair and fiber evidence if it's so unimportant? Why do law enforcement agencies from across the country submit hair and fiber evidence to the FBI for testing? Of course it's important. Because this evidence is something that directly links Mr. Simpson to the crime and is completely unexplained. As to Mr. Deedrick's supposed bias, ask yourself, well, if he was being subjective and he was biased in his judgment, calling all of these matches, why didn't they put in an expert to disagree with this supposed biased judgment? Where was their expert? Well, Mr. Deedrick told you where their expert was. He told you that all of his underlying materials had been made available to Mr. Simpson's expert. And that expert didn't disagree with any of his findings; that's why they didn't call him. And listen to what Henry Lee said about it. This is from his testimony at page 200. (Reading:) Mr. Deedrick is an excellent hair examiner. I'm not challenging him. I think he always does good work. I believe him. I submit you should, too. Henry Lee believes in him, and I think you should believe him. Hair and fiber matches Mr. Simpson. There can be no doubt about it; it's undisputed evidence from Doug Deedrick. How about this idea that it was innocent transfer? Oh, he visits Nicole, So probably his hair just happened to come off, and that's how he found it there. Well, remember what the evidence was? Their were 12 head hairs matching Mr. Simpson found on that cap. Nine of them, Mr. Deedrick told us, were inside the cap. He told us that makes it primary transfer. That means you're wearing the cap; they didn't blow on there. They were inside the cap because he had been wearing the cap. And two of them, he told us, were embedded in the fabric of the cap. And remember, he said that means that they've been there for a while, because it takes a while for a hair to work its way into the fabric. Those weren't recent hairs that just happened to blow on the cap that the killer left at the crime scene. They were there because Mr. Simpson had worn the cap. And by the way, while I'm on that subject, you heard Mr. Baker today say that there was no dirt on that cap. Well, that's false. Take a look at your notes for November 5, the testimony of Susan Brockbank. Susan Brockbank testified on that day that she collected dirt and debris off that cap, in addition to this hair and fiber. Hair evidence -- Remember also at the Bundy crime scene, we have this very rare, medium mocha carpet fiber from Mr. Simpson's Bronco found on that same cap, completely unrefuted. It shows their planting theory to the blood must be wrong. How can it be just a coincidence that that mocha carpet fiber is there? How about the blue-black carpet fibers found on Ron's shirt? We know that very same fiber was found on the glove at Rockingham and on the socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom. That proves recent contact between those three different objects. And the fabric which is the source of that blue-black fiber, someone was wearing a garment that contained that blue-black fiber, and he touched on Ron's shirt, he touched the glove found at Rockingham, he touched the socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom. Only one person could have done that: O.J. Simpson. Let me now talk, before we leave Bundy, about this issue of Nicole's fingernails. You remember Mr. Blasier, in his argument spent, a lot of time talking about the testimony of Greg Matheson concerning the blood underneath Nicole's fingernails. Now, remember, as Mr. Petrocelli pointed out, the fact Judge Fujisaki pointed out before we all started this: What lawyers say is not evidence, just argument. I ask you to look at the evidence in the case on this point to see what that is. The evidence is this: Mr. Matheson stated that, in his opinion, as a serologist with many years' experience, the blood under Nicole's fingernails was her blood, and that it was, when he did this AB test that we're talking about, her BA type, under that particular test, had degraded to a B. Mr. Matheson said he'd seen it before; it happens with this particular test. And that is, in his opinion, is what happened here. But that isn't all the evidence you have on this subject, because we also had Cellmark and the Department of Justice doing DNA tests on the blood under the fingernails. And remember, as their expert, Dr. Gerdes likes to say, these DNA tests are extremely sensitive; they can test down to just a few molecules. And both of those labs, when they tested the blood under the fingernails, come up with DNA matching Nicole's. No mixture; it's not two people's blood under those fingernails; it's one person's blood: The blood of Nicole. That's what all that expert testimony tells us. And do they have an expert to contradict any of that? Did you hear one of their experts come in and say, oh, no, that's not what it is? No. You have Mr. Blasier arguing, but you don't have any evidence. And evidence is all that counts. So that's just another of their false issues. And finally, before leaving Bundy, I don't think we need to spend any time on Detective Vannatter's delivery of blood vial to -- to Mr. Fung that night. I just want to say that -- that you do have to remember that what Vannatter said was, the reason he didn't seal that envelope up was because Fung had to look in it to make sure he was getting blood, so he could then book the blood into evidence, and the chain of custody would be complete. And that's what Fung said he did when Vannatter arrived: He opened up the envelope; he looked it up; it was blood; closed it up. There's nothing sinister to this story, having an unclosed envelope. There's really nothing to it at all. Could we, Steve, put up the Bronco board now. I'll help you get this one out of the way. (Board entitled Bronco Evidence is displayed.)
Now, let's talk about the Bronco. They've tried to argue that the blood in the Bronco was planted, as well, because obviously, once again, this is extremely incriminating evidence. I mean, even before you know whose blood it is -- and we'll talk about that in a minute -- the very fact that the night Nicole was murdered, Mr. Simpson would have this blood in his Bronco, is an extremely, extremely important fact. And, of course, when it turns out to be not only his blood, but the blood of Nicole and Ron, it's a determinative [sic] fact. He couldn't explain in any way, shape, or form how their blood is in his Bronco that night. So they try to say, well, it's planted; you can ignore this, too; it's just planted evidence. But as you remember from the testimony, numerous police officers, criminalists Fung and Mazzola, they all testify that they saw this blood in the Bronco in the early-morning hours, when they first got there, during the evidence collection. You know that Fung was there at 7 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Simpson was still in Chicago. He hadn't given any blood sample to anybody at this point in time. And as you know, everyone testified that came up here, that that car was locked; no one had access to it. It was towed off to the print shed. And the next day, Mr. Fung had to get a detective to pop the lock open so he could get in to collect the evidence. That's uncontradicted. There isn't any other evidence before you at all on that point. So all of that blood that was collected by Dennis Fung on June 14, some of which you see depicted up there. None of that could have been planted. There's no way. So then they say, well, if we can't prove that's planted, let's try to prove the second blood collection was planted, the blood that Greg Matheson testified he checked on September the 1st. Well, but what evidence do they have that that blood was planted? Well, once again, they have one photograph. Why don't you put that August 10th photograph up for me. (Mr. Foster complies.) This is a photograph -- remember, they showed a lot of witnesses this photograph, and they said, oh, look, you can't see any blood. It's taken on August the 10th. And if you can't see any blood on August the 10th, then obviously, whatever Matheson checked on September the 1st, that must have been planted. Well, it didn't look at it close enough. Because, you remember, this is the one that I handed around and you looked at through the magnifying glass. When you look at this one really carefully through the magnifying glass, you can't see it here, because it's so dark. But you can see this one here, item 23 in that notch. You can see it in that photograph taken on August 10, even though it was taken from a long distance away, it's kind of bled out. You can clearly see item 23 still in there. Here we go. (Indicating to Elmo.) Yeah, now you can even see it in one -- it's here (indicating). This is item 23 in the notch. So clearly, there was blood, the same blood later collected by Greg, right there in that photograph that they've been relying on, showing everybody over and over again. Plus, I then showed you some other photographs also taken on August 10. Remember, Matheson circled on each one of those photographs where there was more blood that was checked. We'll go through these pretty quickly. On this one (indicating), this is -- a lot of these, you have to use the little looking glass -- but there's blood right here on this one. That's this blood right here, item 222. (Indicating.) There it is. See it right there? (Indicating.). Okay, Steve, why don't you give me the next one (indicating to Elmo). (Photograph displayed on the Elmo screen.)
This one right here, (indicating) this one, this is the blood on the Bronco. This is important, because this is item 305. Down here, see, this the last blood -- really, the only new blood collected by Greg Matheson on September the 1st. And the next one, Steve. (Mr. Foster complies.)
And on this one, you can see -- see right up here, (indicating) you see this one right here (indicating), which is not even on this chart, but it's that number there at 21, and you can see the smear again. So here we have all of these photographs taken on August the 10th showing the blood in the Bronco. And in addition -- Would you now put up Greg Matheson's photograph. (Mr. Foster complies.)
What are we really talking about here? We're talking about Matheson's September the 1st collection. Well, what Matheson has told us is, he basically was simply doing a re-collection of what Dennis Fung had already collected. In other words, he was collecting from the very same spots. These really aren't new spots. Here's what he collected (indicating). He collected 296, same as Matheson's 23. He collected -- I can't even read it. What is that?
298, which is the same as 22 here (indicating) And he collected 299, which is the same as this one. (Indicating.) You can barely see this one, but it's 21. (Indicating.) I think it's the only new one he collected. On the door is this smudge here at 297, (indicating), which is so faint, you can't even see it. So basically, he was just re-collecting in the same spots that Dennis had already collected. And the same thing about the console, remember here it's a picture of the console and Matheson's serology lab. This is a picture of the console when Dennis Fung did this -- his collection. You remember Matheson told us these here (indicating), 303 and 304, they're the same as 30 and 31. And you can see where Dennis had pulled the swatch through the blood. You can see the smears where Dennis had already collected them. He was just collecting more of the same thing. The only thing he collected that was additional was way down here, 305, (indicating), which when the console was seated in the car, it's obviously hard to see, and they were able to get it when they pull the console out of the car. That's really the only new evidence collected by Matheson on September the 1st. Everything else is really just redundant of what Dennis Fung had already collected. And you remember when their DNA expert was on the stand, John Gerdes? He admitted that the test results that they got from Matheson's collection of 303, 304, and 305, the blood on the console, simply validated the earlier test results, that of the labs they had gotten on 30 and 31. It was really more of the same; there was no new evidence. It was more of the same. But it's important evidence because, as I pointed out, all this blood on the door of the car, that's all Mr. Simpson's blood. And that notch and that handle -- how do you get that notch in the handle? If you're reaching with your right hand to get a cell phone and cut yourself. Is that how he's saying that blood got on the notch? The only way he got that blood in the notch is if you're sitting in the car with the door closed and open the handle to get out. But Mr. Simpson told you that that night that he went in to get the cell phone, he never got in the car; he never closed the door. And how about this one up here, (indicating) right by the light switch? How do you get that blood there? Reaching in to get the cell phone and cutting yourself. He told you he didn't turn the lights on. So that explanation doesn't make sense. That can't be how that blood got in there. And even if that was the explanation for how all that blood got in there, what about Nicole's blood? How did it get in there? Because we know that carpet right there contains Nicole's blood. Mr. Petrocelli has just given me a portion of the trial testimony of Mr. Simpson. And this is what he said on this point, in case you don't believe me. He said -- we asked him: (Reading)
That's correct. So he couldn't have left any of that blood there that night. That's what they're now trying to tell you: They're trying to tell you he didn't leave the blood there. Mr. Baker, even though he'll tell you -- didn't Mr. Baker try to tell you he did -- in any event, there's no explanation for number 33. That piece of carpet that's got a bloody shoe print that's in Nicole's blood in his car that night. They have offered you no explanation for it. Search your notes. They can't tell you how that got there. And how did Ronald Goldman's blood get on that console? Mr. Simpson said he didn't know him, never met him. How could his blood get there? There's one way it could get there: It got there because Mr. Simpson carried it with him from the crime scene. Now, while I'm on blood -- which unfortunately has been my job in the case -- let me talk a little bit about when Mr. Thano Peratis -- they try to make a big deal about Mr. Peratis' testimony, saying well, he, you know proved that there's some missing blood. Well, what Mr. Peratis told you -- and you probably remembered his testimony -- he's a kind of a charming, elderly gentleman -- he admitted that when he first was asked and he said that he thought he took 8 cc's from Mr. Simpson's arm, and -- he made a mistake. He said he based it on assumptions that he had never really tested before because no one had ever asked him, you know, exactly how much blood he drew out of somebody's arm. And he said as soon as heard that people were making a big deal about this, about his really top-of-the-head kind of estimates, he, on his own, conducted some experiments to try to figure out how much blood he did actually draw. The prosecution in the criminal case didn't ask him to do that; we certainly didn't ask him to do that. He did that on his own. And he told you that after he figured out that he made a mistake and he hadn't taken out 8 cc's, but more like six and a half, he went and told everybody -- not only told the prosecutors, he went and told Mr. Blasier, so that everybody would know that his testimony had been mistaken on that point. And he explained to you how the day that he withdrew the blood, he didn't use the normal vacutainer vial that he usually used; that Mr. Simpson has a muscular arm; he had to use a syringe to get blood out. And he told you how, as he was withdrawing the blood he -- the tip of the needle hits the vein and the blood stopped coming out. And he asked the police officers, well is this enough; and they said yeah, so he stopped. You know, so he explained how he didn't get a full vial, that he only got about six and a half. Now, Mr. Simpson, he was there, obviously, when all this happened. He could have gotten on the witness stand and said, oh, that never happened; Mr. Peratis never said this; the police officers never said yeah. Mr. Simpson could have refuted all of that, but he didn't. So, obviously, Mr. Peratis is telling the truth. Do you think he had any reason to lie? Is he one of the many, many liars? I don't think so. Now we're going to go to Rockingham. I guess you can take that down, if you will, Steve. And why don't you bring out the Rockingham glove board. While we're talking about Rockingham, let me pick up on something that Mr. Baker was saying during his argument. He said to you, there's no blood in the bathroom, remember? There's no blood upstairs. Well, he's wrong about that. So take a look at your notes. Remember, evidence item 1348 collected by Andrea Mazzola is on the floor of the bathroom upstairs. It matches Simpson's blood. And remember, we have blood in the sink and in the shower upstairs, presumptive positive test for blood in both of those locations. Remember Dennis Fung explained how the LAPD does presumptive positive tests? It's a two-step process, with first tested with phenolphthalein and with hydrogen peroxide. That two-step process eliminates false positives. We clearly have blood in the sink and in the shower. Not too surprising, because he probably had some blood on his hands when he came back from the murders. Now let's talk a little bit about the glove at Rockingham. Mr. Petrocelli already discussed with you, at length, why it's completely impossible for that glove to have been planted, starting with the fact that there were never two gloves at Bundy in the first place. So how could there be a glove planted, or where did somebody get the glove to plant? So there really isn't anything to this. But let's take a look at the evidence on the glove itself. The evidence on the glove itself shows us that it couldn't have been planted. The most important part of that evidence is the blood evidence. They're theory of the case is that Mark Fuhrman or one of the other co-conspirators picked up this glove at Bundy, where it had really been worn by the killer, and drops it on Mr. Simpson's property at Rockingham. Well, there's a big -- real big problem with that theory, because Mr. Simpson's blood is on the glove. How could his blood be on the glove if it was picked up at the Bundy crime scene and he had nothing to do with the murders? Now, I wouldn't -- I would admit that Ron's blood and Nicole's blood could be on the glove, because obviously, the killer got their blood on it when he was killing them. But the only way for Mr. Simpson's blood to be on that glove is if he's there. Planting it does not explain that evidence. And they don't have any explanation for that evidence. They try to speculate. They try to say, well, maybe Collin Yamauchi, when he was doing his testing, maybe he got the blood on the glove somehow. Well, that is distinctly contradicted by Collin Yamauchi's testimony. You remember, Mr. Yamauchi specifically said that he changed his gloves before he started processing this glove; that he changed them several times during the processing of the glove; and that he manipulated the glove in various places during his testing. So he wouldn't have just got Mr. Simpson's blood if he was transferring it onto the glove in that one spot; he would have gotten them in a lot of spots. So that's no explanation. What explanation do they have for Mr. Simpson's blood being on that glove? And the answer is none. They can't explain it. And that alone, I submit to you, completely disproves any planting theory. What about the other evidence on the glove, in addition to the blood? We know that we have on this glove that same unique Bronco carpet fiber. We found it on the hat at Bundy, and here it is on this glove, too. And it's a carpet fiber that Mr. Simpson has in his Bronco. So that means that that glove came in contact with Mr. Simpson's Bronco. How do they explain that under the planting theory? And finally, we have again, that blue-black cotton fiber on this glove, the blue-black cotton fiber that we find in the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, and also on Ron's shirt at Bundy. The only way that blue-black cotton fiber can be in all those places is if Mr. Simpson was in contact with all of those items. It completely refutes any planting theory. So the glove itself tells us -- it's talking to us -- it says, I'm not planted; I was left here by the killer. I was left here by Mr. Simpson. Now, let's talk about the socks at Rockingham. This is a subject that they spent a lot of time talking to you about. They tried their darnedest to try to convince you that these socks were planted. And the reason is obvious. The evidence on the socks is overwhelming evidence of Mr. Simpson's guilt. There are very, very, very strong DNA RFLP test results on those socks that prove the blood is Nicole's and Mr. Simpson's. Obviously, he could not possibly have an explanation how her blood got on his socks in his house, the night of her murder that's an innocent explanation. So they, from the beginning, have been desperately trying to prove to you that those socks were planted. And how do they try to do that? Well, first, they try to say that the socks were planted during the police investigation. And what do they show us for that? They say the Willie Ford video -- the Willie Ford video shows that the socks were planted. But as you know, Mr. Ford completely refuted that theory. Steve, would you put up --
Here's Mr. Ford, page 21 of his trial testimony before you, December the 11th. (Reading:)
No. He had just left. He had just left because he had just finished collecting the evident. Right -- right -- up a little more. (Reading continued:)
That, in fact was your role there that day, was to film after the evidence had been collected, right?
Yes, sir. So there you have Mr. Ford telling you that his video was shot after Dennis Fung had collected the evidence. So the Ford video is completely irrelevant. And Mr. Blasier's argument the other day about pictures with the straps in them, I don't know if you could follow that; I couldn't. But he seemed to be saying, well, here's some pictures of the socks with the strap down. Here's some pictures of the socks with the strap up. So what does that prove? Nothing is what it proves. Obviously, the criminalists, when they came in, they looked at the straps: Should we collect these? No, leave them there. So the straps got moved. So what does that mean? It's like the envelope moving at the Bundy crime scene. So it means nothing. There's no doubt that the socks got collected that day by the criminalist. There's no doubt about it. When you think about it logically, their theory seems to be that somebody planted the socks, but they didn't put any blood on them. Remember, they had this whole big thing that the blood didn't get found until much later. Why would anybody plant the socks when they have no evidentiary value? Do they plant the socks and come back later and say, oh, we forgot we were supposed to put some blood on them, and we just planted them without any blood on them, so now let's just put the blood on them? Is that what they expect you to think? Do they expect you to buy that, that the socks were collected by Dennis Fung that day? So then their second invention on the socks is, well, if the socks weren't planted, then it -- the blood was planted. That's what it is; we had it wrong the first time. It's really that the blood was planted on it. And what's their evidence for that? Well, they say that Dr. Baden, who they -- Mr. Baker described as a criminalist -- he's not a criminalist; he's a pathologist -- that Dr. Baden and Barbara Wolf, another pathologist, looked at the socks and didn't see any blood. If you look at your notes of Dr. Baden's testimony, they barely let him look at them; he looked at them in the bag, and that's it. So he didn't know. Then we have June 29th, where Matheson, Yamauchi and Michele Kestler had a meeting to do an inventory of all the items in evidence. And do you remember they said that that was a blood search -- that's how Mr. Baker described it -- they did a blood search that day? Well, let's put up the inventory. This is actually the whole document that you'll see in evidence. It's Exhibit number 1302, if you want to take a look at it. As you can see, it's a long document. They're inventorying all the items of evidence. They collected a lot of evidence in this case. They're listing all this stuff. They're listing over here. (Indicating) What are we going to do with all this stuff? And what they said about the -- about the socks is we need to do a blood search. We need to have somebody do a blood search on these socks. They weren't doing it then. They were going to do a blood search. And here's what Mr. Matheson testified about this meeting: (Reading:)
No. So this blood-search theory that Mr. Baker is trying to sell you is simply false. What they did at the meeting is, they did an inventory of the evidence, and they determined that they were going to do a blood search sometime in the future. And then, you remember, Colin Yamauchi testified that on August the 4th, he did a blood search. And he did a blood search and found blood. But what did he say about even the blood search he finally did on August the 4th? Let me read you from his testimony at page 29: (Reading:)
When you first took them out on August the 4th, did you notice any blood that was apparent on the socks?
Well, yes. That phenolphthalein test I described earlier was utilized. I basically looked at the socks, looked closely for slight discolorations or anything that might indicate a stain. It's a very dark surface, so it's hard to see a stain on it. And then I utilized that presumptive test that I described earlier, and it was positive, indicative of a presence of blood, There you have it: The blood is very hard to see, the only way to find it on the 4th was to do a, presumably, a blood test. They're trying to say something sinister, that these people looked at it casually the first time and didn't see it the first time. Gary Sims told you the same thing. He said the socks were sent up to him to be tested. He knew there was blood on it by then. Colin Yamauchi knew it was there. And since then, it was hard to see. The more you looked at them under a light and under a microscope, the more blood he was able to find. So that's the whole story on the socks. And by the way, Greg Matheson gave you a piece of undisputed testimony on these socks. No one has contradicted this in any way. He told you that the serology records indicate that between that June 29 inventory and August the 4th, when Colin Yamauchi did his testing, no one accessed those socks. They were locked in the freezer in serology that whole time. So who planted the blood? They haven't given you any evidence at all about that, because there isn't any. That's why. Now, the next piece of evidence they try to rely upon to try to show that the blood on the socks was planted, was Herb MacDonell. Do you remember him? He's the criminalist who came in here to talk to you about those little red balls, remember, the guy with the little red balls, with the area under the -- in the socks that they cut out to do certain portions of the test on the surface underneath? He observed microscopically -- had to blow it up a hundred times -- tiny red balls of blood. He said those could have been caused there by someone placing some blood on the outside surface of what he called side 1 of the socks, or would have leaked through to side 2 and got to 3. That couldn't have happened if there was an ankle in the socks. That was their theory; that, somehow, this was planted evidence. If you know -- if you remember what Mr. MacDonell said, he said that this small ball could also be explained if the person that was wearing the sock was perspiring when he was wearing them, that would keep the blood more hydrated and make it more likely to drop through. I guarantee you that Mr. Simpson had every reason in the world to be perspiring that night. Secondly, he said it's also conceivable that those little balls were put on there during the testing process -- and we just told you how Colin Yamauchi was doing presumptive blood tests on those socks -- but to put chemicals on them to do the tests that rehydrates the blood and takes makes it go through. Gary Sims did the same thing. By the time MacDonell had looked at the socks, they had been tested, tested, tested. It's no surprise that a little bit of blood had gone through to the other side. And remember on this point that Dr. Henry Lee didn't testify about these little red balls. It was his photograph that MacDonell was showing you. And Dr. Lee was there with him when all this was going on. He was there with Mr. MacDonell. But they didn't have him testify about it. And put page 25 back, would you, Steve? (Transcript referred to was displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Now, remember Henry Lee said he doesn't have any scientific fact to show that any police officer planted or did anything with any evidence. So he saw the little red balls. He said he didn't view those as evidence of planting or cheating. And then remember we brought in Mr. Fox, and Mr. Fox conclusively showed you MacDonell was really way out on a limb with his theory. Mr. Fox said that, of course, these little red balls could be there from perspiration; they could be there from the testing. He pointed out they could be there because the socks were inside out when they were found on the rug. And Mr. Simpson had some blood on his hand and could have got -- put them on his socks when he had taken them off. He showed in his own experience, when you cut out a little area of the sock, these fibers fall through to the other surface, and they had the little the red balls on them. He showed you the ticket. He created the same thing by cutting it out just like the criminalist had done. He pointed out if MacDonell really believed that these little red balls were adhering to the actual fiber on the other side of the sock, rather than loosely in there, he should have checked by trying to move some of the balls. He had the ability to do so. He could have done so, but he didn't. Ask yourself why not. Maybe he didn't want to know the answer. But he certainly didn't do anything with it. So that certainly doesn't prove anything. So now, let's turn to their last-ditch stand on the socks. They struck out on proving to you there was any blood planted on them. They struck out with these little red balls. So they try for EDT
That's their last-ditch stand on this. First off, I want to point out that, contrary to what Mr. Blasier said in his closing the other today, Detective Vannatter, when he testified here on the witness stand, told you that he knew that those purple-top vials had EDTA in them. So they knew about that. So was he going to plant something on some evidence that he knew had a chemical that could be traced back to blood coming out of -- out of the test tube? Was he dumb enough to do that, even though he knew it had EDTA in it? But in any event, let's talk about their EDTA witness. They brought in Dr. Rieders. He's their big EDTA guy. You remember Dr. Rieders testified that he didn't do any tests himself; tests were done by a Agent Rodger Martz of the FBI. Rieders didn't know him. Rieders also told you this LCESMSMS machine that they were using is one that he himself hasn't used very much, he used about 20 times after he first formed his opinion in this case. At the time he formed his opinion, he'd never used it. So he's reading somebody else's results on a machine that he himself hasn't really used. He also told you, by the way, that he's testified hundreds of times. He's a professional witness; that's what he is. And when we asked him about some of the tests that Agent Martz had run, he said he forgot he even ran those tests. Steve, would you put up the negative on test results. (Mr. Foster complies.) One of the tests that Agent Martz ran was a negative ion test. This is one of the mass spectrometry tests. These big blocks are the results that Agent Martz told us he got on known samples of blood containing EDT
So if you take blood out of an EDTA test tube, there's the results you get. He then ran this same test on the evidence samples: The socks, on the back gate, got zero, no EDTA present at all. Rieders forgot about that test. Then we did the HPLC test. This is another test that was done by Martz. Same thing: Blood that contains EDTA gives us this huge signal. Evidence samples, nothing. No EDT
Rieders had forgotten about that. Remember he said, I didn't read my notes about that. The only thing he talked about is the third test, the so-called positive ion test, the third kind of test that Agent Martz did. And can you put up the next one, please Steve. (Mr. Foster complies.)
Excuse me. Frederic Rieders. You remember, this is a chart that was prepared by Dr. Terry Lee at the City of Hope. What this chart tells us is that when you test results for blood that contains EDTA like that out of purple-top test tubes, you get this mountainous signal; that's what you get in the positive ion mode test. When they tested the evidence samples, they got the mole hill. And then, so then I said to Dr. Rieders, isn't it true that if the evidence samples came out of a purple-top test tube, they should look like a mountain -- they should look like a mountain, not a mole hill? Yeah, true. Maybe I have an explanation. Then so I said, what are the explanations? And he offered us two explanations. Explanation number one said, well, maybe Martz made a mistake. Maybe, when he measured the blood, he was off by 15 times T. In other words, he puts in 15 times less blood than he thought for the evidence sample. And then the second explanation he had was, well, maybe the EDTA in the blood and the evidence sample was degraded, so it was weaker and gave a weaker signal than the EDTA out of Kestler. Those were his theories. That's all he could tell us. We called Dr. Terry Lee -- and you'll remember Dr. Terry Lee; he's he not a professional witness; he's not testified hundreds of times. This was the first time he'd ever testified. What is he? He's a research scientist. He's the head of the mass spectrometry department at the City of Hope, one of the most important research institutions in the country. Unlike Dr. Rieders, Dr. Lee has used the very same equipment that Rodger Martz used to run the tests, and hundreds of times. Unlike Dr. Rieders, he has reviewed test results of other people running that equipment hundreds and hundreds of times. He's a scientist. They tried to say, well, he was biased. Remember, they read from some of his notes, and said that shows he was biased. Well, they didn't read from all of his notes; they just read from one paragraph. Let me read from both of those paragraphs. These are in evidence. You can look at them yourself and judge for yourself. Do you think this a biased person? I think when you see these notes, you'll see this is a scientist; this is a man trying to lay out all of the possibilities so he can analytically decide, what do those test results show. And when he was listing possibilities, the one that they read to you says, if not planted, convincing argument must be found for why EDTA is present at those levels. Dirt contamination from environment or contamination from lab during sample process. Then the next paragraph, they didn't read to you, in which he said: If planted, convincing argument must be found for explaining away the levels, why the levels are so low. Where did the rest of it go? So all he's doing is laying out the possibilities so he can then analyze the possibilities. And he did analyze the possibilities. He said, in his opinion, the two explanations offered by Rieders were impossible. He stated that when running these experiments, as Agent Martz was doing, it is customary to do exactly what Martz said that he did. And what Martz said that he did was intentionally use more blood in the evidence sample than he did in the known sample that he was comparing, so that he knew he'd have more evidence, sample blood and evidence, sample blood. Rieders tried to say he was mistaken more than 15-fold. Even though he's trying to use more evidence sample, he was actually using less, 15 times less. But Dr. Lee said that can't happen. But if you dilute blood 15 times, it doesn't look the same. It would be obvious to any operator, and would have been obvious to Agent Martz, so that explanation didn't hold water. How did the other suggest that EDTA had degraded? Dr. Lee said that didn't work, either. EDTA is an extremely stable chemical; that's why they make 50,000 pounds a year. It's very degradable. Dr. Lee said there was zero scientific support for this degradation, and Dr. Rieders just said there's no support. And in addition, as Dr. Lee pointed out, it doesn't make any sense, because we have two different evidence samples here. One of them is blood on a back gate that was left outside for three weeks before it was collected. The other is blood off the socks that was kept in a freezer at serology. But they both gave exactly the same little mole hill of a signal. If there was degradation taking place, it would have degraded at different rates. Obviously, the rear-gate blood should have been way more degraded than the socks that were kept in the freezer at serology, but they were both exactly the same. So Dr. Lee said, no that's not it; that can't be the reason. And most important, as you remember, Agent Martz tested his own blood. He took blood out of his own arm, tested it, and he got the very same signal. Steve, would you but that other one back up for me. (Mr. Foster complies.)
He got the very same mole hill signal when he tested his blood. And Dr. Lee told us that -- tells us what's going on. See, because there could be no EDTA at a detectable level in Agent Martz's blood. That's now been scientifically established. So when Agent Martz found this little mole hill in his own blood, that meant that the test results had a problem, because he was getting the very same little signal here that they got in the evidence sample. As a matter of fact, Reider said it's an identical signal. And what Dr. Lee told us is, that's the explanation for all. That is one that's very common to people like him that run these LCESMSMS tests over and again. It's called carry-over. He said when you run the EDTA-laced blood through the machine, tiny particles of it can stay in that chamber that we use. Then, when you run fresh blood through, it picks up a little bits of that every time it goes through. So every time it's going through, we're just getting a little bit of the carry-over from the big EDTA, the known sample. And what he told us is, that is the only explanation that fits all of the evidence. Dr. Rieders' explanation about there being a mistake made by Martz, or Dr. Rieders' explanation about degradation, that doesn't explain why we're getting the mole hill from Rodger Martz's blood. And you can take a look at your notes. Dr. Rieders didn't give you an explanation for how he could be getting a signal in Rodger Martz' blood, his theory didn't fit that part of the evidence. Only Dr. Lee's theories fit that part of the evidence. And a final point on the subject of EDTA, and I think is quite an interesting and important one: Remember from the testimony of Dr. Rieders, that working for the defense is a person named Dr. Kevin Ballard, who was working for the Simpson defense team in the criminal case, since the criminal case has developed, and --
And testified in his lab, a mechanism for testing for and quantifying precisely EDT
So Ballard has a system. It's different than the system Rodger Martz used, but he has available a scientifically established system for testing for EDT
Why wasn't Kevin Ballard called as a witness? Why didn't Kevin Ballard test any of the evidence items in this case that they say were planted, to use his testimony to prove there was EDTA --
Your Honor, I object. There's no evidence of this, and there's no evidence we had evidence to get it tested.
You -- and you know the answer. It's because they know there's no EDTA in this evidence. They're not going to put a witness up there and have us be able to prove through their own witness that there's no EDTA in it. So they keep Ballard off the stand. They put Dr. Rieders up here, who doesn't even use this equipment, to give us these half-baked opinions that Dr. Lee showed were clearly wrong. There's no EDTA in this evidence. None at all. Okay, Steve. And as one final point on this that really finishes the story -- Okay, Steve. Let's go back to Dr. Cotton again. Remember Robin Cotton comes -- and she testified a long time ago. I hope you all remember. She -- she told that you she did DNA tests on this same blood from the back spot -- the very same spot that Dr. Rieders was doing his testimony about EDT
And what did she tell you? Steve? This is her Autorad -- remember, she talked to you about autoradiographs, about when she did the RFLP tests, do an autoradiograph, kind of like an experience -- This one right here, item 13, that's the socks -- that's the Autorad for the socks. This one right here, right here, is Nicole. And what she told you is that's the blood from Nicole's reference vial. And she also told you that this blood right here that's in the socks, this DNA in the socks that's not degraded; it's in really good shape. And she told you why. She said if that blood was splashed onto those socks while Mr. Simpson was committing the murders, and about 30 minutes or so later, he took off the socks and left them on that rug in his bedroom, where they air-dried overnight, that is a perfect condition for preserving the DNA in those socks. That's just as if a criminalist had taken a swatch right after Nicole had been slashed and put it to air-dry. That's exactly the circumstances that she described to us. And as a consequence, that DNA in the socks, it's not degraded. Then she said, let's take a look at the DNA out of the reference vial. See that dark shadow? She said that's degradation. See this? This is all degradation. So she said the blood out of the reference vial is pretty degraded. And she told us why. That reference vial was taken 24 hours after Nicole was murdered. It had been sitting in her dead body until the autopsy was done. And she explained that blood degrades under those conditions, not separately. So here you have degraded blood in the reference vial, no degraded blood in the socks. That's what tells Robin Cotton, says therefore, the blood on the socks couldn't have come out of the reference vial. And that's their whole planting theory. Their theory is that somebody got Nicole's reference vial and took that reference vial and planted it onto the socks. But Dr. Cotton said no way: That didn't happen. And, ladies and gentlemen, this evidence was completely unrebutted. Then Dr. Gerdes came to the stand: Didn't say a thing about it. Herb MacDonell came to the stand: Didn't say a thing about it, came to the stand: Didn't say a thing --
All three lawyers got up and argued. You heard Mr. Blasier, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Baker. They all argued that. Did any of them even mention this? They all stayed as far away from it as they can, because, ladies and gentlemen, it's unrebutted, and conclusively establishes the blood in the socks was not planted. The blood in the socks was splashed on those socks while they were on Mr. Simpson's ankle while he was committing the murder. Your Honor, could we break now?
Ladies and gentlemen, 8:30 tomorrow morning. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we need to take something up briefly with you. (Jurors exit courtroom) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)
Your Honor ordered the defendants to provide updated financial information to us by Friday. We agreed they could get it to us today. Apparently, Mr. Baker had some objection to providing it to us today.
I indicated to Mr. Petrocelli, I would have it delivered to their office by today. I would like the Court to order them -- this has not been disclosed -- there's a Time Magazine article out that has some information relative to the financial disclosures of February 1996. And, of course, they say, oh, we wouldn't disclose it to anybody; we wouldn't disclose it to anybody. But it's there, and they had it. And I want an order that they disclose it to no one or they're in contempt of court.
Of course. Thank you, Your Honor. (At 4:30 p.m., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, September 28, 1997, at 8:30 a.m.)
Their defense to all of this evidence really should start with D. It's desperation. It's deception. It's dishonesty. They don't have a defense to these blood drops.
They saw blood collected at the crime scene, blood left there by Mr. Simpson when he completed the murders.
The glove itself tells us — it's talking to us — it says, I'm not planted; I was left here by the killer. I was left here by Mr. Simpson.
How did Ronald Goldman's blood get on that console? Mr. Simpson said he didn't know him, never met him. How could his blood get there? There's one way it could get there: It got there because Mr. Simpson carried it with him from the crime scene.
Mr. Deedrick is an excellent hair examiner. I'm not challenging him. I think he always does good work. I believe him.