Excuse me. I have not --

I object to it.

Overruled. Overruled.

That is not the law.

Do not interrupt him.

Excuse me, Mr. Baker. You have to find that every single bit of evidence in this case that incriminates Mr. Simpson was planted or contaminated. You have to find that, because he has no explanation for it otherwise. He has no explanation for the Bundy blood drops. He says he didn't put it there. This is an example. If you don't find that those blood drops got there by planting or somehow mysteriously got there by contamination, as Mr. Lambert will explain, contamination doesn't turn someone's blood -- a real killer's blood into O.J. Simpson's blood. Contamination is no answer. That's just a word that they use. If you don't find that those Bundy blood drops were planted or got there in some other way, he's guilty. He's got no explanation. That's it. Same thing with the shoe prints. And by the way, while I'm on the shoe prints, there is no -- there is no argument that even these resourceful lawyers could come up with to explain the shoe prints; they don't say the shoe prints are planted. How could they possibly say that. The shoe prints were seen, like all the other blood drops, right off the bat. If those shoe prints matched shoes O.J. Simpson owned and wore and lied about, he's guilty. You didn't hear any argument from Mr. Baker about planting of shoe prints, did you? On those shoe prints, he's guilty, because he's got no defense of those shoe prints. None. Except he says the photos of him wearing them are fakes and we know they're not fakes. You know 31 photos can't be fake. Eight months. One of them was published eight months before the murders. On the shoe prints alone, he's guilty. That's it. And they have no argument about that. We don't have to prove why all the evidence is missing. Isn't here because frankly he got rid of some of it. And by the way, if we did have more evidence to present to you, let's say we had some bloody clothes, let's say we found the bloody outfit; do you think this defendant would say that was planted, too? Do you think he might say that was planted? He says you don't have a nice little neat blood trail leading from the glove down the pathway across the driveway into the house up the stairs into his bedroom. He says you're missing all those blood drops. Do you think if we had those blood drops, he would say they were planted also? Of course, he would. What if we had a photograph of Mr. Simpson at the murder scene? What if we had a photograph of him at the murder scene on the evening of June the 12th? If such a thing could ever exist, would this man go so far to explain that that picture is a fake? How about 31 pictures of him at the murder scene? How about 31 incriminating photographs? Is he capable of going so far in his zeal to get your verdict that he would say they're all fake? What do you think? The defense criticizes us for not having all the details. Okay. We don't know exactly how the murders were committed; we don't know exactly how Mr. Simpson got there, where he parked his car, when he went inside to Nicole's condominium to the gated area, how he got away, what all the blows were that were delivered, in what sequence were they delivered. We don't know exactly how he got on his property to avoid detection from the limousine driver. We don't know all these details. But again, you know, the law doesn't require us to know all those details. If you had to know all those details, you could never find anybody responsible for having committed a crime. You might as well shut down the courts. Again, one blood drop is enough, one shoe print is enough. We don't need to know the details. Just like that game, 20 Questions, you play where the person's thinking of something and you have to ask 20 questions and figure out what's on his mind. That's the kind of game they're playing here. We have to keep trying to ask more and more questions to see if we can get the story right. And we've tried. And we've asked 20,000 questions. But Mr. Simpson isn't going to tell us everything; he isn't going to tell us everything that happened, and he isn't going to tell us everything that he knows. And we don't need to know. We're not required to know. So don't be fooled by that. Don't get caught up in, well, what about this, and what about that, and all these little puzzles and riddles. We don't know the answer to all the questions. But we sure know far more than we need to know. Far more. We have an extraordinary amount of evidence in this case. Now, let's talk specifically about this conspiracy theory. Mr. Simpson says, and his lawyers say, that all the blood evidence is planted. I guess all the victim's blood evidence is planted. The glove is planted. I'm not sure to this day if they're saying the knit cap is planted. I don't know. You may be more clear on -- on that than I am. But they have no explanation for the knit cap being there with his hairs in it. Is that planted, too? It was -- they weren't real clear on it. They weren't real clear on the purpose because they don't have an explanation or a theory, as bright as they are, to explain all these things. But what they want you to believe is that essentially all of the physical evidence was either planted or contaminated. Now, what do we mean when we say planted, and let's stick with planted first. What does that mean? Let's understand what we're talking about here. We're talking about human beings, people, doing their jobs, waking up one day, going to a crime scene, and deciding for no apparent reason to risk their lives and engage in outrageous crimes; to frame an innocent man for double murder. Let's understand what we're talking about when we're talking about planting and conspiracy. These are words that get thrown around. But you're talking about people getting together and deciding to do things for which they will have to spend the rest of their lives in jail if caught.

There's no evidence of that, Your Honor.

Overruled.

These things are all highly illegal. You can't put evidence against an innocent man and get caught and expect to go to work the next day. You're going to jail and you're not getting out. And you got people working in a laboratory; Dennis Fung, Greg Matheson, Collin Yamauchi. You saw these folks. You think they're going to engage in this grand conspiracy and plant evidence against Mr. Simpson, a guy they don't even know? That's what you have to believe. You have to believe that. Someone they don't even know. Now, this business about it could have been Vannatter and Fuhrman; we'll talk about that, too. But that's just false. Absolutely false. Vannatter and Fuhrman could not have planted all the evidence in this case. Vannatter and Fuhrman could not have told all the lies on the witness stand that all of these witnesses must be telling if they were in on it. He wants to talk about Vannatter and Fuhrman because he will assume that you will agree that they're bad people, for whatever reason. And so he wants to make you think that Vannatter and Fuhrman could do everything; they could be responsible for everything. Except he never explained how. He never explained how anybody could plant Mr. Simpson's blood at Rockingham, for example, in the wee -- in the wee hours of the morning of the 13th when they didn't even have access to this blood. How does that blood get there? He didn't explain that, did he. How was that blood there? How was the blood at Rockingham there on the morning of June 13th when the police arrived? And the blood in the Bronco; how did that all get there? They didn't have his reference sample until later in the afternoon. How did the blood get on the sock? How did the blood get at Bundy? What they're trying to say to you is that folks broke into the lab, pulled out Mr. Simpson's reference sample and started planting away. Who did that? Did he tell you the name of a person who did that? How would he get into the lab; what kind of access could he get? How would he know what swatches had Mr. Simpson's blood on them? They don't have his name on them. If someone were going in with a vial of blood to plant in the laboratory, how would they know which swatches had Mr. Simpson's blood as opposed to the victim's blood or somebody else's blood. There is just no way you could do it. There's a lot people involved that laid it all out and figured it out and said, well, this is the one I think we should plant for Simpson, no, this is Ron Goldman's blood, let's put this blood here and that blood there. An extraordinary enterprise. He never once explained to you or suggested to you how it could be accomplished. The reason is it can't be accomplished. It's nonsense. It's absurd. It's absurd. It's nonsense. They don't have an answer to the shoe prints. I've said that. They don't have an answer to the hat. They don't have an answer to the hair. They want to say it's basically the blood evidence, and we're going to go through why it can't be the blood evidence. I want to start with Rockingham. Now, this is very important that you understand this to see what's happened here. Mr. Simpson told the police in the afternoon of June 13, for no less than five times, that he cut his finger and dripped blood all over Rockingham. Mr. Simpson, when he took the witness stand in this case, recanted that testimony, in effect. He now says he doesn't recall seeing any blood at Rockingham. He doesn't recall seeing any blood anywhere except on his finger and on the kitchen counter. He doesn't recall seeing blood in the Bronco. He doesn't recall seeing blood in the driveway. He doesn't recall seeing blood anywhere before he went to the airport, except on his pinkie. Okay. That's what Mr. Simpson's story is now on the witness stand. He had told the police that he had cut himself, no less than five times in the police statement, he had cut himself before he went to Los Angeles. No less than five times he said that. Now, why did Mr. Simpson change his story? He changed his story because he knows how incriminating it is to admit that he has a cut finger and is bleeding all over his property on the night of the murders, at the time of the murders. He knows how damning that is. So he decided, you know what, I'd better change my story and I'd better say that I didn't see blood anywhere. And that's what he said. I didn't see blood anywhere. Do you remember I asked him, when you went into your Bronco right before you left to get your cell phone or your cell phone equipment, did you reach in with your right hand or left hand? Do you remember all those questions? The reason I asked those questions is to see what he was going to say. And he said, no, I only reached in with my right hand. I didn't put my left hand in the car. I didn't put my left hand in the door notch where the handle is. I didn't use my left hand to open up the light -- pull the light knob out. Did you see any blood in there? No. Did you step on the carpet in blood? No. So the way Mr. Simpson left it with you, ladies and gentlemen, is that there was no blood in that Bronco when he left for Chicago, he didn't bleed in that Bronco. That's the way he wanted to leave it with you. He also left it with you that he didn't drip blood on the driveway. I asked him all those questions, too. He didn't see any blood nowhere. You can't be bleeding all over the place and not know it. That's common sense. You can't be bleeding all over your car and all over the driveway and not know it.

I'm going to object. This isn't rebuttal, Your Honor.

Overruled.

So Mr. Simpson wants you to believe, because he doesn't want to say anything that could hurt his case, he wants you to believe that he had no blood other than on his pinkie that night. Now, we got a problem. Here's the problem for the defense. Mr. Baker said to you earlier this morning that the reason all that blood was in the Bronco and all that blood was on the driveway when the police got there on the morning of the 13th is because Mr. Simpson dripped it there. That's what he said. He said Mr. Simpson dripped it there. Mr. Simpson said he didn't drip it there. We got a problem here, don't we? Mr. Baker saying one thing. Mr. Simpson saying another thing.

Your Honor, I object. That isn't what Mr. Simpson said.

Overruled.

I'll get the testimony if you want.

Excuse me. Your Honor, I'd appreciate it if he'd let me finish my argument.

Overruled.

It's a big problem, because they don't have a coherent explanation for why all these blood drops are at Rockingham early in the morning. They could not possibly have been planted. The real killer could not have dropped the blood at Rockingham, 'cause the real killer would have no reason to go to Rockingham, would he? If there was another killer involved here, and he dripped the blood at Bundy, how did the blood get at Rockingham? He couldn't be going to Rockingham, drip some blood, and then leave. So the Rockingham blood is one of the crucial pieces of evidence that ultimately exposes that this whole planting and conspiracy theory is a big lie. They've got no answer for it. None. You have to ask yourself, why is there blood all over his property, his blood, on the night of the murders. How can that be? How can that be? You just have to use your common sense. How can that be? And how can Mr. Simpson now try to recant his statement to the police? Five times he told the police, I was bleeding at the house, I cut myself, I cut myself, I reopened it in Chicago. He said, I reopened it. They have no answer for the Rockingham blood and they have no answer for the shoe prints. So I'm going to move on. Let's talk about the glove. Now, today we heard from Mr. Baker that it was Mark Fuhrman who planted the glove. They like to throw around the name Mark Fuhrman. I'm sure you heard it over and over and over again throughout the trial. I guess they think by just invoking the name of Mark Fuhrman, you would just automatically rule for Mr. Simpson. I guess that's the idea. See how many times you can say Mark Fuhrman in a day. That was -- that was a big part of the defense in this case. They said Mark Fuhrman planted the glove. Mr. Baker, and this is a quote, said to you this morning, "Is there a second glove near Ron's body? You bet." Mr. Baker came up here and told you straight-faced that there was a second glove near Ron Goldman's body. Now, let me ask you, can any of you in those voluminous notes you've all taken, can any of you remember a single witness who ever said there was a second glove at Bundy? He just made it up. You know why he made it up? He's desperate. He's got to make it up. He just made it up. There's no second glove at Bundy. There never was a second glove at Bundy. Where is it? The first officers on the scene, Robert Riske, Michael Terrazas, two young patrol officers, they surveyed the scene. They said one glove. They found all of the basic evidence at Bundy when they surveyed the scene. They found the blood drops, they found the shoe prints, of course the victim's bodies, blood on the back gate, which they saw and wrote in their notes, and they found one glove. And they found all this evidence and then they -- and the knit cap, too, by the way. They found all this evidence while Mark Fuhrman is sleeping. Fuhrman is sleeping when all the evidence in the case is found at Bundy. Now, Mr. Baker told you earlier today, Mark Fuhrman found all the evidence in the case. That's just false. What trial has he been attending? Mark Fuhrman didn't find any of the evidence in this case except the glove at Rockingham. He found nothing at Bundy. Nothing. They don't have a second glove. Without a second glove, you can't have planting. Mr. Baker said something else to you today. He said no one can account for Mark Fuhrman between 2:30 and 4 o'clock a.m. at Bundy. Always though Fuhrman is sort of alone. Even though he says there's 25 officers around, Fuhrman is alone. Nobody can account for him. He's missing. He's like invisible. That's what he said. Is that the evidence in this case that you heard? My statements to you are not evidence. His statements are not evidence. His questions are not evidence. Evidence is what the witnesses say, what's in the documents, the exhibits, the physical evidence, the photographs. That's evidence. You can't be fooled by what a lawyer says. He says Mark Fuhrman was unaccounted for during an hour and a half at Bundy. That's an absolutely false statement. It was made to deceive you into thinking that Fuhrman was looking for a glove, plotting a big conspiracy. Do we have the testimony? Let's look at what the witnesses said. (Transcript is displayed on Elmo.)

This is Mr. Leonard examining Detective Phillips. "Was Detective Fuhrman -- where was -- where was Detective Fuhrman, to your knowledge, during this period of time, 2:45, 2:50, to the time Detective Vannatter arrived at 4:05? "Standing in the street with me." Now, that's evidence. That's the truth. Not what a lawyer tells you to trick you. Do you have another one? (Indicating to Elmo screen.) (Transcript page displayed on Elmo) "When you were at -- when you were standing out at Dorothy and Bundy for what was it? 1 hour 15 minute time period? "

2:40 to 4:05. "You saw everything that Mark Fuhrman did, right? "He was standing in the intersection with us. "He didn't go anywhere" -- "No, sir. -- "with anyone? "No, sir." That's evidence. Is that guy lying? Is he committing perjury? Is he risking going to jail? For what reason? Do you have the Spangler -- (Transcript page displayed on Elmo) This is another officer, the lieutenant, in fact. He's the boss of all of these people. Spangler. "

And was Mr.-- or Detective Fuhrman in your sight from that time, around 3:05, in that vicinity on Bundy, until approximately 5 o'clock a.m.? "Yes, he was." So now you have -- we only had to call a handful of officers. Now you have it out of the mouths of two of them, that they were all standing together with Fuhrman from about 2:40 to 5 o'clock until the various detectives went to Rockingham. So you see, you just can't go in there and assume that Mark Fuhrman planted a glove, because there is no glove planted and because he was within someone's sight the entire time he was at Bundy. And by the way, think of the logic of this. How did -- how would Mark Fuhrman know whether the glove fit Mr. Simpson? How did he know it was Mr. Simpson's glove or somebody else's glove when he put it on his property? How would he know that there would one day be photos of Mr. Simpson wearing gloves just like the one found at the murder scene? How would he know there would be a receipt by Nicole purchasing two pair of such gloves? How would he know any of these things at 2:30 in the morning, just having gotten out of bed? How would he know there were only 200 of such gloves sold at the time Nicole purchased them? How would he know when the victims died? How did he know if O.J. Simpson had an airtight alibi or not? How did he know whether O.J. Simpson was speaking to a thousand people on national television in Europe? How would he know that? How would any person who went to Bundy or Rockingham know whether O.J. Simpson had an absolutely airtight alibi? Which we all know he doesn't. How would they know? They didn't speak to him. How can you frame somebody when you don't know if he has an airtight alibi? You can't. How would Mark Fuhrman know whether there would be an eyewitness found to the crime, who would then reveal the real killer? Meanwhile, Fuhrman's trying to frame Simpson. How would Fuhrman know, when Fuhrman and the other detectives went to Rockingham, the police officers who stayed back on Bundy were door knocking on Bundy to find information, to find witnesses. What if they found somebody who saw the murders, and they said, no, so-and-so did it, I saw him. How would the detectives have known that? We just have to use common sense and logic here. Plus the testimony in this case is that when

Vannatter and Lange, to accompany them, they didn't know they were going to go until the very last minute, and then they said, okay, we'll go with you. So there wasn't any big plan to go to Rockingham two hours earlier, giving Fuhrman enough time to concoct this scheme. It was a snap decision. We're going to Rockingham. Let's go. He didn't have time to go find evidence and plant it. How would Mark Fuhrman know, or any other detectives, that O.J. Simpson would show up the next day with a cut on his left hand? How would he know that he would have a cut? How would any of them know that the shoe prints would be traced back months later to a Bruno Magli Silga sole size 12, and that O.J. Simpson wore a size 12? And that there would be photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing these identical shoes? How would they know any of that? How did they know that the real killer didn't spill his or her blood all over the place at Bundy? Now, think about it. What they're saying is that Fuhrman saw a glove and said, hey, look, picks it up, let's go plant it at Rockingham. Later, when the criminalists come, they collect all the blood, and maybe it would take them a day to figure out who the real killer is just by running the blood tests. Now, Fuhrman's got a big problem. Didn't -- he tried to frame an innocent man and he got caught in about 24 hours and he's going to jail maybe for life.

No evidence of Fuhrman going to jail. I object.

Overruled.

None of that, ladies and gentlemen, makes any sense. And my comments that I just did to illustrate to you the absurdity of this planting notion, they don't just apply to Fuhrman. I used Fuhrman because he said Fuhrman was the one who planted the glove. They apply to every person, every detective, every officer. None of them had this information. None of them. None of them could have planted evidence on O.J. Simpson without knowing any of this information. It could never have happened. And if they tried to, just think about all of the other evidence that the real killer left behind. What about his hat? What about his hairs? What about his blood? What about his fibers? They would have had to take all of the real killer's evidence, eliminate it all, and substitute O.J. Simpson's evidence. I mean even trying to explain this is somewhat silly. But that's what they want you to believe, and this is what you have to believe to find that this man is not responsible for these murders. You have to accept that. Now, this is another example of a preposterous thing that they throw out there, this Rokahr photo. They have a picture of Mark Fuhrman pointing to a glove, and they say, aha, see, he's pointing to a glove, he must have planted the glove. Why would Mark Fuhrman point to a glove if he's going to go ahead and plant a glove? Why would he draw attention to himself and pose for, like, a portrait picture, pointing to a glove, and then go off and plant a glove? Does that make any sense? It's just a preposterous idea. Now, they gave you some evidence that that photograph was taken in the middle of the morning, around 4 a.m. And again, I really don't understand the arguments. They don't make sense to me. But I guess the idea is that if they could say that Fuhrman was pointing to a glove at 3 or 4 in the -- in the morning, maybe that could mean that, you know, he planted the glove. And they cited you the photographer's testimony from deposition, where he said he thought that that picture was taken around 4 or so in the morning. Well, we provided you the evidence to show that the picture was actually taken between 6:30 and 6:45 in the morning and it was taken -- and it was all explained to you. After Fuhrman and the other detectives went to Rockingham, they found the glove, Detective Vannatter asked Fuhrman and Phillips to go back to Bundy and see if it matches the one he found at Rockingham. He drove back to Bundy. They went and looked at the glove. Phillips asked Fuhrman to take a photographer with him. The photographer asked Fuhrman to point to the glove, and the picture was taken. And that picture was taken about 6:30 to 6:45 in the morning. Completely innocent explanation for it. Yet they want you to think there's something sinister and mysterious about it. Page 106 of the transcript -- do we have Riske's -- do we have Riske? Officer Riske, the young patrol officer, first officer on the scene. Again, don't take my word for it. Look at the testimony. Have the reporter read back. (Transcript page displayed on Elmo) "And what time was the picture of Fuhrman pointing at the glove taken? Your best approximation? "Between 6:30 and 6:45. "And where were you when you saw that? "Standing on the street directly in front of the residence." So you see, it's not my word, it's the witnesses's testimony. That's what you have to pay attention to. Not what the lawyers said in their questions. But what the witnesses said on the witness stand. Do we have Phillips on that, too? Detective Phillips said that he -- explained on October 29 that he is the one who instructed Fuhrman to take a picture, have the photographer go out, and it was between 6:30 and 6:45. We also introduced -- to erase any doubt about this, we called to the witness stand, this witness named Sandra Claiborne, who sat in a car with Mr. Rokahr until the light came, so it was starting to get light out at that point. She testified that the police officers permitted her and Rokahr to go into the crime scene after it became light. And that was around -- it became light at around 5:40, so we know from that woman's testimony, who works -- works, I guess, for the print division -- we know from her testimony, Sandra Claiborne -- you can check your notes on this -- that Rokahr didn't leave the car to go into the crime scene until after it was light out. And finally -- and the reason I'm spending so much time on this -- and I know it's very detailed -- is because you have to understand, it's easy for them to say something, folks, but -- the glove was planted -- he just got up there and said it. Now, I have to do a lot of work to show you that it wasn't planted. I have to do all this stuff that I've been doing for the last 20 minutes. He throws it out there, and I have to work hard to show you that it's all false. And I'm trying to do it, and I'm trying to do it by being very faithful to the evidence in the case. Rokahr's photos are where?

On the sheets inside.

Let's get the contact sheets. What you are going to see is that the photo of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was, like, number 36, I think, on the roll, and --

34.

34. You're going to see that the sun is coming up in the east already, long before the photo -- Why don't you point out where the sun is going out in the east.

There's no testimony the sun is coming up in the east in that photo.

You see that, it's facing east. You can see the sun coming up. That's -- that's -- there's a -- the sun coming up -- one, two, three, four, five six -- that's photo number 6. That's photo 6. Now go to 8, Steve; to photo 8. Here's number 46 (indicating to Elmo) You can see the sun coming up in the east right there. Look at that. Sunrise was 5:40, 5:42 a.m. that morning. Here's Fuhrman way down here in frames 34 and 35, pointing to a glove. This is long after the sun's coming up. They want you to believe that this is taken at nighttime, at 4:00 in the morning. Just look at photographs. You don't have to believe a word I'm saying. Look at the photographs. Okay. (Photographs removed from the Elmo screen.)

They say, well, the glove was planted because there was no blood around, no insect activity. This was the point I was making in my earlier remarks, how they point to missing things. What do you mean, there was no blood around? There was blood all over Rockingham. There was blood dripped all over the driveway; there was blood dripped in the car; there was blood dripped in the inside. What do you mean, there's no blood? There's blood all over the place. Why is there a period of time when there's drops and then there's no drops? Who knows? He's not telling us. Maybe he had his finger in his pocket like this (indicating) Maybe he had it like this (indicating). There's a million explanations for why there's blood drops. And they stop and there's more blood drops. We can't answer all those questions, and the law doesn't require us to. Otherwise, we'd never be able -- nobody would be able to prove up a case. The defendant is not going to tell us. He's going to lie and lie, and lie, and lie. So we don't know why there isn't a continuous flow of blood. What we do know is that there is blood. And also, he says, well, there's no other evidence that anybody came over the wall or came over the fence at that point. There's no insect activity; there's no debris on the fence. Again, he's pointing to all the things that are missing. What about the noise against the wall? What about the crash against the wall? What was that all about? Do you know that, where that crash occurred against the back of Mr. Kaelin's wall, is right where the glove was found on the ground? That's pretty good evidence that somebody ran into a wall or dropped something there, isn't it? Did they ever tell you, by the way, who caused those noises, if O.J. was in the house -- O.J. Simpson was in the house, as they say, taking a shower or whatever? Did they ever give you a single explanation for those noises? No. They never did. You won't find a single piece of testimony in this case, by Mr. Simpson or anyone else, saying: You know what? That wasn't me bumping into the wall. I was home. I know what happened. Here's what happened. None of that. They don't have any explanation for those noises. Because the real explanation is that it was Mr. Simpson bumping into the wall where he dropped his glove. And it's absolutely dark there, and he is frantic, and he is trying to get into that house before that limousine driver leaves. And remember: He doesn't know that it's a different limo driver. He doesn't know. He thinks it's his regular driver at that point; that guy's getting ready to leave. He doesn't know it's a new guy who's going to wait around and who's been there for 45 minutes, because he didn't want to be late. He didn't know that. He figured this guy was getting there around quarter to 11:00, and he's going to split by 11 o'clock, so this guy -- this guy's got to run. He doesn't have time to stop. He probably doesn't even know he dropped the thing, or it came out of whatever he had. Mr. Baker says, what about the clothes, you know, what was -- he changed into -- what clothes did he take off, what did he put on, and all this. Again, details, details, details. We don't know those details. You don't have to know that to find him responsible for this. And we'll never know that. Don't get fooled by these details. This is a ploy to make you think you have to know everything that happened. One blood drop is enough. Now, Mr. Baker spent an enormous amount of time in this case on the detectives going to Rockingham that morning. And then again, it was described to make you think that there was something evil, sinister, and mysterious; that they were all going there to set up O.J. Simpson. And I've already explained to you in detail that none of the officers could have had a clue where Mr. Simpson was, and they didn't have any of the information they would have needed to set him up. Nor would they have been in a position to eliminate the real killer's blood and evidence that's left at the crime scene. He tried to spin this incredibly nefarious scheme. But think about it. What did he really end up doing with this whole trip to Rockingham in the morning? Basically, his case boils down to Arnelle Simpson says the four detectives and Kato Kaelin went in the front door, and they say they went in the back door. Big deal. What does that prove? He made such a big point about that. What does that prove? She said they went in the front door; they said she they went in the back door. Does that mean they that O.J. Simpson is innocent? And if they went in the front door, does that mean he isn't innocent, because they didn't go in the back door? It's absurd. And by the way, I don't want to be insensitive to Arnelle Simpson. You know, she's a loyal daughter, and she wouldn't do anything to hurt her father. But we know that Ms. Simpson did not tell the truth when she was on the witness stand. I don't know if you -- if you recall that. But she gave this testimony: That there wasn't any kind of alarm or a 40-second delay on the rear door. And then I pulled out her criminal trial testimony, and I had to read it to her and I impeached her, and I demonstrated, too, that at the criminal trial, she had said exactly the opposite. For whatever reason to have Ms. Simpson come in here and say something different. You go back and check your notes on that. Do you want to put that on the Elmo? (Transcript displayed.)

First she told me there's no alarm that goes off. And then I had to read her the testimony at the criminal trial, and this is what she said at the criminal trial. (Indicating.) 40-second delay, yes. That's her testimony at the criminal trial. She gave totally the opposite testimony in this trial. And she's the only witness -- Arnelle Simpson is the only witness that they relied on to prove this extraordinary sinister fact that the detectives went in the front door instead of the rear door. She's the only witness. It's her word against all of the detectives and Kato Kaelin, about which door they went into. And on that one fact, Ms. Simpson didn't tell the truth. Mr. Lambert is going to go through with you, ladies and gentlemen, in detail, the other items of blood evidence. I've dealt with the glove. He's going to go through the blood evidence and show you that there's no conceivable way any of it could have been planted. None of it's contaminated. I'm going to let him handle that. Let me say a few words about this other word they throw around, "contamination." You know, I don't really know what that word means, to tell you the truth. What does it mean, "contamination?" I think they're trying to say that if somehow something happens to the blood evidence, that it turns into O.J. Simpson's blood, that if Ms. Mazzola is not following proper procedures and she's wiping her nose or touching her glasses, that somehow that turns the real killer's blood into O.J. Simpson's blood. Well, that's preposterous. There's no such evidence in this case. This whole thing about contamination -- ladies and gentlemen, this is a gigantic smoke screen. You know, Mr. Baker spent a long time in this case, he and Mr. Blasier, trying to show that LAPD criminalists, Mr. Fung, Ms. Mazzola, Greg Matheson, that they don't know how to do their jobs well. But, you know, we're not here to try and make a malpractice case against the Los Angeles Police Department. That's not what we're here for. We're not here to determine if they could do a better job. We're not here to decide whether they could improve in their job performance. We're not here to count their mistakes. This is not a rating or a performance evaluation of the LAPD. They would like you to believe that that's what this case is: That the LAPD is on trial, and you have to decide whether or not they did a good investigation. And if you decide that they did a bad investigation, then Simpson is innocent. That's the idea that they want to suggest to you. Well that's, again, completely false. Whether they did a good investigation or a bad investigation means nothing. I'm not here to tell you that they didn't make mistakes. I'm not here to tell you that they can't do a better job. Nobody's perfect. Everybody makes mistakes, all the time, every day, including these people who worked on this case. There's no such thing as a perfect investigation, just like there's no such thing as a perfect crime. Is there? They called this witness, Dr. Henry Lee, by videotape -- and, you know, he's got great credentials and all that: Spent about an hour talking about himself, I guess, before he finally got around to talking about this case. And he said that he had a lot of comments to make about well, maybe they should have done this, maybe they should have done that. But, you know, ladies and gentlemen, the issue in this case is not whether LAPD lives up to the standards of Dr. Henry Lee. That's not the issue in this case. You know, sadly, people get killed in this city every single day. People die every day. There are crimes every day in this city. These crimes get processed by the same people you saw in this courtroom. These crimes get solved by the same people that you saw in this courtroom. What is Mr. Simpson saying to us? LAPD's good -- good enough for all of us, but when it comes to him, they're not good enough. LAPD is good enough for all of us, if something happens to us or people in our family. But if it happens to him, no, they're not good enough. They need to call in big shots like Henry Lee, maybe even bring in people from Scotland Yard. After all, he's O.J. Simpson. He's entitled to the best. The issue is whether anybody did anything wrong with the evidence that affected the quality of the evidence. It's a common-sense point. It's not whether they could have done better photographs or taken videos or measured things better or picked up more things. All this business about there was an envelope and it moved, big deal. An envelope moved. This is a crime scene; it's not a museum. Things move. People walk. Photographs are taken. Bodies are moved. Folks are working. An envelope gets moved. What does that mean? There's a piece of paper missing. Oh, what are we going to do? A piece of paper was missing. That's another point they made: A little white piece of paper is missing. Big deal. What about his blood? That's not missing. And his hair, that's not missing. And his shoe prints, that's not missing. And his hat and his glove, that's not missing. Who were they -- who are they trying to fool? A piece of paper and an envelope moved? I mean, Henry Lee didn't -- they needed Henry Lee to tell us that? Mr. Baker tells us that he got a kick out of this one. After the murders, Mr. Simpson volunteered to pay for Henry Lee and Michael Baden to fly out here and solve these crimes, let the chips fall where any may. And that proves he's innocent? Do you believe for a second that O.J. Simpson would pay anybody to come out here and help put him behind bars for the rest of his life? Does that make any sense? He brought Henry Lee and Michael Baden out here to sit in that big room with all these lawyers and figure out how to get around all this evidence. And pay Baden 100 grand, to boot. A big, high-profile case. These guys hopped on the first plane to get out here. They want a piece of the action. And he's trying to tell you that he brought these guys out so they could find the truth? Yeah. Mr. Baker says -- and we've heard this one -- if you can't trust the messenger, you can't trust the message. And what does that mean? Let me translate. If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. Do you think if the message that these police witnesses and criminalists and detectives brought was, guess what, Mr. Simpson, we found someone else's hair; we found someone else's blood; we found someone else's hat; we found someone else's glove; we found size 6 shoe prints: They're J. C. Penney shoe prints, not Bruno Magli. You'd never shop there, would you, J. C. Penney? Do you think Mr. Simpson would say you can't trust the messenger? He attacks the messenger from the people who bring us the evidence because he doesn't like what they are bringing, because it shows that he killed two people, and it shows that he is guilty of murder. And he will attack, and he will attack, and he will attack. And that is the only reason he criticizes these people who are just doing their jobs. If he's a messenger in this case, you cannot trust -- if there is a messenger in this case you cannot trust, it is O.J. Simpson, who has lied and lied and lied about every important fact of this case. Mr. Baker points to a few things in Mr. Vannatter and says, aha, we caught him. Can't believe anything he says. Throw it out the window. What about his own client? What about all the lies under oath right before our very eyes we saw? Do you understand how important it is that this man be believed? Because at the end of the case, it's all of this evidence pointing to his guilt, all of it. There's nothing that points to his innocence. It all points to his guilt. And then, on the other side, there's his word that he didn't do it. And then that's it. That's all he's got. And if he were an innocent man, he would have taken the stand and he would have admitted like a man that he hit his wife; and he would have admitted like a man that she was terrified of him; and he would have admitted like a man, anything and everything else he could. He'd be jumping and screaming to tell the truth, because he had nothing to hide. But you know he was lying to you about every important facts. You can't believe a word he says. And I agree with his lawyer: You have to throw out the entire testimony. Not one of them can you believe, not one word. Now, I'm going to have Mr. Lambert discuss the blood evidence. And we'll take a break, Your Honor.

Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.

THE BAILIFF: Audience, we're still in session. My mistake. I was misinformed. We are now in recess. (Recess.) (Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

You may proceed.

Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. JURORS: Good afternoon.

It's been a long trial. In fact, it's been a long closing argument, longest I've ever seen. We're actually getting to the end here, and I appreciate very much the attention that you've paid throughout this trial, particularly during the science evidence, which I know, at times, is a little on the dry side, shall we say. I can tell you were all watching it and listening to it, and it's obviously very important evidence. What I'm going to do now is address in a little more detail their so-called planting and contamination defense and walk you through the evidence to show that those defenses are completely hollow defenses that you should pay no attention to at all. After I'm done, Mr. Petrocelli is then going to come back and deal with a few of the other arguments that were made by Mr. Baker, Mr. Blasier, in their closing, and then we'll finally conclude and give you an opportunity to consider this case. Let's start by talking about the evidence at Bundy. We've gone through this board before, and you know that this Bundy crime scene evidence is extremely important evidence and extremely incriminating of Mr. Simpson. Those are his blood drops found at the murder scene. They were fresh, red blood drops found by the police and the criminalists. They were found long before Mr. Simpson had given any reference blood to the police. In fact, he was still on the airplane going to Chicago when the police found those blood drops. They couldn't have been planted at the crime scene. That's clear. So that's -- you can put that out of your mind. There's no way those could have been planted. They were seen by all the police officers earlier that morning. So what is the defense going to do about this? Well, they did what Mr. Petrocelli told you. They rely upon invention. Let's invent a defense. What's our defense going to be to these? They say, well, maybe somebody tampered with the swatches in the lab. That's their defense to those five blood drops. What they said -- they rely upon -- they rely upon two extremely ridiculous points. Number one, they say there was a wet transfer on the bindle for the swatches collected for evidence item number 47, which is, you can see right there, one of those Bundy blood drops, so they say, oh, there was a wet transfer on that bindle there. What did that tell us? That there was wet transfer on the bindle. It doesn't tell us anything. Their own expert, Dr. Henry Lee, they call him the world's greatest criminalist, he admitted that the wet transfer on evidence item 47 simply indicates that the swatches for that particular item were still wet when they put them in the package. Put this up on the Elmo, Steve. It's Henry Lee's testimony. On page 19 here, Henry Lee, what he's saying in terms of what was wrong with what you're saying is that there were -- if they were completely dry, there was a wet transfer. Transfer and there shouldn't. Shouldn't. That's all you're talking about? Yeah, that's all I'm talking about. So Henry Lee says, yeah, they were still wet. Well, if you remember how Dennis Fung described how he went about collecting and processing these swatches, it's obvious why they were still wet. Evidence item number 47, we had to do 7 or 8 swatches in order to collect them they were all sandwiched together, all in a little pile of swatches. Then, when he goes back to the lab, where they're going to dry them overnight, remember he says he takes out the plastic baggie with the swatches and manipulates all of them in a group in a lump into the test tube that he sets out overnight to dry. The next morning he takes that test tube and drops them into the bindle and then folds up the bindle. Obviously, some of the swatches in the middle of that little sandwich of 7 or 8 were still a little damp. When they got switched by the bindle, some of the blood came out. That's all he says essentially Lee said they were still wet. There's nothing more to the swatches than that. In addition to that, remember Henry Lee also told us that evidence item 47 (sic) wasn't the only one where he saw wet transfers. He also saw some wet transfers on evidence item number 47 (sic). Now, evidence item number 42, that's Nicole's blood, that was one of the blood drops that he picked up that contained her blood. Obviously, no one would be planting Nicole's blood, because Nicole's blood -- she's the victim of the murder. Obviously, that's going to be -- no one's going to be doing any planting of Nicole's blood. That just proves that this transfer is nothing more than the innocent effect of having some swatches that are still a little bit damp when they were put in. That's all there is to it. Number 28, that's the second point they make is -- these are the only two points they make, literally, in their whole case about this theory that something happened in the lab with the swatches. Second point they make is that Andrea Mazzola's initials should have been on the bindles. Remember them saying that over and over again, asking a bunch of witnesses. Well, you remember Andrea Mazzola testified on that witness stand to you folks and she said, I did not initial the bindles. She testified the same way in the criminal trial. I did not initial the bindles. So why do they say her initials should be on the bindles? They refer to some pretrial testimony she gave where -- remember she told you she didn't have her notes, she hadn't been prepared, she didn't have a chance to refresh her recollection about what happened, and she confuses this crime scene with another one, and said, I thought I initialed the bindles. They later, before the criminal trial, before this trial, figured it out, corrected it, and there is simply nothing to this whole story about Andrea Mazzola's initials on the bindles. And in addition, you remember Dennis Fung, he said, I'm the one that actually put the swatches into the bindles. It wouldn't have been Andrea Mazzola initials anyway. It would have been Dennis. That whole thing is a ruse and that I have told you, ladies and gentlemen, all the evidence they have in support of their theory that somebody did something to these swatches while they were in a lab, that's their whole theory. Let's take another look at what Henry Lee says about this whole subject. Let's put page 25 up. This is his expert, Dr. Henry Lee. We're saying to Henry Lee, what you're saying and I think we're done, yes, is that by all means you're not saying you have any scientific fact to show that any L.