BY MR. DARDEN:

GOOD MORNING.

I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT I HAVE THE TOUGHEST JOB IN TOWN TODAY EXCEPT FOR THE JOB THAT YOU HAVE. YOUR JOB MAY JUST BE A LITTLE BIT TOUGHER. IT'S YOUR JOB -- LIKE MY JOB, WE BOTH HAVE A CENTRAL FOCUS, A SINGLE OBJECTIVE, AND THAT OBJECTIVE IS JUSTICE OBVIOUSLY. IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG TRIAL AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING ON THE PANEL. WE APPRECIATE THE PERSONAL SACRIFICES YOU'RE MAKING BY BEING SEQUESTERED. WE UNDERSTAND THAT CAN BE DIFFICULT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR KEEPING THE PROMISES YOU MADE TO US WHEN YOU WERE SELECTED FOR THE JURY INITIALLY. YOU PROMISED TO BE FAIR AND YOU PROMISED TO BE OPEN-MINDED AND YOU PROMISED TO HEAR AND SEE AND CAREFULLY CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AND YOU PROMISED TO FIND THIS CASE -- TO COME TO A VERDICT IN THIS CASE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW GIVEN TO YOU BY JUDGE ITO. AND YOU PROMISED TO DO THAT BASED ON THE LAW, BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE AND NOTHING ELSE. YOU PROMISED US THAT YOU HAD NO HIDDEN AGENDA, THAT YOU ONLY WANTED TO SEE JUSTICE DONE AND YOU PROMISED US THAT YOU WOULD DO EVERYTHING YOU COULD UNDER THE LAW TO SEE THAT JUSTICE WAS DONE. AND SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE VERDICT YOU WILL AT SOME POINT RENDER IN THIS CASE. NOW, WE'RE HERE TODAY OBVIOUSLY TO RESOLVE AN ISSUE, TO SETTLE A QUESTION, A QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ON THE MINDS OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THESE LAST SEVEN MONTHS. IT CERTAINLY HAS BEEN ON THE MINDS OF MY PEOPLE UP IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA AND FRIENDS IN FAYETTEVILLE, GEORGIA AND ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW AND EVERYBODY I KNOW OFTEN POSE A QUESTION TO ME, DID O.J. SIMPSON REALLY KILL NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN. WELL, FINALLY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM HERE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS MORNING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND WE'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION FROM THE WITNESS STAND AND FROM THE EXHIBITS YOU'LL SEE IN THIS CASE AND FROM THE EVIDENCE. AND WHEN YOU SEE THE EVIDENCE AND WHEN YOU HEAR THE WITNESSES AND WHEN YOU PUT IT ALL TOGETHER AND CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE, THE ANSWER WILL BE CLEAR TO YOU AS WELL. THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS YES. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS YES, O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN. AND I'M SURE YOU WILL BE WONDERING WHY AS THE TRIAL PROCEEDS ON AND I'M SURE YOU ARE WONDERING WHY RIGHT NOW. AS THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED YOU ALREADY, OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. OPENING STATEMENTS ARE GIVEN BY LAWYERS. AND IN AN OPENING STATEMENT, WE INFORM THE JURY OF WHAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. BUT WE'RE LAWYERS. WE'RE NOT WITNESSES. WE'RE NOT UNDER OATH. NOTHING WE SAY IS EVIDENCE. THE THINGS WE SAY TO YOU TODAY ARE NOT THE THINGS THAT YOU SHOULD CARRY INTO THE JURY ROOM AND INTO DELIBERATIONS. YOU SHOULD CARRY INTO THE JURY ROOM AND INTO YOUR DELIBERATIONS THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, THE TESTIMONY FROM THE WITNESS STAND, THE EXHIBITS ADMITTED AT TRIAL, THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THAT, WHEN YOU GO BACK AND REFLECT ON THE TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBITS AND EVERYTHING YOU HEARD AND SAW IN THIS CASE, YOU WILL KNOW WHY HE KILLED NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN. AND WHEN I GIVE YOU THE ANSWER, AS I HAVE, YOU STOP AND CONSIDER AND THINK WHY WOULD HE DO IT, WHY WOULD HE DO IT, NOT O.J. SIMPSON, NOT THE O.J. SIMPSON WE THINK WE KNOW, NOT THE O.J. SIMPSON WE'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS. BUT THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION, AND THAT QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW O.J. SIMPSON. WE'VE SEEN HIM PLAY FOOTBALL FOR USC. WE WATCHED HIM THRASH UCLA PLAYING THE ROSE BOWL. WE WATCHED HIM WIN THE HEISMAN TROPHY. HE MAY BE THE BEST RUNNING BACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL. WE WATCHED HIM LEAP TURNSTILES AND CHAIRS AND RUN TO AIRPLANES IN THE HERTZ COMMERCIALS AND WE WATCHED HIM WITH A 15-INCH AFRO IN NAKED GUN 33-1/2 AND WE'VE SEEN HIM TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND WE CAME TO THINK THAT WE KNOW HIM. WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THE PUBLIC FACE, THE PUBLIC PERSONA, THE FACE OF THE ATHLETE, THE FACE OF THE ACTOR. IT IS NOT THE ACTOR WHO IS ON TRIAL HERE TODAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT IS NOT THAT PUBLIC FACE. IT IS HIS OTHER FACE LIKE MANY MEN IN PUBLIC. LIKE MANY PUBLIC MEN, THEY HAVE A PUBLIC IMAGE, A PUBLIC PERSONA, A PUBLIC SIDE, A PUBLIC LIFE AND THEY ALSO HAVE A PRIVATE SIDE, A PRIVATE LIFE, A PRIVATE FACE. AND THAT IS THE FACE WE WILL EXPOSE TO YOU IN THIS TRIAL, THE OTHER SIDE OF O.J. SIMPSON, THE SIDE YOU NEVER MET BEFORE. WE WILL EXPOSE IN THIS TRIAL AND SHOW TO YOU IN THIS TRIAL THAT OTHER FACE, THE FACE HE WORE BEHIND THE LOCKS AND THE GATES AND THE WALL AT ROCKINGHAM, THAT OTHER FACE, THE ONE THAT NICOLE BROWN ENCOUNTERED ALMOST EVERY DAY OF HER ADULT LIFE, THE ONE SHE ENCOUNTERED DURING THE LAST MOMENTS OF HER ADULT LIFE; THE SAME FACE RONALD GOLDMAN ENCOUNTERED DURING THE LAST MOMENTS OF HIS LIFE. WHEN WE LOOK UPON AND LOOK BEHIND THAT PUBLIC FACE, THE PUBLIC FACE OF THE MAN WHO SITS HERE IN COURT TODAY, YOU'LL SEE A DIFFERENT FACE. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE FACE YOU WILL SEE AND THE MAN THAT YOU WILL SEE WILL BE THE FACE OF A BATTERER, A WIFE BEATER, AN ABUSER, A CONTROLLER. YOU'LL SEE THE FACE OF RON -- OF RON'S AND NICOLE'S MURDERER. TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED AT BUNDY, WE NEED TO EXAMINE THIS DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE. BECAUSE WHEN WE DO, WE CAN DISCERN FROM THAT, WE CAN SEE A MOTIVE, WE CAN SEE HIS MOTIVE FOR KILLING HIS EX-WIFE. AND I SUBMIT TO YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT AS THE TRIAL PROCEEDS ON AND AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THAT MOTIVE WILL BECOME CLEAR. HE KILLED NICOLE FOR A SINGLE REASON. NOT BECAUSE HE HATED HER. HE DIDN'T HATE NICOLE. HE DIDN'T KILL HER BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LOVE HER ANYMORE, BECAUSE IN HIS MIND, IN HIS MIND, HE DID. HE KILLED HER FOR A REASON ALMOST AS OLD AS MANKIND ITSELF. HE KILLED HER OUT OF JEALOUSY. HE KILLED HER BECAUSE HE COULDN'T HAVE HER; AND IF HE COULDN'T HAVE HER, HE DIDN'T WANT ANYBODY ELSE TO HAVE HER. HE KILLED HER TO CONTROL HER. CONTROL IS A CONTINUING THING. IT WAS A CONTINUING THING, THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF THEIR ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP. BY KILLING NICOLE, THIS DEFENDANT ASSUMED TOTAL CONTROL OVER HER. BY KILLING HER, HE COMMITTED THE ULTIMATE ACT OF CONTROL. BY KILLING HER, NO ONE ELSE COULD HAVE HER, NO ONE BUT HIM. AND HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN. AND HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN FOR ANOTHER REASON. HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN BECAUSE HE GOT IN THE WAY. HE KILLED NICOLE BECAUSE HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH HER AS MEN AND WOMEN SOMETIMES DO HAVE IN A RELATIONSHIP. THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. AND THIS DEFENDANT'S PROBLEM, THE MAN IN THE COURTROOM -- I THINK HE STATED HIS PROBLEM RATHER ELOQUENTLY AT HER WAKE AS HE STOOD OVER HER BODY AT HER WAKE, AND HE SAID THEN AND HE SAID ON OTHER OCCASIONS, AND I QUOTE, HE SAID WHILE STANDING OVER THAT CASKET, WHILE STANDING OVER NICOLE'S BODY, "MY PROBLEM WAS THAT I LOVED YOU TOO MUCH." BUT IT WASN'T REALLY LOVE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE EVIDENCE AND THE EVIDENCE WILL ESTABLISH THIS, THAT IT WASN'T REALLY LOVE. WHAT THIS DEFENDANT HAD FOR NICOLE BROWN WASN'T LOVE. IT WAS OBSESSION. HE BECAME OBSESSED WITH HER, AND HIS OBSESSION WAS SO GREAT THAT HE DEVELOPED A NEED TO CONTROL HER. AND HIS NEED TO CONTROL AND HIS FEELINGS OF OBSESSION AND HIS OBSESSION WAS SO GREAT THAT WHEN HE CAME TO REALIZE THAT HE COULD NOT KEEP HER, HE KILLED HER BECAUSE TO LET HER GO WOULD MEAN TO LOSE CONTROL OF HER. TO LET HER GO WITH RON GOLDMAN OR SOMEONE ELSE WOULD MEAN TO LOSE CONTROL. HE COULDN'T HAVE HER AND NEITHER COULD ANYONE ELSE. NOW, THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WILL ESTABLISH THAT THE MAN IN THE COURTROOM, THIS DEFENDANT IS AN EXTREMELY CONTROLLING AND POSSESSIVE MAN. AND AS I SAID BEFORE, CONTROL AND POSSESSIVENESS WAS A SINGLE DOMINANT THING THROUGHOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP. AND HE CONTROLLED HER IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. HE CONTROLLED HER FINANCIALLY. AND WHEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE FIRST MET, SHE WAS BARELY 18 YEARS OLD. HE WAS ALMOST 30. SHE SHARED AN APARTMENT. HE OWNED A MANSION. SHE WAITED TABLES AT A RESTAURANT. HE WAS A MILLIONAIRE. NO ONE HAD EVER HEARD OF NICOLE BROWN, BUT HE WAS ONE OF THE MOST RECOGNIZED MEN IN AMERICA. BUT AFTER HE MET HER, HE SLOWLY BEGAN TO CONTROL HER. SHE SHARED AN APARTMENT WITH A FRIEND. HE GOT HER HER OWN APARTMENT. HE BOUGHT HER THINGS. HE GAVE HER THINGS. BY THE TIME SHE WAS 19, SHE WAS DRIVING A PORSCHE. HE GOT IT FOR HER. HE BEGAN TO GAIN CONTROL OVER HER. AND THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, THROUGHOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP, HE MAINTAINED THAT ECONOMIC CONTROL OVER HER, THAT FINANCIAL CONTROL. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT NICOLE NEVER REALLY HELD A JOB. SHE NEVER REALLY WORKED. SHE NEVER REALLY OPERATED A BUSINESS. SHE NEVER HAD AN INCOME REALLY OF HER OWN. THROUGHOUT HER ENTIRE ADULT LIFE, THIS MAN, DEFENDANT IN THE COURTROOM, HELD HER PURSE STRINGS IN HER LIFE. WHATEVER MONEY SHE GOT, WHATEVER MATERIAL POSSESSIONS SHE GOT, SHE GOT FROM THE DEFENDANT. PEOPLE CAN SOMETIMES BE BOUGHT. AND YOUNG PEOPLE SOMETIMES CAN BE EASILY MISLED. NICOLE WAS A VERY YOUNG WOMAN IF A WOMAN AT ALL WHEN SHE FIRST MET THIS DEFENDANT, THE MAN SEATED IN THE COURTROOM. AND AS THE YEARS WENT ON AND AS THEY CONTINUED TO DATE AND AS HE GAINED MORE AND MORE CONTROL OVER HER, THE MORE CONTROL HE GAINED, THE MORE ABUSIVE HE BECAME. AS YOU LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE HEARING EVIDENCE REGARDING DOMESTIC ABUSE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, STALKING, INTIMIDATION, PHYSICAL ABUSE, WIFE BEATING, PUBLIC HUMILIATION. AS YOU LISTEN TO THE TRIAL AND AS YOU HEAR THIS EVIDENCE AND SEE THIS EVIDENCE, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ABUSE WERE ALL DIFFERENT METHODS TO CONTROL HER. LET ME PROCEED ON. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN THIS CASE THAT HE ABUSED HER MENTALLY. HE STRIPPED HER OF HER SELF ESTEEM. THIS DEFENDANT DICTATED THE WAY NICOLE WOULD DRESS. HE DICTATED THE WAY SHE WOULD WEAR HER HAIR. AND WHEN HE DIDN'T LIKE HER APPEARANCE, HE WOULD CRITICIZE HER, HE WOULD HUMILIATE HER TO THE POINT WHERE SHE WOULD CRY. IF HE DIDN'T LIKE HER SHOES, HE WOULD GO OUT AND BUY SHOES. "THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO WEAR. WEAR THIS. LOOK LIKE THIS." SHE WAS NOT A BARBIE DOLL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE WAS SO CONTROLLING THAT HE ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE HER IDENTITY. HE ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE WHO SHE WAS. WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT AND PUT ON WEIGHT, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS SO ABUSIVE THAT HE CALLED HER NAMES. HE CALLED HER FAT. HE CALLED HER A PIG. AND HE DID THIS IN THE PRESENCE OF HER FAMILY AND IN THE PRESENCE OF HER FRIENDS AND HE HUMILIATED HER. THAT IS THE FACE WE INTEND TO EXPOSE IN THIS TRIAL. THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS DEFENDANT WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU IN THIS TRIAL. AND BY DOING THESE THINGS AND BY HURTLING THESE INSULTS, HE STRIPPED HER OF HER SELF ESTEEM. AND WHEN YOU'RE CONTROLLING SOMEONE FINANCIALLY AND WHEN THEY HAVE NO SELF ESTEEM AND WHEN THEY HAVE NO IDENTITY, YOU HAVE THEM, YOU CONTROL THEM. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS DEFENDANT, THIS MAN IN THE COURTROOM WAS A VERY CONTROLLING AND POSSESSIVE MAN AND THAT THE DOMINANT THING THROUGHOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS HIS CONTROL OF NICOLE BROWN. BUT HE DID MORE. HE DID MORE THAN JUST DEMEAN HER IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS. HE ATTEMPTED TO ISOLATE HER SOMETIMES FROM SOME PEOPLE. WHEN CERTAIN MEN CAME AROUND, HE BECAME JEALOUS AND HE BECAME SO JEALOUS THAT HE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE SHE WOULD NOT AGREE OR WANT TO BE AROUND CERTAIN MEN BECAUSE SHE WAS CONCERNED THAT HE MIGHT GET JEALOUS BY THEIR MERE PRESENCE. AND AS TIME WENT ON AND AS HE BECAME JEALOUS AND MORE AND MORE JEALOUS, HE EVEN INSISTED THAT SHE NOT BE AROUND CERTAIN MEN. HE BEGAN TO ISOLATE HER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHEN HER FRIENDS CAME AROUND, HER GIRLFRIENDS CAME AROUND AND WHEN HE FELT THAT SHE WAS SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME WITH THOSE GIRLFRIENDS, HE TALKED TO THE GIRLFRIENDS. HE LET THEM KNOW. HE DIDN'T LIKE THEM HANGING AROUND. HE DISSUADED HER GIRLFRIENDS FROM HANGING AROUND. HE ATTEMPTED TO ISOLATE HER FROM OTHER PEOPLE. AND WHEN YOU ISOLATE SOMEONE AND WHEN YOU HAVE ECONOMIC CONTROL OVER SOMEONE AND WHEN YOU STRIP SOMEONE OF THEIR SELF ESTEEM AND WHEN YOU ESTABLISH THEIR IDENTITY, YOU HAVE THEM. THEY'RE YOURS. YOU CAN CONTROL THEM. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN THIS CASE THAT THIS MAN IS AN EXTREMELY POSSESSIVE AND CONTROLLING INDIVIDUAL AND THAT HE IS AN EXTREMELY POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUAL WHEN IT CAME TO NICOLE, AND HIS OBSESSION WAS MANIFESTED BY THE THINGS HE DID TOWARD CONTROLLING HER. BY DEMEANING HER AND CONTROLLING THE PURSE STRINGS AND ISOLATING HER AND DEFINING WHO SHE WOULD SEE AND WHO SHE WOULDN'T SEE AND WHO HER FRIENDS WOULD BE AND WHO THEY WOULD NOT BE WASN'T ALL THIS DEFENDANT DID TO CONTROL THIS WOMAN. THERE ARE MORE POWERFUL FORMS OF CONTROL. THERE'S FORCE, THERE'S VIOLENCE, THERE'S FEAR, THERE'S INTIMIDATION. AND YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY, YOU WILL SEE EVIDENCE THAT IN HIS QUEST TO CONTROL NICOLE, THIS DEFENDANT USED ALL THESE THINGS. HE USED FEAR, HE USED INTIMIDATION AND HE USED VIOLENCE. AND HE INSTILLED SUCH A FEAR IN HER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT HE COULD WALK INTO A ROOM -- HE WOULD WALK INTO A ROOM, AND NICOLE WOULD BE THERE, AND A MOMENT BEFORE HE WALKED IN, SHE WOULD JUST BE THE MOST CHARMING INDIVIDUAL THAT THERE IS, RELAXED; BUT WHEN HE WALKED IN, HER DEMEANOR CHANGED COMPLETELY. AS TIME WENT ON, HIS MERE PRESENCE BECAME INTIMIDATING TO HER. I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THEY MET WHEN SHE WAS AROUND 18 YEARS OLD BACK IN 1977, AND THEY DATED FOR EIGHT YEARS AND THEY EVENTUALLY MARRIED IN 1985. AND THE MARRIAGE WAS A STORMY MARRIAGE AND IT WAS A MARRIAGE PUNCTUATED BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE. AND THAT VIOLENCE WOULD ALWAYS BE FOLLOWED BY AN APOLOGY. HE WOULD APOLOGIZE, GIVE HER JEWELRY, BUY HER FLOWERS. HE WOULD PROMISE TO DO BETTER, PROMISE, PROMISE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF HIMSELF AND HE WOULD PROMISE NOT TO DO IT AGAIN. AND THEN THOSE ACTS OF VIOLENCE WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE, AND IT BECAME A CYCLE; VIOLENCE, APOLOGIES, A PERIOD OF QUIET AND CALM, THEN VIOLENCE AND APOLOGIES, QUIET AND CALM, VIOLENCE, APOLOGIES, QUIET, CALM. A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE CHARACTERIZED THEIR RELATIONSHIP. IT CHARACTERIZED THEIR MARRIAGE. AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT'S -- THAT'S A DIFFICULT TOPIC BECAUSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS BEHIND THE GATES AND THE WALLS. IT HAPPENS IN THE BEDROOM AND INSIDE THE HOME AND PLACES WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN'T SEE. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A PRIVATE AFFAIR GENERALLY WHILE IT'S OCCURRING, AND SO IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE, TO GAIN PROOF THAT THE VIOLENCE OCCURRED AND IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE AND GAIN PROOF THAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS A VIOLENT RELATIONSHIP. BUT WE DO HAVE THAT PROOF. WE DO HAVE PROOF. WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE. YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES IN THIS CASE, AND THEY WILL DISCUSS THE VIOLENT RELATIONSHIP, THE VIOLENT MARRIAGE THIS DEFENDANT HAD WITH NICOLE BROWN. IN 1985, THE POLICE RESPONDED TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM IN RESPONSE TO A CALL. AND WHEN THEY ARRIVED, THEY WERE MET BY NICOLE. SHE WAS CRYING, SHE WAS UPSET AND HER FACE WAS PUFFY AND SHE WAS NEAR HYSTERICS. SHE TOLD THESE PEOPLE, SHE SAID, "WE HAD A FIGHT. AFTER THE FIGHT, I WAS TRYING TO LEAVE. AND WHEN I TRIED TO LEAVE, THE DEFENDANT GRABBED A BASEBALL BAT, AND HE TOOK THAT BASEBALL BAT AND HE SMASHED THE WINDSHIELD TO MY CAR." THIS IS 1985. AND AS THEY LOOKED AROUND, THESE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, THEY LOOKED TO THE RIGHT AND THEY SAW A WHITE 450SL MERCEDES BENZ, AND THE WINDSHIELD WAS SMASHED OUT. JUST THEN, THE DEFENDANT CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE AND HE OFFERED AN EXPLANATION. WELL, THE POLICE DIDN'T ARREST HIM. THEY LEFT. THEY LEFT NICOLE THERE. THEY LEFT THE DEFENDANT THERE. AND THAT ISN'T AN ACT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE TOWARD NICOLE, IS IT, OR IS IT? MAYBE IT IS. NICOLE BROWN WAS THERE TO WITNESS THIS ACT, THIS VIOLENCE ON HER VEHICLE. AND IF YOU'RE MARRIED TO SOMEONE AND YOU LOVE SOMEONE AND YOU HAVE A FIGHT WITH THEM AND THEY TAKE A BASEBALL BAT AND THEY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO ONE OF YOUR PRIZED POSSESSIONS, COULD IT BE, COULD IT BE THAT THEY ARE SENDING A MESSAGE? THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS WAS A MESSAGE. IT WAS AN INDICATION, IT WAS A WARNING AS TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT. IT WAS A WARNING THAT WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS MERCEDES BENZ COULD JUST AS WELL HAPPEN TO YOU. AND IT DID HAPPEN TO NICOLE. NOT WITH THE BASEBALL BAT; BUT JUST LIKE THAT MERCEDES GOT SMASHED AND DENTED, SO DID NICOLE. YOU WILL BE HEARING EVIDENCE, YOU WILL BE HEARING TESTIMONY, YOU WILL BE SEEING WITNESSES IN THIS CASE REGARDING AN INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 1, 1989. IT WAS ALMOST 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ON JANUARY 1ST WHEN THE 911 OPERATOR RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM ROCKINGHAM. AND THAT OPERATOR WILL BE HERE TO TESTIFY IN COURT AND THAT OPERATOR WILL BE HERE TO AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE OF THAT 911 CALL FROM ROCKINGHAM. AND WHEN THE OPERATOR APPEARS AND WHEN THE TAPE IS PLAYED, LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY, BECAUSE IF YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY, IN THE BACKGROUND, YOU WILL HEAR A WOMAN SCREAMING AND YOU WILL HEAR SOMETHING ELSE. YOU WILL HEAR THE SOUND OF THIS DEFENDANT, THIS MAN BEATING THIS WOMAN. YOU WILL HEAR THE SOUND OF HIS HAND SMACKING ACROSS HER FACE. YOU WILL HEAR THE SOUND OF THIS DEFENDANT BEATING HIS WIFE. WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED, THEY ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM IN RESPONSE TO THAT TELEPHONE CALL. AND NICOLE NEVER GOT TO TELL THE 911 OPERATOR THAT, "COME AND HELP ME," OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ALL SHE DID WAS SCREAM. AND THE OPERATOR COULD HEAR HER SCREAMING AND THE OPERATOR COULD HEAR HER BEING BEATEN, AND SHE ADVISED LAPD UNITS TO RESPOND TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM. "WE CAN HEAR THE SOUND OF A WOMAN BEING BEATEN NOW, RIGHT NOW." AND THE OFFICERS ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM A SHORT TIME LATER. AND WHEN THEY DID, THEY RANG THE BUZZER TO THE SECURITY GATE. AND AS THEY DID SO, THEY SAW SOMEONE RUN FROM THE BUSHES, RUN FROM THE DARKNESS IN THEIR DIRECTION. AND THE PERSON THAT THEY SAW WAS NICOLE. AND NICOLE CAME RUNNING OUT OF THE DARKNESS WEARING NOTHING BUT SWEAT PANTS AND A BRA RUNNING TOWARDS THE OFFICERS, AND SHE WAS COVERED WITH MUD AND SHE WAS DIRTY, SHE WAS FILTHY. AND SHE RAN TOWARDS THE OFFICERS. AND AS SHE RAN TOWARDS THE OFFICERS, SHE WAS SHOUTING AND YELLING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME. HE'S GOING TO KILL ME." AND THE OFFICERS STOOD THERE. THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. IT'S 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SHE IS OUT THERE IN HER BRA AND SWEAT PANTS COVERED WITH MUD. THEY JUST GOT A CALL, THERE'S A WOMAN AT ROCKINGHAM BEING BEATEN NOW. SHE COMES RUNNING OUT OF THE DARKNESS OUT OF THE MUD AND OUT OF THE BUSHES, AND SHE PUSHES A BUTTON TO THE SECURITY GATE AND SHE RUNS THROUGH THE GATE AND SHE COLLAPSES IN THE ARMS OF THE OFFICER. THE ENTIRE TIME, SHE IS YELLING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME. HE'S GOING TO KILL ME." AND THE OFFICER SAID, "WHO'S GOING TO KILL YOU?" SHE SAID, "O.J. IS GOING TO KILL ME." AND THE OFFICERS LOOKED, THEY LOOKED AT NICOLE. HER EYE WAS SWOLLEN, BRUISED, HER LIP WAS CUT. ONE OF THE OFFICERS, THE SENIOR OFFICER THERE, HE LOOKED AT HER NECK; AND WHAT HE SAW STARTLED HIM. ON HER NECK, HE COULD SEE THE IMPRINT OF A HAND, THE IMPRINT OF A HAND AROUND HER NECK. IT WAS THEN THAT THE DEFENDANT CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE. HE WAS WEARING NOTHING BUT HIS BATHROBE. AND HE DID NOT ADDRESS HIS WIFE AT THE TIME AND HE DID NOT ASK THE POLICE HOW SHE WAS DOING OR IF SHE WAS OKAY. AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW AND WHAT YOU WILL HEAR IN THIS CASE IS THAT HE DEMEANED AND HUMILIATED HER EVEN MORE. HE SHOUTED TO THE OFFICERS IN THE PRESENCE OF NICOLE, HIS WIFE, "I'VE GOT TWO WOMEN NOW. I DON'T NEED THAT ONE. I DON'T WANT THAT ONE IN MY BED ANYMORE." THIS WAS HIS WIFE, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID TO THESE OFFICERS, THESE STRANGERS TO HIM. THIS IS WHAT HE SHOUTED OUT TO THE POLICE. THE OFFICERS WERE ON ONE SIDE OF THE GATE, OF THE WALL AND THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THE OFFICERS SAID, "MR. SIMPSON, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PLACE YOU UNDER ARREST. IT APPEARS THAT YOUR WIFE HAS BEEN BEATEN. SO PLEASE GO BACK INTO THE HOUSE AND PUT ON SOME CLOTHES AND COME WITH US. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOU TO THE STATION." WELL, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THAT DID NOT SIT WELL WITH THIS DEFENDANT, AND HE RESPONDED, "THE POLICE HAVE BEEN HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS?" EIGHT TIMES. THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID. THE POLICE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE? AND AS HE SAID, "YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS," THE DEFENDANT TOLD THE OFFICERS, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER." THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. THE DEFENDANT SAID TO THE OFFICERS, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER." AND HE ASKED, "WHY DO YOU WANT TO MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT? WE CAN HANDLE IT." THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS DID NOT LIKE THE WAY HE HAD HANDLED THINGS UP TO THAT POINT, AND THEY INSISTED THAT HE GET DRESSED AND THEY TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS UNDER ARREST AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE HIM TO THE STATION. WELL, THIS WAS O.J. SIMPSON. AND HE DID GET DRESSED, BUT HE DIDN'T GO TO THE POLICE STATION. HE JUMPED IN HIS BENTLEY, HE SPED AWAY, THEY CHASED AFTER HIM, THEY DIDN'T CATCH HIM AND HE GOT AWAY. THE NEXT DAY, HE WENT TO THE ROSE BOWL. BUT DESPITE THIS, DESPITE '89, WHAT HAPPENED JANUARY 1, '89, DESPITE THE MERCEDES BENZ INCIDENT IN 1985, SHE STAYED. SHE STAYED WITH HIM. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING AND THE EVIDENCE WON'T SUGGEST THAT EVERY DAY OF THEIR MARRIAGE OR THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS STORMY, ROCKY AND FILLED WITH VIOLENCE. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING HERE. WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THAT THERE WAS A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE, A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE; AND THE DOMINANT THEME IN THAT RELATIONSHIP AND IN THAT CYCLE AND THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE WAS ALWAYS CONTROL, CONTROL. WELL, AFTER THE '89 INCIDENT, AFTER THAT NIGHT, THEIR RELATIONSHIP CHANGED SOMEWHAT. SHE WAS CONCERNED AND THE DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED. THE DEFENDANT IS A PUBLIC MAN, AND HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HIS PUBLIC IMAGE. AND IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND IN THE PUBLIC MEDIA BACK IN 1989, HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY ROY FIRESTONE ON ESPN. AND DURING THAT INTERVIEW, MR. FIRESTONE ASKED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THAT INCIDENT ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 1, AND THE DEFENDANT DOWNPLAYED IT. HE MINIMIZED THINGS, FLUFFED IT OVER. AND YOU'LL HEAR AND SEE THAT INTERVIEW. AND IN THAT INTERVIEW, THE DEFENDANT SAID IT WAS SORT OF A MUTUAL WRESTLING MATCH, SHE WAS WRONG, HE WAS WRONG, TA DA, NO BIG DEAL, AND THAT'S WHAT HE SAID TO THE PRESS AND TO THE PUBLIC. HE MINIMIZED THINGS. BUT YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM INVESTIGATORS EMPLOYED WITH THE D.A.'S OFFICE AND THEY'LL TELL YOU ABOUT A DAY JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO WHEN THEY DRILLED A HOLE IN THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, NICOLE'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, AND THEY'LL TELL YOU ABOUT THE DAY THAT THEY RECOVERED PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FROM NICOLE'S INCIDENT BACK IN '89 AND THEY'LL ALSO TELL YOU ABOUT THE RECOVERY OF SOME LETTERS THE DEFENDANT WROTE TO NICOLE AFTER THE 1989 BEATING. AND YOU'LL SEE THOSE LETTERS. THEY'LL BE HERE. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO READ THEM. AND YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE ACCOUNT THE DEFENDANT GAVE THE PRESS AND THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC WAS NOT THE SAME ACCOUNT HE GAVE NICOLE IN THOSE LETTERS DURING THAT APOLOGY PHASE, THE APOLOGY PHASE, THE CONTRITION PHASE, THE PHASE HE WAS GOING THROUGH. IN THE LETTER HE WROTE TO NICOLE, HE APOLOGIZED FOR HURTING HER. IN THE LETTER HE WROTE TO NICOLE, HE ADMITTED HE HAD LOST CONTROL. AND IN THE LETTER TO NICOLE, HE SAID THE SAME OLD THING HE'S BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG; AND THAT IS THAT, "I WILL DO BETTER. WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS." AND THAT HAPPENS IN BAD RELATIONSHIPS AND IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS, DOESN'T IT? THINGS GET BAD, BAD THINGS HAPPEN. IT'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY'S FAULT, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE THE BLAME. AND IN THIS SITUATION, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID WAS, HE MADE THESE PROMISES. HE SORT OF ROPED HER BACK IN. YOU KNOW HOW IT IS IN A BAD RELATIONSHIP, "I'LL DO BETTER. HERE'S A GIFT. I'M SORRY." THEY JUST ROPE YOU BACK INTO IT. AND IF YOU ARE THE OTHER PERSON IN NICOLE'S POSITION AS SHE WAS -- AND THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE EVIDENCE -- SHE WANTED TO BELIEVE, SHE WANTED TO BELIEVE THAT HER MARRIAGE COULD SURVIVE. SHE WANTED TO HAVE HOPE, AND HE GAVE HER HOPE FOR A WHILE BECAUSE THIS IS A CYCLE. AND SO HE BEAT HER UP ON JANUARY 1. HE ADMITTED TO HER PRIVATELY IN HIS LETTERS THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE, AND HE APOLOGIZED AND HE GAVE HER THINGS AND HE TRIED TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER, AND HE GAVE HER HOPE AND HE ROPED HER BACK IN, AND SHE STAYED. SHE STAYED BECAUSE SHE HAD HOPE AND BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO BELIEVE THAT JANUARY 1, 1989 WOULD BE THE LAST TIME THAT HE WOULD ABUSE HER PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY. AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, SOMETHING VERY SAD BECOMES VERY APPARENT. THEY MET WHEN SHE WAS 18 AND HE WAS ALMOST 30, AND IN 1992, THEY DIVORCED. SHE WAS ONLY 33 YEARS OLD AND SHE DIED WHEN SHE WAS ALMOST 35. THROUGHOUT HER ADULT LIFE, THROUGHOUT MOST OF HER ADULT LIFE, HER CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP WAS DEFINED BY THIS DEFENDANT. THAT WAS ADULT LOVE. HER NOTION OF ADULT LOVE FOR 15 YEARS WAS WHAT THIS DEFENDANT GAVE HER, AND HE ABUSED HER THROUGHOUT THAT RELATIONSHIP. AS I SAID BEFORE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU GET ROPED IN. PEOPLE GET ROPED IN. NICOLE GOT ROPED IN BY THE DEFENDANT, AND SHE STAYED AND SHE STAYED. AND PEOPLE STAY IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THOSE ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS FOR YEARS AND YEARS UNTIL ONE OR TWO THINGS HAPPEN; ONE, THEY JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, OR, TWO, UNTIL THEY JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE AND THEY WAKE UP TO REALITY. AND FINALLY, IN 1992, NICOLE WOKE UP TO THE REALITY OF HER SITUATION, AND IN JANUARY 1992, SHE MOVED FROM ROCKINGHAM, SHE LEFT THE DEFENDANT AND SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE. WELL, THIS DID NOT SIT WELL WITH THIS DEFENDANT AND THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE EVIDENCE. HE DID NOT LIKE THIS. HE DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT NICOLE WAS LEAVING HIS HOUSE GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE TO LIVE IN HER OWN HOUSE AWAY FROM HIM. THERE IS THAT ISSUE OF CONTROL. HOW COULD HE CONTROL HER? SHE WASN'T RIGHT THERE WITH HIM. AND HE DIDN'T TAKE IT WELL AND HE LOST 20 TO 25 POUNDS LIKE THAT (SNAPS FINGERS). AND ALSO AND ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS, HE WOULD CALL HER SISTERS, DOMINIQUE AND TONYA AND DENISE, AND HE WOULD CALL HER MOTHER AND HER FATHER SOMETIMES CRYING ON THE TELEPHONE AND HE WOULD CALL THEM AND HE WOULD WINE TO THEM AND, YOU KNOW, AND HE WOULD TELL THEM HOW MUCH HE LOVED HER AND WANTED HER BACK. HE WOULD USE THEM TO TRY AND ROPE HER BACK IN. WELL, SHE COULDN'T LET HIM GO, NOT COMPLETELY. AND HOW COULD SHE? SHE HAD BEEN UNDER HIS CONTROL FOR 15 OR 16 YEARS. AND SO SHE DIDN'T GO TOO FAR. SHE RENTED A HOUSE IN BRENTWOOD ON GRETNA GREEN. THEY SAW EACH OTHER. THEY HAD CHILDREN TOGETHER, LOVELY CHILDREN. YOU'LL PROBABLY BE SEEING A PICTURE OF ONE PRETTY SOON. BUT HE COULDN'T DEAL WITH THE LOSS OF NICOLE. HE COULDN'T DEAL WITH NOT HAVING HER THERE. HE COULDN'T DEAL WITH THE LOSS OF CONTROL AND HE COULDN'T HELP BUT PURSUE HER. YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE FROM NICOLE'S MOTHER, AND SHE'LL TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS SHE HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT IN 1992 AND SOME EVEN MORE RECENT. AND ONE CONVERSATION, HE TOLD HER, HE TOLD HER, HE SAID, "ALL MY FRIENDS TELL ME THAT I SHOULD JUST LEAVE HER ALONE, JUST FORGET ABOUT IT, JUST GO ON WITH MY OWN LIFE." AND WHEN MRS. BROWN SAID, "WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, LET HER GO. IF YOU LET HER GO, THEN MAYBE SHE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. JUST LET HER GO, AND MAYBE SHE'LL COME BACK," AND HIS RESPONSE WAS, "I CAN'T. YOU KNOW I CAN'T. YOU KNOW I CAN'T HELP MYSELF. I CAN'T LET HER GO." HE COULDN'T LET HER GO. HE COULDN'T HELP BUT PURSUE HER. HE COULDN'T LEAVE HER ALONE. HE COULDN'T HANDLE THE LOSS OF CONTROL. AND BECAUSE SHE HAD LEFT HIS HOUSE AND MOVED SOMEWHERE ELSE AND ESTABLISHED HER OWN HOME, HER OWN HOUSE AND BEGAN ESTABLISHING HER OWN RELATIONSHIPS, HE DID THE ONLY THING HE COULD DO TO GAIN CONTROL, TO TRY TO GAIN CONTROL, TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH HER, AND SO HE STALKED HER. HE STALKED HER. WHEN SHE LEFT ROCKINGHAM IN JANUARY OF '92 AND SET UP A NEW HOUSEHOLD ON GRETNA GREEN ALSO IN BRENTWOOD, SHE BEGAN DATING A MAN NAMED KEITH, KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH, AND SHE GOT A BABYSITTER FOR THEIR TWO CHILDREN. WHENEVER KEITH AND NICOLE WOULD GO OUT, NOT EVERY TIME, BUT ENOUGH, HE WOULD SHOW UP. IF THEY WENT TO A NIGHTCLUB -- AND KEITH WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THIS. HE WILL BE HERE TO TESTIFY -- DEFENDANT SHOWED UP. THEY WENT TO A RESTAURANT CALLED THE TRIST, IT HAD JUST OPENED, NICOLE AND KEITH AND SOME OTHER FRIENDS. THEY WERE THERE, THEY GOT A TABLE, THEY BEGAN TO HAVE DINNER. AND AS THEY SAT THERE HAVING DINNER, GUESS WHO SHOWED UP? GUESS WHO ATTEMPTED TO GAIN CONTROL AGAIN? THE DEFENDANT SHOWED UP. AND THAT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE EVIDENCE AND IN THE TESTIMONY. AND WHAT HE DID IS, HE WALKED INTO THE RESTAURANT, HE SAW NICOLE AND KEITH AND HER OTHER FRIENDS, HE WENT TO ANOTHER TABLE, HE GRABBED THE CHAIR -- THE CHAIR WAS FACING IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION -- HE GRABBED THE CHAIR, HE TURNED IT AROUND, HE SAT THERE STARING AT KEITH AND NICOLE AND THEIR DINNER PARTY. KEITH WILL BE HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THAT WAS AN AWFULLY INTIMIDATING EXPERIENCE. WHY? THERE WAS ANOTHER INCIDENT AT THE MEZZALUNA. NICOLE WAS THERE, KEITH WAS THERE. THE DEFENDANT SUDDENLY SHOWED UP, DROVE UP IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT, GOT OUT OF THE CAR, WALKED UP TO THE TABLE WHERE THEY WERE SEATED, PUT HIS HANDS ON AND SAID, "I AM O.J. SIMPSON AND SHE'S STILL MY WIFE." WELL, SHE HAD FILED FOR DIVORCE AND MOVED OUT OF HIS HOUSE. BUT THAT WAS INTIMIDATING. AND THERE'S MORE, AND YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THE OTHER INCIDENTS. THERE'S MORE EVIDENCE OF STALKING IN THIS CASE AND YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THAT. THERE WAS ONE EVENING WHEN KEITH AND NICOLE, THEY WENT TO A COMEDY SHOW, AND AFTER THE SHOW, THEY WENT TO NICOLE'S HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN. IT WAS ABOUT 3:00 IN THE MORNING. AND THEY WERE SEATED ON THE SOFA IN HER LIVING ROOM. THE KIDS, THE KIDS WERE UPSTAIRS ASLEEP. IT'S 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. AND KEITH AND NICOLE MADE LOVE ON THE COUCH. BUT THEY WEREN'T ALONE. THERE WAS SOMEBODY WATCHING. THERE WAS SOMEONE WATCHING THROUGH THE WINDOW. IT WAS THE DEFENDANT. AT 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, HE WAS LOOKING THROUGH NICOLE'S WINDOW WATCHING HER MAKE LOVE TO ANOTHER MAN. AND THE NEXT DAY, WHEN KEITH AND NICOLE WERE TOGETHER, HE WALKED RIGHT INTO HER HOUSE, AND HE WAS BESIDE HIMSELF AND HE WAS ANGRY AND HE SAID SOME VERY NAUGHTY THINGS. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE SAID TO KEITH AND NICOLE WAS THAT, HE SAID, "I WATCHED YOU LAST NIGHT. I WATCHED YOU AND I SAW EVERYTHING." THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THAT IS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL BEHAVIOR TO SAY THE LEAST. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW ALSO THAT THIS IS ALL PART OF THIS CYCLE. IT'S ALL PART OF THIS DOMINANT THEME IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP. THIS IS ALL PART OF HIS NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT HER, TO KNOW WHERE SHE IS, TO KNOW WHO SHE'S WITH, TO KNOW WHAT SHE'S DOING, TO CONTROL HER. IT'S CONTROL. IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL. AND THOUGH HE DID NOT INTERRUPT THEM DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE ACT AND HE DIDN'T PUNCH KEITH OUT AND HE DIDN'T PUNCH NICOLE OUT, HE STILL WATCHED SO THAT HE WOULD KNOW. AND TO CONTROL HER, HE HAD TO CONFRONT HER WITH WHAT HE KNEW, TO INTIMIDATE HER, TO KEEP HER FROM DOING IT AGAIN. IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL. WELL, OVER THE MONTHS, YOU KNOW, NICOLE STILL WANTED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY COULD BE A FAMILY AGAIN TOGETHER. AND THEY WOULD ATTEMPT RECONCILIATION AND THEY WOULD FAIL, AND THEY WOULD ATTEMPT AGAIN. AND NICOLE WAS AS MUCH A PARTY TO THAT AS THE DEFENDANT WAS. BUT THERE WAS A SITUATION IN OCTOBER OF 1993, AN INCIDENT, ANOTHER CONTROL INCIDENT. HE FORCED HIS WAY THROUGH THE BACK DOOR OF HER PLACE ON GRETNA GREEN. HE FORCED HER DOOR IN. HE ENTERED HER HOUSE WITHOUT HER PERMISSION, WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE AND HE CONFRONTED HER AND HE SCARED HER, HE FRIGHTENED HER. AND HE SCARED HER SO BADLY THAT SHE TELEPHONED 911, AND SHE ASKED FOR POLICE ASSISTANCE. AND YOU WILL HEAR THE TAPE OF THAT 911 CALL AND YOU WILL SEE THE 911 OPERATOR AND YOU WILL HEAR THE DEFENDANT IN THE BACKGROUND. THIS IS OCTOBER 1993. HE WATCHED KEITH AND NICOLE HAVE SEX IN APRIL OF 1992. AND WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE OCTOBER 1993 911 TAPE, YOU CAN HEAR HIM IN THE BACKGROUND STILL YELLING AND SHOUTING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN APRIL OF 1992. BUT THAT 911 TAPE IS A TELLING GLIMPSE INTO THEIR RELATIONSHIP THAT'S FOR SURE, AND IT'S ALSO AN EXAMPLE OF THIS DEFENDANT'S PRIVATE SIDE, HIS PRIVATE FACE, THE OTHER MAN, THE MAN IN THE COURTROOM, THE MAN THAT'S ON TRIAL HERE TODAY. AND YOU WILL HEAR NICOLE ON THE TELEPHONE TALKING TO THE OPERATOR. AND AS YOU LISTEN TO HER, YOU CAN'T HELP BUT DISCERN FROM THE TONE OF HER VOICE AND THE THINGS THAT SHE SAYS THAT SHE IS A TOUGH WOMAN, BUT THAT SHE'S ALSO AFRAID AND INTIMIDATED. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THAT SHE FEELS THAT HER SITUATION IS HOPELESS. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT BY OCTOBER OF 1993, NICOLE, HER SITUATION WAS HOPELESS AND SHE WAS HELPLESS. WAY BACK IN 1989, THE DEFENDANT SAID THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN TO THE HOUSE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND NEVER DONE ANYTHING. NICOLE SAID THE SAME THING ON THE TELEPHONE TO THE 911 OPERATOR IN 1993. HER SITUATION WAS HOPELESS AND SHE WAS HELPLESS. AND YOU CAN INFER FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT NICOLE BROWN EXPECTED OR HAD NO EXPECTATION THAT ANYONE WOULD EVER DO ANYTHING TO THIS DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE BEAT HER. THERE WAS NO HELP COMING AND SHE DIDN'T EXPECT ANY HELP. BUT YOU WILL HEAR THAT TELEPHONE CALL AND YOU WILL HEAR THE DEFENDANT AND YOU WILL GET A TRUE SENSE OF THE FEAR HE INSTILLED IN HER. AND HE DIDN'T HIT HER THAT DAY. HE DIDN'T STRIKE HER. HE DIDN'T PUNCH HER. HE DID GO THROUGH THE HOUSE TO SEE WHO WAS THERE, BUT HE DIDN'T HURT HER THAT DAY. STILL, SHE STAYED. STILL, THEY REMAINED INVOLVED, NOT ONLY IN A SENSE THAT HE WAS THE FATHER OF HER CHILDREN, BUT THEY STILL ATTEMPTED TO RECONCILE. AND OVER THE MONTHS AFTER OCTOBER OF 1993, THEY TRIED TO GET TOGETHER AND THEY FAILED, THEY TRIED TO GET TOGETHER AND THEY FAILED. AND IN MAY OF 1994, IT WAS NICOLE'S BIRTHDAY, AND THE DEFENDANT GAVE HER A VERY NICE GIFT, A PIECE OF JEWELRY. AND THEY ATTEMPTED TO RECONCILE FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION, BUT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IT WAS A VERY BRIEF ATTEMPT BECAUSE A FEW DAYS LATER, NICOLE CALLED IT QUITS. SHE WOKE UP TO THE TRUE REALITY OF HER SITUATION. SHE COULDN'T BE BALKED ANYMORE. SHE COULDN'T LIVE LIKE THAT. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT SHE LET THE DEFENDANT KNOW THAT IT WAS OVER. THIS IS IT, HASTA LA VISTA. AND THIS WAS SIGNIFICANT IN THE MIND OF THIS DEFENDANT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. HE WOULD DO THINGS TO HER AND HE WOULD TRY TO APPEASE HER BY GIVING HER THINGS, AND SHE WOULD ACCEPT THOSE THINGS AND THEY WOULD RECONCILE. BUT NOT THIS DAY. THIS DAY, SHE COULDN'T BE APPEASED. SHE COULDN'T BE BOUGHT. SHE COULDN'T BE BRIBED. SHE HAD HAD ENOUGH. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT SHE LET THE DEFENDANT KNOW THAT. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT FINALLY, AFTER 17 YEARS, HE FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE. IT FINALLY BECAME CLEAR THAT SHE WANTED TO LIVE HER OWN LIFE AND THAT IN HER LIFE, THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A PART OF IT. SHE COULDN'T HANDLE IT. SHE WOKE UP TO REALITY. SHE WANTED TO LIVE AND HAVE HER OWN IDENTITY. SHE NO LONGER WANTED TO BE UNDER HIS CONTROL, UNDER HIS THUMB. SHE LET HIM KNOW THAT IT WAS OVER, THAT IT WAS OVER, IT WAS OVER AND IT WAS FINAL, BUT THIS DEFENDANT'S PRIVATE SIDE, THE OTHER MAN, NOT THE ONE ON T.V., THE DEFENDANT, HE COULDN'T TAKE THAT. HE COULDN'T ACCEPT THAT. HE COULD NOT ACCEPT THAT LOSS OF CONTROL, AND HE WOULDN'T AND HE DIDN'T. ON JUNE 12, A DANCE RECITAL WAS HELD IN BRENTWOOD FOR THE DEFENDANT'S DAUGHTER SIDNEY. THE ENTIRE BROWN FAMILY WENT TO THE RECITAL AS DID SOME FRIENDS, CANDICE GARVEY FOR INSTANCE. THE AUDITORIUM WAS CROWDED. SO NOT EVERYONE COULD SIT, YOU KNOW, NEXT TO A FAMILY MEMBER. AND SO THEIR PARTY WAS, YOU KNOW -- THERE WERE PEOPLE BETWEEN THEM. THEY WERE SEPARATED SOMEWHAT AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAD TO SIT IN DIFFERENT ROWS AND NOT ALL TOGETHER. WELL, THE DEFENDANT ARRIVED LATE AND HE ARRIVED CARRYING A BOUQUET OF FLOWERS, FLOWERS HE HAD BOUGHT FOR HIS DAUGHTER. WELL, WHEN HE WALKED INTO THE AUDITORIUM, HE GREETED JUST ABOUT EVERYONE IN THE PARTY IN THE BROWN FAMILY. HE SAID HELLO TO THEM, HE KISSED DENISE ON THE CHEEK, "HOW ARE YOU, HOW YOU DOING," WHATEVER, AND HE PRETTY MUCH ADDRESSED EVERYBODY EXCEPT NICOLE. HE SAT BEHIND THE BROWN'S FOR A FEW MOMENTS. AND THEN HE GOT UP AND HE GRABBED A CHAIR AND HE DRAGGED IT IN THE CORNER OF THE AUDITORIUM AND HE TURNED THAT CHAIR AROUND AND HE SAT IN IT, AND HE SAT THERE FACING NICOLE AND HE JUST STARED AT HER. HE JUST SAT THERE STARING AT HER. AND YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS WAS A MENACING STARE, A PENETRATING STARE, IT WAS AN ANGRY STARE, AND IT MADE EVERYONE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. WHEN THE RECITAL WAS OVER, THERE WAS A LITTLE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO GIVE SIDNEY SOME FLOWERS, AND HE GAVE HER SOME FLOWERS. BUT THE BROWN FAMILY HAD DECIDED TO GO OVER TO THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT FOR DINNER. AND AS THEY LEFT, THEY MADE IT CLEAR TO THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS NOT INVITED, AND HE WASN'T INVITED. AND BY NOT INVITING HIM, IT WAS A REAFFIRMATION OF WHAT HE HAD ALREADY BEEN TOLD, AND THAT IS THAT IT WAS OVER. HE WAS NO LONGER BEING TREATED AS A PART OF THE FAMILY. HE WAS NO LONGER THE CENTRAL CENTERPIECE OF EVERY FAMILY OUTING. NICOLE WAS GETTING ON WITH HER OWN LIFE. AND AS THE BROWN FAMILY LEFT, THEY LOOKED TOWARD THE DEFENDANT AND THEY SAW HIM, AND HE WAS ANGRY AND HE WAS DEPRESSED AND THEY WERE CONCERNED AND EVERYONE WONDERED WHAT IS HE UP TO NOW. MISS CLARK WILL TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UP TO AS THE DAY PROCEEDED ON. BUT THERE'S SOME THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE AS YOU HEAR IT. THIS IS NOT CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THIS IS EVIDENCE OF A CONTROLLING PERSONALITY, OF A CONTROLLING RELATIONSHIP, THIS PROOF OF JEALOUSY. AND AS MISS CLARK TALKS AND THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPS IN THIS CASE AND AS YOU HEAR IT AND SEE IT AND PROCESS IT, YOU WILL SEE THAT CYCLE OF VIOLENCE. YOU WILL SEE HOW THINGS ESCALATED. YOU'LL SEE HOW CONTROLLING HE IS AND YOU'LL SEE WHY HE WOULD KILL ON JUNE 12. THIS IS NOT CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THIS IS NOT SOME TABLOID PROSECUTION. THE EVIDENCE YOU HEAR IN THIS CASE WILL BE EVIDENCE OF THIS DEFENDANT'S LIFE, OF HIS CONDUCT, THE THINGS HE DID. YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE OF THE VICTIMS. AND AS YOU HEAR IT, YOU WILL -- AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND AS YOU LISTEN TO MISS CLARK, YOU'LL SEE HOW IT IS THAT RON GOLDMAN HAPPENED TO BE AT THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME. AS YOU LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE, YOU WILL SEE THAT HIS DECISION TO KILL FINALLY WAS MERELY A FINAL LINK IN A PROGRESSIVE CHAIN OF ABUSIVE AND CONTROLLING CONDUCT, AND IT WAS A CHAIN THAT CONSISTED OF FEAR AND INTIMIDATION AND BATTERY AND EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL ABUSE AND ECONOMIC ABUSE AND CONTROL AND STALKING. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WAS A COMMON SCHEME AND COMMON PLAN IN ALL OF THIS, AND THAT WAS TO CONTROL, TO CONTROL HER. IT WAS ALL DESIGNED JUST TO CONTROL HER. AND IN CONTROLLING HER, IT WAS THE PRIVATE MAN, PRIVATE O.J. SIMPSON, IT WAS THE DEFENDANT WHO COMMITTED THAT FINAL ULTIMATE ACT OF CONTROL. SHE LEFT HIM. SHE WAS NO LONGER IN HIS CONTROL. HE WAS OBSESSED WITH HER. HE COULD NOT STAND TO LOSE HER, AND SO HE MURDERED HER. AND AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IT WILL BECOME CLEAR THAT IN HIS MIND, SHE BELONGED TO HIM; AND IF HE COULDN'T HAVE HER, THEN NOBODY COULD. THANK YOU.