I AM READY TO PROCEED, YOUR HONOR, AND THANK YOU VERY, VERY KINDLY.
OPENING STATEMENT
AS THE COURT INDICATED YESTERDAY, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY ABOUT 3:30 TO ADDRESS YOU, AND IT IS MY OPPORTUNITY AND IT IS MY HONOR AND PRIVILEGE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE AND OUR DEFENSE TEAM, AS IT WERE, TO STAND BEFORE YOU NOW AND ADDRESS YOU IN WHAT IS CALLED OPENING STATEMENT. NOW, THE OPENING STATEMENT IS NOT OPENING ARGUMENT, BUT IT IS JUST THAT, OPENING STATEMENT. IF YOU HAVE HAD OCCASION TO GO TO A MOVIE, YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE PREVIEWS OF COMING ATTRACTIONS, AND THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE -- IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GUIDE, A ROADMAP, IF YOU WILL, WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW. AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND IN THE COURSE OF MY REMARKS THIS MORNING, AND MAYBE THIS AFTERNOON, I WOULD EXPECT TO TELL YOU AS HONESTLY AND AS FORTHRIGHTLY AS I CAN WHAT I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE. AS THE COURT HAS SO APPROPRIATELY INDICATED, WHAT I SAY IS NOT EVIDENCE; IT IS JUST TO AID YOU AND GUIDE YOU. AND I HOPE YOU WILL REMEMBER SOMETHING ELSE THE JUDGE SAID TO YOU LAST NIGHT. YOU HEARD THE PROSECUTOR'S OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY. THE SAME ADMONITION APPLIED TO THEM -- THOSE WERE NOT FACTS -- THAT YOU KEPT AN OPEN MIND, BECAUSE YOU PROMISED TO DO THAT THROUGHOUT. WE STARTED THIS PROCESS OF TRIAL BACK ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1994. THAT WAS THE FIRST DAY WE ALL MET, WHEN YOU CAME DOWN TO THE JURY ROOM UP ON THE 11TH FLOOR, AND HERE WE ARE NOW SEVERAL MONTHS LATER IN THIS SEARCH FOR JUSTICE. YOU HEAR A LOT ABOUT THIS TALK ABOUT JUSTICE. I GUESS DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID IT BEST WHEN HE SAID THAT INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE, AND SO WE ARE NOW EMBARKED UPON THIS SEARCH FOR JUSTICE, THIS SEARCH FOR TRUTH, THIS SEARCH FOR THE FACTS. EACH OF YOU MADE A NUMBER OF PROMISES IN THE COURSE OF THE VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION, WHICH IS BASICALLY UNPRECEDENTED AND DUE MAINLY TO THE LARGESSE OF JUDGE ITO IN UNDERSTANDING THE POSSIBILITY OF MEDIA TAINT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE. SO WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT YOU AT THIS POINT AND WE -- OF COURSE ALL SIDES ARE VERY, VERY PLEASED WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE AGREED TO SERVE AS JURORS, TO GIVE US YOUR TIME, TO LEAVE YOUR LIVES, TO BE SEQUESTERED AS IT WERE. THAT IS A REMARKABLE SACRIFICE. ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID IT BEST WHEN HE SAID THAT THE HIGHEST ACT OF CITIZENSHIP IS JURY SERVICE. AND YOU ARE EMBARKED UPON THAT JURY SERVICE, BUT IT DOESN'T STOP WITH JUST COMING DOWN AND TAKING NOTES. IT DOESN'T STOP WITH THE INCONVENIENCE OF BEING AWAY FROM YOUR FAMILIES. WHEN IT STOPS IS WHEN YOU, IF YOU CAN, RENDER A VERDICT IN THIS CASE AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT VERDICT REFLECTS THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, A VERDICT RENDERED DEVOID OF SYMPATHY FOR OR PASSION AGAINST MR. SIMPSON OR ANY SIDE OF THIS CASE. YOU MADE THESE PROMISES AND BOTH SIDES ARE MINDFUL OF THOSE PROMISES AND WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP THOSE PROMISES. CICERO SAID THAT HE WHO VIOLATES HIS OATH PROFANES THE DIVINITY OF FAITH ITSELF. AND OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT YOU WILL LIVE UP TO YOUR PROMISES AND BE FAIR AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND DECIDE THIS CASE NOT ON SPECULATION, NOT ON CONJECTURE, NOT ON SURMISE, BUT BASED UPON THE FACTS. YOU THEN AS JURORS ARE THE CONSCIENCE OF THIS COMMUNITY. YOUR VERDICTS SET THE STANDARDS OF WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE AND WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN THIS COMMUNITY. YOU HAVE THIS RARE OPPORTUNITY, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THIS SEARCH FOR JUSTICE AND FOR TRUTH, AND IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, HOPEFULLY BY APRIL OF THIS YEAR, I'M OPTIMISTIC STILL, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO RENDER PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION OF YOUR LIVES. AND SO WE WANT YOU TO KEEP YOUR MINDS OPEN AND FRESH SO THAT YOU CAN RENDER THAT DECISION IMPARTIALLY TO BOTH SIDES SO THAT PEOPLE ALL ACROSS THE WORLD CAN SAY THIS SYSTEM WORKS, THIS WAS A FAIR TRIAL, THESE WERE FAIR PEOPLE. SO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE, FOR THE VERDICT THAT YOU ARE LIKELY TO RENDER, AND FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE DOING HERE FOR US.
YOUR HONOR, THE COURT KNOWS ME AND I KNOW MR. COCHRAN KNOWS ME. I HAVE TO INTERJECT AT THIS POINT. THIS IS ARGUMENT.
I THINK THOSE WERE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS THAT WERE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING REMARKS. I THINK MR. COCHRAN HAS JUST CONCLUDED HIS OPENING REMARKS.
AGAIN I HESITATE TO INTERRUPT ANOTHER LAWYER'S OPENING STATEMENT, BUT I SIMPLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS TYPE OF STATEMENT WAS CEASING. THANK YOU, MR. COCHRAN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HODGMAN. I WAS JUST ABOUT TO COMPLIMENT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THEIR OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY. MAYBE I WILL TAKE THAT OUT NOW. I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THEY DID A THOROUGH JOB AS FAR AS THEY WENT, BUT THEY ARE ADVOCATES, AND ALL OF US, AS YOU WILL SEE TODAY, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TELL YOU THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THESE FACTS. SO IN THE COURSE OF MY STATEMENT TODAY LET ME SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THE THINGS THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU YESTERDAY AND WE WILL HAVE TO WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THIS, THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WE BELIEVE WILL SHOW THAT O.J. SIMPSON IS AN INNOCENT MAN WRONGFULLY ACCUSED. MR. DARDEN SAID YESTERDAY THAT IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, AND SOMEPLACE IN GEORGIA PEOPLE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT IN MY HOMETOWN OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, MY MOTHER-IN-LAW IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, AND OTHER PLACES THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY, THAT THEY ARE ASKING WHY DID MR. DARDEN SPEND ALL THAT TIME ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IF THIS IS A MURDER CASE? WHY DID HE DO THAT? AND THEN WHEN HE GAVE YOU THIS ANSWER, HE WAS GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR ALL OF AMERICA. THAT IS A LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS, DON'T YOU THINK, BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF O.J. SIMPSON'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY YOU IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO IT. NONE OF US WERE OUT THERE ON JUNE 12, 1994. WE CAN ONLY DEAL WITH THE WITNESSES AS THEY WERE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS CASE, THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, BASED UPON WHAT WE HEARD AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THIS CASE IS ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ANY COST AND BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE HAS ENLISTED THE SERVICES OF MANY, MANY POLICE AGENCIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, THE FBI, MANY LOCAL POLICE AGENCIES. THEY HAVE GONE AROUND THE WORLD TALKING TO WITNESSES. BUT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THEY FAILED TO GO NEXT DOOR TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE AND TALK TO A WITNESS THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT WHO PROVIDED HIM WITH AN ALIBI, AND THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES LIKE THAT AND WE WILL HAVE TO ONLY ASK OURSELVES WHY. LET ME JUST BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THE WITNESSES THAT THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT YESTERDAY AND THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT. THERE IS A LADY WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR AND WORKS NEXT DOOR TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM. THIS LADY WAS INTERVIEWED AS FAR BACK I THINK AS JULY. SHE INDICATED ESSENTIALLY THAT ON THIS NIGHT IN QUESTION SHE CAME OUT TO WALK HER DOG ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. SHE KNEW MR. SIMPSON, SHE KNEW HIS VOICE, SHE KNEW THE BRONCO. SHE HAD SEEN IT PARKED THERE MANY TIMES. SHE WILL INDICATE THAT WHEN SHE CAME OUT AND WALKED HER DOG, AT ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK, THAT BRONCO WAS PARKED AT THE CURB THERE AND IT WAS PARKED IN KIND OF A UNIQUE ANGLE SO THAT SHE NOTICED IT, WITH -- THE REAR WHEELS WERE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THE CURB. AND WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE -- AND I THINK THE COURT WILL PROBABLY SHARE WITH YOU AT SOME POINT YOU ARE GOING TO GET A CHANCE TO GO OUT TO EACH OF THESE SCENES TO SEE FOR YOURSELF THESE AREAS -- WHEN YOU COME OUT OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AND YOU MAKE YOUR TURN, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IT IS A QUICK TURN, SO YOU CAN'T LINE THE CAR UP QUITE LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO. BUT THIS LADY WILL TESTIFY THAT SHE WAS OUT WITH HER DOG AND SAW THAT BRONCO PARKED AT THAT PARTICULAR ANGLE AT ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK, 8:30 ON JUNE 12, 1994, SUNDAY EVENING. SHE WILL INDICATE TO YOU THAT SHE HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE AT OR ABOUT THE TIME HE AND MR. KATO KAELIN WENT TO MC DONALD'S TO GET THE HAMBURGER. THAT SHE COULD HEAR BECAUSE HER QUARTERS ARE RIGHT ACROSS THE FENCE THERE. THAT AFTER HE LEFT SHE HEARD SOMETHING VERY STRANGE. SHE HEARD A PROWLER THAT SHE DESCRIBED OUT THERE IN THE YARD WITH LIKE HARD SOLE SHOES AND SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROWLER IS WHAT HER STATEMENT WAS. SHE RELAXED WHEN SHE HEARD MR. SIMPSON RETURN BACK, COULD HEAR HIS VOICE BACK OVER IN THE YARD. SHE WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE THE PEOPLE SHE WORKS FOR WERE OUT OF TOWN AT THIS TIME. SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROWLER, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE LATER. SHE WENT ABOUT HER BUSINESS AND THEN SHE HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE AGAIN ABOUT ELEVEN O'CLOCK. SHE COULD HEAR HIS VOICE AT THAT TIME AS THOUGH HE WAS LEAVING. WE KNOW THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE HE WAS LEAVING TO GO ON A TRIP TO CHICAGO, A PRE-PLANNED TRIP, AND THEN SHE DIDN'T HEAR HIS VOICE ANY MORE. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT SHE TELLS US IS THAT AFTER MR. SIMPSON HAD LEFT, AFTER ELEVEN O'CLOCK, SHE HEARD MEN'S VOICES OVER ON THE SIMPSON PROPERTY BETWEEN TWELVE O'CLOCK UP UNTIL ABOUT 2:30 OR THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SHE HEARD THESE MEN'S VOICES OVER THERE TALKING AND SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. I HOPE I TOLD YOU THAT WHEN SHE CAME OUT TO WALK HER DOG AT 10:15 THAT SAME NIGHT SHE LOOKED AT THE BRONCO AND THE BRONCO WAS PARKED EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AT THAT CURB, SAME WAY. WHEN SHE SAW THE BRONCO THE NEXT MORNING IT WAS PARKED IN THAT SAME SPOT, THE SAME PLACE. AND ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THIS LADY IS THE FACT THAT THE MORNING OF JUNE 14, THAT MONDAY MORNING, POLICE OFFICERS CAME OVER TO HER RESIDENCE AND ASKED HER WHAT SHE HAD HEARD AND TO PUT HER ON ALERT THAT IF SHE FOUND ANY WEAPONS OR IF THE GARDENERS FOUND ANY WEAPONS, TO LET THEM KNOW, AND SHE CAN IDENTIFY THAT OFFICER AS DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN WILL PLAY AN INTEGRAL PART IN THIS CASE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. NOW, IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT THE PROSECUTION NEVER ONCE MENTIONED HIS NAME YESTERDAY. IT IS LIKE THEY JUST WANT TO HIDE HIM, BUT THEY CAN'T HIDE HIM, HE IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THIS CASE. WE CAN ONLY ASK OURSELVES WHY DIDN'T THEY MENTION HIM? I THINK THAT ANSWER WILL BECOME VERY CLEAR TO YOU AS THE CASE PROGRESSES. SHE WILL IDENTIFY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS THE PERSON WHO CAME OVER AND SPOKE WITH HER AND SHE TOLD HIM AT THAT TIME ABOUT HER OBSERVATIONS, ABOUT HEARING THIS PROWLER AND ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE HEARD THESE VOICES THAT WENT ON UNTIL ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T GO TO SLEEP UNTIL ABOUT 4:00 AND WHEN SHE WOKE UP IT WAS LIKE 7:30 OR 8:00 AND HE WAS THERE SHOWING HIS BADGE THROUGH THE DOOR. AND SHE SAW HIM ON TELEVISION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, SO THAT IS HOW SHE COULD IDENTIFY HIM. HE SAID THAT SOMEBODY FROM THE LAPD WILL GET BACK TO YOU, BUT THEY NEVER CAME BACK. THEY NEVER CAME BACK AT ALL BECAUSE THERE IS A RUSH TO JUDGMENT HERE. THERE IS ANOTHER WITNESS, MARYANNE GERCHAS, A VERY INTERESTING LADY, HAS HER OWN BUSINESS, AND ON THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT IN JUNE OF 1994, JUNE 12 AGAIN, SHE WANTED TO FIND A PLACE IN THE WEST LOS ANGELES BRENTWOOD AREA. SHE DROVE HER CAR AFTER SHE CLOSED UP HER BUSINESS ON SUNDAY EVENING AND WENT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WENT TO MASS AND WENT AND PARKED HER CAR AND SHE CAME OVER THERE ON BUNDY. VERY INTERESTING. BEFORE I TELL YOU WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY, LET ME TELL YOU HER CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MARYANNE GERCHAS, AFTER SHE BECAME AWARE THAT WHAT SHE HAD SEEN HAD SOME GREAT RELEVANCE TO THIS CASE, STARTED CALLING THE POLICE. SHE KEPT BEING TRANSFERRED AND TRANSFERRED AROUND, COULDN'T GET ANYBODY REALLY TO TALK TO HER.
FINALLY WHEN SHE FINALLY REACHED A POLICE OFFICER, THEY TOLD HER WE'VE GOT THAT CASE ALL WRAPPED UP AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR FROM ANYBODY ELSE, AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD SHE CALLED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SPOKE TO A PERSON WHOSE NAME WILL BE REVEALED DURING THE TESTIMONY, AND SHE DIDN'T FEEL SHE WAS TREATED QUITE APPROPRIATELY. IN FACT, SHE WILL SAY THAT THE PERSON PUT HER ON HOLD AND SAID, "EXCUSE ME, I'M TALKING TO A PSYCHIC RIGHT NOW AND I WILL GET BACK TO YOU." I GUESS IT WAS PART OF THAT HOTLINE THEY HAD. SO IT SEEMS THEY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN TALKING TO A PSYCHIC THAN TALKING TO HER. SO ULTIMATELY SHE CALLED THE DEFENSE AND WE TALKED TO HER, WALKED WITH HER OUT AT THE SCENE. HERE IS WHAT SHE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT. THAT ON JUNE 12, 1994, SOME TIME AFTER 10:30 IN THE EVENING, SHE IS WALKING DOWN BUNDY, SHE IS LOOKING -- IT IS A WARM NIGHT, SHE SAYS, AND SHE IS LOOKING FOR PLACES THAT HAVE SIGNS UP TO RENT OR TO LEASE, THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDO, YOU RECALL, IS ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, THE WEST SIDE, AND SHE IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET. AND AT ABOUT 10:45 P.M. SHE SEES FOUR MEN WHO COME WITHIN TEN FEET OF HER, TWO OF WHICH, GENTLEMEN, APPEARED TO BE HISPANIC, I THINK THE OTHERS ARE CAUCASIANS, SEVERAL OF WHICH I BELIEVE HAVE KNIT CAPS ON THEIR HEADS. THE TWO WHO ARE BEHIND APPARENTLY HAVE SOMETHING IN THEIR HANDS THEY ARE CARRYING. SHE THINKS THEY MAY BE UNDERCOVER POLICE, SHE DOESN'T KNOW. THEY GET INTO AN UNMARKED CAR AND THEY SPEED AWAY AND SHE SEES THEM. AND THAT IS WHAT THIS LADY WAS TRYING TO TELL THE POLICE, TRYING TO TELL THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, TRYING TO TELL ANYBODY WHO WOULD LISTEN, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO LISTEN, BECAUSE THEY MADE THEIR DECISION IN THIS RUSH TO JUDGMENT. THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES, THAT I WON'T BOTHER YOU RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE WILL TALK ABOUT THEM LATER ON IN THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT, THAT BEAR UPON THAT EVENING, BUT WE WILL JUST SAY TWO OF THEM BECAUSE IT SETS THE STAGE FOR MANY OF THE REMARKS MISS CLARK MADE YESTERDAY. YOU RECALL THAT IN HER OPENING STATEMENT, QUITE WELL DONE, MISS CLARK KEPT TELLING YOU THAT SHE HAD TO FIX THE TIME OF DEATH IN THIS CASE AT ABOUT, WHAT DID SHE SAY, ABOUT 10:15. SHE HAD TO MAKE IT 10:15 AND SHE MADE IT BASED UPON A DOG'S WAIL AND THIS IS THE FIRST CASE YOU WILL EVER HEAR WHERE THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY IS THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH BY A DOG'S WAIL, IN THIS MOST SCIENTIFIC OF ALL CASES, AND THERE IS A REASON WHY SHE WANTS THAT, BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO GIVE ENOUGH TIME FOR HER THEORY ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON TO WORK. BUT WE WILL PRODUCE FOR YOU -- AND HOPEFULLY ALL THESE WITNESSES WILL BE AVAILABLE. AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE, THESE WITNESSES ARE AFRAID. IT COULD BE BECAUSE OF ALL THE MEDIA ATTENTION. AND WHAT I SAY TO YOU IS WHAT THESE WITNESSES HAVE SAID TO US AT THIS POINT. TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TO MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT, THE SAME RESTAURANT, MR. DAN MANDEL AND MISS ELLEN ARRONSON, THEY HAVE BEEN ON A BLIND DATE, LIKE THEIR FIRST DATE, AND THEY ARE WALKING HOME. THEY WALK HOME AND THEY COME RIGHT DOWN BUNDY ALSO. IT IS VERY INTERESTING, AS THEY WALK DOWN BUNDY, THEY WALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET RIGHT PASSED 875, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE, AND THEY WALK PASSED THERE, AND IT IS INTERESTING, BECAUSE AS YOU SAW FROM THOSE PICTURES -- AND WE ALL APOLOGIZE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE PICTURES AND CERTAINLY TO THE FAMILY AND WE WANT TO BE AS CAREFUL AS WE CAN WITH THOSE PICTURES -- BUT IF YOU SAW THOSE PICTURES, YOU COULD SEE WITH THE GATE OPEN AND YOU WALK RIGHT PASSED, THE SIDEWALK COMES RIGHT DOWN AND THE BODIES WERE VERY VISIBLE WITH THE GATE OPEN. THEY DIDN'T SEE ANY GATE OPEN OR ANY BODIES OR ANYTHING AND IT WAS LIKE 10:25, 10:25 AT THAT POINT, SO WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THEIR THEORY ABOUT 10:15 AND THE DOGS? WHO ARE WE GOING -- WELL, I WON'T BE ARGUING THAT TO YOU. AT ANY RATE, THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT AT 10:25 THAT PEOPLE WHO WALK PASSED, WHO HAVE NO AX TO GRIND, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE, WHO THEY KNOW ABOUT AND WE KNOW ABOUT, DON'T SEE ANY CRIME HAVING BEEN COMMITTED. THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES WHO ARE GOING TO TESTIFY THEY DON'T HEAR ANY DOG BARKING AT 10:15 OR NO PLAINTIVE WAIL, WHATEVER THAT MEANS. SO IN THIS INITIAL PHASE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT WHAT I'VE TRIED TO SHARE WITH YOU IS THAT ALL OF US, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SHARE WITH YOU AND BE AS HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT AS WE CAN. IN THAT CONNECTION YOU WILL RECALL THAT MISS CLARK YESTERDAY TALKED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS ABOUT THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER AND WHAT HE SAW. YOU RECALL SHE SAID TO YOU THAT THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, WHEN HE CAME AND LEFT TO TAKE MR. SIMPSON TO THE AIRPORT, SHE TOLD YOU THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE BRONCO PARKED THERE. THAT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID IN HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE GRAND JURY AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ THAT TO YOU IF I MIGHT. HE SAYS THIS QUESTION:
"DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS THERE?
"ANSWER: I LOOKED TO THE RIGHT TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS COMING DOWN THE STREET.
"WELL, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU LOOKED" --
OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS TAKEN FROM A DIFFERENT PORTION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT.
THANK YOU. "DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS THERE?
"ANSWER: I LOOKED TO THE RIGHT TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CARS COMING DOWN THE STREET.
"WELL, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU LOOKED, MADE AN EFFORT TO SEE IF THERE WAS A CAR PARKED?
"ANSWER: NO. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A CAR THERE AND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT?
"CORRECT."
NOW, THAT IS UNDER OATH BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. WHAT HE SAYS THERE, THE SECOND TIME THIS MAN TESTIFIED:
"THEN DID YOU LEAVE?
"YES.
"WHAT GATE DID YOU LEAVE FROM?
"THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.
"AND WHICH WAY DID YOU GO ON ROCKINGHAM AS YOU EXITED THE GATE?
"I MADE A LEFT."
YOU WILL HAVE TO PICTURE THAT AS HE IS COMING OUT OF THE GATE HE IS IN THE DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT, HE IS GOING TO MAKE A LEFT; THE BRONCO WOULD BE TO THE RIGHT.
"AND WHICH WAY DID YOU GO ON ROCKINGHAM AS YOU EXITED THE GATE? "I MADE A LEFT.
"QUESTION: DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHETHER ANY CARS WERE PARKED ON THE RIGHT AS YOU FACED THE DRIVEWAY OF ROCKINGHAM OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE?
"ANSWER: I DIDN'T LOOK TO SEE.
"YOU WEREN'T LOOKING AT THE PARKED CARS?
"ANSWER: YEAH.
"YOU WERE LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE WAS TRAFFIC?
"ANSWER: YES, OF COURSE."
SO I USE THOSE EXAMPLES EARLY ON TO TALK ABOUT OUR CONTENTION THAT THERE IS THIS RUSH TO JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE, THAT WHEN MISS CLARK SAID YESTERDAY THAT THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO EXCLUDE MR. SIMPSON, WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE TRAILS THAT THEY DIDN'T PURSUE OR DIDN'T GO DOWN TODAY. WE ARE ALSO GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE, WHAT WE CALL THE LACK OF INTEGRITY OF MUCH OF THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE. YOU SAW YESTERDAY SOME PICTURES OF THE -- OF THIS CRIME SCENE, AND THE CRIME SCENE WAS CERTAINLY BLOODY, WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BUT I THINK YOU WILL FIND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE LAPD, IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM IN THIS CASE, ASSIGNED A TRAINEE NAMED MAZZOLLA WHO WAS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF COLLECTING THIS EVIDENCE. THIS WAS HER THIRD CRIME SCENE. AND CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU HEARD YESTERDAY FROM MISS CLARK, OUR EXPERTS -- AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF EXPERTS THAT WE WILL CALL TO TESTIFY. IN FACT, ONE OF OUR EXPERTS IS NAMED DR. KARY MULLIS. LET ME TELL YOU WHO DR. KARY MULLIS IS. DR. KARY MULLIS IS A DNA EXPERT. HE IS THE MAN WHO INVENTED PCR, POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION. HE IS THE MAN WHO RECEIVED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR THIS INVENTION. AND HE WILL COME IN HERE AND TELL YOU ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE, HOW SENSITIVE IT IS AND HOW THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE COLLECTION AND USE OF IT, THAT THIS IS BY ALL ACCOUNTS, 21ST CENTURY CYBERSPACE TECHNOLOGY THAT IS USED BY THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS WITH COVERED WAGON TECHNOLOGY.
AND SO WHEN MISS CLARK TELLS YOU YESTERDAY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE -- LIKE COOKING OR DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SHE SAID SHE WASN'T AN EXPERT, AND I AGREE NOW ON THAT AT LEAST -- SHE IS AN EXPERT LAWYER, BUT NOT IN THIS AREA -- THE EXPERTS WILL SAY THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE. AND SO THE COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE BECOMES VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO HIDE FUHRMAN YESTERDAY -- THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PICTURES YESTERDAY OF AN OFFICER LEANING DOWN POINTING AT THE GLOVE AND THE CAP AND EVERYTHING AND YOU NOTICE THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT IT, THAT WAS OFFICER FUHRMAN. NEVER BOTHERED TO MENTION HIS NAME, NEVER BOTHERED WITH THAT. AND SO WE HAVE THEN THIS CONCEPT OF THE PROSECUTION'S THEORIES. YOU HEARD MR. DARDEN STAND UP AND TELL YOU HIS THEORY OF HOW THIS HAPPENED, AND THE THEORY IS ONLY GOOD UNTIL THE FACTS COME ALONG AND MAKE CLEAR TO YOU WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. AND SO WE THINK THAT IF YOU KEEP AN OPEN MIND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THESE THEORIES AND THEN APPLY THE FACTS, WHICH IS YOUR JOB AS THE SOLE EXCLUSIVE JUDGES OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. NOW, MR. DARDEN, WHEN HE ADDRESS YOU YESTERDAY, SPENT A LONG PERIOD OF TIME TALKING ABOUT MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S MARRIAGE TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND HE TOLD YOU A NUMBER OF THINGS. HE TOLD YOU HOW, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THIS WAS LIKE A TERRIBLE MARRIAGE AND THAT ALL KIND OF BAD THINGS HAPPENED, AND THESE PEOPLE WERE TOGETHER SEVENTEEN YEARS AND IT WAS JUST -- JUST TERRIBLE ALL SEVENTEEN YEARS. I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IS NOT EXACTLY TRUE. HE TOLD YOU HOW MR. SIMPSON WAS IN, HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE IT, AN UGLY MOOD ON JUNE 12, 1994. HE TOLD YOU ALSO THAT MR. SIMPSON CAME THERE WITH SOME FLOWERS, BUT WE WILL FORGIVE HIM FOR THAT. MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T COME WITH FLOWERS. THE TESTIMONY WILL BE HE WAS THERE, HE LEFT AND WENT AND GOT THE FLOWERS AND THEN CAME BACK. BUT LET ME TRY TO SHOW YOU GRAPHICALLY MR. SIMPSON WITH HIS DAUGHTER. AND YOUR HONOR, I AM NOW REFERRING TO A PHOTOGRAPH AND I NEED TO CHECK WITH MY COLLEAGUES, AND I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE DEFENDANT'S 1, IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW, WHICHEVER.
DEFENSE 1. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS SWEET LITTLE DAUGHTER, SYDNEY BROOK SIMPSON, SHORTLY AFTER THIS CONCERT AT PAUL REVERE HIGH SCHOOL. THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN, AND I THINK YOU WILL EVEN SEE THE DATE, 6/12/94. THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN BY A DR. RON FICHMAN WHO WAS AT THAT PARTICULAR RECITAL. THEY WERE ALL FRIENDS. HE WILL TELL YOU THAT SINCE MR. DARDEN WASN'T THERE, HE HAS GOT HIS FACTS ALL WRONG. O.J. SIMPSON, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY, WAS NOT IN ANY UGLY MOOD. HE TALKED TO RON FICHMAN, HE WAS THERE TO SEE HIS CHILD, AND YOU WILL HEAR THAT HE CAME BACK TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FROM NEW YORK CITY WHERE HE WAS ON BUSINESS, HE WAS OUT OF TOWN ALMOST ALL THAT WEEK, SPECIFICALLY TO TRY AND COME TO THIS RECITAL. HE HAD TO LEAVE RIGHT AFTER THIS TO GO TO CHICAGO. HE WAS ALREADY BACK EAST IN NEW YORK. AND WE WILL PRODUCE A FRIEND WHO TOLD HIM WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY BACK HERE, AND MR. SIMPSON TOLD HIM "I MISSED MY DAUGHTER'S FIRST COMMUNION BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF TOWN ON BUSINESS, SO I WANT TO GO TO THIS DANCE RECITAL" AND THAT IS WHAT HE DID. DOES THAT LOOK LIKE HE IS IN AN UGLY MOOD THERE? AND YOU WILL SEE THE TWO OF THEM THERE AT THAT POINT. WHEREVER WE CAN WE ARE GOING TO BRING TO YOU THE FACTS VERSUS THEIR SPECULATIONS AND THEORIES WITH THIS MAN.
THEY DON'T KNOW THIS MAN. WITH THE EVIDENCE, YOU WILL KNOW HIM, BY THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CASE. AND SO MR. DARDEN KIND OF APOLOGIZES AT THE END AND SAYS THIS ISN'T CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THAT. WHO SAID IT WAS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION? BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS. SO AT THE VERY END WHEN HE SAID IT WASN'T CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE HAD DONE FOR AN HOUR TO O.J. SIMPSON. HE IS NOT CHARGED WITH ANY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THIS IS A MURDER CASE. AND IN THEY PURSUIT TO WIN THEY ARE TRYING TO DREDGE UP SOME THEORY TO GIVE YOU A MOTIVE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A MOTIVE FOR THIS AND THESE PARTICULAR CRIMES. AND WHO IS TO SAY THAT THOSE FOUR MEN WE SAW RUNNING FROM THE AREA OF 875 HADN'T FOLLOWED MR. RON GOLDMAN THERE, AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING FOR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?
EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. YOUR HONOR, I INTERJECT ONCE AGAIN ON THE GROUNDS PREVIOUSLY STATED. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE. THIS IS NOT A RECITATION OF EVIDENCE. WE HAVE GONE BEYOND THE NORMAL SCOPE OF OPENING STATEMENT.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOT A LITTLE SIDETRACKED THERE. LET ME SEE. I THINK I WAS INDICATING TO YOU WHO IS TO SAY, BASED UPON THE FACTS IN THIS CASE AND THE EVIDENCE, THAT THOSE FOUR MEN THAT MARYANNE GERCHAS WILL TESTIFY ABOUT HADN'T FOLLOWED MR. RON GOLDMAN TO THAT LOCATION? ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY THAT IS NOT TRUE THAT THEY TOLD YOU, MISS CLARK TOLD YOU THAT MR. RON GOLDMAN CHECKED OUT OF WORK AND HE WAS GOING TO COME OVER AND DO A FAVOR FOR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON TO BRING THE GLASSES, AND SHE DESCRIBED FOR YOU HOW HE WAS DRESSED. I THINK SHE SAID WITH SOME WHITE SHIRT AND BLACK PANTS OR WHATEVER AND THAT HE THEN CAME OVER TO THE RESIDENCE. YOU SAW THOSE PICTURES, AS TERRIBLE AS THEY WERE. HE WAS IN SOME JEANS AND SOME KIND OF SHOES THAT ARE FAR DIFFERENT. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE HE WENT HOME, DROPPED OFF A BOOK, CHANGED CLOTHES BEFORE HE CAME TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. BUT THE REASON THAT YOU WEREN'T TOLD THOSE FACTS IS BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT THEY KEEP THIS 10:15 TIME. THEY HAVE GOT TO KEEP EVERYTHING SQUASHED IN THERE SO THEY COULD TELL YOU, OH, HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO COMMIT THIS CRIME. WHEN WE CONCLUDE TODAY YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THERE WAS NO TIME TO COMMIT THIS CRIME.
AND SO TO WRAP UP THIS PART ABOUT THE SO-CALLED CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OR WHATEVER, WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO, AS WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IS TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD BOTH SIDES. THEY MAY TRY TO BRING OUT INCIDENTS ABOUT THIS MARRIAGE. AND THESE PEOPLE DID DIVORCE IN 1992, AND UNFORTUNATELY IN OUR SOCIETY THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY DIVORCES. PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS GET ALONG AND WE SOMETIMES GET DIVORCED. SOME OF YOU PROBABLY HAVE GOTTEN DIVORCED AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS. BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND, BUT I THINK PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THIS WHOLE AREA IS THIS AS A RESPONSE TO MR. DARDEN: THERE IS AN EXPERT IN THE UNITED STATES WHOSE NAME IS DR. LENORE WALKER. SHE IS BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE NO. 1 EXPERT IN AMERICA ON THE FIELD OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SHE HAS BEEN CALLED BY SOME THE MOTHER OF THE BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME. NOW, THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY, BUT LENORE WALKER WILL BE A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE, AND I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT HER AND HER TESTIMONY, BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE RELEVANT AS WE TALK ABOUT MR. DARDEN AND WHAT HE HAS TO SAY ON THIS AREA.
WE KNOW THAT MR. DARDEN IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA; HE IS A LAWYER CONVEYING THE FACTS AS HE UNDERSTOOD THEM, BUT HE WASN'T THERE. DR. LENORE WALKER, THIS NO. 1 EXPERT IN AMERICA, PERHAPS IN THE WORLD, IN THIS CONCEPT, HAS SEEN AND INTERVIEWED AND TESTED MR. SIMPSON. SHE HASN'T CONCLUDED ALL THE TESTING YET, BUT SHE WILL TESTIFY TO YOU ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS WHEN SHE IS COMPLETED, BUT SHE HAS AND DOES HAVE SOME FEELINGS ABOUT THIS CASE AND ABOUT MR. DARDEN'S REMARKS. IN FACT, AS AN EXPERT SHE IS PERMITTED TO WATCH MR. DARDEN AND SHE WATCHED HIM YESTERDAY AND SHE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO SHARE WITH ME LAST NIGHT WHAT HER THOUGHTS WERE.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. HE SAID HE IS GOING TO OFFER TO THE JURY MISS WALKER'S FEELINGS ABOUT MY SPECIFIC COMMENT YESTERDAY. MY OPENING STATEMENT WAS NOT EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. MISS WALKER OUGHT TO CONFINE HER OPINIONS TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, AND THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND IT HAS BEEN ARGUMENTATIVE.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. DR. WALKER, ALONG WITH A NUMBER OF US IN THE COURTROOM WHEN MR. DARDEN WAS SPEAKING YESTERDAY, FELT THAT IT IS OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN TO SAY THAT THEY NEVER HAD A JOB.
IF SHE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY AS TO HER ANALYSIS OF MR. SIMPSON OR WHAT HER TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE, THAT IS ONE THING. COMMENTARY ABOUT MR. DARDEN IS SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU ARE ABSOLUTE RIGHT, AND LET ME RESTATE THAT IN A POSITIVE WAY, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO MR. DARDEN'S STATEMENTS YESTERDAY, YOU RECALL MR. DARDEN SAID THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON NEVER HELD A JOB AND HE WANTED TO PAINT THIS PICTURE OF HER BEING TOTALLY UNDER CONTROL AND BEING CONTROLLED BY O.J. SIMPSON, AND UNDER HIS THUMB AND THAT SORT OF THING. WELL, I THINK THAT SOME OF US WOULD FEEL THAT SOMEBODY WHO RAISES TWO CHILDREN, WHO IS AN EXCELLENT MOTHER, THAT IS A PRETTY MAJOR JOB, BEING A HOMEMAKER, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT NICOLE SIMPSON WAS A BARBIE DOLL THAT WOULD JUST MAKE IN THEIR OWN MOLD, BECAUSE EVEN IN DARDEN'S STATEMENT HE SAID THIS WAS A STRONG TOUGH LADY AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE. BUT WITH REGARD TO THIS WHOLE ASPECT OF BATTERING, IN THIS CASE LET ME SAY UP FRONT THAT MR. SIMPSON IS NOT PROUD AT ALL OF THE FACT THAT HE AND HIS WIFE GOT INTO AN ALTERCATION AND SHE WAS STRUCK ON JANUARY 1ST, 1989. HE IS NOT PROUD OF THAT. IN FACT, IN THE COURSE OF THIS EVIDENCE YOU ARE GOING TO SEE PERHAPS THREE LETTERS THAT HE WROTE APOLOGIZING TO HIS WIFE, BUT WHAT MR. DARDEN AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE HASN'T SHOWN YOU SO FAR WAS THAT FROM 1989, JANUARY 1ST, 1989, HE MADE A BIG THING OUT OF THAT, FROM THAT DAY FORWARD, TO THE PRESENT DATE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT O.J. SIMPSON EVER STRUCK HIS WIFE AGAIN. YOU SHOULD NEVER STRIKE YOUR WIFE, BUT EVEN WHEN HE MADE A MISTAKE ON JANUARY 1ST, '89, HE PAID HIS DEBT FOR THAT. HE WENT TO COURT AND HE PLED NOLO CONTENDERE. HE PLED NO CONTEST FOR THAT. HE WAS SENTENCED TO COMMUNITY SERVICE AND HE REPAID HIS DEBT. NOW, THEY WANT TO RETRY HIM, I SUPPOSE. THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT AFTER THAT THERE IS NOT ANY TOUCHING. IN FACT, O.J. SIMPSON DID SOMETHING ELSE. AFTER THAT INCIDENT HE WAS SO CONTRITE THAT HE HAD A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. THEY GOT A DIVORCE, WHAT HER SHARE WOULD BE, AND HE WENT AND HE HAD HIS LAWYER PUT IN WRITING, WHICH WAS LATER SIGNED BY HER, THAT IF I EVER STRIKE YOU AGAIN THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT IS VOIDABLE, AND UNTIL THE DATE OF HER DEATH THAT AGREEMENT WAS NEVER MADE VOID OR VOIDABLE. NOW, THOSE ARE THE FACTS. AND SO WHEN DR. WALKER COMES AND TESTIFIES TO YOU SHE WILL TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT LIFE THREATENING VIOLENCE USUALLY PRECEDES A HOMICIDE INCIDENT AND SHE DOES NOT FIND THAT IN THIS CASE. SHE WILL, I BELIEVE, TESTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, APPROXIMATELY TWO AND ONE-HALF MILLION WOMEN ARE BATTERED IN THIS COUNTRY EVERY YEAR, AN INTOLERABLE SITUATION. STATISTICS INDICATE, HOWEVER, THAT BETWEEN 1200 AND 4000 OF THOSE WOMEN ARE KILLED. THAT IS 1200 TO 4000 OF THE TWO AND ONE-HALF MILLION BATTERED. DR. WALKER WILL TESTIFY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THESE STATISTICS TO PROVE THAT ANYBODY WHO ALLEGEDLY BATTERS BECOMES A MURDERER. YOU MIGHT LIKEN IT TO AN EXAMPLE OF SMOKING. SOMEBODY MAY GET LUNG CANCER. THE FACT THAT THEY GET LUNG CANCER MAY MEAN THEY SMOKE AND MAY NOT, BUT IF YOU SMOKE, I CAN'T AUTOMATICALLY PREDICT YOU ARE GOING TO GET LUNG CANCER. AND SO THIS IS NOT A PREDICTABLE SCIENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LADY WHO IS THE MOTHER OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND ALTHOUGH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A VERY, VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY, THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE IN THIS CASE, THE PATTERN IS ATYPICAL. ATYPICAL MEANS UNTYPICAL OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS WHERE A LETHAL INCIDENT OFTEN OCCURS. FOR INSTANCE, STALKERS DON'T GO ALL ACROSS THE UNITED STATES WORKING DOING COMMERCIALS, SHOOTING MOVIES, HAVING A NEW GIRLFRIEND AND GOING ON WITH THEIR LIFE AND DOING ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO FIND THIS EVIDENCE IS ABOUT. THEY DON'T HAVE A NEW GIRLFRIEND BY THE NAME OF PAULA BARBIERI WHO YOU HAVE BEEN VERY SERIOUS ABOUT FROM THE TIME -- FROM APRIL OF 1992 TO APRIL OF 1993 UNTIL NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ASKED TO RECONCILE AND GET BACK TOGETHER. SHE DID IT IN THIS WAY:
SHE SENT TO MR. SIMPSON, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A VIDEO OF THEIR MARRIAGE, A VIDEO OF THE BIRTH OF THEIR CHILDREN, ACCOMPANIED BY A LONG LETTER SPELLING OUT HOW MUCH SHE WANTED TO GET BACK WITH THIS FAMILY. NOW, I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IS NOT STALKING. MR. SIMPSON'S RESPONSE WAS WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST, I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND NOW, I'M HAPPY, LET'S TAKE OUR TIME ABOUT THIS. BUT SHE PURSUED. SHE FOLLOWED UP ON THAT. SHE PURSUED. SHE WANTED TO MOVE BACK TO ROCKINGHAM. SHE DIDN'T LIKE THE HOUSEKEEPER THERE. SHE WANTED TO FIRE HER. MICHELLE IS HER NAME. AND ULTIMATELY SHE GOT INTO AN ALTERCATION AND STRUCK MICHELLE. HE DIDN'T WANT TO FIRE MICHELLE. ULTIMATELY MICHELLE DID LEAVE AFTER BEING STRUCK. IT WAS HER WHO PURSUED THIS IN MAY OF 1993 UNTIL MAY OF 1994. AND WHEN MR. DARDEN TALKED TO YOU YESTERDAY, HE DIDN'T MENTION THAT AND WE WILL CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT TO YOU SO THAT WHEN DR. WALKER TALKS TO YOU ABOUT STALKERS DEMONSTRATE OBSESSIVE BEHAVIOR, THAT CONCENTRATES ON CONTROLLING THE WOMAN AT ALL TIMES AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH MAKING A NEW LIFE, BEGINNING A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH A WOMAN SUCH AS PAULA BARBIERI, TRAVELING AWAY FROM HOME ON BUSINESS ASSIGNMENTS. ALL OF THOSE THINGS GO AGAINST ANY IDEA OF STALKING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE YOU ALSO BELIEVE IN THIS CASE. DR. WALKER WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT THERE IS A MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WEALTHY PERSON WHO GIVES GIFTS, SOMEONE WHO USES MATERIAL POSSESSIONS TO GAIN POWER, AND SO THE PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT IF MR. SIMPSON GIVES NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON A GIFT, SOMETHING THAT HE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WILL COME OUT IN THIS CASE. BEFORE MR. SIMPSON EVER GOT MARRIED TO HIS WIFE HE BOUGHT HER A CONDOMINIUM IN SAN FRANCISCO AND PAID $500,000 FOR IT AND GAVE IT TO HER FREE AND CLEAR IN HER NAME SO SHE COULD HAVE MONEY UP TO $3,000 A MONTH. HE NEVER EVER SAW ANY OF THAT MONEY, WANTED ANY OF THAT MONEY. THERE WHERE NO STRINGS ATTACHED. THIS IS BEFORE THEY GOT MARRIED. AND LATER ON IN THIS DISCUSSION I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT I CALL HIS CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE, THOSE WHO HAVE COME WITHIN THE AMBIT AND THAT SPHERE OF O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS PHILANTHROPIC LARGESSE, WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR THEM, AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS. THIS $500,000 CONDO FREE AND CLEAR. HE GAVE HER SOME MORE MONEY TO BUY THE CONDO ON BUNDY. THESE ARE ALL HER OWN SEPARATE THINGS WHILE THEY ARE STILL SEPARATED. HE ASKED FOR NO CONTROL. SHE HAD HER OWN BANK ACCOUNTS. HE GAVE HER $4,000 A MONTH FOR FOOD AT THE HOUSE AND HE PAID ALL OF THE BILLS WHEN THEY WERE TOGETHER. LET ME TALK ABOUT THIS CIRCLE OF BENEVOLENCE WHILE WE ARE ON IT RIGHT NOW. IT EXTENDED NOT JUST TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, BUT TO HER FAMILY, TO MR. LOU BROWN. HE HELPED HIM BECOME A HERTZ LICENSEE AT THE RITZ CARLTON IN LAGUNA BEACH FOR SEVEN YEARS. THE SISTERS, DOMINIQUE, PAID THE TUITION FOR DOMINIQUE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AT USC UNTIL SHE DROPPED OUT. PAID THE TUITION FOR TONYA, THE OTHER SISTER, FOR SAN DIEGO STATE FOR A YEAR OR SO UNTIL SHE DROPPED OUT. THERE IS A COUSIN, ROTH BAUER, WHO WORKED FOR SEVEN YEARS IN MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S CHICKEN FRANCHISE, PIONEER CHICKEN FRANCHISES. THE MOTHER JUDITHA WAS A TRAVEL AGENT. HE GAVE HER HIS BUSINESS AND ENCOURAGED HIS FRIENDS TO DO LIKEWISE. THIS MAN HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS IN-LAWS. HE DID WONDERFUL THINGS FOR HIM, TOOK THEM ALL ON TRIPS, PAID THEIR WAY, TOOK THEM ALL OUT TO DINNER, THEY WOULD GO TO HAWAII AND CABO SAN LUCAS. THIS IS THE SAME MAN THAT MR. DARDEN WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT. MR. DARDEN SAYS SHE NEVER WORKED. O.J. SIMPSON ENCOURAGED HER TO BECOME A DECORATOR. SHE BECAME A DECORATOR. HE HELPED HER GET JOBS FROM HIS FRIENDS. SHE REDECORATED THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE TO THE TUNE OF ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS AND HE PAID HER, HIS PAID HIS OWN WIFE A FEE TO DECORATE THE HOUSE. THIS MAN THAT DARDEN WAS TALKING ABOUT, THIS MAN GIVES $5,000 EVERY YEAR TO THE ANGEL CITY LINKS, THE INNER CITY BLACK ORGANIZATION, AND THE ONLY CONDITION OF HIS GIFT EVERY YEAR IS IT HAS TO BE ANONYMOUS, THAT HE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO KNOW HE DOES THIS. THE THING THAT HE IS PERHAPS PROUDEST ABOUT ARE THESE THINGS, TWO THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT. NO. 1 WAS HIS MOTHER EUNICE SIMPSON. AS SOON AS SHE WAS ABLE HE BOUGHT HER A HOUSE. SHE STILL LIVES IN THAT HOUSE IN SAN FRANCISCO. THIS IS A MAN 47 YEARS OLD WHO GREW UP IN THE POOR AREAS OF SAN FRANCISCO IN POTRERO HILLS, BUT HE NEVER GOT -- HE BECAME RICH AND FAMOUS, BUT HE DIDN'T FORGET, SO THAT TO THIS DAY HE BUYS THE UNIFORMS FOR THE KIDS AT THE POTRERO HILL GYMNASIUM WHERE THE KIDS GO TO WORK OUT. HE STILL DOES THAT EVEN RIGHT NOW EVEN WHILE IN HIS JAIL CELL. BOUGHT HIS MOTHER'S HOUSE. YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THOSE KIND OF THINGS. AND THE SECOND THING HE IS MOST PROUD ABOUT IS THAT HE HAD A CHILD WHO DROWNED AT A YOUNG AGE, AND THAT IS ALWAYS A TRAGEDY, YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT, AND THE PRONOUNCED AFFECT THAT IT HAD ON HIM, AND AFTER THAT HE BECAME INVOLVED IN ALL THESE KIND OF PEDIATRIC ENDEAVORS AND HE HAS PARTICIPATED IN RAISING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR CAMP GOOD TIME, FOR KIDS WHO HAVE CANCER. HE IS VERY PROUD ABOUT THAT AND THERE IS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT. PEOPLE WHO KNOW HIM, NOT PEOPLE WHO SPECULATE ABOUT HIM, WILL COME IN AND TESTIFY ABOUT THOSE THINGS. AND SO WHEN DR. WALKER TELLS YOU THAT FOR A WEALTHY PERSON TO GIVE GIFTS DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE EXERCISING ANY CONTROL. ONE OF THE SISTERS NEEDED SOME MONEY, UP TO $5,000, AND HE GAVE IT TO THE SISTER AND HER BOYFRIEND AND THE CONDITION WAS DON'T TELL NICOLE. THAT IS A LOT OF CONTROL, ISN'T IT? SO WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT THEORIES, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE FACTS. SO YOU WILL HEAR FROM DR. WALKER AND YOU WILL HEAR ULTIMATELY ABOUT THE BATTERY OF TESTS AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT SHE WILL SAY THAT IN LOOKING AT O.J. SIMPSON AND INTERVIEWING HIM, IN LOOKING AT HIM, AT THIS POINT SHE FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE. AND UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NO JANEY COME LATELY. THIS IS THE LEADING LADY IN AMERICA WHO TESTIFIES IN THESE KIND CASES WHERE A BATTERED WOMAN SHOOTS AND KILLS HER HUSBAND, SO THIS IS AN AREA WHERE OBVIOUSLY YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO SEE HER QUALIFICATIONS AND HER ABILITY AS SHE GOES ABOUT THIS. NOW, BACK TO MR. DARDEN'S DISCUSSION, HE TELLS YOU A NUMBER OF THINGS AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AT LEAST SOME OF THEM WITH YOU NOW. WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED THE SO-CALLED UGLY MOOD BY SHOWING YOU THE PHOTOGRAPH. WE HAVE COVERED THE ASPECT OF THE FLOWERS BECAUSE MR. SIMPSON DID GET FLOWERS, BUT HE WENT OUT AND GOT THOSE FLOWERS. WE WILL COVER THE ASPECT -- LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT MR. SIMPSON AT THAT PARTICULAR RECITAL. I HAVE TOLD YOU HOW HE CAME BACK TO CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY TO GO TO THAT RECITAL, THAT HE HAD COME INTO PAUL REVERE AT FIVE O'CLOCK AND SAW HIS EX-WIFE AND HE HAD TO GET HIS TICKET AND TAKE HIS TICKET BACK TO THE PERSON AT THE DOOR, THAT HIS DAUGHTER WAS 30 OF SOMETHING ON THE PROGRAM, AND YOU HAVE BEEN TO PROGRAMS WHERE THE CHILD IS GOING TO COME UP AND THERE IS PROBABLY A HUNDRED PEOPLE THERE AND YOUR CHILD IS 99TH AND SHE WAS LIKE 30 SOMETHING, AND SHE WAS AT THE VERY END, AND AS A PARENT YOU SIT THERE AND YOU ARE REALLY PROUD OF THE YOUNGSTERS AND YOU DO THAT. AS THE PROGRAM WAS GOING HE REMEMBERED THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY FLOWERS WHEN HE FIRST GOT THERE AND HE WAS SITTING -- HE WAS TWO SEATS AWAY FROM HIS EX-WIFE, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. HE WASN'T STARING AT ANYBODY. HE WASN'T GLARING AT ANYBODY. HE WASN'T JEALOUS ABOUT ANYTHING. IN FACT, YOU WILL HEAR THE CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH RON GOLDMAN. HE WAS STILL IN THE GROUP, THERE WAS A GROUP OF THEM WHO RAN AROUND TOGETHER IN BRENTWOOD, AND O.J. SIMPSON WAS COMMISERATING WITH RON GOLDMAN ABOUT HIS PROBLEMS HE WAS HAVING. PLEASE FORGIVE ME. RON FICHMAN, EXCUSE ME. I HEARD THOSE SOUNDS, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. RON FICHMAN, HE IS THE MAN WHO TOOK THIS PICTURE HERE. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS PROBLEMS WITH CORA FICHMAN AND THE GROUP THAT RAN AROUND TOGETHER. THE TESTIMONY WILL BE THAT HE WAS SAYING I'M GLAD TO BE OUT OF IT, I'M BACK WITH PAULA. AND WAS HE BACK WITH PAULA? YES, HE IS BACK WITH PAULA. THE NIGHT BEFORE -- BEFORE THIS TRIAL IS OVER, WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER PICTURE, BUT THIS PICTURE WILL DO FOR NOW. BY THE WAY, MR. DOUGLAS IS GOING TO HELP US BECAUSE THERE ARE GRAPHICS AND THINGS. I HOPE YOU WILL BEAR WITH US. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SEEN THIS PICTURE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THIS AGAIN?
THEN THIS IS THEN 201 AND NO. 201 IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF O.J. SIMPSON. THIS PHOTOGRAPH, THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY, WAS TAKEN ON JUNE 11, ON SATURDAY JUNE 11. THAT IS A CHARITABLE FUND-RAISER, I THINK $25,000, BY THE WAY, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ISRAEL AND THAT IS O.J. SIMPSON THERE. AND ON THAT NIGHT, SATURDAY JUNE 11, HE WENT WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND, PAULA BARBIERI, WHO HAD PICKED HIM UP AT THE AIRPORT ON FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 10TH, WHEN HE CAME BACK FROM WORKING IN THE EAST FROM NEW YORK AND THEY SPENT THAT TIME TOGETHER AND THEY WENT OUT SATURDAY EVENING. SO THIS PICTURE AGAIN IS GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF O.J. SIMPSON AND WHO HE REALLY IS. IT SEEMS TO US AS I SAID, THERE IS ANOTHER PICTURE OF PAULA BARBIERI WITH HIM THERE THAT WE DON'T HAVE YET, BUT WE WILL. NOW, MR. DARDEN TALKED A LOT ABOUT MISS SIMPSON BEING WEAK AND THAT HE EXERCISED ALL THIS CONTROL OVER HER AND PICKED HER FRIENDS. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IS A VERY STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN, VERY ATTRACTIVE AND A WONDERFUL WOMAN, AND THE ONE THING THEY NEVER HAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT WERE THOSE BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, AND THEY BOTH LOVED THOSE BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, AND THAT WAS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, IT SEEMS, TO BOTH OF THEM. THAT SHE PICKED AND CHOSE HER OWN FRIENDS, THAT O.J. SIMPSON OR NO ONE ELSE COULD TELL HER WHO HER FRIENDS WERE TO BE. SHE HAD WHATEVER FRIENDS SHE WANTED, SHE DID WHATEVER SHE WANTED. HE TELLS YOU ABOUT TWO INCIDENTS WHERE HE ALLEGES THERE IS STALKING. LET ME TELL YOU THE FACTS AND THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT THOSE INCIDENTS BACKED UP WITH WITNESSES. THERE IS A MAN IN LOS ANGELES NAMED JOE STELLINI WHO OWNS A RESTAURANT ON THE WEST SIDE OUT ON PICO, HE'S A GOOD FRIEND OF O.J. SIMPSON'S, AND THEY WENT OUT TO DINNER ONE NIGHT AND WHILE OUT TO DINNER THEY BECAME AWARE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IN THEIR PARTY. THIS IS A TIME WHEN THEY WERE SEPARATED. AND THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT GENERALLY THAT IF ONE OR THE OTHER CAME IN WHILE THEY WERE THERE, THE PERSON WHO WAS THERE FIRST WOULD LEAVE OR WHATEVER, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEMS. THE INCIDENT REGARDING JOE STELLINI HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR HER PARTY. HE WAS OUT TO DINNER. THEY MIGHT FREQUENT THE SAME KIND OF PLACES. YOU WILL HEAR FROM JOE STELLINI AND YOU WILL SEE THERE IS NOT ANY INCIDENT ABOUT ANY STALKING. THE OTHER INCIDENT WAS ABOUT MEZZALUNA. I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN INCIDENT WHERE THEY WERE BOTH AT THIS RESTAURANT, MRS. SIMPSON'S PARTY HAD ALREADY BEEN SEATED WHEN HE CAME IN, AND AGAIN YOU WILL HEAR FROM THESE PARTIES WHO WILL TELL YOU THAT THESE WERE NOT ANY STALKING INCIDENTS. IF YOU LIVE IN BRENTWOOD AND THERE ARE RESTAURANTS IN THAT AREA AND YOU GO OUT TO DINNER A LOT, YOU ARE GOING TO RUN INTO EACH OTHER. AND THERE WAS NO HOSTILITY, NO STALKING, NO JEALOUSY, NO NOTHING. AND SO HE TRIES TO PAINT O.J. SIMPSON AS A JEALOUS MAN. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ABOUT THAT. YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS INCIDENT OF KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH, I'M SURE, WHO IS A WITNESS WHO IS GOING TO BE CALLED. MR. DARDEN DESCRIBED IT. AND REMEMBER HE SAID YESTERDAY, WELL, HE DIDN'T PUNCH OUT NICOLE AND HE DIDN'T PUNCH OUT KEITH, OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T. WHAT HAPPENED WAS MR. SIMPSON, IN ONE OF THESE INCIDENTS, HAD SEEN HIS EX-WIFE OUT, THEY WENT OUT DANCING AFTERWARD, AND HE STOPPED BY HER HOUSE AFTERWARDS TO TRY TO TALK TO HER. HE WOULD GO BY ON OCCASION. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT WHEN THEY FIRST BROKE UP, HE IS ADVISED IN JANUARY OF 1992 THAT SHE WANTED A DIVORCE. IN JANUARY AND APRIL OF 1992 IT WAS HARD ON HIM. HE HAD KNOWN SOMEBODY FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE HER. HE LIKES FAMILY. HE LEARNED THAT FROM HIS MOTHER AND HE LIKES THAT. HE HAS THIS FAMILY AND HE LOVES HIS CHILDREN AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE HIS WIFE. BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED IN APRIL OF 1992, AS SOON AS THAT HE BECAME AWARE THAT SHE HAD A BOYFRIEND, FROM THAT POINT ON HIS INTERESTS CHANGED AND HE WENT ON, AND WHEN HE SAW WHAT HE SAW WITH KEITH AND MRS. SIMPSON, HE THEN WENT ON WITH HIS LIFE WITH PAULA. THAT IS WHEN IT STARTED, IN APRIL OF 1992. AND SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS HE WASN'T PEERING IN ANY WINDOWS. HE CAME TO THE FRONT DOOR TO TRY TO SEE HIS WIFE AND HE LOOKED IN AND HE SAW HIS WIFE MAKING LOVE TO A GENTLEMAN ON THAT COUCH. NOW, ACCORDING TO CHRIS DARDEN, WOULDN'T YOU EXPECT THAT HE WOULD JUST BLOW UP, BECOME BALLISTIC? HE WENT HOME, THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, HE CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY TO TALK TO MRS. SIMPSON ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE KIDS WERE UPSTAIRS AND WHAT HE SAW THEM DOING HE DIDN'T THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF ONE OF THE KIDS CAME DOWNSTAIRS. SO WHEN HE CAME BACK ON THE NEXT DAY OF THIS INCIDENT HE SAW KEITH I THINK SITTING ASTRIDE MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, GIVING HER A MASSAGE OR SOMETHING IN HER SHOULDERS. O.J. SIMPSON TALKED TO BOTH OF THEM, SHOOK KEITH'S HAND, WENT ON HIS WAY AND SAID ESSENTIALLY, LOOK, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS IN FRONT OF THE KIDS OR WHATEVER. THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH MOVED IN WITH NICOLE THAT SUMMER, BUT O.J. SIMPSON WAS BACK WITH PAULA. IT DIDN'T BOTHER HIM. HE KNEW SHE WAS THERE, THAT KEITH WAS THERE. WAS HE STALKING? WAS HE JEALOUS? WAS THAT A RAGE? I THINK NOT.
SO AGAIN, I WANT YOU TO TAKE THESE FACTS AND LOOK AT THEM. BUT THERE IS AN EVEN MORE PAINFUL INCIDENT PROBABLY THAT TELLS YOU THAT HE IS NOT JEALOUS. HE HAS A VERY CLOSE FRIEND, SOMEBODY WHO IS VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO HIM, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, WHO HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON BECAUSE SHE TOLD HIM SO WHEN THEY GOT BACK TOGETHER, AND THIS GENTLEMAN TOLD HIM SO, AND IT WAS HURTFUL, BUT HE NEVER SAID A HARSH WORD TO HER OR THIS GENTLEMAN. HE DIDN'T GO BALLISTIC, HE DIDN'T DO ANY OF THESE THINGS. IN FACT, YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID? HE LET THIS GENTLEMAN GET MARRIED AT HIS ROCKINGHAM HOUSE AFTER LEARNING THAT THIS GENTLEMAN HAD BEEN INTIMATE WITH HIS WIFE. THAT IS WHAT O.J. SIMPSON DID ON THAT OCCASION. YOUR HONOR, MAY I APPROACH A MINUTE?
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ANY COST AND BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
IT IS LIKE THEY JUST WANT TO HIDE HIM, BUT THEY CAN'T HIDE HIM, HE IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THIS CASE.
21ST CENTURY CYBERSPACE TECHNOLOGY THAT IS USED BY THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS WITH COVERED WAGON TECHNOLOGY.
INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE.
I WAS JUST ABOUT TO COMPLIMENT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THEIR OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY. MAYBE I WILL TAKE THAT OUT NOW.