ALL RIGHT.
OPENING STATEMENT (RESUMED)
BY MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE ITO, COLLEAGUES FOR THE DEFENSE, COLLEAGUES FOR THE PROSECUTION, GOOD MORNING AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THIS MORNING AGAIN I WILL BE ASSISTED BY MR. CARL DOUGLAS WITH REGARD TO SOME GRAPHICS THAT WE HAVE, AND BY MR. HOWARD HARRIS HERE ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE GRAPHICS. AS YOU WILL RECALL FROM OUR DISCUSSION LAST WEEK, IN DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW REGARDING THEIR SHORTFALLS. WE HAVE SOUGHT TO REPLY TO THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY THE TWO PROSECUTORS IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS. AND I BELIEVE THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAD REACHED THE POINT WHERE I TOLD YOU WE WERE ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THEIR HANDLING OF THIS MATTER. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS THE MAIN INVESTIGATING AGENCY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE TWO MAIN DETECTIVES ARE DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER AND DETECTIVE TOM LANGE. THEY ARE FROM THE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION AND THEY WERE ASSIGNED THIS CASE IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, 1994. IN THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS SEIZED OR COLLECTED AT THE SCENE OF BUNDY AND ALSO AT ROCKINGHAM. MAY WE HAVE THE FIRST GRAPHIC NOW. UNDER THIS SCENARIO, WE EXPECT TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT IS, WHETHER OR NOT THIS EVIDENCE IS CAPABLE OF YOUR BELIEF, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS EVIDENCE THAT IS CORRECT AND APPROPRIATE. HOW WAS IT COLLECTED? AND SO FOR THE GRAPHIC THERE, ALL THE EVIDENCE PICKED UP AT THE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CONDO AT THE TOP, THE EVIDENCE PICKED UP AT THE SIMPSON HOME ON ROCKINGHAM, THE EVIDENCE FROM THE BRONCO, ANY BLOOD, ALL WENT FIRST THROUGH THE LAPD THERE AND THEN ULTIMATELY FROM LAPD IT WAS SENT OUT TO THE VARIOUS LABS, BE IT THE FBI, CELLMARK OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THIS GRAPHIC SEEKS TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE. YOU CAN SEE THE LAPD THEN REMAINS A FOCAL POINT IN THEIR COLLECTION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED AT THESE VARIOUS LOCATIONS THAT YOU HAVE JUST SEEN WAS CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND ULTIMATELY CORRUPTED. IN THE COURSE OF THE EVIDENCE WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT. NEXT. NOW, BRIEFLY LAST WEEK I SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT A DETECTIVE NAMED MARK FUHRMAN. MR. FUHRMAN AND HIS PARTNER, MR. PHILLIPS, WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE, AND THEY ARE THE TWO DETECTIVES WHO FIRST WERE ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE BEFORE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE GOT INVOLVED. ROBBERY/HOMICIDE IS DOWNTOWN, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. THESE TWO DETECTIVES WORKED IN WEST LOS ANGELES WHERE THESE CRIMES HAD OCCURRED AND THEY WERE THE FIRST ONES TO ARRIVE AT THE SCENE. ALTHOUGH YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT MR. FUHRMAN IN THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION, WE THINK HE WILL BE A KEY WITNESS IN THIS CASE. LET ME TELL YOU WHY I THINK HE WILL BE A KEY WITNESS. I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE AND HIS PARTNER, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ARRIVED AT THAT SCENE SOMETIME AFTER TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THESE BODIES WERE FOUND SOMEWHERE AROUND 12:15 ON JUNE 13, 1994. AFTER ARRIVING AT THE SCENE MR. FUHRMAN DID A NUMBER OF THINGS. YOU SAW HIM IN ONE OF THE PICTURES LAST WEEK WHERE HE WAS POINTING DOWN AT ALLEGEDLY THE GLOVE AND THE CAP THAT WAS UNDER SOME SHRUBBERY, IF YOU RECALL. THAT WAS A PICTURE OF MR. FUHRMAN AT THAT POINT. YOU NOTICE THAT HE HAD -- HIS SHOES WERE NOT COVERED, THAT HE HAD WALKED IN THAT LOCATION AT THAT POINT WITHOUT SHOES BEING COVERED, THAT HE MADE A NUMBER OF DISCOVERIES AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT. THAT THERE WAS A PHOTOGRAPHER AT SOME TIME AT THAT SCENE, AT THE BUNDY LOCATION, THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPHER WAS THEN SUMMONED, ALONG WITH PHILLIPS, HIS PARTNER, AND VANNATTER AND LANGE, TO GO OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT PRESUMABLY THEY WERE GOING OVER THERE TO GIVE NOTICE TO MR. SIMPSON ABOUT THE DEATH OF HIS EX-WIFE AND PRESUMABLY THAT THE CHILDREN WERE IN POLICE CUSTODY AT THAT POINT. APPARENTLY THE PARTIES WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF EITHER MR. -- MRS. NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR THE GOLDMANS AT THIS POINT, BUT THEY WENT OVER TO O.J. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. YOU RECALL ALSO I TOLD YOU LAST WEEK THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD CONTACT WITH THE SIMPSONS. HE HAD RESPONDED TO THE SO-CALLED 1985 INCIDENT. HE DIDN'T WRITE A REPORT AT THAT TIME, BUT IN 1989 HE WROTE A WRITTEN REPORT AND IN THAT REPORT HE TALKS ABOUT THE INCIDENTS OF -- THE '85 INCIDENT BEING INDELIBLY IMPRESSED UPON HIS MIND, SO HE DID HAVE CONTACT, HAD BEEN TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION. NOW, THE EVIDENCE I THINK WILL SHOW THAT HE WILL ALLEGE THAT THE REASON WHY HE WAS STILL LEADING DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS IS BECAUSE HE KNEW WHERE IT WAS, BUT I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL ALSO SHOW FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT HE, TOO, HAD ALSO WORKED IN WEST LOS ANGELES AND HE KNEW THE WAY OVER THERE. BUT AT ANY RATE I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT ALL FOUR OF THESE DETECTIVES, THIS IS PRIOR OF COURSE TO THE CORONER EVER BEING NOTIFIED, LEAVE THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AND THEY GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM. ONCE AT ROCKINGHAM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OF COURSE -- NOW BY THIS TIME THE CASE IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE CAPABLE INDIVIDUALS FROM DOWNTOWN ROBBERY/HOMICIDE. HE CONTINUES TO PLAY AN INTEGRAL PART IN THIS CASE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE, IN LOOKING AT THE BRONCO -- NOW, IT IS STILL, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, I THINK STILL DARK OUTSIDE -- BUT IN LOOKING AT THE BRONCO IT IS NOW MAYBE GETTING CLOSE TO FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, MAYBE LIGHT IS ABOUT UP, HE DISCOVERS WHAT HE BELIEVES IS A SPECK OF BLOOD ON THE DOOR. THIS IS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE DISCOVERS SOME MORE BLOOD ALLEGEDLY DOWN TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN THESE OFFICERS CAN'T ROUSE ANYBODY AT THE LOCATION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS THE ONE WHO CLIMBS OVER THE WALL TO GO INTO THE PREMISES. ONCE IN THE PREMISES, HE IS THE ONE WHO INTERROGATES MR. KATO KAELIN, THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO ALSO, AFTER TALKING TO MR. KAELIN, GOES BACK AND FINDS THIS GLOVE, THE ALLEGED RIGHT GLOVE, AT ROCKINGHAM. WE HAVE NOW FOR YOU SOME VIDEO RELATING TO DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAS TO SAY WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE. NOW, IN FAIRNESS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THE QUESTION HE IS GOING TO ASK IS ABOUT THE GLOVE AND THEY TALK ABOUT THE GLOVE, BUT IN HIS RESPONSE, YOU WILL SEE HE AT SOME POINT TALKS ABOUT SEEING THEM AT THE FOOT OF MR. GOLDMAN. MR. HARRIS, SIR.
YOU RECALL AND HEARD THE TESTIMONY THAT "I COULD SEE THEM DOWN AT HIS FEET," AND THE QUESTION WILL BE SEEKING TO ESTABLISH IN THIS TRIAL IS WHEN HE SAID HE SAW THEM DOWN AT THE FEET, WAS HE TALKING ABOUT TWO GLOVES AT THAT POINT? NOW, THIS DETECTIVE PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE AS HE REMAINS AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION. YOU RECALL LAST WEEK I MENTIONED THAT WE EXPECT TO CALL A WITNESS BY THE NAME OF ROSA LOPEZ AT SOMEPLACE -- AT SOMEPLACE IN THE CASE. ROSA LOPEZ GIVES NEXT DOOR TO MR. SIMPSON. SHE IS A LADY WHO WAS EMPLOYED BY THE FAMILY THERE. SHE IS THEIR HOUSEKEEPER. AND THERE WILL, WE BELIEVE, BE TESTIMONY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ROSA LOPEZ ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, AFTER ABOUT 7:30, EIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, ON JUNE 13, 1994, AND AT THAT TIME ROSA LOPEZ SHARED WITH HIM HER OBSERVATIONS THAT SHE HAD BEEN OUTSIDE THE NIGHT BEFORE AND THAT THE BRONCO VEHICLE PARKED THERE AT THE CURB AT ROCKINGHAM WAS PARKED THERE AT APPROXIMATELY 8:15, 8:30. IT WAS PARKED AT KIND OF A UNIQUE ANGLE. SHE HAD REASON TO REMEMBER THAT AS SHE WENT OUTSIDE TO WALK HER DOG. SHE WILL ALSO TESTIFY THAT SHE CAME BACK OUTSIDE TO WALK THAT SAME DOG AT ABOUT 10:20 P.M. SHE SAW THE BRONCO PARKED IN THAT SAME LOCATION AND IT HAD NOT BEEN MOVED, THAT THE NEXT MORNING, WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD SPOKEN WITH HER, THE BRONCO WAS STILL PARKED AT THAT SAME ANGLE, AS THOUGH IT HAD NOT BEEN MOVED ALL NIGHT. SHE WILL SHARE WITH YOU WHAT, IF ANYTHING, SHE SAID TO THE DETECTIVE THAT MORNING. YOU WILL FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE REDUCED ANY OF THIS CONVERSATION TO A REPORT, WHETHER OR NOT THAT REPORT WAS EVER FORWARDED TO ANYBODY, WHETHER HE TOLD ANY OF THE DETECTIVES ABOUT IT. WE EXPECT THAT SHE ALSO INDICATED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT MR. SIMPSON LEFT THE -- HIS RESIDENCE SOMEWHERE AROUND 9:00 -- NINE O'CLOCK, AND THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT HE AND MR. KATO KAELIN WENT TO GET A MC DONALD'S HAMBURGER, THAT SHE WAS AWARE AND HEARD HIS VOICE WHEN HE LEFT AND SHE HEARD WHAT SHE BELIEVED TO BE PROWLERS DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND BECAME QUITE FRIGHTENED. I EXPECT THAT SHE WILL ALSO TESTIFY THAT SHE HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE AT AROUND ELEVEN O'CLOCK, OR A LITTLE AFTER, AND WHEN SHE ALSO HEARD HIS VOICE HE APPEARED AS THOUGH HE WAS LEAVING AND SHE DID NOT HEAR ANY VOICE ANY MORE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT. THAT AFTER MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE WAS NO LONGER HEARD, AFTER HE PRESUMABLY HAD LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, THAT SHE HAD HEARD MEN'S VOICES BEGINNING AT ABOUT TWELVE O'CLOCK, LASTING UNTIL ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SHE WAS NOT ABLE REALLY TO FALL ASLEEP UNTIL PERHAPS FOUR O'CLOCK THAT MORNING AND WAS AWAKENED BECAUSE I THINK THE GARDENER CAME THAT MORNING. AND SHE ALSO HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO CAME AND SHOWED HIS BADGE AND THEN CAME INSIDE OF HER HOUSE. SO WE THINK THAT IN TRUTH AND IN FACT DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN WILL PLAY A VERY, VERY CRITICAL ROLE IN THIS CASE REGARDING HIS TESTIMONY. NOW, LET'S GO BACK, IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE LAPD, AND LET'S LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS REGARDING THE CORONER. YOU WILL RECALL LAST WEEK I INDICATED TO YOU THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE FOR SOME REASON WASN'T CALLED INITIALLY. THEY ARRIVED AT THE SCENE ALMOST TEN HOURS AFTER THESE BODIES HAD BEEN DISCOVERED. LET'S LOOK FOR A MOMENT, USING THE ELMO WITH MR. HARRIS, AT THE SEQUENCE OF WHAT TOOK PLACE, AND FOR THE RECORD, I WILL READ CERTAIN THINGS INTO THE RECORD FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, YOUR HONOR. THE UNDERLYING PORTIONS I WILL READ FOR THE RECORD. THIS PURPORTS TO BE, AND WE WILL ESTABLISH THAT AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE ON JUNE 13, 1994, AT ABOUT 6:49 IN THE MORNING, JUST BEFORE SEVEN O'CLOCK, AND IT IS A TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DEPUTY CORONER, PAUL WILLIS, AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS OF THE LAPD, PHILLIPS BEING FUHRMAN'S PARTNER.
"DETECTIVE PHILLIPS: I GOT A DOUBLE HOMICIDE THAT WE WANT TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT. IT IS GOING TO BE -- THE PRESS IS GOING TO BE CRAWLING ON US LIKE ANTS WHEN THEY FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
"DETECTIVE PHILLIPS: THIS IS THE FIRST CALL AND WE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO YET, BUT WE NEED TO GET YOU GUYS ROLLING OUT HERE SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE BODIES WHICH ARE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OUT HERE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE." IF I CAN DIGRESS FOR JUST A MOMENT. YOU WILL RECALL THAT HE IS SAYING FROM PHILLIPS TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE AT 6:49 FOR BODIES THAT WERE DISCOVERED BY THE POLICE AT 12:15 A.M. HE ALSO SAYS SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IS VERY INTERESTING WHEN HE SAYS THAT:
"WE CAN -- GET YOU ROLLING OUT HERE FOR THESE BODIES WHICH ARE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET." AND YOU WILL RECALL THAT WHEN I SPOKE TO YOU LAST WEEK ABOUT ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL WALKING PAST THIS LOCATION AT 10:25, NOT HEARING ANYTHING, NOT SEEING ANYTHING ON THE SIDEWALK DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF 875, AND YOU HAVE SEEN THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT YOU COULD SEE FROM THAT SIDEWALK, AND IT IS CLEAR FROM HIS STATEMENT YOU COULD SEE THESE BODIES, AND OF COURSE THERE WAS ALL THE BLOOD AT THE SCENE. CONTINUING ON:
"WE'RE KIND -- WE KIND OF NOT FOLLOWING PROCEDURE, BUT WE ARE KIND OF ASKING A FAVOR, AND YOU KNOW, KIND OF WORK A LITTLE BIT ON THIS ONE." SO WE HAVE THE DETECTIVE AT THIS POINT, THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THEIR OWN PROCEDURES AND THEY ARE ASKING THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO DO THEM A FAVOR AND COOPERATE WITH THEM. THANK YOU. NEXT PAGE. PAGE 240, FOR THE RECORD, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AGAIN STILL TALKING TO THE DEPUTY CORONER, MR. WILLIS.
"DETECTIVE PHILLIPS: WELL, YOU CAN SEE THEM, YEAH, FROM THE STREET HERE. THEY'RE -- THEY'RE A LITTLE OFF THE SIDEWALK HERE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BUT THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE GOING -- WHEN THIS THING BREAKS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE NEWS FROM EVERYWHERE HERE. IT IS GOING TO BE A HIGH-PROFILE TYPE DEAL. IT IS THE -- IT IS THE EX-WIFE OF A VERY PROMINENT SPORTSCASTER OR SPORTS CELEBRITY." THEN HE IS ASKED A LITTLE BIT ABOVE, HE SAYS:
"OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TRUST YOU ON THIS. IT IS O.J. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE." THAT IS PHILLIPS TELLING THE CORONER AGAIN AND HE GOES ON TO SAY -- THE CORONER SAYS:
"OH, BOY. OKAY, UMM." AND PHILLIPS SAYS:
"AND HE IS IN CHICAGO." AND WILLIS SAYS:
"HE DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?" AND PHILLIPS SAYS:
"HE KNOWS NOW AND THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO BREAK THIS THING WIDE OPEN." NEXT PAGE, PAGE 241, MR. HARRIS, SIR. NOW, MR. WILLIS HEARS THIS AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW HE IS THE CORONER, HE WANTS TO GET ROLLING, AND ON THIS PAGE, OKAY, PAGE 241, HERE IS WHAT WILLIS SAYS:
"OKAY, UMM, YOU WANT US ROLL OUT NOW?"
AND THEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAYS:
"HOLD ON A SECOND. TOM, TOM." AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WHEN HE SAYS, "TOM, TOM," I THINK IT IS DETECTIVE TOM LANGE. SO YOU ARE NOT CONFUSED, THERE ARE TWO TOM LANGS IN THIS CASE AND THERE IS THE TOM LANG ON THE SIDEWALK AND WHO SEES NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON THE SIDEWALK AND THERE IS DETECTIVE TOM LANGE AND HE SAYS:
"HOLD ON A SECOND. TOM, TOM, DO YOU WANT THE CORONER NOW?
"NO. "HOLD ON A SECOND. HOW LONG?
"OKAY. YOU ARE JUST GETTING THE FIRST CALL." AND PHILLIPS GOES ON TO SAY:
"WE WILL GIVE YOU A CALL BACK WHEN WE WANT THEM MOVED," PRESUMABLY MEANING THE BODIES, I SUPPOSE.
"DETECTIVE PHILLIPS: IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ABOUT AN HOUR TO AN HOUR AND A HALF." SO HERE WE HAVE THEM CALLING MORE THAN SIX HOURS, THE VERY FIRST TIME, 6:49. THEN WHEN THE CORONER WANTS TO ROLL, SAYS, "DO YOU WANT US TO ROLL NOW," THEY THEN SAY, "MAYBE AN HOUR TO AN HOUR AND A HALF LATER."
MOVE TO THE NEXT PAGE PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. PHILLIPS SAYS:
"WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO GIVE THIS TO THE SUPERVISOR BECAUSE I'M LEAVING NOW." PHILLIPS SAYS:
"ALL RIGHT." WILLIS SAYS:
"AND TELL THEM, UMM, THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE CALLING BACK ABOUT AN HOUR, AN HOUR AND A HALF." PHILLIPS SAYS:
"OKAY. AND AGAIN WE DON'T WANT THAT OUT." THAT ESSENTIALLY ENDS THE FIRST CONVERSATION. THEY PUT IT IN CONTEXT. LET'S SEE IF AND WHEN THEY CALL BACK. AND WE WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AT ABOUT 8:08 IN THE MORNING ON JUNE 13, 1994, THERE WAS IN FACT A SECOND CONVERSATION BETWEEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND A MR. RICHARD HEATH THEN OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAYS:
"WE ALREADY GAVE YOU GUYS THE FIRST CALL SEVERAL HOURS AGO ON BUNDY.
"HEATH: YEAH.
"PHILLIPS: OKAY. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ETA," AN ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL, "IF YOU STARTED ROLLING NOW?" SOME CONVERSATION WITH PHILLIPS -- WITH HEATH, RATHER, AND HEATH GOES ON TO SAY:
"YEAH, MY NAME IS HEATH, H-E-A-T-H, AND I COULD GIVE YOU APPROXIMATE ARRIVAL TIME OF DRIVING TIME FROM THE MAIN OFFICE IN ABOUT MAYBE ANOTHER FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTES ADDED TO THAT." AND PHILLIPS SAYS:
"OKAY, SO YOU ARE TALKING -- TALKING A GOOD 45 MINUTES THEN?" DETECTIVE PHILLIPS:
"TO AN HOUR." NEXT PAGE, SIR. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAYS:
"YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ROLL THEN FOR AN HOUR?" AND MR. HEATH RESPONDS:
"NO, WE WILL BE THERE WITHIN 45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR." NOW, WE THINK THAT THIS EVIDENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT STARTS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS INVESTIGATION BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. FIRST THEY HAVE ALREADY FAILED TO NOTIFY AND THEN WHEN THEY DO NOTIFY THEY HAVE GOT SO MUCH WORK TO DO YET THAT WE KNOW THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE DOESN'T COME OUT THERE UNTIL -- THEY DON'T GET THE FINAL CALL UNTIL 8:08, SO WE KNOW PERHAPS ACCORDING TO THIS MAN, MR. HEATH, IT IS AT LEAST ONE HOUR OR SO AFTER THAT BEFORE THEY EVEN GET OUT TO THE SCENE. YOU'VE HEARD ME MENTION DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO IS THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THIS SCENE, VERY EXPERIENCED DETECTIVE FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE. AND AS WITH ALL OF THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE, THEIR CREDIBILITY WILL BE CHALLENGED AND WE WILL BE LOOKING VERY CLOSELY AT THEIR CREDIBILITY AND WHAT THEY DID THAT NIGHT AND HOW THEY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES. YOU MUST DO THAT ALSO WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER. DETECTIVE VANNATTER ON THIS PARTICULAR MORNING, AT ABOUT 10:45, SOUGHT A SEARCH WARRANT. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW MR. SIMPSON WAS NOT IN LOS ANGELES; HE WAS IN CHICAGO. THE DETECTIVE HAD GONE OVER THE WALL FIRST BUT AFTER THEY SOUGHT A SEARCH WARRANT, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT, BUT WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DETECTIVE AND WHAT HE SAID TO THE JUDGE IN SEEKING TO GET THIS SEARCH WARRANT.
MR. HARRIS. AND WHAT IS THE NUMBER? WE SHOULD GIVE THE NUMBERS.
-- D-41, A SEARCH WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT AND YOU WILL SEE IT IS SIGNED BY PHILIP L. VANNATTER ON JUNE 13, 1994, AT 10:45 IN THE MORNING NOW, AND THIS IS AFTER THEY HAVE GONE OVER THE WALL, ET CETERA, AND THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO A JUDGE TO TRY AND GO INTO THE HOUSE AND SEARCH, A SWORN AFFIDAVIT.
NOW, HERE IS WHAT THE DETECTIVE IN A SWORN AFFIDAVIT SAYS TO THE JUDGE TO GET THIS WARRANT.
"IT WAS DETERMINED SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED FLIGHT TO CHICAGO DURING THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, 1994." AND WE WILL INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THAT WAS A DIRECT MISREPRESENTATION AND UNTRUTH, THAT THE POLICE KNEW FROM KATO KAELIN AND THE CONVERSATION WITH ARNELLE SIMPSON THAT THEY HAD -- THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN ON A LONG-PLANNED TRIP TO CHICAGO.
AND HE INDICATES THAT HIMSELF, THAT BY INTERVIEWS OF SIMPSON'S DAUGHTER, THAT WOULD BE ARNELLE, AND A FRIEND, BRIAN KAELIN, HE WRITES THAT IS IN -- THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE WRITING TO THE JUDGE TO VERIFY THE FACT THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAS LIKE GONE ON THIS UNEXPECTED TRIP, LIKE RUN AWAY TO CHICAGO, AND HE USES THAT AS A REASON IN TALKING TO THE JUDGE.
THE NEXT THING I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU IS THAT THAT IS THE STATEMENT FROM BRIAN GERARD KATO KAELIN. WHAT IS THAT NUMBER, SIR?
THANK YOU. THIS STATEMENT FROM BRIAN GERARD KAELIN, YOU WILL NOTICE THIS STATEMENT WAS TAKEN BY THE POLICE JUNE 13, 1994, AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. WHEN I TOLD YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WENT INTO HIS ROOM AND TALKED TO THIS MAN IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AND SIMPSON -- THE STATEMENT IS SIMPSON TOLD HIM HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO FOR HERTZ CORPORATION, SO THEY KNEW WHY HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO, THEY KNEW IT WAS NOT AN UNEXPECTED TRIP, SO THIS WAS A LIE WHEN THEY WERE TALKING TO THE JUDGE AT THAT POINT.
THE NEXT ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY DEALS WITH THE DETECTIVES INDICATED TO THE JUDGE WHEN THEY WERE SEEKING THE SEARCH WARRANT THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HUMAN BLOOD LATER CONFIRMED BY SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION PERSONNEL, BEING HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DRIVER'S HANDLE OF THE VEHICLE. WELL, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THEY MAY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT AT SOME POINT MUCH, MUCH LATER, IF EVER, BUT THEY HAD NOT CONFIRMED IT AT 10:45. IT WAS NOT HUMAN BLOOD. THEY COULD NOT CONFIRM HUMAN BLOOD, SO THERE WAS ANOTHER MISSTATEMENT TO THE JUDGE AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND I WILL READ THESE FOR YOU, THE OTHER INACCURACIES OF SOME IMPORTANCE THAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE DETECTIVES, IN SEEKING THIS PARTICULAR WARRANT, NEVER DISCLOSED TO THE JUDGE THE MANNER IN WHICH ENTRY WAS MADE. THAT IS, THEY HAD ALREADY CLIMBED OVER THE WALL. THEY NEVER BOTHERED TELLING THE JUDGE THAT.
AND FINALLY, THE FINAL INACCURACY THAT I THINK YOU WILL FIND OF SOME GREAT RELEVANCE, THE FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD IN FACT BEEN CONTACTED BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND HAD VOLUNTEERED TO COME HOME, TAKING AWAY FROM THE WARRANT ANY IMPLICATION THAT HE HAD SOMEHOW FLED THE SCENE. THAT WAS NEVER DONE. NOW, AGAIN, THIS IS THE EVIDENCE FROM THEIR FILES, AND BASED UPON WHAT THEIR LEAD INVESTIGATOR SAID TO A JUDGE. AND AT SOME POINT IN MY OPENING STATEMENT TODAY I WANT TO CHARACTERIZE FOR YOU HOW MR. SIMPSON CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13 WITH THE WAY THAT THE DETECTIVES CONDUCTED THEMSELVES. THIS BRINGS US THEN TO A DISCUSSION OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, AND YOU RECALL BRIEFLY THE OTHER DAY I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW ULTIMATELY THIS WAS A PLACE OF THE GATHERING OF THE EVIDENCE AND WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CRIME SCENE TO SECURE THIS AREA, THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE WALKING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT BE TRACKING UP THE EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT BE TOUCHING THINGS WITHOUT GLOVES, SHOULD BE IN SOME WAY PROTECTED BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE IS ALL VERY, VERY SENSITIVE. WE WOULD EXPECT THAT HOPEFULLY BY THE TIME OF TRIAL YOU WILL ACTUALLY HAVE SOME FOOTAGE FROM LOCAL TELEVISIONS OF HOW THE DETECTIVE AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE OUT THERE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE IN FACT WEARING ANYTHING OVER THEIR SHOES. YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S SHOES AND HOW THEY EXISTED AT THE TIME. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS SCENE WAS TRACKED AND TRAIPSED UP AND THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE WAS A COMPLETE DISASTER, AND WE FEEL THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE SHOWN TO BE CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, AS WE HAVE INDICATED TO YOU EARLIER. NOW, YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE SHOW THIS NEXT GRAPHIC, I WANT TO SAY A WORD TO COUNSEL AND YOU MAY WANT TO USE YOUR SWITCH.
ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHERS NOT TO ATTEMPT TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE SCREEN IN THE COURTROOM.
I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE FAMILY OF MR. GOLDMAN BE AWARE WITH REGARD TO THIS PICTURE. THIS IS THE ONLY PICTURE THAT COULD IN ANY WAY CAUSE ANY CONCERN, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON AT THIS POINT.
THIS PURPORTS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WHILE STILL AT THE SCENE OF THE BUNDY LOCATION AND YOU WILL NOTICE SEVERAL THINGS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE LADY WHOSE SHOES ARE THERE, THESE SHOES ARE UNCOVERED, SHE IS STANDING ON SOME KIND OF A WHITE SHEET OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. YOU CAN SEE BLOOD ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH. SHE HAS NOTHING OVER HER SHOES AND SHE IS STANDING THERE. YOU SEE THE BODY AND YOU WILL SEE SOMETHING ELSE INTERESTING. YOU WILL SEE SOME GLOVES. THESE GLOVES WERE APPARENTLY -- THESE GLOVES HAVE BLOOD ON THEM AND THESE GLOVES HAVE NOW BEEN DROPPED ON MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY. THESE GLOVES, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, ARE TYPICAL OF THE KIND OF GLOVES THAT ARE USED AT THE SCENE TO PICK UP EVIDENCE OR TO COLLECT VARIOUS AND SUNDRY THINGS, AND YET YOU SEE THESE GLOVES NOW FOUND ON MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IN THIS FASHION AND WE THINK THIS IS TYPICAL OF THE WAY THINGS WERE CONDUCTED AT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION AT THAT TIME.
THANK YOU. WE EXPECT, AS WE INDICATED LAST WEEK, TO SHOW THAT BASED AT THIS PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY, THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THAT ONE OF WHICH IS THIS CRIME SCENE AND THE PATTERNS AT THE CRIME SCENE ARE CONSISTENT WITH A MAJOR STRUGGLE. MR. RON GOLDMAN'S BLOOD, AS I TOLD YOU, SHOULD BE ALL OVER THE PERPETRATOR, ESPECIALLY IN THE UPPER AND MIDDLE PARTS OF THE PERPETRATOR'S BODY. YOU WILL RECALL THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S DESCRIPTION THIS MORNING WHERE HE DESCRIBED THIS RATHER SMALL AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND, AND HE TALKED ABOUT A FENCE AND YOU HAVE SOME PICTURES WITH A TREE IN THE AREA. IT IS A VERY SMALL AREA. HE HAD TO GO OUTSIDE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE FENCE TO SEE WHERE THE BODY WAS. IT IS A VERY SMALL AREA. I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IF THERE WAS THIS MAJOR CONFRONTATION, AND YOU RECALL LAST WEEK MR. GOLDMAN'S HAND, BUT I EXPECT THERE TO BE TESTIMONY THAT HIS HAND CAME IN BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA WITH ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS THERE AND THERE WOULD BE SOME MARK OR SOME INJURIES, IT WOULD SEEM, PLUS THERE ARE TREES, THIS FENCE AND THERE WAS A VIOLENT STRUGGLE. SO IF YOU RECALL THE PICTURES OF
MR. O.J. SIMPSON LAST WEEK, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WILL BE IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AS TO THE LACK OF ANY MARKS, BRUISES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. IN THE AREA -- WE EXPECT THE SCENE TO ALSO SHOW THAT IN THE AREA WHERE THESE MURDERS TOOK PLACE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FOOTPRINTS IN A VERY SMALL AREA, WHICH MEANS THAT MOST LIKELY THE PERPETRATOR HAD TO BE THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, THAT THERE WAS THIS PATTERN OF FIGHTING. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE IN THIS CASE THAT MR. GOLDMAN'S BLOOD IS ON DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LOCATION, WHICH MEANS THAT HE, TOO, WAS MOVING AROUND, SO THERE WAS THIS KIND OF A CONFRONTATION OR THIS FIGHT THAT WENT ON OVER A PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE ONE IS FIGHTING FOR ONE'S LIFE, AND AS YOU KNOW, IT WAS A VIOLENT STRUGGLE IN WHICH HE ULTIMATELY WAS STABBED SOME 31 TIMES -- 30 TIMES. THE PROSECUTOR INDICATED TO YOU ALL THIS HAPPENED VERY FAST AND I THINK THAT YOU WILL SEE FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS NOT EXACTLY CORRECT, GIVEN THE SITUATION WHEN ONE IS FIGHTING VALIANTLY FOR THEIR LIFE. THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY LAST WEEK ABOUT CERTAIN BLOOD DROPS I THINK BY THE PROSECUTORS THAT WERE AT OR NEAR THE MANY FOOTPRINTS AND I THINK THAT YOU WILL FIND THAT IT WILL BE VERY UNUSUAL AND THAT IT WILL BE A REMARKABLE OCCURRENCE THAT THERE ARE ONLY FOUR DROPS OF BLOOD THAT THEY TALK ABOUT AND SO MANY, MANY FOOTPRINTS. FURTHER, WE WILL LOOK VERY CLOSELY DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL AT THE GLOVE, AT BOTH GLOVES. WE WILL LOOK AT THE GLOVE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM, THE RIGHT GLOVE. WE WILL LOOK AT THE GLOVE FOUND AT BUNDY. AND WE WILL BE LOOKING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY CUTS ON THOSE GLOVES CONSISTENT WITH ANY CUTS OR ANYTHING ON MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S HANDS. WE EXPECT, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU LAST WEEK, THERE WILL BE FINGERPRINTS ON THE RAILINGS THAT ARE FRESH AT BUNDY AND WE THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THOSE FINGERPRINTS ARE NOT O.J. SIMPSON'S FINGERPRINTS. THAT THERE ARE HAIRS ON THE CAP, THE GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT ARE NOT O.J. SIMPSON'S. THAT THERE IS AT THE CRIME SCENE, I BELIEVE YOU RECALL WHEN THE PROSECUTORS WERE MAKING THEIR CASE LAST WEEK, THERE IS A TRIANGULAR PIECE OF PAPER SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH NEAR NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HEAD THAT WAS NEVER SAVED, APPARENTLY, BY THE POLICE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. OF COURSE YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN AND THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS OF PEOPLE WITH UNPROTECTED SHOES STANDING IN AND ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE. THERE WILL OF COURSE BE ALSO PHOTOGRAPHS OF CRIMINALISTS WITHOUT PROPER HEAD COVERING AND GLOVES ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN COLLECTING AND SO I HOPE THIS GIVES YOU KIND OF A PREVIEW OF HOW THESE DETECTIVES COLLECTED EVIDENCE AND HOW THEY DEALT WITH THIS PARTICULAR SCENE, A SCENE THAT WOULD BE BEST VIDEOTAPED SO COULD YOU SEE EVERYTHING THAT TOOK PLACE, OTHER THAN JUST STILL PHOTOGRAPHS, A SCENE THAT WOULD BE BEST PRESERVED WHERE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR REAL BUSINESS ARE THERE, NOT PEOPLE JUST WALKING AROUND AND TRAIPSING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE. YOU WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. NEXT WE WILL COME TO THE BRONCO. REMEMBER ALL THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE GO FROM THE LOCATION, SUCH AS THE BUNDY, THROUGH LAPD, TO SOME OTHER PLACE, SO LET'S NOW LOOK AT THE BRONCO, WHAT WE CALL THE BRONCO TIMELINE. MR. DOUGLAS, WILL YOU PUT THE CHART UP, AND THEN MR. HARRIS. MR. HARRIS, THE NUMBER ON THE --
THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS AND MR. DOUGLAS. NOW, YOU WILL SEE IN THE EXHIBIT UP ON THE BOARD, THE LARGE BOARD, THE VIDEO EXHIBIT, YOU WILL SEE A LADY AGAINST THE BRONCO. THAT IS THE BRONCO THAT WE HAVE -- WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT, AND THAT IS A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON JUNE 13, 1994, AND YOU WILL SEE THE TOW TRUCK BEHIND THE BRONCO AND YOU WILL SEE THIS LADY UP APPARENTLY PEERING IN THE WINDOW OF THE BRONCO.
AND WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT THIS BRONCO, WHICH YOU HEARD THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE, WAS NOT SECURE, THAT PEOPLE SUCH AS THIS LADY GRAPHICALLY ARE ALLOWED TO WALK UP, TOUCH IT, AND WHEN THAT BRONCO LEFT THAT LOCATION THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO COFFEE STAINS ON THE HOOD OF THE PARTICULAR BRONCO THAT WASN'T SECURED, THAT WASN'T PRESERVED, THAT IT WASN'T MADE SO THAT YOU COULD COUNT ON THAT EVIDENCE.
THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. THE BRONCO WAS OF COURSE IMPOUNDED, THE 1994 FORD BRONCO, AND THIS IS THE LICENSE OF THAT PARTICULAR VEHICLE THAT YOU CAN SEE.
WHEN THIS BRONCO WAS FIRST TAKEN AWAY IT WAS TAKEN TO A PLACE CALLED THE PRINT SHED, TO CHECK FOR FINGERPRINTS. YOU WILL SEE IN THIS FORM, THIS LARGE FORM, THIS IS A BLOW-UP OF THIS AREA. IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER THERE IS AN INDICATION OF "PRINTS, EVIDENCE, GIVE SPECIAL CARE." THIS BOX IS APPARENTLY CHECKED AT THAT POINT AND YOU WILL SEE "RHD" AND THIS STANDS FOR "ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION." THAT IS WHERE THE DETECTIVES CAME FROM. SHE HAD CHECKED THIS SO THEY WILL BE GIVEN SPECIAL CARE AT THIS POINT. MR. HARRIS.
ALL RIGHT. THERE WERE SOME SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO "TAKE THE BRONCO TO PRINT SHACK PAB ACROSS STREET OF PARKER CENTER AND THEY NOTE FOR US THAT "THERE ARE TWO COFFEE STAINS" ON THE HOOD, DISREGARD, NOT RELATED." YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE DISREGARDED; HOWEVER, BECAUSE IF THIS VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY HANDLED, THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THOSE COFFEE STAINS WOULD EVEN BE THERE. MR. HARRIS.
AFTER THE BRONCO HAD BEEN TO THE PRINT SHED, IT WAS THEN REMOVED AND TAKEN TO THE IMPOUND AT A PLACE CALLED VIERTEL'S, V-I-E-R-T-E-L-S, THE TOWING YARD HERE IN LOS ANGELES, AND YOU WILL SEE ITS IMPOUND AND YOU WILL SEE THE 1994 FORD BRONCO AGAIN, AND AGAIN THE LICENSE. MR. HARRIS.
LET'S SEE. WHEN THEY GOT THIS BRONCO AT VIERTEL'S, LET'S SEE IF THEY USED THIS SAME FORM. ROBBERY/HOMICIDE, RHD, THIS YOU SEE, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE CHECK WHERE THE PRINT OR EVIDENCE OR "GIVE SPECIAL CARE" IS NO LONGER CHECKED. THERE IS NOTHING THERE, NOTHING IN THAT LOCATION.
THIS WILL TELL YOU WHAT INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN REGARDING THAT BRONCO AS EARLY AS JUNE 14, 1994, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE:
"HOLD UNTIL RELEASED TO REP FROM HERTZ CORPORATION." AND I THINK THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT THIS VEHICLE WAS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE HERTZ CORPORATION. YOU WILL NOTICE THAT NO SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS WERE TAKEN. THIS VEHICLE WAS BEING HELD FOR RELEASE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE HERTZ CORPORATION AT THAT POINT. OF COURSE THEN NOW WE ARE BACK TO THIS QUESTION THEN OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE AND YOU HAVE THE BRONCO THERE GOING THROUGH LAPD AND ANYTHING OUT OF THE BRONCO. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO WALK OVER, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, TO MOVE A LITTLE CLOSER WITHOUT BLOCKING ANYONE WITH THE SO-CALLED BRONCO TIMELINE.
THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. THIS IS THE SO-CALLED BRONCO TIMELINE AND LET'S SEE IF WE CAN PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THE LAPD ANNOUNCES THAT THE ROCKINGHAM SITE WAS, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, SECURED AND THERE WILL BE A MAJOR QUESTION REGARDING THAT AND THAT IS IN JUNE. WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS THE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO FOR BLOOD AND TRACE EVIDENCE ON JUNE 14TH. THEN WITHIN A DAY THEREAFTER, ON JUNE 15, 1994, THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO VIERTEL'S AND THAT IS THE TOWING YARD I JUST SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT AND THAT IS THE PLACE WHERE THERE WAS -- THE ONLY INDICATION WAS HOLD FOR RELEASE TO THE HERTZ CORPORATION. SO YOU CAN SEE IN JUNE WHAT TOOK PLACE. NOW WE KNOW AND WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT AS EARLY AS JUNE 15, THE DAY THAT VEHICLE, THE BRONCO, WAS TOWED TO VIERTEL'S, THERE WERE DOCUMENTS TAKEN OUT OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE POUCH. WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY FROM A MAN BY THE NAME OF JOHN MERAZ, M-E-R-A-Z. MR. MERAZ WILL INDICATE THAT HE -- THEY ALL KNEW DOWN THERE THIS IS O.J. SIMPSON'S VEHICLE. THAT HE GOT INSIDE THAT VEHICLE AND GETTING INSIDE HE TOOK SOME RECEIPTS OR INVOICES, AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT SOME OF THOSE RECEIPTS OR INVOICES WERE MADE OUT OR IN THE NAME OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. SO I THINK YOU WILL FIND DURING THE COURSE OF THE EVIDENCE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ALSO DROVE THAT VEHICLE AND THIS WILL BE FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT SHE WAS IN THE VEHICLE, PERHAPS HAD GONE TO THE CLEANERS OR SOMEPLACE TO PICK UP SOME ITEM, BUT MR. MERAZ WILL TELL YOU THAT HE TOOK THESE ITEMS OUT OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE POUCH ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 1994. HE WILL SAY THAT HE PUT THOSE ITEMS BACK INTO THE BRONCO, BUT THE ITEMS WERE THEN SUBSEQUENTLY STOLEN OR TAKEN IN ANOTHER BURGLARY OF THIS PARTICULAR CAR THAT SUPPOSEDLY IS SECURE ON VIERTEL'S PROPERTY. THE UPSHOT OF IT IS THAT TODAY, SEVEN MONTHS PLUS LATER, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE RECEIPTS. THEY HAVE BEEN STOLEN, THEY HAVE BEEN TAKEN, THEY ARE GONE FROM THIS SUPPOSED SECURE VEHICLE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE POLICE OR IN VIERTEL'S. AND SO THIS BRONCO TIMELINE SEEKS TO SPELL THAT OUT FOR YOU. YOU WILL NOTE IN GOING BACK THERE WE HAVE A SMALLER PICTURE OF THE WOMAN TOUCHING THE BRONCO. THAT IS STILL WHILE IT IS AT THE SCENE.
YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ON THE 14TH AND THEN THE 15TH AND THEN WE KNOW MR. MERAZ TAKES THE DOCUMENTS INITIALLY ON THE 15TH AND I THINK HE SAYS HE PUTS THEM BACK ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THEY ARE KIND OF LIKE SOUVENIRS, I SUPPOSE, IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT HE TELLS YOU, BUT VIERTEL'S DOES NOT REPORT THE REMOVAL OF THE DOCUMENT TO THE POLICE AND POLICE THE COMMISSION UNTIL JUNE 11, 1994, UNTIL ALMOST A MONTH LATER. THE OFFICIAL WORD COMES OUT THAT THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THEY ARE MISSING AND OF COURSE THEY THEN START AN INVESTIGATION TO TRY AND FIND OUT WHERE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE. THIS BRONCO TIMELINE TALKS ABOUT THIS WHOLE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THE BRONCO WAS IMPROPERLY STORED WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE HOLD AND THEN WHEN IT WAS IMPROPERLY STORED THAT SOME BAD AND UNFORTUNATE THINGS HAPPENED WITH THE EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN LOST. NOW, YOU WILL SEE BETWEEN THIS PERIOD OF JUNE 15, THAT IS THE DATE THAT MERAZ GOT INSIDE WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO VIERTEL'S, AND AUGUST 26TH, DID NOT OBSERVE THE SPECIAL CARE RULE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF BIOLOGICAL AND TRACE EVIDENCE. WE THINK THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THIS VEHICLE -- POSSIBLE FOR THIS VEHICLE, FOR ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THAT VEHICLE AND THERE WAS NOT THE HOLD ON IT THAT IT HAD IN THE PRINT SHED, THEN LO AND BEHOLD ON AUGUST 26TH, DURING THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 26, 1994, AND SEPTEMBER 1ST, 1994, THERE WAS, DONE BY THE PROSECUTION, AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO FOR BIOLOGICAL AND TRACE EVIDENCE AND THEY WENT BACK LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE TO USE DURING THIS TRIAL. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS FOR A VEHICLE THAT HAD BEEN TOWED THERE ON JUNE 15, SO WHAT IS THAT? TWO MONTHS PLUS? ALMOST TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. GO BACK. NOW, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EXTENSIVE SEARCH FOR BIOLOGICAL AND TRACE EVIDENCE. THIS IS A VEHICLE THAT WE KNOW HAS BEEN BASICALLY IMPROPERLY STORED, THERE HAS BEEN AT LEAST ONE BURGLARY OR TRESPASS, AND MAYBE TWO, IF MR. MERAZ IS BELIEVED, YET THEY THEN GO BACK AND SEEK TO GET OUT OF THERE, AND THIS GOES INTO WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO DESCRIBE FOR YOU THERE, THE GRAPHIC OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT EVIDENCE, WHERE IT GOES BEFORE IT GETS TO YOU AND WHO HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTAMINATE IT OR COMPROMISE IT OR IN ANY WAY CORRUPT IT. THAT LEADS US TO THE POINT OF THIS INTEGRITY OF EVIDENCE BEING CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, AND WE THINK THAT THE SAGA OF THE BRONCO ILLUSTRATES THIS CONCEPT OF THE EVIDENCE BEING CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED. THANK YOU.
NOW -- WE WILL NOW WITH YOUR PERMISSION TURN OUR ATTENTION NOW TO THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE DISCUSSION OF DNA EVIDENCE AND THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. I SUPPOSE THAT THERE IS A SAYING THAT YOU HAVE GARBAGE IN, YOU GET GARBAGE OUT, AND WE HAVE SEVERAL CHARTS THAT WE THINK WILL BE ILLUSTRATIVE OF THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF DNA EVIDENCE AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. MR. DOUGLAS IS PLACING A CHART ON THE BOARD, AND MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE A LASER?
AND WE PUT THE BLACK BOX UP BECAUSE AGAIN THIS DEALS ALSO WITH THE INTEGRITY OF EVIDENCE. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT, BEFORE I GET TO THAT, MISS CLARK, I WANT TO MAKE A FEW STATEMENTS AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE GET TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. NOWHERE I THINK WILL YOU FIND IN THIS CASE IS THE PROBLEM OF THE EVIDENCE BEING CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED, MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE AREA OF DNA TESTING. THIS IS, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IS A VERY NEW AND POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY. IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND CRIME LABS HAVE TRIED TO TRANSFER THIS DNA TEST THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR RESEARCH AND MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AND APPLY IT TO CRIME SCENE SAMPLES. WE EXPECT ALL OF YOU WILL HEAR IN THE COURSE OF THIS, THE EVIDENCE, THIS TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY HAS NOT BEEN SIMPLE OR EASY, AND SO I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU IN THE COURSE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT NOW SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DNA TESTING FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES AND FORENSIC DNA TESTING ON CRIME SCENE SAMPLES. REMEMBERING AS WE -- IN THE GRAPHIC, THAT ALL EVIDENCE PASSES THROUGH FIRST THE LAPD'S HANDS. IF IT IS COMPROMISED WHEN IT STARTS, IT IS COMPROMISED WHEN IT COMES OUT. IF THE EVIDENCE WAS CONTAMINATED AT THE SCENE OR MISHANDLED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT DNA TESTS ARE DONE AFTERWARDS, HOW MANY TIMES THEY ARE DONE OR WHICH LABORATORIES DID THEM, THE RESULTS WILL NOT BE RELIABLE WE CAN EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW. NOW, TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM OF CONTAMINATION, ONE MUST UNDERSTAND, FIRST OF ALL, HOW SMALL THESE SAMPLES ARE, AND MR. DOUGLAS HAS GOTTEN AHEAD OF ME JUST A LITTLE BIT. LET'S GO BACK TO THE SMALL AMOUNTS OF DNA FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES TO ILLUSTRATE THIS FOR YOU. THIS IS A CHART THAT IS ENTITLED "SMALL AMOUNTS OF DNA FROM SPECKS OF BLOOD," AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A REGULAR SIZE PENNY HERE AT THE FAR LEFT, AND I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO COMPROMISE -- STRIKE THAT. I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE A REGULAR SIZE PENNY WITH 20 NANOGRAMS OF DNA AND THAT AMOUNTS TO -- THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN SEE VERY WELL, I AM POINTING TO IT, ALMOST LIKE A PIN PRICK, 20 NANOGRAMS. MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE YOU WILL BE ASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING IS ONE/TENTH OF THAT AMOUNT, ONE/TENTH OF THE 20 NANOGRAMS OR TWO NANOGRAMS, AN AMOUNT SO SMALL THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT. THAT IS THE WHAT -- WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE WITH THIS CHART. THE PENNY, 20 NANOGRAMS, THE TWO NANOGRAMS, AN AMOUNT THAT YOU COULD NOT EVEN SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE. MR. DOUGLAS -- THAT EXHIBIT I WAS JUST REFERRING TO, YOUR HONOR, WAS --
WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, AND INCLUDING THE LAST CHART THAT WAS TAKEN DOWN, THAT THESE SMALL MINUSCULE AMOUNTS OF DNA ARE VERY EASY TO SPREAD AROUND. THEY CAN GET ON YOUR CLOTHES, IN YOUR HAIR, TWEEZERS, SCISSORS, OTHER TOOLS, BE MOVED FROM ONE PLACE TO THE OTHER WITHOUT ANYONE SEEING OR KNOWING WHAT IS HAPPENING. THE -- THIS OF COURSE IS HOW YOU GET CONTAMINATION. NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF MY REMARKS TODAY AND THEN LAST WEEK, AND BEFORE THAT THE REMARKS OF THE PROSECUTORS, WE HAVE ALL STOOD AT THIS PARTICULAR PODIUM. IF I SNEEZED OR IF ANY SALIVA CAME OUT OR IF I SCRATCH MY HAIR AND ANY DANDRUFF WAS THERE OR IF I TOUCH THIS AND I HAD ANY BLOOD ON MY FINGER OR A SPLINTER THERE, IF MISS CLARK DID LIKEWISE, IF MR. DARDEN DID LIKEWISE, THEN OUR DNA WOULD BE ON THIS AREA. AND IF I TOOK A HANDKERCHIEF OUT AND WIPED THIS, THIS IS WHAT THEY DO IN LABS, THAT WOULD PICK UP THE VARIOUS DNA THAT IS HERE. YOU CAN'T SEE IT, THAT IS HOW SMALL IT IS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA. IF WE WERE TO WIPE IT ACROSS HERE, OUR HANDKERCHIEF COULD NOW BE TAKEN TO THE LAB AND ALLEGEDLY TAKEN. IN FACT, SOME MEDICAL LABS DO IN FACT DO THIS AND IT IS DONE IN A LAB TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY CONTAMINATION. THAT IS HOW THEY TEST IT TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY CONTAMINATION. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SEE IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE COMPATIBLE FOR A PARTICULAR ORGAN TRANSPLANT, THEY CHECK TO SEE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THIS. IF I HAD BEEN THE ONLY ONE HERE, YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO FIND ONLY MY DNA, BUT IF MR. DARDEN AND MISS CLARK WERE HERE, YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO FIND THEIR DNA. IF MR. VANNATTER HERE SNEEZED, YOU MIGHT FIND HIS DNA, SO THERE IS ALL KIND OF WAYS IN WHICH WE HAVE THIS POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION. AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TEST IS THAT IT CANNOT TELL ONE PERSON'S DNA FROM ANOTHER. THIS IS WHAT WE CALL -- AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE A MIXED SAMPLE. THERE IS QUITE A CONTROVERSY, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, ABOUT WHETHER SMALL MIXED SAMPLES CAN BE TESTED RELIABLY EVEN IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS DONE PROPERLY AND THERE IS NO CONTAMINATION, SO IF YOU ADD CONTAMINATION TO IT, THEN YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE. NOW, TO GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE -- THIS BOARD THAT I'M NOW GOING TO REFER TO IS THE SO-CALLED DNA TESTING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BOARD. WHAT WE WANT TO DEMONSTRATE HERE IS YOU WILL RECALL I SAID THAT OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE IS TO TRANSFER FROM NO MATTER WHAT WE USE IN MEDICAL RESEARCH AND TO EXCLUDE SUSPECTS PRIMARILY TO THE FIELD TO FORENSICS, TO CRIME SCENES, TO TRY AND MAKE IT WORK IN THAT SETTING.
THIS IS, AS I INDICATED TO YOU LAST WEEK, CYBERSPACE OR 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGY, AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT THE COLLECTION PROCEDURES ARE 19TH CENTURY OR COVERED WAGON COLLECTION PROCEDURES AND THAT IS WHY IT IS SUCH A PROBLEM. AND SO IF YOU LOOKED AT THIS MEDICAL RESEARCH AREA, IN GENERAL YOU COULD EXPECT THAT IN THE MEDICAL FIELD THAT THERE ARE CLEAN SAMPLES, MORE THAN LIKELY IN A CLEAN MEDICAL LAB, THE BLOOD IS CAREFULLY TAKEN UNDER ANTISEPTIC CONDITIONS IN HOSPITALS, AND IN A FORENSIC SETTING DNA TESTING IS DONE BY DEFINITION GENERALLY AND DIRTY SAMPLES ARE TAKEN FROM CRIME SCENES, FROM SIDEWALKS, FROM CARPETS AND THEY ARE EXPOSED TO ALL SORT OF CONTAMINATION, THAT THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES, THAT THESE -- AS YOU KNOW ALREADY, THESE ARE MINUTE SPECKS OF BLOOD, THERE MAY BE SALIVA, THERE MAY BE SKIN, CELLS, DANDRUFF, AS I INDICATED TO YOU, EVEN A SPRAY OF A SNEEZE CAN CONTAMINATE THE FORENSIC SAMPLE. SO WHAT I WANT TO DO IN THIS SAMPLE, WE HAVE THESE CHARTS HERE, IS THAT IN COMPARING THE MEDICAL RESEARCH, COMPARE THE MEDICAL RESEARCH WITH THE FORENSIC AND SEE WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO BE RELIABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WELL, I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT AS OPPOSED TO THE CLEAN SAMPLE AND THE DIRTY SAMPLES, IN THIS INSTANCE THE CLEAN SAMPLE IN THE MEDICAL LAB WILL BE FAR MORE RELIABLE, SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN RELY UPON. THE NEXT AREA WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IS GENERALLY IN A MEDICAL LAB YOU HAVE A GENEROUS SAMPLE SIZE, THE DOCTOR CAN HAVE WHATEVER SAMPLE SIZE HE USUALLY WANTS OR NEEDS. IN FORENSICS THE SAMPLE COMES GENERALLY IN VERY, VERY LIMITED MINUTE AMOUNTS AND IN WORKING WITH SUCH SMALL AMOUNTS OFTEN THE TEST CAN ONLY BE DONE ONCE. AND OF COURSE WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IS -- IT IS HARDER TO PRODUCE RELIABLE RESULTS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. IN FACT, YOU WILL HEAR WE THINK IN THIS CASE, THAT MOST OF THE IMPORTANT DNA TESTS PERFORMED BY THE PROSECUTION WERE DONE WITH AMOUNTS OF DNA THAT WERE ACTUALLY BELOW THE PREFERRED AMOUNTS FOR RELIABLE TESTING. SO IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABS HAVING A GENEROUS SAMPLE SIZE AND THEN IN THE FORENSICS AREA HAVING MINUSCULE SAMPLE SIZE, AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION IN THE MINUSCULE SAMPLE SIZE AND THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO THE UNMIXED SAMPLE FROM KNOWN SOURCES. AS YOU KNOW, AND MISS CLARK ALLUDED TO THIS IN HER STATEMENT, IN A MEDICAL SETTING YOU HAVE SAMPLES THAT YOU KNOW. IF YOU HAVE A LADY WHO IS GOING TO HAVE AMNIOCENTESIS, YOU KNOW WHO THAT IS. IF YOU HAVE A PERSON WHO IS GOING TO GIVE SOMEBODY ELSE A KIDNEY, YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE, SO YOU HAVE KNOWN SOURCES THAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH, AND I THINK THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, I THINK YOU WILL SEE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY. IN MEDICAL TESTING WE TAKE THESE UNMIXED SAMPLES FROM KNOWN PERSONS AND IN FORENSICS WE TAKE THESE SAMPLES IN VARYING AMOUNTS FROM UNKNOWN PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO HAS WALKED OUT THERE, WHO HAS WALKED, WHO HAS SNEEZED, WHO HAS BLED, WHO HAS SCRATCHED THEIR HEAD. YOU DON'T KNOW OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. WE EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR IN THIS AREA THAT THE NEW FORMS OF DNA TESTING USED BY THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE ARE JUST NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH WHEN USING AND ANALYZING MIXTURES FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES AND THE KEY HERE BEING MIXED SAMPLES FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES. SO AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN ON FORENSICS, IN THE HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION, THEN IN THE LAB, IN THE MEDICAL RESEARCH AREA, THERE IS GENERALLY MINIMAL HANDLING. THIS IS FAIRLY CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD. LESS HANDLING THAN AT THE SCENE WHERE YOU HAVE SOMEONE GOING OUT TRYING TO COLLECT SOMETHING. CONTRARY, AS I SAID, TO WHAT THE PROSECUTOR TOLD YOU LAST WEEK, THE EVIDENCE WILL BE IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS WIPING UP A SPILL IN YOUR KITCHEN. THIS TECHNOLOGY IS SO SENSITIVE, IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE AT ALL. YOU AND I JUST SHOULDN'T GO OUT AND DO THIS. WE CAN DO IT IF WE WANTED TO USE THE SAME TECHNIQUE THEY USE WITH THE LAPD, BUT YOU WILL GET RESULTS THAT ARE ALL UNRELIABLE, SO BETWEEN MINIMAL HANDLING AND MULTIPLE HANDLING YOU CAN SEE AGAIN THAT THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION WITH THE MULTIPLE HANDLING. ERROR RATES BETWEEN KNOWN -- AND THAT IS BECAUSE I THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT IN THE MEDICAL LABS THEY SUBJECT THEIR RESULTS AND THINGS TO TESTS. I MENTIONED THE WIPE TEST. IN LABS THEY DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CONTAMINATION IN THE LABS WHEN YOU GO TO THE DOCTOR. YOU WANT TO HAVE THE DOCTOR MAKE SURE HIS LAB IS CONTAMINATION FREE AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE. THAT BRINGS ABOUT CONFIDENCE AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE, A WHOLE INDUSTRY BASED UPON. TRANSFERRING THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE FORENSICS AREA, THE ERROR RATES ARE NOT NEARLY AS WELL KNOWN, AS I THINK YOU CAN SEE, SO AGAIN THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION AND ERROR IN THIS AREA ALSO. I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE LABS HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD FOR DOING DNA TESTING IN MEDICAL LABORATORIES, THEY ARE MUCH STRICTER ON THEMSELVES THAN THE STANDARD THAT FORENSICS AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND LABORATORIES ARE USING. AND SO YOU CAN SEE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS. IN ONE CASE, WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE HIGHER STANDARDS, YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR ORGANS WILL BE COMPATIBLE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ORGAN TRANSFER OR OTHER AND THE OTHER YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY'S FREEDOM, THEIR VIRTUAL LIFE, SO WE ARE GOING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THIS SCENARIO WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE NOT HIGHER CLINICAL LAB STANDARDS THAN YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY AT THE HOSPITAL THAN YOU ARE WHEN YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH SOMEBODY ON TRIAL FOR THEIR VERY LIFE. GIVEN THE LOWER STANDARDS AND THE LACK OF TESTING AGAIN IN THIS AREA, AGAIN IN THIS AREA, IN FORENSICS, THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION AND ERROR. I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, BUT IN THE LABS THERE IS THIS RIGOROUS PROFICIENCY TESTING, AND OF COURSE I THINK YOU WILL FIND, AND THE TESTIMONY WILL BE, THAT IN FORENSICS VERY RARELY DO THEY DO ANY BLIND TESTING. NO OUTSIDE AGENCIES. THEY GIVE THEMSELVES EASY TESTS AND ALMOST NEVER TAKE BLIND EXTERNAL PROFICIENCY TESTS, AND THAT HAS A REAL BEARING ON THE OVERALL PROFICIENCY HERE. AND SO AGAIN, I THINK YOU WILL FIND THERE IS A HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION AND ERROR IN THE FORENSICS AREA AGAIN.
AND FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY IN THIS AREA, IN MEDICAL TESTING, USUALLY YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO SEE IF SOMEONE HAS INHERITED A COPY OF THE DISEASED GENE FROM THEIR PARENT OR WHATEVER, HAS THE CORRECT GENETIC TYPES FOR TRANSPLANTATION OF AN ORGAN, HAS BEEN INFECTED WITH A HARMFUL BACTERIA OR VIRUS. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, AND THERE IS NO ELABORATE STATISTICAL ESTIMATES ARE NEEDED TO GET RELIABLE TEST RESULTS FOR THAT. IN FORENSICS WE THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT THERE IS A BITTER AND COMPLICATED STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY REGARDING THIS ENTIRE AREA, DNA, SPECIFICALLY PCR, ABOUT A DNA MATCH AND WHAT A MATCH MEANS. AND WHILE WE ARE ABOUT IT, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, WHEN YOU HEAR THE PROSECUTOR TALKING ABOUT IT IS A MATCH, IT IS A MATCH, IT IS A MATCH, WHAT SHE REALLY MEANS TO SAY IS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH -- THESE ARE NOT FINGERPRINTS -- CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S GENOTYPE OR WITH THEIR BLOOD TYPE. SO WITH REGARD TO THIS WHOLE AREA OF STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY, AGAIN THE FORENSICS AREA, THE HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION ERROR IN THIS AREA AGAIN. SO AS YOU LOOK AT THIS -- THIS CHART, YOU LOOK AT BLOOD ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT, YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY, AND I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE THAT BECAUSE OF THE DIRTY SAMPLES, THE MINUSCULE SAMPLE SIZE, THE MIXED SAMPLE FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES, THE MULTIPLE HANDLING, THE ERROR RATES NOT WELL-KNOWN, THE LOW LAB STANDARDS, THE EASY PROFICIENCY TESTING, AND THE MAJOR STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY, THAT IN ALL THOSE AREAS IN SEEKING TO TRANSFER THIS TECHNOLOGY TO FORENSICS IS FRAUGHT WITH ALL KIND OF PROBLEMS AND THIS IS A MUCH HIGHER RISK OF CONTAMINATION AND ERROR. NOW, WE EXPECT THAT DURING THIS HEARING YOU WILL HEAR SOME ASTRONOMICAL NUMBERS PRESENTED REGARDING THE DNA TEST RESULTS, AND THESE NUMBERS ARE PART OF WHAT I WAS TELLING YOU, THE STATISTICAL CONTROVERSY, WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE ACCEPTED IN THE SCIENCE AND THESE NUMBERS ALSO ONLY ADDRESS GENE FREQUENCIES. THESE ARE NOT FINGERPRINTS. AND THE NUMBERS THAT YOU WILL HEAR, IF YOU HEAR THEM IN THIS CASE, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF CONTAMINATION THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF LABORATORY ERRORS. THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF TAMPERING, WHETHER THE SAMPLE WAS TAMPERED WITH, AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OTHER IMPORTANT DNA ISSUES WHICH YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT IN THE COURSE OF THIS CASE.
SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE DNA TESTING ASPECT, WE THINK THAT YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE ABOUT POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION, SO-CALLED PCR TESTING, AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND OUT IN HERE THAT THE VERY BEST MEDICAL AND RESEARCH LABS THAT DO PCR HAVE CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS. AND AS I MENTIONED TO YOU LAST WEEK, I THINK THAT YOU WILL HEAR, THAT THIS IS AN AREA THAT PRESENTS A REAL PROBLEM. WE EXPECT DURING THE COURSE OF OUR EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO SHOW THAT FROM THEIR OWN STUDIES THE LAPD'S LABORATORY IS A CESSPOOL OF CONTAMINATION. LOOKING AT THEIR OWN RECORDS AND THE TESTS THEY HAVE RUN WE WILL DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU WHAT THOSE RECORDS SHOW. WE EXPECT THEN IN THIS ENTIRE AREA THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE CARELESS, SLIPSHOD NEGLIGENT COLLECTION, HANDLING AND PROCESSING OF SAMPLES BY BASICALLY POORLY TRAINED PERSONNEL FROM LAPD HAS CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED THE DNA EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND YOUR HONOR, THIS MAY BE A GOOD SPOT, UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO GO FURTHER.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE NOON HOUR. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DO NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE. DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE. AND YOU ARE NOT TO PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS ON THE CASE UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CASE. AND WE WILL RESUME AGAIN AT 1:30. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL COUNSEL ARE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR MISS CLARK. MR. DARDEN.
MISS CLARK, I'M REMINDED OF AN EXPERIENCE I HAD AS A YOUNG TRIAL LAWYER IN PASADENA. I RECALL TRYING A CASE IN JUDGE LADICK'S COURTROOM, BEING LATE IN A JURY TRIAL, AND JUDGE LADICK HAD THE JURY OUT SITTING IN THE BOX AS I WALKED IN LATE FROM LUNCH. AND HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO ME, BUT I GOT THE MESSAGE.
IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME, YOUR HONOR. I APOLOGIZE. WE HAD A LATE MEETING WHICH DELAYED LUNCH CONSIDERABLY, AND I DIDN'T EXPECT IT TO TAKE AS LONG AS IT DID.
WELL, KEEP THAT EXPERIENCE IN MIND. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET ME BRING UP ONE MATTER BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US FOR THE CONTINUATION OF MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT. COUNSEL, WHEN YOU USE A VIDEOTAPE OR AN AUDIOTAPE DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS OR ANYTIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL AND THERE'S A TRANSCRIPT THAT'S AVAILABLE, I FORGOT TO ASK YOU FOR THE NORMAL STIPULATION, THAT THE COURT REPORTER NEED NOT ATTEMPT TO TAKE DOWN WHAT IS ON THE VIDEO OR AUDIOTAPE AT THAT TIME. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU DID USE THAT VIDEOTAPE DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. IS THAT STIPULATION AGREEABLE TO YOU?
YES, I DO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.
OPENING STATEMENT (RESUMED)
BY MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE ITO AND COUNSEL, GANG, GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I CAN MAKE A PROMISE TO YOU AT THIS TIME THAT I WILL FINISH THIS OPENING STATEMENT THIS AFTERNOON. BARRING ANY UNFORESEEN CALAMITIES, WE'LL BE FINISHED THIS AFTERNOON WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, AND I ASK YOU AGAIN TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. JUST BEFORE WE CONCLUDED LUNCH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DNA. AND WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE DNA TO TALK ABOUT. I HAVE TWO CHARTS NOW I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU BRIEFLY. THEY'RE LABELED FOR THE RECORD, "PCR AMPLIFICATION CHARTS." AND WE'RE SEEKING TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS CONCEPT WORKS, THE POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION OR PCR. THIS TECHNOLOGY I'VE BEEN TALKING TO YOU ABOUT IS A FACET OF DNA TECHNOLOGY. PCR TESTS TAKE THESE VERY, VERY SMALL SAMPLES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT -- AND NOW YOU'VE SEEN SOME OF WHICH YOU CAN NOT EVEN SEE -- AND THEY ARE AMPLIFIED UP, KIND OF A MOLECULAR XEROXING IF YOU WILL. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE HERE. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SCIENTISTS ARE NOT YET ABLE TO ACTUALLY EXAMINE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF DNA CONTAINED IN MINUTE SPECKS OF BLOOD. THEY MUST FIRST AMPLIFY THE DNA SO THERE'S ENOUGH OF IT TO EXAMINE. AMPLIFICATION OR AMPLIFYING DNA, AS I SAID, IS LIKE MOLECULAR XEROXING. YOU START WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF DNA AND THEY GO THROUGH THESE VARIOUS CYCLES. EACH CYCLE DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF DNA, AND THEY DO THIS 32 TIMES, THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, BEFORE THEY HAVE ENOUGH DNA TO EXAMINE. NOW, THIS FIRST CHART SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A SINGLE PIECE OF DNA THAT IS THEN AMPLIFIED OR DOUBLED 32 TIMES. AND THEN IT GOES FROM THIS ONE FRAGMENT THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EVEN SEE TO OVER FOUR BILLION FRAGMENTS, AS IS INDICATED ON THE PARTICULAR CHART. THAT IS THE MOLECULAR XEROXING MADE AS -- HOPEFULLY AS CLEAR AS WE CAN MAKE IT IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE. MR. DOUGLAS, WILL YOU MOVE -- WHAT'S THE NUMBER OF THAT CHART, MR. DOUGLAS?
NOW, REFERRING AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO NO. 209, WHICH IS AN AMPLIFICATION OF FOUR FRAGMENTS, NOW, THIS CHART SEEKS TO ILLUSTRATE FOR YOU WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE MAY BE A MIXTURE OF DNA IN THE SAMPLE, WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT MIXTURES -- AND YOU HEARD ME THIS MORNING TALK ABOUT THE WIPE TEST WITH THE HANDKERCHIEF ON THIS PARTICULAR PODIUM. THIS CHART SHOWS FOUR DIFFERENT FRAGMENTS OF DNA AT THE START. AND AFTER THIS MIXTURE, LIKE WE DID IN THE PREVIOUS CHART, IS AMPLIFIED UP, THERE WILL NOW BE OVER -- THE BOTTOM SHOULD BE 16 BILLION OR 17 BILLION FRAGMENTS. EXTRA FRAGMENTS OF DNA, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, COULD GET INTO THE SAMPLE IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE VICES OF THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM AND ITS RELIABILITY; FROM SOMEONE COUGHING ON THE EVIDENCE, FROM FLECKS OF BLOOD WHICH MAY COME FROM ONE SAMPLE BEING PASSED ON TO ANOTHER SAMPLE, FROM SPECKS OF BLOOD THAT STICK TO A PAIR OF TWEEZERS IF THE TECHNICIAN IS USING THOSE OR SCISSORS, FROM SOMEONE SHEDDING DEAD SKIN CELLS ON TO THE EVIDENCE, FROM DANDRUFF, FROM ANY NUMBER OF THINGS. SO THE PROBLEM BECOMES, WHEN ONE SEEKS TO -- WHEN ONE HAS MORE THAN ONE SAMPLE AND THE AMPLIFICATION GETS INTO THE BILLIONS, WE STILL HAVE THIS SAME PROBLEM AS YOU LOOK AT THAT. THESE CHARTS -- WE EXPECT TO HAVE TESTIMONY FROM THE EXPERTS TO ADDRESS THESE CHARTS. WE HOPEFULLY USED THESE TODAY TO MAKE THIS PROCESS A LITTLE CLEARER TO YOU OF HOW THE PCR IS AMPLIFIED UP TRYING TO GET SOME RESULTS. AND EVEN WHEN YOU GET THE RESULTS, AS I INDICATED THIS MORNING, A MATCH DOESN'T MEAN LIKE A FINGERPRINT. IT MEANS CONSISTENT WITH GENERALLY, AND THERE CAN BE -- IF THE CONTAMINATION GETS IN THERE, THEN YOU CAN'T TELL ONE PERSON'S DNA FROM THE OTHER. AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CHART. NOW, IN THIS CASE, TRYING TO CONCLUDE OUR DISCUSSION OF DNA SO EVERYBODY CAN WAKE UP AGAIN AND BE ALIVE AGAIN, THIS -- YOU HEARD A LOT ABOUT DNA AND YOU WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT DNA EVIDENCE. THE PROSECUTION WILL UNDOUBTEDLY PRODUCE SOME OF THESE TECHNICIANS WHO COME IN FROM THE CRIME LAB WHO PERFORMED THE VARIOUS TESTS. AND YOU WILL RECALL THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR HIGH-PROFILE CASE, THEY DESIGNATED AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE A MISS MAZZOLA, WHO IS A TRAINEE, WHICH THIS WAS ONLY HER THIRD CRIME SCENE. SHE WAS SUPERVISED BY A MR. FONG, WHO WAS HER SUPERVISOR THAT DAY. AND WE EXPECT THEIR TECHNICIANS WILL COME IN, TELL YOU WHAT THEY DID, THE VARIOUS TESTS THEY CONDUCTED AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH THEY HAVE DRAWN FROM THE TESTS. WE EXPECT TO PRESENT TESTIMONY HOWEVER SOMEWHAT CONTRARY, INCLUDING SOME OF THE PEOPLE I TOLD YOU ABOUT EARLIER, AND WE EXPECT THAT THE PEOPLE WE CALL WILL TELL YOU BASED UPON THEIR OBSERVATION AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD WHICH OF THESE TESTS RESULTS ARE RELIABLE AND WHICH ONES AREN'T GIVEN WHAT THE TECHNICIANS WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY DID. NOW, IN SUMMARY WITH REGARD TO THE DNA, WE WILL LOOK AT EACH ITEM, HOPEFULLY HAVE TESTIMONY REGARDING EACH ITEM, HOPEFULLY HAVE SOME TESTIMONY REGARDING WHICH ITEMS ARE RELIABLE, ARE NOT RELIABLE AND THEN GIVE YOU EVIDENCE BY WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A FINAL DECISION. YOU WILL RECALL I BELIEVE THAT MISS CLARK IN HER OPENING STATEMENT SAID THAT BLOOD CONSISTENT WITH NICOLE BROWN AND RON GOLDMAN WAS FOUND ON THE GLOVE THAT THIS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WE TALKED ABOUT CLAIMS TO HAVE FOUND BEHIND MR. SIMPSON'S HOME. THAT GLOVE WILL BE UNDOUBTEDLY, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, ONE OF THE MOST HOTLY DISPUTED ITEMS IN THIS CASE. WHERE THE GLOVE WAS, HOW IT GOT THERE, WHERE IT CAME FROM WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WILL BE A MAJOR DISPUTE IN CERTAIN OTHER AREAS. I THINK YOU WILL HEAR A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS SO-CALLED BLOOD FOUND IN THE BRONCO. YOU REMEMBER THE BRONCO TIME LINE. YOU WILL HEAR A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION'S CONTENTION THAT BLOOD CONSISTENT WITH -- NOT THEIR BLOOD, BUT CONSISTENT WITH GOLDMAN AND NICOLE FOUND INSIDE -- NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON INSIDE THE BRONCO, WHETHER OR NOT THIS FINDING IS TRUSTWORTHY. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE POLICE TECHNICIANS WOULD USE UNRELIABLE PROCEDURES IN COLLECTING THIS, THEY MADE FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN CONDUCTING THESE TESTS AND THEN MISINTERPRETED THEIR OWN FINDINGS AS I INDICATED TO YOU EARLIER, THAT THE STAINS THAT THEY THINK ARE CONSISTENT WITH GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CONTAIN TINY AMOUNTS OF DNA, SO LITTLE, THEY CAN BARELY BE DETECTED. THIS DNA COULD ONLY BE FOUND USING THIS SUPER-SENSITIVE PROCEDURE WE TALKED ABOUT WHERE EVEN A SNEEZE COULD CONTAMINATE IT. SO EVEN IF THE TEST RESULTS WERE RIGHT, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THE DNA COULD BE FROM A TINY AMOUNT OF CONTAMINATING DNA FROM THE CRIME SCENE FROM ANOTHER PERSON. FINALLY, IN THAT CONNECTION, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE DNA RESULTS THAT SUPPOSEDLY PUT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RON GOLDMAN IN THE BRONCO ARE NOT LIKE A FINGERPRINT AND A MATCH DOESN'T MEAN THAT. THEY DETECT CHARACTERISTICS IN THE DNA THAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE, NOT CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO ONE PARTICULAR PERSON. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN DNA FOR A MOMENT. WHEN MR. SIMPSON CAME BACK FROM CHICAGO, I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT HE CAME HOME IMMEDIATELY. HE CAME BACK VOLUNTARILY AFTER HEARING ABOUT HIS EX-WIFE'S DEATH. YOU HAVE HEARD SOME INDICATION ABOUT HIS DEMEANOR. ON HIS WAY BACK, THAT HE WENT -- CAME HOME, HE WAS ASKED BY THE POLICE TO COME DOWNTOWN, THAT HE WENT DOWNTOWN, THAT -- WITHOUT GIVING YOU WHAT THE STATEMENT WAS -- THAT HE COOPERATED FULLY AND THAT HE GAVE THE POLICE A STATEMENT, PERHAPS SOME 33 MINUTES, WHICH STATEMENT IS TAPE-RECORDED, THAT THE TWO DETECTIVES WHO INTERVIEWED HIM AT THE TIME WERE DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER. HE ANSWERED ALL THEIR QUESTIONS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT INTERVIEW, THEY ASKED FOR A BLOOD SAMPLE. MR. SIMPSON WAS ONLY TOO PLEASED OR COOPERATIVE TO GO AND GIVE A BLOOD SAMPLE AT THAT TIME. AND IF I MIGHT STEP OVER A LITTLE CLOSER, THIS NEXT CHART -- MR. DOUGLAS, WHAT IS THIS CHART?
THIS CHART HOPEFULLY WILL GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATE WHAT TOOK PLACE. REFERRING TO 205, WE HAVE PARKER CENTER. THIS IS LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS DOWN AT 150 NORTH LOS ANGELES. THIS IS THE BUILDING IN WHICH MR. SIMPSON GAVE THIS STATEMENT TO THE TWO LEAD DETECTIVES FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE (INDICATING). HE WAS QUESTIONED AND HE ANSWERED THEIR QUESTIONS. THEREAFTER -- AND THAT'S THE BUILDING DEPICTED -- THERE'S THE LITTLE YELLOW CIRCLE DEPICTED THERE (INDICATING). THEREAFTER, THEY ASKED MR. SIMPSON TO GIVE SOME BLOOD. A TECHNICIAN THEN DREW SOME BLOOD FROM HIS ARM. WE THINK, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MILLILITERS OF BLOOD. THE TESTIMONY WAS BETWEEN 7.9 AND 8.1, WHICH I THINK IS EIGHT MILLILITERS OF BLOOD. NOW, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW UNDER NORMAL POLICE PROCEDURES, IF THEY'D BEEN FOLLOWING THEIR OWN PROCEDURES, WHEN THE DETECTIVES HAD THIS BLOOD IN A VIAL, CERTAINLY MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD AT THAT TIME, THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT OVER, ABOUT A THREE-MINUTE -- A VERY SHORT DRIVE AND BOOK IT AT A PLACE CALLED PIPER TECH. YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE ABOUT WHERE THEY BOOK THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE, WHERE THE REFRIGERATORS ARE AND THAT SORT OF THING, BOOK IT TO PRESERVE IT. YOU WILL HEAR THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THAT BLOOD. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WILL SHOW THAT THE DETECTIVES DIDN'T TAKE THE BLOOD FROM SIMPSON AT ABOUT 2:30 ON JANUARY -- ON JUNE 13TH, 1994. THEY DIDN'T GO THIS VERY SHORT DISTANCE TO PIPER TECH AND BOOK IT. FOR SOME REASON, THEY CAME ALL THE WAY -- I GUESS THIS IS SOME 20 MILES OR SO -- FROM DOWNTOWN L.A. WITH THE BLOOD ON THEIR PERSON IN THIS VIAL, CAME ALL THE WAY OUT HERE TO THIS AREA CALLED BRENTWOOD, THE HOME OF O.J. SIMPSON, 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AVENUE. AND WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHO HAD THIS BLOOD ON HIS PERSON, INSTEAD OF BOOKING IT AT PIPER TECH WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, CARRIED THIS BLOOD AROUND FROM 2:30 UNTIL PERHAPS 5:20 IN THE AFTERNOON ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, WENT BACK TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S HOME. AND THERE, WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE SOME TESTIMONY THE BLOOD VIAL HE HAD BEEN CARRYING AROUND APPARENTLY IN HIS POCKET, HE THEN TURNED OVER TO MR. FONG, WHO IS A SUPERVISOR OF THIS OFFICER IN CHARGE, THE TRAINEE AT THE SCENE. AND THEN YOU WILL HEAR SOME INTERESTING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT BLOOD. THE BLOOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE NO. 17, BUT IT GETS BOOKED AS NO. 18 AT SOME POINT. NO. 18 YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IS A PAIR OF SNEAKERS. THAT SAME AFTERNOON, AT ROCKINGHAM, WE THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S PARTNER, DETECTIVE LANGE, A MEMBER OF LAPD SOME 25, 27 YEARS, TALKS TO MR. SIMPSON AFTER MR. SIMPSON COMES BACK HOME, AND THEY ASK HIM, "WHAT SHOES WERE YOU WEARING LAST NIGHT," WORDS TO THAT EFFECT, AND THEY PICK UP A PAIR OF REEBOK TENNIS SHOES. AND I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT KATO KAELIN HAD SAID HE WAS WEARING I THINK WHEN HE GOES TO MC DONALD'S TO GET THE HAMBURGER. THEY THEN TAKE THESE TENNIS SHOES. THE TENNIS SHOES ARE ULTIMATELY BOOKED AS NO. 18. BUT FOR A WHILE AT LEAST, THE BLOOD IS ALSO NO. 18. DETECTIVE LANGE I THINK WILL TESTIFY THAT HE TAKES THESE TENNIS SHOES AND HE TAKES THEM HOME FOR THE NIGHT. HE DOESN'T GO BACK DOWNTOWN AND BOOK THEM OR WHATEVER. HE TAKES THEM HOME AND BRINGS THEM BACK THE NEXT DAY, WHICH WOULD BE THE 14TH. SO THIS IS MISLABELED, THERE'S CONFUSION AS TO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS BLOOD AND WHO GETS IT. WE KNOW THAT THE NEXT MORNING, FUNG HAS THE BLOOD DOWNTOWN, AND COLLIN YAMAUCHI, ONE OF THE TECHNICIANS, TAKES ONE MILLILITER OF BLOOD OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR VIAL. SO THIS BLOOD -- THIS IS THE STRANGE SAGA OF THIS BLOOD AND WHY IT WAS CARRIED OUT HERE. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW EXACTLY THE EVENTS I JUST TESTIFIED TO OR JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT IN TESTIMONY. MR. DOUGLAS.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO EXHIBIT 211, THIS EXHIBIT SEEKS TO DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU AS BEST WE CAN USING THE PROSECUTION'S RECORDS. ALL WE CAN USE ARE THE RECORDS. THESE ARE THEIR RECORDS. THIS IS WRONG MAYBE BECAUSE THE RECORDS ARE WRONG. BUT DEFENDANT'S SAMPLE OFFERED VOLUNTARILY. WE TOLD YOU THAT. THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD. I'VE ALREADY SHARED WITH YOU THAT HE HAD EIGHT MILLILITERS TAKEN ON JUNE 13. WE KNOW THAT THE DETECTIVE WALKS AROUND WITH IT FOR AT LEAST THREE HOURS OR SO BEFORE THE TECHNICIAN EVER GETS IT, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS AS WE UNDERSTAND. SO YOU START WITH THE EIGHT MILLILITERS. WE KNOW THAT ON JUNE 14TH, I THINK THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT COLLIN YAMAUCHI TOOK FROM FUNG ONE MILLILITER OF MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD. YOU HAVE TO -- WE'LL HAVE TO SUBTRACT THAT AT SOME POINT. WE KNOW THAT SEVEN DAYS LATER, MR. FLAGHERTY TOOK 1.5 MILLILITERS IN A TUBE, A SMALLER TUBE AS INDICATED HERE, ULTIMATELY RETURNED EIGHT MILLILITERS FROM THIS TUBE. SO WE KNOW THERE WAS .7 MILLILITERS USED OUT OF THE SMALLER TUBE THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN ON THE 21ST. THEN ON JUNE 25TH, COLLIN YAMAUCHI AGAIN PUT SOME BLOOD ON SOME THREADS FOR SOME PURPOSE AND HE USED ONLY .05 MILLILITERS AT THAT POINT ACCORDING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR EVIDENCE. THEN ON JUNE 27TH, MR. MATHESON, AGAIN, ANOTHER ONE OF THE TECHNICIANS, TOOK .75 MILLILITERS OF MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD, ALL FROM THE SAME TUBE. AND FINALLY, THE DEFENSE AT SOME POINT WERE GIVEN ONE MILLILITER OF THE BLOOD. AND WE KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME BLOOD LEFT IN THE SMALL TUBE AND WE KNOW THAT -- AND A RECENT MEASUREMENT IN JANUARY -- I THINK ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 4TH OF THIS YEAR, THERE WAS 1.8 MILLILITERS LEFT IN THE TUBE PLUS THE EIGHT MILLILITERS RETURNED FROM THE SMALLER TUBE. AND IF YOU SUBTRACT THESE PARTICULAR FIGURES -- AND I'VE DONE THAT -- SUBTRACT THE 1.0, THE .7, THE .05, THE .75, THE 1.0, YOU WILL HAVE 3.50 MILLILITERS OF BLOOD TAKEN. TO THAT, YOU HAVE TO ADD THE 1.8 LEFT AND THE .8 THAT WAS USED THERE OR 2.60. SO IF YOU ADD THE 2.60 TO THE 3.50, YOU WILL GET 6.10 MILLILITERS OF BLOOD. AND SO THIS CHART -- AND PERHAPS MAYBE WILL BE EXPLAINED TO US DURING THE TRIAL -- SHOWS THAT IF YOU STARTED WITH 8.0 MILLILITERS AND YOU USE 6.10 MILLILITERS, IT WOULD BE THEN 1.9 MILLILITERS MISSING ABOVE THE AMOUNT THAT'S LEFT, 1.90 MISSING. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE WILL BE LOOKING AT IN THIS CASE IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT MISSING BLOOD AND WHERE IS IT. PERHAPS THERE ARE SOME RECORDS WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT WILL EXPLAIN THAT. BUT THOSE ARE THE RECORDS AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THAT THERE WILL BE 1.90 MILLILITERS OF MISSING BLOOD IN THAT CONNECTION. A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS CRIME SCENE AND WHAT HAPPENED. WE THINK YOU WILL SEE AND HEAR FROM THIS TRAINEE MAZZOLA AND WHAT SHE DID AT THAT SCENE, HOW SHE SOUGHT TO COLLECT THESE SAMPLES, DETECTIVE FUNG'S ROLE AT BOTH BUNDY AND AT BOTH -- ROCKINGHAM. I THINK YOU WILL BE ABLE TO THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT TOOK PLACE OUT THERE ON THAT DATE. NOW, ONE OF THE OTHER KEY BITS OF EVIDENCE WE EXPECT IN THIS CASE WILL BE THE SOCKS THAT MISS CLARK TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IN HER OPENING STATEMENT. REMEMBER SHE TALKED ABOUT THE SOCKS? AND I THINK THAT WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A TIME LINE AND WE ALSO HAVE A GRAPHIC WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS ALSO. MAY WE HAVE THE GRAPHIC AND THE NUMBER OF THE GRAPHIC?
D-84. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOU WILL RECALL THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS. I THINK THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CASE THAT THIS IS THE MASTER BEDROOM IN MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S HOME AT ROCKINGHAM (INDICATING). THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THIS PLACE IS USUALLY METICULOUS AND SPOTLESS. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE CARPET IS VERY, VERY LIGHT AND I THINK THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THE CARPET IS EITHER WHITE OR VERY LIGHT THROUGHOUT, GOING UP THE STAIRWAYS, IN THE HALLWAYS AND VARIOUS OTHER PLACES. AND YOU WILL RECALL THAT -- IN THIS PICTURE, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WHATEVER THIS STRAP IS ON THE BED IS HANGING DOWN ON THE BED. I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE WHERE THAT STRAP HAS BEEN MOVED. AND OVER IN THE CENTER -- YOU'LL SEE IN THIS PICTURE, THE SECOND PICTURE (INDICATING) -- MR. HARRIS, WHAT IS THIS?
IN THIS PICTURE, YOU DON'T SEE THE STRAP HANGING DOWN. SO APPARENTLY IT'S BEEN MOVED. YOU WILL SEE A VIEW OF THESE SOCKS. THESE SOCKS APPARENTLY BALLED -- KIND OF -- PART OF THEM ROLLED UP AND THEN ON THIS CARPET OR RUG THAT'S AT THE FOOT OF MR. SIMPSON'S BED AND JUST IN FRONT OF THE FIREPLACE, THE ONLY ITEM YOU FIND THERE. HERE'S A CLOSE-UP VIEW --
-- OF THESE SOCKS WHICH WERE LOCATED THERE. AND THIS NOW IS JUNE 13TH, THE AFTERNOON HOURS AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, THESE SOCKS ARE LOCATED. NOW, THE TIME LINE I THINK IS HELPFUL TO US AS WE CONSIDER AND LOOK AT THESE SOCKS. AGAIN, THESE SOCKS RECOVERED ON JUNE 13TH. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. AND THEY'RE EXAMINED ON JUNE 13, AND THERE'S NO MENTION OF BLOOD ON THESE SOCKS ON JUNE 13TH. WE KNOW THAT MICHELE KESTLER, BASICALLY THE SUPERVISOR OF THE LAB OVER THERE AT LAPD, SHOWS THESE SOCKS -- THEY CAN'T REALLY EXAMINE THEM -- TO TWO OF OUR EXPERTS, DRS. MICHAEL BADIN AND DR. BARBARA WOLF. THEY SEE THE SOCKS ON JUNE 24TH. THAT'S WITHIN 11 DAYS OF THE SOCKS HAVING BEEN TAKEN BACK TO THE LAB. IT'S JUNE 24TH. AROUND THIS SAME TIME, I THINK ALSO IN JUNE, MISS MICHELE KESTLER I THINK MAKES SOME OBSERVATIONS OF THESE SOCKS AND AT SOME POINT SEES SOME FIBER OR SOMETHING ON THE SOCKS. SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW TO LOOK AT THESE SOCKS, TO BE ABLE TO OBSERVE THEM ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. THEN WE THINK THAT ON JUNE 29TH, 1994, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT KESTLER, MATHESON AND YAMAUCHI DO IN FACT INSPECT THE SOCKS. THAT'S THE THIRD DATE IN THE SAGA OF THE SOCKS. IT'S NOT UNTIL AUGUST 4TH, 1994 THAT ANYBODY IN THE LAPD LAB SEES A BLOODSTAIN ON THESE SOCKS FOR THE FIRST TIME. NOW, THESE ARE THE SAME SOCKS THAT YOU SEE UP HERE THAT ARE PICKED UP ON JUNE 13TH AND SEEN ON THE 13TH, SEEN ON THE 24TH, SEEN ON THE 29TH. BUT YET, IT'S AUGUST 4TH BEFORE A BLOODSTAIN IS SEEN ON THESE SOCKS FOR THE FIRST TIME. AND THAT'S NOT ALL. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 22ND, 1994, THERE WAS -- WITHOUT TESTING ANY BLAME TO ANYONE -- A FALSE LEAD TO THE PRESS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S DNA HAD BEEN FOUND ON ONE OF THESE SOCKS. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT FALSE LEAK WAS THAT NO DNA TESTS HAD YET BEEN PERFORMED. SO THEY HAD PREDICTED THE RESULTS BEFORE THE SOCKS HAD EVER BEEN TESTED FOR DNA. THEY WERE STILL IN FACT AT THE LAPD LAB WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THIS. THEN THE SOCKS AFTER THAT LEAK ON THE 22ND I BELIEVE -- AND THAT LEAK WAS BY A LOCAL CHANNEL 4 REPORTER, WHO THEN RECONFIRMED THAT LEAK THE NEXT DAY, ABOUT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S DNA ON THESE SOCKS. THE SOCKS THEN WERE NOT EVEN SENT OUT FOR DNA TESTING UNTIL SEPTEMBER 26TH, SOME FOUR DAYS LATER. THEN OF COURSE, LO AND BEHOLD, ON NOVEMBER 17TH, 1994, THE LAB REPORTS, THEY FIND DNA ON THE SOCKS, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S DNA ON THE SOCKS, JUST AS THEY HAD PREDICTED IN THIS FALSE LEAK ON SEPTEMBER 22ND. AND OF COURSE, THESE ARE THE SAME SOCKS WHERE NOBODY SAW ANY BLOOD AT ALL UNTIL AUGUST 4TH. AND THAT'S NOT ALL WITH REGARD TO THESE SOCKS. YOU WILL HEAR THAT THROUGHOUT, THERE ARE VERY, VERY SMALL AMOUNTS OF THESE NANOGRAMS THAT YOU SAW ON THE CHART ON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. THE NANOGRAMS FOUND ON THESE SOCKS IS MORE THAN 1400 NANOGRAMS, WHICH IS AS MUCH AS ALL THE OTHER BLOOD TESTED IN THIS ENTIRE CASE JUST ON THESE SOCKS. AND SO WE THINK THIS WILL BE -- THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, THIS WILL BE A HOTLY CONTESTED ITEM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE SOCKS WERE CONSCIENTIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY TAMPERED WITH IN AN EFFORT, IN A RUSH TO JUDGMENT TO GET EVIDENCE ON MR. SIMPSON WHERE YOU HAVE THE RESULTS PREDICTED BEFORE THE SOCKS EVER ARE SENT OUT TO THE LAB AND THE AMOUNT OF THIS DNA BEING EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ALL THE REST OF THE BLOOD FOUND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS, YOU CAN SEE THIS AREA IS VERY, VERY, VERY LIGHT AROUND HERE. THERE'S NO BLOOD FOUND ON THIS CARPET OR ON THAT RUG THAT'S AT THE FOOT OF HIS BED, THAT THERE'S NO BLOOD FOUND ON THE LIGHT CARPET ON THE STAIRS, IN THE HALLWAY FLOOR ON THE WAY UP. BECAUSE THE COURT HAS INDICATED I BELIEVE THAT WE'LL HAVE A JURY VIEW IN THIS CASE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF HOPEFULLY AT SOME TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE THIS PARTICULAR AREA. YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF EXACTLY HOW IT LOOKS AND WHAT TOOK PLACE. I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THE LAPD DID IN FACT DO SOME SEROLOGY ON THESE SOCKS AT SOME TIME, BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THE DNA THAT WAS PREDICTED. SO WE THINK THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL FIND OF SOME GREAT AMOUNT OF INTEREST AND WILL BE A MAJOR ITEM LITIGATED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PARTICULAR HEARING. I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER AS WE LEAVE THE SOCKS AND WHAT TOOK PLACE THAT I WANTED TO BRIEFLY COMPARE WITH YOU THE CONDUCT OF O.J. SIMPSON WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE OFFICERS, THE LAPD OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE FOR THIS GENERAL AREA OF JUNE 13TH. LET'S TAKE FIRST OF ALL MR. SIMPSON. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MR. SIMPSON IS IN CHICAGO ON A PREARRANGED LONG-STANDING TRIP FOR HERTZ TO PLAY GOLF, THAT HE GETS A CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, THAT HIS WHOLE DEMEANOR AND EVERYTHING CHANGED OF COURSE, AND HE COMES BACK VOLUNTARILY. WHEN HE GETS BACK, HE COMES HOME AND HE MEETS WITH THE DETECTIVES. THEY ASK HIM TO COME DOWNTOWN. HE GOES DOWNTOWN AND HE MEETS WITH DETECTIVES WITHOUT ANY COUNSEL, THAT HE TALKS WITH THEM, THAT HE GIVES THEM BLOOD, DOES EVERYTHING THEY ASK HIM, THAT HE THEN COMES BACK HOME THAT AFTERNOON, JUNE 13TH IN THE AFTERNOON. MEANWHILE, THE DETECTIVES -- AND WE'LL START WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS -- DELAYED ALMOST 10 HOURS BEFORE THEY GET THE CORONER OUT THERE. AND WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT IN TRYING TO ESTABLISH THIS MAN'S INNOCENCE. THEY THEN GO FROM THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO ROCKINGHAM. ALL FOUR OF THEM, AS YOU KNOW, THEN CLIMB OVER THE WALL AND THEY MAKE THESE MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE JUDGE. SO IN THEIR VERY FIRST CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AT 10:45 ON JUNE 13TH, THEY DON'T TELL THE TRUTH THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, THEY KNOW HE'S ON A TRIP THAT WAS PLANNED, AND THEY SAY AN UNEXPECTED TRIP. WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THOSE THREE ITEMS EARLIER. THEY DON'T TELL THE JUDGE HOW THEY GET OVER THE WALL OR WHATEVER. SO THESE ARE THE THINGS THEY PUT IN A DECLARATION WHICH YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY SEEN ALREADY THAT DAY. THEY CONTINUE LOOKING AROUND IN A MASS TO FIND EVIDENCE. WE'VE TALKED ALREADY ABOUT HOW PEOPLE AT BOTH -- AT THE SCENE CERTAINLY AT BUNDY ARE TRAIPSING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND THAT SORT OF THING. THEY LATER THAT DAY AFTER MAKING CONTACT WITH MR. SIMPSON OR AT HIS HOME, THEY GO BACK DOWNTOWN WITH HIM. THEY QUESTION HIM, THEY TAKE HIS BLOOD. INSTEAD OF TAKING HIS BLOOD AND BOOKING IT LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE IN THEIR OWN PROCEDURES, THEY TAKE THAT BLOOD AND COME SOME 20 MILES OR SO WEST BACK TO ROCKINGHAM, CARRY IT AROUND, SEIZE HIS TENNIS SHOES, DON'T BOOK THOSE UNTIL THE NEXT DAY, MISLABEL THE BLOOD -- IT'S TO BE 17. THEY LABEL IT 18. THE TENNIS SHOES -- THE SNEAKERS ARE 18. THESE ARE THE EXPERIENCED DETECTIVES IN THIS CASE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS CASE AS THE CASE PROGRESSES, WE WANT YOU TO CHARACTERIZE HOW THEY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES AND HOW O.J. SIMPSON CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN MAKING A JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION WILL EVER PROVE THIS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF KEY WITNESSES IN THE CASE. WITHOUT GETTING INTO ANY OF THEM, ALL WITNESSES ARE IMPORTANT. I THINK ALL SIDES WILL AGREE THAT NO SIDE HAS A PRIORITY ON THE TRUTH, PRIORITY ON THE TRUTH. ALL WITNESSES SHOULD BE ACCORDED, AS THE COURT HAS INSTRUCTED YOU, IN LOOKING AT HOW YOU DETERMINE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF A WITNESS. YOU SHOULD DO THAT. THERE ARE OTHER MISCELLANEOUS POINTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS POINT WITH REGARD -- ONE OF WHICH IS WITH THE 911 TAPE. THE TAPE I HAVE IN MIND NOW IS THE ONE FROM OCTOBER 25TH, 1993. I BELIEVE YOU HEARD TESTIMONY THAT ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO CAME OUT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME -- AND THIS IS THE TIME WHEN MANY OF YOU SAID DURING VOIR DIRE, YOU HAD HEARD THIS PARTICULAR TAPE, WHEN THERE'S NO PHYSICAL INJURY OR WHATEVER, THERE WAS A DOOR DAMAGED -- IT WAS ALREADY DAMAGED, BUT IT WAS DAMAGED SOME MORE. MR. SIMPSON AGREES TO FIX THAT DOOR. YOU WILL HEAR WHAT'S ON THAT TAPE WITH REGARD TO WHAT MR. SIMPSON HAS TO SAY AND WHAT MRS. SIMPSON HAS TO SAY ABOUT HER INTENT AND HER THOUGHT. AND I THINK WHAT YOU WILL FIND THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THAT THIS ARGUMENT, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON OCTOBER 25TH, 1993 WAS OVER PICTURE FRAMES OF FORMER LOVERS OR LOVERS WHILE THEY WERE AWAY AND SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER AND NOT HAVING BEEN REMOVED OR TAKEN OUT OF THE HOUSE AS THEY WERE STRIVING TO GET BACK TOGETHER, AS YOU KNOW, DURING THE LATTER PART OF 1993. AND ANOTHER AREA, IN LISTENING TO THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT, THERE WAS CERTAINLY A SUGGESTION THERE MAY BE SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NOISES, THESE THUMPS ON THE WALL IF YOU WILL THAT WERE HEARD BY MR. KATO KAELIN SOMEWHERE AROUND 10:47 IN THE EVENING, THAT SOMEONE PRESUMABLY CLIMBING OVER THE FENCE -- THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY I THINK THERE IS A FENCE BACK THERE NEAR KATO'S ROOM -- AND ACCIDENTALLY DROPPING THE GLOVE WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CLAIMS THAT HE FINDS THAT GLOVE OF COURSE LATER ON IN THE MORNING. KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE WILL BE WE EXPECT TESTIMONY FROM ROSA LOPEZ ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE AND VOICES OVER IN THE SIMPSON COMPOUND 12:00 O'CLOCK ON UNTIL ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK SHE HEARS. IT'S NOT O.J.'S SIMPSON'S VOICE OUT THERE. SHE HEARS PEOPLE TALKING. SHE CAN'T GO TO SLEEP SHE SAYS. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS WALKWAY, WHICH IS VERY, VERY NARROW, IS VERY, VERY NEAR WHERE SHE LIVES, KIND OF IN HER HOUSEKEEPER QUARTERS IN THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR. WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE THAT THE AREA WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CLAIMS THAT HE FOUND THIS PARTICULAR GLOVE IS AN AREA THAT HAS A NUMBER OF COBWEBS AND THINGS BACK THERE, WHICH ONE MIGHT INFER THAT PEOPLE HADN'T BEEN WALKING BACK THERE, HADN'T BEEN BACK THERE FOR A WHILE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL ALSO SHOW THAT ON THAT SIDE OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOME, IF MR. SIMPSON HAD WANTED TO COME HOME AND HIDE HIMSELF FROM ANYBODY OUTSIDE, THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO ENTRANCES TO HIS HOUSE ON THAT SIDE. THERE'S ONE DOOR THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT GOES INTO A LAUNDRY ROOM, AND OF COURSE THERE'S A DOOR INTO THE GARAGE, ALL ON THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE (INDICATING). I'M MAKING THESE STATEMENTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN RESPONSE TO WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAS INDICATED. I THINK YOU WILL ALSO FIND THAT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THERE IS A GREAT AMOUNT OF VERY THICK SHRUBBERY ON TOP OF THAT FENCE THAT SEPARATES THE PROPERTY WHERE MISS LOPEZ LIVES AND WHERE MR. SIMPSON LIVES ON THAT DATE. AND I THINK YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THOSE TWIGS, LEAVES OR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS WERE EVER DISTURBED OR APPEARED TO BE DISTURBED AS THOUGH ANYBODY HAD CLIMBED ACROSS OR CLIMBED OVER THAT FENCE. NOW I WANT TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO SOMETHING I ALLUDED TO THE LAST TIME. WE CALL IT THE TIME LINE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE EXPECT TO SHOW DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL IS NOT ONLY DID MR. SIMPSON NOT COMMIT THESE BRUTAL MURDERS, BUT HE DID NOT, WOULD NOT, COULD NOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME HAVE COMMITTED THESE PARTICULAR KILLINGS OUT OF THE WITNESSES THAT BOTH SIDES KNOW ABOUT THAT WE UNDERSTAND. AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A TIME LINE WITH A CHART AND TIME LINE WITH THE GRAPHICS WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION NOW. WHAT'S THE NUMBER?
D-87. AND D-87 SO THAT YOU'RE CLEAR, THIS IS THE SIMPSON COMPOUND. THIS IS THE HOME ON ROCKINGHAM THAT YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT (INDICATING). THIS STREET OVER HERE IS THE -- CAN I GET THAT BACK? THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS, SIR. THIS STREET OVER HERE IS THE ASHFORD STREET WHERE ULTIMATELY ALLEN PARK WILL COME. THIS STREET OVER HERE IS THE ROCKINGHAM GATE WHERE THE BRONCO WOULD BE PARKED. THERE'S A GATE RIGHT HERE, AND THE BRONCO WAS PARKED RIGHT THERE (INDICATING). I INDICATED THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY ABOUT WHEN THE BRONCO COMES OUT, HOW IT IS A SHARP TURN RIGHT TO THAT LOCATION. AND OVER HERE, THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY WHERE KATO KAELIN'S VEHICLE WAS PARKED, AND IN SOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT PHOTOGRAPHS, I BELIEVE YOU WILL SEE THAT HIS VEHICLE IS PARKED HERE ON ASHFORD ALSO (INDICATING). THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS.
AND THIS IS THE BUNDY RESIDENCE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, AND I BELIEVE THAT 875 BUNDY IS RIGHT THERE. THIS IS THE WALKWAY THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TALKED ABOUT, RIGHT UP IN THAT WAY, A LOT OF SHRUBBERY AND THERE'S A GATE THERE (INDICATING). TESTIMONY WAS YOU RECALL OR HIS STATEMENT WAS YOU CAN SEE THE BODIES FROM THE STREET AND THE GATE WAS OPENED. AND I THINK YOU SAW SOME PICTURES FROM THE PROSECUTION DURING THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS. THIS IS BUNDY AND BUNDY -- AND THIS AREA IS A STREET THAT TRAVERSES NORTH AND SOUTH, NORTH BEING THIS WAY, SOUTH BEING THAT WAY, WEST BEING HERE AT THE TOP AS I UNDERSTAND IT (INDICATING). AND THIS IS THE AREA HERE WHERE THESE BODIES WERE FOUND. THIS IS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. IT IS THE RESIDENCE WHICH SHE HAD PURCHASED YOU WILL RECALL WITH THE FUNDS THAT SHE HAD GOTTEN FROM THE MONEY THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD GIVEN HER BEFORE HE MARRIED AND SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT HE HAD GIVEN HER. SHE HAD MOVED THERE VOLUNTARILY. YOU HEARD THE APPROXIMATE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO. MR. DOUGLAS, WHY DON'T YOU PUT YOUR -- THERE'S A -- NOW, BEFORE WE GO INTO THE TIME LINE -- WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THIS AND YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS WHEN WE DISCUSS SO-CALLED ALIBI TESTIMONY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW IN THIS CASE IS THAT MR. SIMPSON DOES IN FACT HAVE AN ALIBI FOR HIS WHEREABOUTS ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT DURING THE CRITICAL TIME. YOU WILL RECALL THAT THE PROSECUTORS IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT TALKED ABOUT A PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 9:45 AND ABOUT 11:00. SO OUR EVIDENCE HERE THIS AFTERNOON WILL TRACK THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME, 9:45 P.M. UNTIL ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK P.M. AND YOU WILL RECALL THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE HEARD SO FAR THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON SPOKE TO HER MOTHER AND AN INDIVIDUAL AT THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT CERTAINLY IN THE AREA OF 9:42 OR THEREABOUTS, HAD TWO PHONE CALLS IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME. SO IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT SHE CERTAINLY WAS ALIVE AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. SO THAT'S PROBABLY A VERY GOOD STARTING POINT. WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE BOARD -- AND THIS NUMBER, MR. DOUGLAS, WHAT IS THIS NUMBER AGAIN?
THIS IS 213. THIS IS A SIDE-BY-SIDE VIEW OF EACH OF THESE RESIDENCES SIDE BY SIDE. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, WE'RE GOING TO START AT 9:45 AND IN EACH INSTANCE, FOR ROCKINGHAM AND FOR BUNDY, TELL YOU WHAT WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES AND WHERE THEY WERE. LET'S TAKE THE GRAPHIC ON THE BOARD. AND WHAT'S THAT NUMBER, MR. HARRIS?
THANK YOU. AT 9:45 AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, MR. SIMPSON'S, YOU'LL SEE IN THIS THING -- WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW THAT KATO KAELIN IS IN HIS QUARTERS, MR. O.J. SIMPSON IS IN HIS QUARTERS AND TO THE RIGHT HERE IS ROSA LOPEZ. AND YOU WILL SEE THIS AREA. LET ME JUST USE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. HOLD IT THERE, MR. HARRIS. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE -- ROSA LOPEZ LIVES RIGHT OVER IN THIS PART HERE. THAT THERE IS THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE, LITTLE WALKWAY GOES RIGHT DOWN THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE BACK THIS WAY, AND THAT'S WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CLAIMS HE FOUND THE GLOVE IN THIS VERY, VERY SMALL AREA, LEADS BACK OUT HERE SOMEWHERE. AT 9:45 AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, YOU SEE THE PARTIES WHO ARE THERE. MR. DOUGLAS HAS CHARTERED THAT ON THE CHART HERE. YOU CAN SEE IT IN BOTH PLACES. MR. HARRIS, NEXT.
AT 9:45 OR THEREABOUTS AT BUNDY, YOU WILL RECALL -- THIS IS THE RESIDENCE RIGHT THERE ON BUNDY. AND WE KNOW FROM EXPECTED TESTIMONY TO BE THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HER MOTHER AND SOMEBODY AT THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT ABOUT HAVING THE GLASSES WHICH THE PARTY HAD LEFT AT MEZZALUNA. WE EXPECT SHE IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. MR. HARRIS.
WE'VE TAKEN THIS IN FIVE-MINUTE INTERVALS. AND OBVIOUSLY THESE INTERVALS -- BECAUSE YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE FIVE MINUTES -- IS NOT EXACT. THIS IS AS CLOSE AS WE CAN APPROXIMATE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AS WE NOW UNDERSTAND IT. AT 9:50, PARTIES IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITIONS; ROSA LOPEZ, MR. SIMPSON, MR. KATO KAELIN STILL INSIDE HIS RESIDENCE. 9:50 --
9:55. AGAIN, NOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE TESTIMONY WILL BE THAT ROSA LOPEZ AT ABOUT 8:15, BETWEEN 8:15 AND 8:30, HAS COME OUT, SHE'S SEEN THIS BRONCO PARKED THERE. SHE WALKED HER DOG SOMEWHERE BACK IN THIS AREA OVER HERE THAT I'M INDICATING WITH THE LIGHT AND SHE SEES THE BRONCO KIND OF PARKED SOMEWHAT ASKEW. AND 9:55, THIS IS THE RELATIVE POSITIONS THAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THE PARTIES AT ROCKINGHAM AT THAT TIME (INDICATING).
AT 10:00 O'CLOCK -- THIS IS AT ROCKINGHAM. AND AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, WHERE YOUR ATTENTION -- I THINK YOU WILL FIND THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THE BENTLEY -- OF COURSE, THAT MR. SIMPSON AND MR. KATO KAELIN HAD GONE TO GET THE MC DONALD HAMBURGERS, HAD PARKED IN THE YARD THERE, THAT KATO KAELIN HAS TAKEN HIS FOOD BACK TO HIS ROOM TO EAT, THEY'VE GONE SOMEWHERE AROUND 9:00 O'CLOCK, THEY GOT BACK SOMEWHERE AROUND 9:37, 9:37 TO 9:40, SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA. THE BENTLEY WAS PARKED. MR. SIMPSON HAS EATEN HIS HAMBURGER. ROSA LOPEZ REMAINS AT THE SAME PLACE. WE'VE DRAWN IN, BASED UPON WHAT WE EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE, THE CAR ON THE ASHFORD SIDE HERE, KATO KAELIN'S CAR. IT'S ALL IN BLACK THERE. YOU WILL SEE OF COURSE THE BRONCO. THAT'S AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, SAME AS WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, AT ROCKINGHAM.
AT BUNDY AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT A MAN NAMED TOM LANG, SAME NAME AS THE DETECTIVE IN THIS CASE, BUT NOT THE DETECTIVE, A WITNESS, WE THINK WILL TESTIFY THAT HE'S OUT, AS SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DO, WALKING HIS DOG DOWN HERE, A STREET DOWN HERE CALLED DOROTHY STREET. THIS IS HIS DOG, AND HE'S OUT WALKING THE DOG, AND THAT HE MAKES A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE, WHICH HE TELLS THE POLICE THAT HE SEES A LADY THAT FITS THE DESCRIPTION OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WEARING SOMETHING, A BLACK -- SOME KIND OF A BLACK DRESS. THE DETECTIVE WHO TAKES THE STATEMENT DOWN, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, MISWRITES IT AND PUTS IT LIKE A WHITE FLOWING DRESS, BUT HE TELLS THEM BLACK DRESS I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. THAT HE SEES FROM THIS LOCATION DOWN HERE, HE SEES THIS LADY WHOM HE BELIEVES IS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON EITHER TOUCHING OR IN SOME WAY EMBRACING SOMEONE AT A CAR PARKED AT THIS CURB RIGHT ABOUT IN THIS AREA HERE, AND HE IS SOUTH OF THEIR LOCATION AND HE SEES A GENTLEMAN AT THE CAR AND HE SEES NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. HE ALSO SEES -- HE SEES A MAN DESCRIBED AS A HISPANIC GENTLEMAN STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK BEYOND WHERE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND THIS GENTLEMAN ARE, AND HE IS STANDING WITH HIS FISTS CLUTCHED, AND I'M INDICATING FOR THE RECORD, STARING DOWN AT MR. LANG. HE THINKS THIS MAN MAY BE ANGRY WITH HIM BECAUSE HIS DOG IS LOOSE OR WHATEVER. SO THAT'S MR. LANG AND THAT'S 10:00 O'CLOCK AT THAT -- AND THAT'S THE RESIDENCE HERE. THAT'S 10:00 O'CLOCK AT THE BUNDY STREET LOCATION. AND IF MR. LANG OF COURSE IS CORRECT, THEN NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IS STILL ALIVE OF COURSE AT THAT POINT. 10:05 AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, MR. SIMPSON HAS COME OUTSIDE THE HOUSE. MR. SIMPSON I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW AT SOME POINT MADE A TELEPHONE CALL SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10:00 AND 10:05 TO HIS THEN GIRLFRIEND, PAULA BARBIERI, ON A PORTABLE PHONE THAT HE HAD IN THIS BRONCO. THERE WAS A PHONE CALL. HE WAS UNABLE TO HOOK UP WITH HER, BUT HE DID IN FACT MAKE THIS PHONE CALL. I THINK THERE WILL BE RECORDS OR WHATEVER TO THAT EFFECT. SO AT 10:05, THAT'S THE SITUATION THERE WITH KATO KAELIN STILL BEING IN HIS ROOM AND ROSA LOPEZ STILL BEING IN HER LOCATION.
10:05, WE STILL HAVE THE SAME SITUATION AT THE BUNDY LOCATION. WE HAVE TOM LANG STILL AT THIS SAME APPROXIMATE LOCATION.
AFTER MAKING THE PHONE CALL AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, WE NOW HAVE MR. SIMPSON BACK INSIDE. MR. SIMPSON VERY OFTEN WILL SWING GOLF CLUBS, WHICH HE KEEPS ALL OVER THE PLACE, THE BENTLEY, IN THE GARAGE OR WHATEVER I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, AND THAT HE SOMETIMES WILL CHIP -- THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE GOLFERS -- WILL CHIP OR SWING HIS FOUR WOOD OR THREE WOOD GENERALLY IN THIS DIRECTION OVER HERE WHERE THERE IS SOME SAND WHERE THE KIDS CAN PLAY AND THAT SORT OF THING (INDICATING). DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, MR. SIMPSON AT SOME POINT SWINGS HIS GOLF CLUBS OR WHATEVER, AT SOME POINT, THIS POINT LATER AND CHIPS. SO HE'S OUT IN THIS YARD AREA AFTER HAVING MADE THE CALL.
AFTER MR. SIMPSON HAS DONE THAT AND BEEN OUTSIDE MAKING HIS PHONE CALL, I THINK YOU WILL FIND THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE PARTIES, SIMPSON BACK INSIDE THE RESIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE WILL BE, HE IS GOING TO CHICAGO. AT SOME POINT, HE HAS TO PACK, GET READY. KATO KAELIN IS IN HIS ROOM. ROSA LOPEZ IS STILL AT HER LOCATION AT THAT POINT, ALTHOUGH SHE'S JUST ABOUT TO LEAVE.
THIS LOCATION AT ABOUT 10:15 TO 10:20, ROSA LOPEZ THEN COMES OUTSIDE OF HER LOCATION TO WALK HER DOG AGAIN. AND SHE COMES OUT THIS GENERAL AREA TO THE RIGHT HERE ON ROCKINGHAM (INDICATING) WHERE WE EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE THAT ROSA LOPEZ SEES THE BRONCO STILL PARKED AT THE SAME CONFIGURATION, THE SAME LOCATION, JUST LIKE SHE HAD SEEN IT BETWEEN 8:15 AND 8:30. SHE SEES IT BETWEEN 10:15 AND 10:20, THE SAME LOCATION. AND THEN WE THINK SHE WILL ALSO TESTIFY SHE SAW THIS SAME BRONCO PARKED IN THE SAME MANNER, SAME LOCATION, SAME CONFIGURATION THE NEXT MORNING AFTER SHE HAD TALKED WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. AND THAT'S ROSA LOPEZ AT 10:20, THEREABOUTS AT ROCKINGHAM.
10:20, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD I THINK BY THE EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION, THAT THEY CAN DETERMINE DEATH BY THE PLAINTIVE WAIL OF A DOG, WE HAVE SOME LIVE WITNESSES, ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL -- THESE ARE TWO THAT I ALLUDED TO EARLIER -- WHO HAD BEEN APPARENTLY ON THIS DATE TO MEZZALUNA, AND THEY'RE WALKING HOME AND WALKING DOWN BUNDY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AT ABOUT 10:20. THEY WALK NORTH TO SOUTH, THIS LOCATION AS I INDICATED HERE (INDICATING). THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS.
AT THE OTHER LOCATION, AT ABOUT 10:25, WE EXPECT THAT ROSA LOPEZ AT ROCKINGHAM CERTAINLY HAS GONE BACK INSIDE THE RESIDENCE NOW HAVING WALKED THE DOG, MR. SIMPSON INSIDE THE RESIDENCE, KATO KAELIN INSIDE THE RESIDENCE. AND WE HAVE NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER, ALLAN PARK, COMES UP. AND IT'S INTERESTING -- IF YOU'LL BACK THAT UP A MINUTE, MR. HARRIS. IT'S INTERESTING AT THE 10:25 LOCATION, AND YOU WILL RECALL, BECAUSE I READ YOU THE TESTIMONY OF ALLAN PARK AT BOTH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE GRAND JURY, WAS THAT HE DIDN'T SEE OR DIDN'T LOOK TO SEE ANY OTHER CARS. MR. KATO KAELIN'S CAR WAS THERE. HE DIDN'T LOOK TO SEE IF THE BRONCO WAS DOWN THERE. AND YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE I'M SURE WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT -- WHAT ABOUT THE STREETS AT THAT TIME OF NIGHT, 10:25, 10:30 ON A SUNDAY IN BRENTWOOD, WHAT MIGHT YOU EXPECT TO HEAR, WHAT MIGHT -- WERE THERE LIGHTS ON, WHAT WOULD BE OBSERVABLE AT THAT LOCATION. I BELIEVE HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE ABLE TO GO OUT TO THESE SCENES AT NIGHT ALSO. SO WE HAVE KATO KAELIN'S CAR, ALLAN PARK'S LIMOUSINE, THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE OTHER PARTIES. WE'LL GO ON BACK TO BUNDY.
BY THIS TIME, ACCORDING TO WHAT I EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE, ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL HAVE CONTINUED WALKING SOUTH ON BUNDY, AND NOW THEY'RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE THERE AT BUNDY. NOW, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IS THAT THEY WALKED THERE, THIS VERY SHORT DISTANCE, RIGHT TO THEIR RIGHT, IF THE CRIMES HAD OCCURRED, WOULD BE THESE BODIES WITH THE GATE OPEN WITH BLOOD FLOWING DOWN. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN I READ THIS MORNING FROM PHILLIPS' TRANSCRIPT, WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO THE CORONER ABOUT THE NEED TO COME OUT HERE, THESE BODIES ARE RIGHT THERE, THEY CAN BE SEEN FROM THE SIDEWALK OR FROM THE STREET. SO THESE PEOPLE ARE IN A RATHER UNIQUE POSITION. AND I BELIEVE THAT THEIR TESTIMONY, THEY SAW NO BODIES, THAT SAW NO GATE OPENED AT THAT POINT. AND IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 10:25 WHEN THEY'RE WALKING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. SO THAT BECOMES -- THEY BECOME, AS WITH ALL WITNESSES, VERY IMPORTANT. THEY BECOME PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WHEN THE PROSECUTION TRIES TO PRESENT A THEORY THAT THESE KILLINGS HAVE OCCURRED AT 10:15.
BACK AT 10:30, WHERE ROSA LOPEZ WENT BACK TO HER HOUSE, EVERYBODY ELSE IN THEIR SAME POSITIONS. ALLAN PARK IS STILL OUT WITH THE LIMOUSINE. IN FACT, PARK HAS AT SOME POINT GOTTEN OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE TESTIMONY WILL BE HE'S SOMEWHERE OUT HERE ON THE ASHFORD SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE.
10:30, I THINK WE NOW HAVE ROBERT HEIDSTRA, WHO WAS IN THIS ALLEY I DESCRIBED FOR YOU BEFORE, AN ALLEY THAT RUNS PARALLEL TO BUNDY. AND THIS WILL BE MEASURED FOR YOU, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS ALLEY AND BUNDY THERE. BUT HE ALSO IS OUT WALKING HIS DOG ON THIS SUNDAY EVENING. HE'S WALKING IN THIS DIRECTION AGAIN APPARENTLY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, AND IT'S ABOUT 10:30 THAT HE FIRST APPEARS.
10:35, THE SITUATION IS STILL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AT THIS POINT. THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER IS EARLY. THE ROLES OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLE APPEAR APPROXIMATELY THE SAME 10:35.
10:35. NOW, YOU WILL RECALL THAT ELLEN ARRONSON AND DAN MANDEL HAVE WALKED PAST THIS LOCATION AT ABOUT 10:25, AND THEY DON'T SEE ANY BODIES OR GATES OR ANY BLOOD. NOW, THIS MAN, ROBERT HEIDSTRA IS IN THIS ALLEYWAY. I BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY WILL BE THAT AT 10:35 OR THEREABOUTS, HE HEARS SOME UNUSUAL THINGS. HE HEARS THE SOUND, HEY, HEY, HEY. HE HEARS I BELIEVE YOU WILL HEAR A GATE CLANG OR CLOSING. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THERE ARE GATES BACK THIS WAY AT THE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON RESIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THE ONE IN THE FRONT (INDICATING); THAT HE HEARS THE SOUND OF MEN ARGUING I BELIEVE IS WHAT THE TESTIMONY WILL BE. FROM THIS LOCATION, HE CAN HEAR THIS. HE HEARS THIS GOING ON. HE HEARS THAT TO BE AT ABOUT 10:35 P.M. THAT'S AT THE BUNDY LOCATION. HE'S IN THE ALLEYWAY AND HE'S APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL TO THE BUNDY LOCATION EXCEPT HE'S IN THE ALLEYWAY OFF OF BUNDY. THIS IS AT 10:35.
WE KNOW THAT, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF MR. PARK, AT SOME POINT, ABOUT 10:40 OR THEREABOUTS, HE PULLS THE LIMOUSINE AROUND. HE'S BEEN TRYING TO GET IN CONTACT WITH SOMEONE. HE PULLS AROUND UP TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, WHICH IS ON THIS SIDE AS OPPOSED TO THE ASHFORD GATE, WHICH IS ON THIS SIDE (INDICATING), AND THAT HE APPARENTLY GOES BACK. YOU KNOW, HAVING HEARD HIS TESTIMONY, READ IT, BOTH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE GRAND JURY, HE WAS NOT LOOKING FOR AND CAN NOT TELL US EITHER WAY WHETHER THE BRONCO WAS THERE OR NOT. HE GOES BACK TO THIS LOCATION, AND THAT'S ABOUT 10:40 OR THEREABOUTS ROCKINGHAM.
10:40, WE HAVE MR. HEIDSTRA STILL IN THIS ALLEYWAY IN THIS AREA. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY THE TIME, AT 10:40 P.M. JUNE 13TH, THAT HE HEARS THIS CONFRONTATION SUPPOSEDLY WITH THESE MEN'S VOICES, SOUNDS, ET CETERA, DISTANCE THAT HE'S AWAY.
ALL RIGHT. AT 10:45, THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY I BELIEVE THAT ALLAN PARK IS UP TO THE GATE AT THIS POINT, THAT YOU SEE THE LOCATION OF THE OTHER PARTIES, THEIR LOCATION. HE'S CLOSER TO THE GATE WITH THE CAR RIGHT AT THE GATE. YOU SEE THE PARTIES -- THE POSITION OF THE OTHER PARTIES AT THAT TIME. HE'S MOVED HIS CAR BACK FROM DOWN AT THE ASHFORD GATE BACK AROUND. IT'S 10:45 OR THEREABOUTS.
10:45, THIS IS THE JOURNEY OF MR. HEIDSTRA AS HE CONTINUES DOWN THIS ALLEYWAY. YOU SEE WHERE HE'S GOTTEN DOWN AS HE'S WALKING THE DOG. AND HE'S STILL WALKING PARALLEL TO THE RESIDENCE HAVING MADE THE OBSERVATIONS THAT I'VE SHARED WITH YOU EARLIER.
10:50 OR THEREABOUTS, MR. SIMPSON, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, HAS COME OUTSIDE OF HIS RESIDENCE, HAS GONE OVER TO THE BENTLEY AT THAT POINT, LOOKED INSIDE THE BENTLEY. THIS LOCATION HERE, WHITE CAR, WHITE INDICATION THERE, THOSE ARE THE BENTLEY AT THAT LOCATION. SIMPSON IS OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE. PARK IS OVER BY THE GATE. LOPEZ IS BACK IN HER RESIDENCE. KATO KAELIN IS STILL SOMEWHERE BACK IN HIS QUARTERS APPARENTLY AT THAT POINT.
10:55, NOW HAVE MR. SIMPSON I THINK BENT OR DID WHATEVER HE WAS DOING IN THE AREA OF THE BENTLEY, GOING BACK OVER TOWARD HIS HOUSE, TO HIS HOUSE TO GET HIS LUGGAGE AND COME DOWN TO GET READY TO LEAVE. YOU HAVE KATO KAELIN COMING OUT PRESUMABLY BECAUSE HE'S HEARD WHATEVER NOISES. HE'S NOW OUTSIDE OF THE LOCATION. ALLAN PARK IS STILL OVER HERE. THERE IS SOME TESTIMONY THERE WILL BE SOME GOLF CLUBS OR WHATEVER OUT HERE IN THIS AREA OF THE YARD, IN THIS AREA HERE (INDICATING) ALL AT ROCKINGHAM. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 10:55, JUST BEFORE 11:00.
THE SCENE REMAINS PRETTY MUCH THE SANE. ROBERT HEIDSTRA IS NOW OUT OF THE SCENE HERE AT BUNDY.
11:00 O'CLOCK, ALLAN PARK IS LET IN. THE TESTIMONY I THINK WILL BE THAT HE STARTED TO LOAD THE LIMOUSINE UP, WHICH IS NOW INSIDE HERE (INDICATING). KATO KAELIN IS HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH O.J. SIMPSON ABOUT A NOISE HE HEARD. HE'S TRYING TO GET A FLASHLIGHT TRYING TO TELL MR. SIMPSON ABOUT WHAT HE THINKS HE HEARD. MR. SIMPSON IS RUSHING AROUND AT THIS POINT. AT SOME POINT, HE GOES BACK OUT, GOES TO THE BRONCO AT SOME POINT, COMES BACK IN, GETS HIS LUGGAGE AND BRINGS HIS LUGGAGE DOWN, A NUMBER OF PIECES OF LUGGAGE WHICH YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT. AND ALL OF THESE PEOPLE IN AND AROUND 11:00 O'CLOCK AND THEREABOUTS ARE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA HERE AS DEPICTED ON THIS EXHIBIT AT ROCKINGHAM. MR. HARRIS.
THE SITUATION REMAINS THE SAME AT BUNDY. AND SO AT BUNDY, THERE ARE NO OTHER WITNESSES AT THIS POINT. MR. HARRIS, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM AT 11:00 O'CLOCK.
KATO KAELIN'S CAR REMAINS IN THE SAME PLACE. THE LIMOUSINE IS NOW CLOSER IN THE ASHFORD GATE. THE BENTLEY IS STILL WHERE IT IS, THE BRONCO STILL WHERE IT IS. MISS LOPEZ IS IN HER RESIDENCE. KAELIN, MR. SIMPSON, AT OR AROUND THIS AREA WITH MR. PARK (INDICATING). AS I'VE INDICATED, THIS IS THE TIME THAT THEY'RE PREPARING TO GO ON THIS PRESCHEDULED TRIP TO THE AIRPORT TO GO TO CHICAGO. AROUND THIS TIME OR THEREABOUTS, MR. SIMPSON HAS COME OUT, GONE OUT TO THE BRONCO AND HE COMES BACK IN ALSO AT THAT POINT. NOW, I'VE TAKEN THIS FROM 9:45 UNTIL 11:00 O'CLOCK BECAUSE THAT'S THE TIME THE PROSECUTOR REFERRED TO AND TALKED TO, AND I THINK IT PROBABLY IS THE VERY APPROPRIATE TIME FOR US TO LOOK AT. IN DISCUSSING THIS, THIS PARTICULAR TIME LINE, TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU THE WITNESSES THAT WE EXPECT WILL BE CALLED, WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME. IN LISTENING TO THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT, THEY CLAIM THAT MR. SIMPSON LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, TRAVELED TO BUNDY, KILLED TWO PEOPLE WITH ONE KNIFE, HID THE KNIFE, HID THE BLOODY CLOTHES AND RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM. HE DID ALL THIS AT ABOUT 10:00 OR 10:15 AND GOT BACK THERE AT 10:25 OR 10:30 OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THAT'S WHAT THEIR THEORY WAS. WE THINK THAT THEY HAVE FURTHER, BASED UPON THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO A THEORY THAT IN TRAVELING TO AND FROM BUNDY, MR. SIMPSON HAD USED THIS BRONCO THAT YOU'VE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT. SO THEREFORE, WHEREVER THAT BRONCO WAS THAT NIGHT THEN, ACCORDING TO THEIR THEORY, THAT'S WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS THAT PARTICULAR EVENING. WHAT WE TRY TO DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU AND WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THERE'S NOT THAT WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY, THERE'S NOT THE TIME WHICH THEY CAN PROVE THAT MR. SIMPSON COMMITTED THESE HORRIBLE CRIMES. THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME, THE OPPORTUNITY NOR THE MOTIVE TO ESTABLISH THIS. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE DID NOT, COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT COMMIT THESE PARTICULAR CRIMES. NOW, IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL, YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY REGARDING DOMESTIC DISCORD, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IF YOU WILL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. I TOUCHED UPON THAT BRIEFLY THE OTHER DAY. WITHOUT BELABORING THE POINT, AS YOU HEAR THIS TESTIMONY, I ASK YOU, AS WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE, KEEP AN OPEN MIND, TO REMEMBER THAT THE INCIDENT JANUARY 1ST, 1989 WAS THE ASSAULTIVE INCIDENT THAT MR. SIMPSON TOOK BLAME FOR, WROTE LETTERS OF APOLOGY. AND YOU WILL RECALL THE TESTIMONY, WE EXPECT TO BE, SHE WAS NEVER STRUCK AFTER THAT IN A PHYSICAL SENSE AND THAT IN FACT HE MADE AN AGREEMENT REGARDING THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, THAT IF THERE WAS ANY PHYSICAL TOUCHING, THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WOULD BE VOID. AT ANY RATE, THAT WAS NEVER DONE. EXPECT TO SHOW THAT. THAT WITH REGARD TO THIS ENTIRE DOMESTIC DISCORD EVIDENCE, THAT THERE WILL BE -- AND I ASK YOU TO BEAR IN MIND IN MANY INSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE PERSON PRESENT, PLEASE KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE ALSO PRESENT AT THESE INCIDENTS SO YOU CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THIS HAS ANY BEARING AT ALL, BECAUSE IF YOU FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, IF YOU BELIEVE MR. SIMPSON COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT, THAT THIS TIME LINE IS SUCH THAT THERE'S NO TIME FOR HIM TO DO IT, NO INDICATION THAT HE COULD HAVE DONE THIS, THAT THE BRONCO WAS STILL THERE, WHATEVER, THEN THE CHARACTER EVIDENCE WILL MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, BECAUSE HOW COULD YOU THEN PREDICT THAT SOMEONE WHO GETS INTO A FIGHT WITH HIS WIFE IN 1989 WILL THEN KILL HER IN 1994. ONE AREA THAT I DID NOT COVER EARLIER IS THE SEARCHING DONE IN THIS CASE. THEY HAVE SEARCHED EVERYWHERE IN THIS CASE FOR WEAPONS AND/OR CLOTHES, AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT THEY SEARCHED EVEN IN CHICAGO, IN THE FIELDS AND THE WOODED AREAS IN CHICAGO, ALL UP AND DOWN ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY AND EVERY PLACE THEY POSSIBLY COULD. THEY WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS CASE BECAUSE IN THEIR RUSH TO JUDGMENT, THEY FIXED ON THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY FOCUSED ON WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID. MISS CLARK IN HER OPENING STATEMENT SAID THAT MR. SIMPSON'S TIME WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR FROM 9:45 TO 11:00. I THINK YOU WILL FIND WHEN YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE THAT WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE POLICE, HIS TIME IS NOT UNACCOUNTED FOR. THE TIME WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR --
WE EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED AT THESE VARIOUS LOCATIONS THAT YOU HAVE JUST SEEN WAS CONTAMINATED, COMPROMISED AND ULTIMATELY CORRUPTED.
WE KIND OF NOT FOLLOWING PROCEDURE, BUT WE ARE KIND OF ASKING A FAVOR, AND YOU KNOW, KIND OF WORK A LITTLE BIT ON THIS ONE.
THIS WAS A LIE WHEN THEY WERE TALKING TO THE JUDGE AT THAT POINT.
I SUPPOSE THAT THERE IS A SAYING THAT YOU HAVE GARBAGE IN, YOU GET GARBAGE OUT.