Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good evening.

You know, they asked me to do the summation Marcia Clark just did for you, but I told them, no, it's too long. I'm not the kind of person who likes to talk that long and Marcia isn't either, but she had to. And I think that one of the things that you probably gathered from hearing her today is that this case really is a simple case in this essence. When you get down to the bottom line, this case really is a simple case. All you have to do is use the tools God gave you, the tools he gave you to use or utilize whenever you're confronted with a problem or an issue. All you have to do is use your common sense. And the Defense would have you believe that this is a complex series of facts and evidence and law and science and all of that. Not really. Not really. You have to question or wonder how it is a lawyer can summarize a case in eight hours when presenting the case took eight months. It's a simple case, but there's been a lot of smoke, a lot of smoke screens, a lot of diversions, a lot of detractions, a lot of distractions, and in some respect, there's been an attempt to get you to lose focus of what the real issues are in this case. And that takes time. If I could give you any advice as jurors, any advice at all, I would say to you, use your common sense. When you get all of this evidence and go into the jury room and after you pick a Foreperson, take that common sense that God gave you, take the evidence that the Prosecution gave you and the Defense evidence, go into that jury room, sit down, spread it out. And using that common sense, ask yourself a question; what does the evidence show. What does the evidence show? And when you look at it in the simplest terms, what you are going to see is the blood in the Bronco, blood trail from Bundy, blood in his bathroom, blood on his socks. Simple evidence. You can look at a chart and see what the DNA results are. It really, really won't be that difficult and when you use your common sense and get down to the bottom line, put aside all of the distractions and all of the smoke that's been blown throughout this courtroom and in your direction. Now, it's been a long time since I've had an opportunity to speak to you. And unfortunately, I wasn't here during jury selection. So I didn't get a chance to talk to you and introduce myself to you during voir dire, and so you were sort of given the Darden shock treatment I guess. You saw me literally the first day you came into the courtroom the first day we began taking evidence literally, and I got involved in the case and we didn't get to talk a lot. Well, let me say this to you in the limited time that I have. You are an amazing group of people. You've been sequestered now longer than any jury in the state of California. I think Judge Ito alluded to that before. You spent months in sequestration. I guess you've been able to watch your 50 television programs or football. Maybe you missed the NBA season. I don't know. But as you sat there in sequestration, the rest of us, these people, we all got on with our lives. We went home every night, saw our family and our friends. We continued the personal relationships that we had, and you haven't had a chance to do that for eight months. And all I can say about that is that you are an amazing group of people, and I thank you for that because you have paid a very, very significant price. You have made a commitment to justice. You have made a commitment to see to it that this case is resolved fairly and correctly and you made a commitment to see to it that the law is followed, that the police followed procedure and the law and that there is no conviction in this case unless the evidence is proven to you, unless his guilt is proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt. And I thank you for that, because that's what you should do. That's what the community should do. A trial is supposed to be a search for the truth, and sometimes the truth is uncovered or revealed at the end of a long road, at the end of a long journey. And this has been a long journey. Well, let me say this to you; that today--tonight, the whole world is watching us tonight or watching me, and they have listened to the evidence and they have watched the witnesses testify here on television and they want to know what you're going to do and we want to know what you're going to do. There are some people I suppose who think that justice in this case would be just to ignore the evidence and say he's not guilty. Some people think that justice in this case would be just to jump to some conclusion, some silly conclusion, some conclusion not based on the law and forget about the evidence. Some people think that because the Defendant in this case is a celebrity, that perhaps he is someone above the law, that there ought to be special rules for him or that somehow he should be treated differently than any other Defendant. But that's not justice. And there are some people that think because Fuhrman is a racist, that we ought to chuck the law out of the window, throw it out of the window, perhaps it shouldn't be applied in this case. Well, that's wrong and that's not why we're here, because we don't ignore the law just because of the status of a Defendant, because of who he is or because of who he knows. That isn't justice. You're here to ensure justice, I'm here to ensure justice and we all know the rules. And the rules say and the law says that he should not kill, that he should not have killed these two people, and the law says that if you believe that he killed these two people and if you believe that it has been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, that you should find him guilty. You heard Marcia Clark and you've heard the evidence and you've seen the evidence, and you're reasonable people. And, you know, we know. I mean, if we're honest with ourselves, we know, if we are. And it's unfortunate what we know. But we know the truth, and the truth that we know is that he killed these two people.

Objection, your Honor. I object to the form of that.

Overruled.

Now, this man, this Defendant, O.J. Simpson, we believe that, given the state and the quality of the evidence, is guilty. And there's nothing wrong with voting guilty in this case given the state of the evidence and the quality of the evidence. A vote of guilt in this case isn't a vote for any independent group in particular or any independent group at all. It isn't a vote for the Prosecution, for Marcia and I. It certainly isn't a vote for the LAPD, and it's not a vote against anyone. It's not a vote against the Defendant. It's not a vote for the victims or the victims' family. When you go into that jury room open-minded and fairly and conscientiously consider this evidence and then cast a ballot, a vote for guilt or innocence based only on the evidence that you've seen in this case and only on the law given to you by Judge Ito, when you cast a vote on that basis, then you're voting for justice, you're voting for fairness, you're doing the right thing under the law. And that's what we're going to ask you to do. They say justice is supposed to be blind and all of that good stuff. I know you've heard all of that before. But we just have to believe, Marcia Clark and I, that justice isn't blind in this case.

There have been lots of issues, lots of issues that came up in this trial. This trial has been an amazing experience. I'm sure you would agree. But even though there are a lot of small issues, a lot of other issues, a lot of little distractions here and there, you're here to address a single issue. This is a single case, one issue; did the Defendant kill these two people. One Defendant, O.J. Simpson. You heard from the Defense in this case and they presented testimony about slurs, epithets as they call them, a bunch of nasty, hateful, low-down language used by Mark Fuhrman. And I'm not even going to call him Detective Fuhrman if I can help it because he doesn't deserve that title. He doesn't warrant that kind of respect, not from me. But this isn't the case of Mark Fuhrman. This is the case of O.J. Simpson. And let me say this to you, if you will allow me to. And I don't mean to offend you or demean you, and I hope that you don't feel that I am. But this is the case of O.J. Simpson, not Mark Fuhrman. The case of Mark Fuhrman, if there's to be a case, that's a case for another forum, not necessarily a case for another day, because today may be the day. But it is a case for another forum, another jury perhaps. This case is about this Defendant, O.J. Simpson, and the "M" word, murder; not about Mark Fuhrman and the "N" word. And you know what that is. I am going to ask you to consider the fact of his misstatements or lies or untruths, however you want to term it, because you have to consider that. That's the law. You have to consider everything Fuhrman said on the witness stand because that's evidence in this case. And I want you to consider it. I want you to consider all the evidence. So don't think that I'm saying, hey, just overlook it, just overlook what he said, just overlook the fact that he lied about having used that slur in the past 10 years. But I am asking you to put it in the proper perspective. You decide what it's worth. You decide what it means. If it helps you in assessing his credibility--and it should, or his lack of credibility, I don't know--then you use it. But please just remember, Fuhrman isn't the only issue in this case and his use of that word is not the only issue in this case. And you have to be concerned about that. I have to be concerned about it as a lawyer for the Prosecution in this case because it apparently was a very, very significant event for the Defense.

I mean, you saw all those people that came up to testify about Fuhrman's use of this word and then at one point, you heard a tape of Fuhrman. And that was Fuhrman by the way, okay, no doubt about that, using those slurs. And you heard a tape of him using those slurs, and it had to make you angry to hear him say that. Made us angry. But that wasn't enough. Not only did you get to hear the words, you were given--the transcript was scrolled across the elmo. Remember? So you could hear it and you could see it. But that wasn't enough. You had to have a transcript for some reason of the words as well. A lot of emphasis on that. I don't know why. I know you do. This evidence, just like all the other evidence in the case, attach whatever value you think is appropriate. I would say use it to assess his credibility, and other use you want to put to it, look to the law, look to the instructions that the Judge gives you. Miss Clark mentioned to you that I was going to talk to you about domestic violence, and I'd like to do that right now if I can. And I did that I suppose when I began speaking with you back on January the 24th. Was it the 24th? That's a long time ago. You're probably like me. You didn't think it would ever go on this long. Well, you're almost there. It's almost over. We believe that this evidence of domestic violence is very important. It's important that you understand the nature of this man's relationship with one of the victims in this case. It's important because when you consider it, it may help explain to you or it may suggest to you his motive for killing Nicole Brown and perhaps his motive for killing Ron Goldman as well, and the law allows you to use this evidence as you attempt to determine whether or not there was a motive to kill. Caljic 2.51?

As we search for the motive jury instruction, let me say to you, you can use it for other reasons, for other purposes. This evidence is being given to you with certain limitations I suppose, and the Judge will explain to you what those limitations are. But you can use this evidence to determine whether there's a motive to kill. You can use this evidence to help in the sense of your deciding whether or not the killing was premeditated. And if you find that it helps in terms of identification, the identification of this Defendant as the person who killed these two people, you can use it. But when you look at this jury instruction entitled "Evidence of other crimes," you see here at the bottom where it says, "A motive for the commission of crime charged," you see that you can use this evidence for that purpose, evidence of other crimes. The 1989 spousal battery incident, you can use that to look to see if there's evidence of a motive. There's also something called Caljic 2.51 and it's entitled "Motive" and it reads as follows: Let me read to you. First of all, it says: "Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown." And that's important. Miss Clark talked to you about premeditation and malice aforethought and whether or not the killing was willful and deliberate and all of that. We don't have to prove to you that the Defendant had a motive to kill. We don't have to prove that at all. It just so happens that in this case, we have that kind of evidence. The motive is not an element of the offense charged.

And 2.51 also says that: "The presence of motive may tend to establish guilt." If you find that we have presented sufficient evidence of motive, then you should use that evidence as you attempt to determine whether or not the Defendant is guilty. But you can use this domestic violence evidence for a number of reasons and in a number of ways. And when I spoke to you back in January, I told you--I promised you I think that I would expose to you the other side of this man, of this Defendant. I promised you that I would expose to you the private side of him, that part of him, the side of him that was capable of extreme rage, jealously and violence, and I said to you back then, I said to you and I asked that you consider the nature of their relationship, with Nicole, because to understand what happened at Bundy, you need to know what happened between them during the 17-year period that they were together off and on, because when you look at that, you see a motive for killing. I'm sure the Defense is going to get up here at some point and say, uh, that domestic violence evidence, it's irrelevant, and they may say to you that just because this Defendant had some marital discord or violence in his marriage to Nicole Brown, that it doesn't mean anything. Well, this isn't a "Just because" issue. This is a "Because" issue. It is because he hit her in the past and because he slapped her and threw her out of the house and kicked her and punched her and grabbed her around the neck, it's because he did these things to her in the past that you ought to know about it and consider it, and it's because he used a baseball bat to break the windshield of her Mercedes back in 1985 and it's because he kicked her door down in 1993. You remember the Gretna Green incident. Remember the 911 call. It's because of a letter he wrote him--he wrote to Nicole rather around June the 6th talking about the IRS. It's because he stalked her, because he looked through her windows one night in April of 1992. They may say the Defendant is just looking through a window late at night. We say that's stalking. It's because of all those things and because all of these things alongside the physical evidence at the scene, the bloody shoeprints in his size, the blood drops at Bundy, the blood on his sock, the blood trail at Rockingham, it's because when you look at all of that, it all points to him.

I'm not afraid to point to him. Nobody pointed him out and said he did it. I'll point to him. Why not? The evidence all points to him. And it's also because when you look at the bloody ruthlessness--my mouth is getting dry--of these murders and when you see, as Miss Clark pointed out, that these killings were rage killings, rage--I mean, you have to say to yourself, well, who in the past has ever raised a hand to this woman? Who during the days and the hours leading to her death was upset with her? And as Miss Clark alluded to earlier--you're too kind.

And as Miss Clark alluded to earlier, the killing was personal, the way it was done. The way it was done, this is personal. Somebody had a score to settle. Who had a score to settle with Nicole? When you look at all of that, you look at the domestic violence, the manner of the killing, the physical evidence, the history of abuse and their relationship, the intimidation, the stalking, you look at it, it all points to him. It all points to him. Now, they may not think this evidence is important. But it was important to Nicole Brown. You heard Detective Mark Fuhrman testify about the 1985 incident. Let me say Fuhrman, Fuhrman, Fuhrman, Fuhrman. All right. I've said Fuhrman about 50 times. Let me let you know this. We're not hiding Fuhrman. He's too big, especially now, to hide. So hey, Fuhrman testified. Fuhrman described for you a 1985 domestic violence, domestic abuse incident or incident of violence or incident of abuse or disturbing--what do you call it--disturbing the peace incident, whatever you want to call it. But in 1985, Detective Fuhrman was not a detective. I just called him Detective, geez. Fuhrman was a patrol officer. He went to 360 north Rockingham in response to a call. And you recall the testimony. He saw Nicole sitting on the--on a Mercedes as I recall. The window was bashed out, the fenders were dented, there was a baseball bat nearby. The Defendant was walking along the driveway. Fuhrman had a conversation with the Defendant. Nicole was crying, her face was covered with her hair, she was holding her hands to her face. You remember that testimony. That was 10 years ago. 10 years ago, Fuhrman went to 360 north Rockingham in response to that call. That's 1985. 1994, Nicole's dead. When you look at the relationship between these two and you reflect back on the testimony from Christian Reichardt and you think about the 911 calls and Officer Edwards and you think about the day of the recital, you think about Denise Brown and what she had to say about the Defendant--remember that time at the red onion when he grabbed her by the crotch in front of a bar full of strangers and said, "This is where my babies come from. This is mine." Remember that testimony? This relationship between this man and Nicole, you know, it is like the time bomb ticking away. Just a matter of time, just a matter of time before something really bad happened. You know, you meet people in life and there are people with short fuses. You know, they just go off. And there are others with longer fuses, you know, takes them a little while longer to go off. And relationships are the same way sometimes, you know, especially a violent abusive relationship like this one. This thing was like a fuse, a bomb with a long fuse. And there were incidents along the way, and along the way as each incident occurred, that fuse got shorter. If nothing else, that fuse was lit in 1985 that night when he took that baseball bat to her car. And we don't know the reasoning behind his decision to do that. We only know that he did. When you stop and you look at it and you consider the conduct, breaks the windshield, dents the car up, use of a baseball bat--that's a pretty novel approach. The wife is seated on top of the car crying, face covered, hair over her face. If nothing else, look at it this way. What message does that send to Nicole? What are we going to do with this evidence? How do we evaluate this, when a man takes a baseball bat to his wife's car and just beats the "F" out of her? If nothing else, it sends a message to her. It instills fear; wouldn't you agree? And would you agree that it suggests to her that this can happen to you, that maybe you'll be next? That fuse is burning. It's burning in 1985, it's burning in 1985, and 1985 was the year of their marriage. The fuse is lit. It's burning, but it's a slow burn. We next go to 1989. You heard from Denise Brown. You know, she testified about 1989. Detective Edwards testified about 1989. I said before, you've got to go back--we have to go back and look at their relationship. We have to go back in the past to see how we got to where we are today because when you do, you see a pattern developing here.

You see that fuse is lit in 1989. It was new years, new year's night. It was about 4:00 o'clock in the morning. And as I recall, we called to the witness stand a 911 operator. Her name was Sharon Gilbert. And that night--that morning, she received a call. The caller never identified herself. The line was left open. The call came in, the line was left open. The 911 operator stayed on the line and listened in. And as she testified here at the trial, if you stay on long enough, being a 911 operator, you get a fix on the origin, the address from where the call is coming. She stayed on the line. She determined that the call was coming from 360 north Rockingham and she listened in for a few moments. You recall that tape. Can I play that for you? It only takes a couple seconds. Do you have that tape? Is that People's 1? This is People's 1. This is the first exhibit I marked for you in this case eight months ago.

I stood before you back in January. I said to you if you listen carefully to that tape--and you'll have the tape in the jury room. You put it in a tape recorder. When you listen to it, listen carefully because you can hear in the background the sound of someone being struck or slapped. And that's what the 911 operator heard and she told you on the witness stand that she heard that. She heard the sound, the noise of someone being beaten and she put that out on the radio. You recall that? She put it out on the radio that there was a woman being beaten at 360 north Rockingham. They may say that this isn't important evidence. I say they're wrong. There's physical abuse here, wife beating here, spousal abuse, spousal battery going on and this is an emergency situation. And Sharon Gilbert, the 911 operator, puts this call out code 2, high, get somebody to 360 north Rockingham fast. And they do. And they do. About 4:00 o'clock in the morning, Officer Edwards arrived at 360 north Rockingham. You recall Officer Edwards. He and his partner, they drove up Rockingham--I'm sorry--they drove up Ashford to pass the Ashford gate. They stopped at Rockingham where they saw the call box. He got out of his patrol car and he pushed the button at the call box, and a voice responded on the other side. It was the voice of the maid at that time, Michelle Aboudram. Officer Edwards identified himself, told Michelle that he was there in response to a 911 call and that he needed to speak to the person that made the call. Michelle said, "Hey, there's no problem here. Don't worry about it. Go on about your way." But Officer Edwards was persistent and he said, "No, no, no. I'm not leaving until I speak to the person that made that call." And as he spoke to Michelle Aboudram, someone ran out of the bushes in the dark. Do you recall that testimony? You heard it. It was here. Someone ran from the bushes in the dark. It was a woman, a woman with blond hair. She was wearing a bra. She was wearing a bra and pajamas or sweatpants. And that woman came running from the bushes in the darkness toward the gate where the call box was and she was yelling something. She was shouting something. Do you remember what she was shouting? Remember what the testimony was in this case? She was shouting, "He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," and she shouted this four or five times as she arrived at that button and began pushing that button to get out of that gate, to get off that property, to get out of his house.

And as Officer Edwards stood there on the street side, on the Rockingham side of that gate, looking at her on the opposite side of the gate, what did he see? He saw that she was covered with mud. She was panicked. As Officer Edwards put it, she was hysterical. And she's hitting that button, hitting that button trying to open that gate to get out of there and she's yelling to him, "He's going to kill me." And what did Officer Edwards say? What did he say? "Who? Who is going to kill you?" He didn't see anybody running behind her. "Who? Who is going to kill you?" And what does she say? "O.J. O.J. O.J. Simpson." The gate finally opened, and she ran through the gate, she ran to Officer Edwards and she fell in his arms and collapsed and she said, "He is going to kill me," and she just kept repeating it. Well, at that point, Officer Edwards shined his flashlight on her face. Remember the testimony? When he shined that flashlight on her face, he saw that her eye was starting to blacken. The right side of her forehead was swollen. There was an imprint, some sort of a swollen mark on her right cheek--cheek did I say?

And he also said that she had a hand print--he saw a hand print, a hand print on the left side of her neck, on the left side of her throat. A hand print. Someone had grabbed this woman, his wife by the neck hard enough to leave an imprint around her neck, an imprint in the shape of his hand. Let me say this to you. We submit to you that the hand that left that imprint five years ago is the same hand that cut that same throat, that same neck on June 12th, 1994. It was the Defendant. It was the Defendant then, it's the Defendant now. And at that point, Nicole Brown made a--she said a series of things to Officer Edwards. Remember, keep in mind that she was hysterical, she was upset and she was panicked, and I'm sure that she was in fear because she must have been in fear because she was running through the night covered with mud in a bra and in her pajamas. And she said to Officer Edwards--she said something very important to Officer Edwards. She said, "You never do anything about him. You come out here, you've been out here eight times and you never do anything about him." That's what she told Officer Edwards that day. She said, "You've been out here eight times."

They want to tell you that the police conspired against O.J. Simpson. Nicole says they had been out there eight times before and never did anything to him. I don't know. Well, let me ask you this. How many times does it take? If they'd been out there eight times before that night, then that night was the ninth time. No one had ever done anything to him before. I don't know why that is. But what do you think? Do you think it's time to think that perhaps this time, we ought to do something? Eight is enough. If eight isn't enough, nine--nine is certainly enough. Nicole said it with her own mouth back then, "He is going to kill me, he is going to kill me." And sure enough, he has, long after she makes these spontaneous statements to Officer Edwards, after she complains they have been out there eight times before and they've never done anything to him, this man, the Defendant, see. And we're seeing the Defendant at home at this point, you know. We're seeing the private side of him, the private side I told you I'd show you. He comes out of his house and he's wearing a bathrobe 4:00 o'clock in the morning. Nothing wrong with that. And he speaks to Officer Edwards.

Now, when he speaks to Officer Edwards, does he ask him, "How's my wife"? No. Does he say, "I hope I didn't hurt her too badly"? No. What does he say? What does he do? He humiliates her. Remember what he said. He said, "I don't want that woman in my bed anymore. I got two other women. I don't want that woman in my bed anymore." That was his response. And this was Nicole, his wife. She had been his wife four years. You recall Officer Edwards' testimony, that this Defendant, he was angry, he was mad, he was fit to be tied. And he was yelling at Officer Edwards. And the Defendant was on one side of the gate. He was on the Rockingham side on his own property. Officer Edwards was on the other side of the gate. And there they are speaking to each other on the opposite side of the gate, and the Defendant is yelling these things to Officer Edwards about his wife, saying these kinds of things about his wife to Officer Edwards who is a stranger. And Officer Edwards said to the Defendant, "Your wife has been battered. She is injured. I'm going to have to arrest you." Well, that just set the Defendant off again, just set him off.

Let me tell you something. The fuse is burning. The fuse is burning, folks. The fuse is burning. And at some point, this fuse is going to run out and it is going to play out. It is going to get so short and so close to the bomb that at some point, this bomb is going to explode. And what does the Defendant say when Officer Edwards says to him, "I'm going to have to arrest you, I'm going to have to take you to jail"? What does the Defendant say? He says the same thing Nicole said in a sense. He says to Officer Edwards--this is what the Defendant said. You recall this testimony. Officer Edwards heard the Defendant say, "You've been up here eight times before, and now you're going to arrest me for this?" Now, let's just think about that for a moment. If nothing else, we now have the confirmation that we need. That is the confirmation of the fact that the police had been there eight times before. But what is this part about, "And now you're going to arrest me for this"? What does that mean? What does that mean? "Now, you are going to arrest me for this, but you've been up here eight times before."

And I don't know. This is the evidence in the case. You're going to have to decide what that means. You can interpret what he says. You don't have to just take it literally. You decide what that means. It could mean a couple things. And after he said that and after he complained to Officer Edwards about the fact he was going to be arrested for beating his wife, he says to Officer Edwards, "This is a family matter. It is a family matter and nothing more." Well, wife beating is not just a family matter, is it? I mean, is this something we ought to take seriously? That's one thing about spousal abuse. You know, it happens and it always happens behind closed doors. And you know what they say; nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. And we don't know everything that went on behind the gates of this man's estate at Rockingham, but we do know this; that whatever it was, whatever went on there had gone on eight times prior to this time, right? We know that. But he says it's a family matter. He minimizes what has happened. He doesn't care about this woman. He doesn't care about what he did to her.

Well, Officer Edwards gives him the star treatment. He tells him, "Hey, I'm going to take you to jail. Go back in the house and get dressed." Officer Edwards did not insist on arresting him right then and there. He let him go in the house alone to get dressed. Apparently that's what the Defendant did, because a few minutes later, he came back out yelling and complaining and moaning, complaining about being arrested, saying more derogatory things about his wife in front of this stranger. Well, in the meantime, Officer Edwards had sent for a second car, second police vehicle, a transport vehicle because he was going to transport Nicole to the station in one car and they were going to arrest this man and take him to the station in another car. And as that second police car arrived and as Officer Edwards turned his attention toward that second police car, that meant that he turned his attention away from the Defendant. And what did the Defendant do? Remember the testimony, remember what happened? I know it's been a long time. What did he do? Jumped in the car and he ran. Remember that? He went out the other gate in the Bentley. He ran. He drove away. He got away. He didn't get arrested. He avoided responsibility that day for having done what he did to Nicole. "Responsibility" is an important word, one of the words we teach our--I know I teach my kids about responsibility. You know, you have to tell them--you have to let your kids know, hey, you do an act, you've got to accept responsibility, okay. You've got to accept the consequences. Well, he didn't accept the consequences that day. He didn't accept responsibility. He jumped in that Bentley, he drove away, he snuck off. He avoided responsibility. He got away from the police. They tried to catch him. They couldn't. Well, we caught him this time. Well, after the Defendant got away, Edwards asked Nicole to go down to Parker Center, to come from Rockingham all the way downtown to Parker Center so he could have some professional photographs taken of her injuries, but she refused. Remember what she said? She said, "No. I just want my children. I want to stay here with my children. I don't want to leave my children." And she was beaten and she was bruised and she was hurt. She still wanted to stay with her kids. She wanted to be with her kids. And Edwards said, "Well, will you do this for us? Will you just go down to West L.A. Station and let us photograph your injuries? It only takes a few minutes."

It seems as if she was more concerned about her kids than she was doing anything to the Defendant. She didn't--she didn't care about documenting her own injuries at that time. She just wanted to be with her kids. But Edwards took her to West L.A. Station and he took some Polaroid photographs of her. Remember those photographs? Back in February I think it was, I think I marked those People's 4 and 5. I want you to go back for a moment with me eight months ago. Take a look at these injuries. Keep in mind, these are Polaroids and they're eight years old. Look at these injuries. Just look at what you can see, which isn't much at this point.

See the small cut to the right side from where we are on the right side of her upper lip? Look at the swollen left cheek. Look at the scar, the scratch, the bruise on the right side of her forehead. You see that? You've seen other pictures of her. You saw a picture of her when she was alive and smiling. Remember that picture? I have to find it for you tomorrow.

Look at that picture, the one you're looking at now. When you look at the one of her smiling, you look at those two pictures, you think it helps you discern just how badly bruised she was. At some point, he took her back home to be with her kids. The Defendant, well, they didn't catch him that night. And the next day, Nicole spoke to Ron Shipp and the next day as well, the Defendant spoke to Detective Farrell. Remember Detective Farrell, the detective investigating this case? He called Detective Farrell on the phone and apologized for the incident and expressed to Detective Farrell his dismay at the extent of her injuries. You remember that. He called Farrell and told him he didn't realize she had been injured that much. You didn't realize the full extent of her injuries at the time? I don't know. You tell me. That's a Polaroid. This is People's 29. She doesn't quite look like that in any other photograph you've seen in this case, does she?

The fuse was burning, ladies and gentlemen. He had injured her, he had harmed her and he had beaten her, and he did not fully realize the extent of his own anger, the extent of his own rage at that point. He had hurt her in ways that he apparently himself didn't fully, fully comprehend at the time. And later on, he wrote her some letters. He was trying to get back on her good side. Now, you may see these as letters of apology. We say these are letters of manipulation. What is he really attempting to accomplish here? You'll have the original letters in the jury room. In the beginning, he expresses to her how sorry he is. Actually, I don't know. Does he say he's sorry? Does he say he was wrong? He says he was wrong for hurting her and that there's no excuse for what he did, and then he goes on to write something that I think is very, very important here. He's thinking and trying to realize how he got so crazy. He had such emotional feelings towards her that was high as any he ever felt, and it must be because of those feelings that he reacted so emotionally. With all of that emotion running in him, he says he didn't react too well. It's just as I said a moment before. He doesn't fully realize or he didn't in 1989 just how crazy he got, he could get, how emotional he could get, how passionate he could get. Now, what set this whole thing off? What happened in 1989 that caused him to get to the point that he beat this woman up? Well, Ron Shipp testified about his conversation with Nicole. Now, if you reflect back for a moment on the Defendant's statement to Edwards, that he had two women, right, what does Shipp tell you about his conversation with Nicole? She found out about the other two women. She didn't want to have sex with him. She didn't want to be with him. That's what led to this whole thing in 1989, his passion, his emotion. And when that passion and that emotion gets out of control--and he was out of control in 1989--and when that fuse starts burning, ladies and gentlemen, and it starts getting shorter and shorter, sets him off. He was set off that day in 1989. Look at this letter. You'll have this letter in the jury room, and you'll see that he can't always control the passion and anger and emotion himself. Something about this woman, this woman, she does something to this man that causes him to lose control. And he lost control. He lost control of her because in 1992, she moved out of his house, in January of 1992 as I recall. And the next month, I think it's February--I don't know. Maybe I should pull out that time line board, John, because in 1992, in February, if I'm not mistaken, she filed for divorce. Well, you know when a woman moves out of the house and files for divorce, I have learned it means she doesn't want you anymore. It means that there's something wrong in the relationship and it means I think that perhaps if you are the other party to that marriage, that perhaps you should be seeking--

Thank you.

--companionship elsewhere. Now, that's what they did in this case. She left. She filed for divorce, and he couldn't take it. You heard from Kathryn Bowe and her husband, Mr. Colby. Remember Mr. Colby? They lived at the corner on Gretna Green. In 1992, and I believe it was April 28th around 11:00 p.m. That night--it's here on the chart--they looked out the window and they saw a figure, a man, a man in the dark. In the darkness, they saw a man, and the man was out on the sidewalk and he was looking around and he was pacing a little bit up and down the sidewalk. He was pacing, walking up and down on the sidewalk. Know what it means when people pace. I do it a lot. But I don't know what this person was doing pacing out there on the sidewalk, but they thought this was unusual at 11:00 o'clock at night. Was it a Sunday night? I think it was a Sunday night.

And they watched this person and they watched this person, this man--by the way, this man was about six feet, six foot two, 200 pounds, African American. They watched this man in the dark in the night pacing up and down the sidewalk, and then they saw that man walk down the sidewalk, up the driveway and peer through the window of Nicole Brown's house on Gretna Green. Remember that testimony? He didn't handle that divorce--the filing of that divorce too well now, did he? Now, they may say, oh, well, he--you know, he looked through a window. Big deal. This is more than just looking through a window. This is stalking. When people come up to your window at 11:00 o'clock at night and they peek through it and they look through it and they watch you, there's something wrong here. There is something wrong here. This is obsessive conduct, ladies and gentlemen. This is obsessive conduct. This is stalking. And the Colby's saw this man, they saw him do that, they saw him walk back on the sidewalk, and they became so concerned about him that they telephoned the police. They called the police. And after they called the police, they continued to watch through this window to watch this man. They couldn't tell who the man was at that point in time, but after a few moments, they could. Who was that man? Him. It was the Defendant, O.J. Simpson, stalking Nicole. It's already April, April of 1992. Let me tell you something. By April of 1992, this woman knew she was going to die. She told Edwards that he was going to kill her. She told him that back in 1989, and apparently she believed that. You heard testimony from a D.A. Investigator in this case, my investigator from my office, Mike Stevens, and Mr. Stevens testified that in December of 1994 and with the permission of a Judge, he said that he went to a bank and he drilled a hole in a safe deposit box. You recall that testimony? And it was in that safe deposit box that he found a letter that we showed you a moment ago. Remember that, the letter where the Defendant says he doesn't know how he got so crazy? They found that letter and they found two other letters from the Defendant, from O.J. Simpson, to Nicole, attempting to get back with her, attempting to convince her to take him back, attempting to convince her that things would be better the next time. They found those letters in that safe deposit box and they found something else. They found a will. They found a will, this woman's will. It had been executed during 1990, which means she must have been about 30 years old. You know many people at the age of 30 who execute wills? But they find her will, his letters and something else. Do you have that?

There was some photographs, some photographs from back in 1989, because after he beat her in 1989, she called her sister, Denise, and Denise came over and she showed Denise the injuries this man inflicted on her and she asked Denise to take pictures of those injuries, and she put those pictures in that safe deposit box along with her will, along with her letters. Okay. She put those things there for a reason. I mean, they're just letters and they're just pictures. But if you are going to have a safe deposit box, you'd think that the things you put in that box are the things that you think are important. Now, I don't know how you want to interpret that conduct. You can interpret it any way you want. But let me suggest to you that you should interpret it this way. She is leaving you a road map to let you know who it is who will eventually kill her. She knew in 1989. She knew it and she wants you to know it. She knew who was going to do it to her, but she didn't know when. But whenever that event actually came, she wanted you to know who did it. Think about that. Just think about that. A will, photographs of her being beaten. Okay. You tell me.

This is one of the photographs here that Denise took of her sister. Wait. This is one of the photographs that Denise took of her sister in 1989, People's 11.

Thank you.

And this photograph was taken, as I recall, on the 3rd or the 4th I believe of January, three or four days after the beating. And you can still see the injuries. This wasn't some little bruise that healed overnight or that went away the next morning. She left these for you. This is a road map. This is a sign. She wanted you to know who killed her when the time came. This is 1992. And in 1992, he's already beating up her Mercedes and her car. He's already beaten her up. Show the next one.

And he is peeping through her window. Look at the picture up on the elmo, People's 29. That fuse is getting shorter, folks. It's burning, and at some point, he is going to explode. But in April of `92, as he peeps through the window and stalks her, he is jealous. He is jealous. He is consumed with jealousy. He has become obsessive and he's consumed with jealousy because we know back in 1989, after he did this to her, he spoke to Ron Shipp. Remember that? You remember Ron Shipp. You remember what they did to Ron Shipp on the witness stand? Ron Shipp testified that back in `89, he was a member of the LAPD and a friend to Nicole and to the Defendant and that after he beat her in 1989, she called him. She asked him to come and see her, and he did. You recall his testimony, when he walked through the door, he saw Nicole and he saw these injuries and these bruises, and he was shocked and he wanted to know who did this to her and she told him, he did it. And she talked to Ron Shipp about the Defendant's conduct and their relationship. And as you recall, Ron Shipp at the time was teaching at the police academy. He was teaching a course--a course on spousal abuse. And he showed Nicole a document, and this document listed some of the characteristics that are indicative of a man who beats women and are indicative of a woman who allows a man to beat her. And he showed it to Nicole and he spoke with her, and she asked him to do her a favor; and that is to speak to O.J. Simpson, her husband at the time, the Defendant, to speak to him about his conduct, to speak to him about what he did to her. And Ron Shipp did that and he showed--and he showed this document to O.J. Simpson, the Defendant. The document I believe was called a profile, a batterer's profile. It listed all these characteristics or characteristics consistent with a person who beats his wife. And he showed them to O.J. Simpson and they had a discussion. And at first, this Defendant tried to minimize what he had done to Nicole and he tried to suggest that, hey, he wasn't a batterer. Ron said, "Man, look at your wife. Look at the injuries. Of course, you're a batterer." The Defendant tried to minimize his conduct, and he showed those characteristics, that profile to O.J. Simpson, and O.J. Simpson pointed one out. I mean, Shipp said, "Hey, do any of these fit you in your mind? Do any of these fit you?"

There is one category entitled "The pathologically jealous." Remember? And O.J. Simpson said, "Well, maybe you know, maybe a little bit. Maybe I'm a little bit jealous, a little bit pathologically jealous." That is one of these things where you can't just be a little bit of. Either you are or you aren't. You know what I mean? You can't be somewhat jealous or partially jealous. Either you're jealous or you're not jealous. And this Defendant, he was jealous and he was out of control and he was consumed with passion for Nicole and he was obsessive because in April of 1992, he is peeking through windows. He has already beaten her. He has already beaten up her car. And he does some other things. In 1988 and 1989, I told you already that the testimony from Denise Brown was that he humiliated Nicole in public by grabbing her crotch in front of a bar full of strangers. And what else had he done? What else had he done? He's thrown Nicole and Denise out of his home one night. Remember that night, that night Denise said to him, "O.J., you take Nicole for granted," and he blew up. Remember, he blew up and he said, "Hey, I do everything for her."

And he became enraged back then. He picked Nicole up, he threw her against the wall, he threw her out of the house. He threw Denise out of the house and he threw all the clothes downstairs and out of the house too. Remember that testimony? This is the private side of him. This is the other side. This is the side of this man that you don't see in the commercial. He is out of control. He cannot handle it and the fuse is burning.