Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Okay. So now we've talked about conduct, we've talked about opportunity and timing. Let's talk about the physical evidence. I'm not going to do it in the detail you have already heard it, heaven forbid, but although you have already seen with the opportunity evidence, with the conduct evidence, we already have evidence to show you that the Defendant did commit these murders, without even really getting into the physical evidence, and once you see the vast array of physical evidence, you can see that there is virtually an ocean of evidence to prove that this Defendant committed these murders. What all of this does, all of this evidence, it links the Defendant to the victims and the crime scene at Bundy. Now, the Defense has gone to great lengths to try and show that they could discredit this evidence and the lengths that they have included have been some of the most bizarre and farfetched notions I think I have ever heard. They hint that the blood was planted. They have tried to create the impression that multiple other bloodstains were contaminated and that somehow all the contamination only occurred where it would consistently prove the Defendant was guilty. So now the little amplicons, those little DNA, they are co-conspirators, too, because they know they have got to rush to only the places where you can attribute the blood to the murderer. When you think about that, just think about that one point logically, okay? Obviously it is common sense, if contamination is going on you are going to see it going on all over the place. As a matter of fact, if what they are saying is true with this aerosol effect, flying DNA all over the place, then Mr. Simpson's blood type ought to be showing up in other cases somewhere. You know, somewhere out or down in another department in a rape case Mr. Simpson's type should be showing up because it is everywhere. Or even let's confine to it this case. Talk about that. That how come if the argument is that his blood is flying all over the place, DNA is flying all over the place, why didn't we find his blood type showing up where obviously it shouldn't be? What I mean is this: They took samples from the pool of blood by Nicole's body. They took samples of blood that was near Ron Goldman's body. Obviously the blood came from them because they were lying there.

And then of course you know you have the blood drops leading away from the crime scene that had to be left by the killer. There is no question about that. That was left by the killer because they are next to the bloody shoeprints. So you know, why is it that the samples of blood they took from her pool of blood didn't come up with the Defendant's blood type if the Defendant's blood type DNA is flying all over the place? If it is flying all over the place, then it ought to be all over the place. Why isn't it in the pool of blood sample that was taken from Nicole Brown? Why isn't it in the pool of the blood sample that was taken from near Ron Goldman's body? Logic, common sense, it ought to be. The DNA, those amplicons, these little things, they don't know where to go. They don't--they are not guided. Contamination is a random thing. The happens willy-nilly. And what you have here is they are trying to get you to believe that only the killer's blood was contaminated and it was consistently contaminated with only the Defendant's blood typing. Does this make any sense to you? What you ought to have, if you have contamination, if you've got a problem here, is that some of the blood drops come back to the Defendant and some don't; they come back to the real killer. That is what you ought to get, because it can't be this consistent. If you had one blood drop in this case, ladies and gentlemen, you know, you might be concerned with all of these possibilities they have raised, but you have so many, you have so many. You've got five blood drops leading away from the bodies the victim out to the driveway and you've got the blood on the rear gate. And you know, that is the other part of their--of their scenario that makes no sense, no sense. You have all these police officers that were there on June the 13th, Officer Riske saying his partner, young rookie names Officer Terrazas, shined his light on the rear gate to show him the blood on the rear gate. You have Officer Riske seeing the blood on the rear gate. You have Officer Rossi seeing the blood on the rear gate. You have Detective Phillips seeing the blood on the rear gate, all of it early on. Dennis Fung, whom you can see is not the model of efficiency, forgot to collect it, and from this we get a theory that they seem to imply that the blood was planted. Why do they say that? Now, first of all, I want to hear Mr. Cochran actually stand up in front of you and tell you he believes the blood was planted. I want to hear that. Because that is incredible. That is absolutely incredible. When you think about that, think what evidence have you been given to show you how that blood was planted, to show you when that blood was planted, to show you who planted that blood? Now, the reason that they have to come up with this story about contamination and planting, and I want to hear if they really, really do that, say that to you, is because they can't get around the result. You recall Dr. Gerdes testified for the Defense and he said that the DNA testing that was allowed--that allowed for RFLP, the most powerful of the techniques of DNA, was--was successful on the rear gate because that blood had higher molecular weight DNA. From the fact that you have higher molecular weight DNA on blood collected later, July 3rd, they want you to infer that somehow it was planted. But they are inconsistent, because if you remember, now if you plant the blood, aren't you going to plant it close to the time you collect? What are you going to do, plant it and hope somebody finds it later? You plant it when you expect someone to find it, right? When they have the EDTA going on, you have all these cross-examination questions about EDTA breaking down due to sunlight exposure. No proof that that happens, by the way, and as could you tell, they did no test to prove that that happens, by the way. It would be nice, if they want to prove that, doctors a little testing. You have got the expert right there. Why didn't he do any tests, by the way? He didn't do any. Okay. So they are asking about EDTA breaking down in the sunlight trying to infer that it was there for three weeks, that the blood was there--if it is there for three weeks, it wasn't planted, folks, it was there on the night of the murder. This is what I mean by inconsistent, illogical. This makes no sense. If you are going to say that the blood was planted, then you are going to say that was planted at or near the time of collection, in which case the EDTA would not break down, in which case the EDTA should be intact, in which case you should see the kind of high smooth arc that the graphs showed you from the reference tubes, instead of the jagged noise that you actually saw. And they brought in Dr. Rieders to try and tell you that that jagged noise looks just like that high arc which is ridiculous, which is insulting to your intelligence. But the reason that they have to say this, defying logic, defying common sense, is because, ladies and gentlemen, his blood on the rear gate with that match that makes him one in 57 billion people that could have left that blood, I mean there is what, five million people on the planet, that means you would have to go through 57 billion people to find the DNA profile that matches Mr. Simpson's. There is only five billion people on the planet. Ladies and gentlemen, that is an identification, okay, that proves it is his blood. Nobody else's on the planet; no one. Now, they know that. Now, the blood on the socks, Nicole's blood on the socks. Again RFLP match, very powerful. Showed from cellmark that was a five-probe match and I believe found to be one in 6.8 billion people. Again, more than--there are people on the planet. Identification. And 11-probe match by DOJ showed that it was one in 7.7 billion people. Again, her blood and only hers on this planet could be on that sock. Now, how do you get around that? It wasn't wrong and they couldn't find an expert who would say it was contaminated because there is too much DNA. That is the blood. That type is the type. It is her blood. How do you get around that? And if you know that that is true, if you know it is her blood on his socks that they find on the morning of June the 13th, that alone with the rear gate stain convicts him. You can't believe otherwise. You have so much proof now how do they get around that? They have to find a theory to get around that. And what do they do? This is what they come up with. So if it is low volume DNA, it is contaminated. If it is high volume DNA, it is planted, and it is also very convenient and ridiculous. Now, their experts had access to all of the evidence in this case. Their experts could have come in and shown you how the evidence got contaminated. Got contaminated, not possibly--remember, I talked to you about mere possibility. No, did, did get contaminated, and they could have come here and told you and pointed out the evidence that showed why only the blood drops left by the murderer got contaminated and shown you why they consistently only got contaminated in a way that showed the Defendant's DNA type, not that they possibly could have. Yes, possibly we are all sitting on mars right now, you know, and I'm from Venus and I'm talking. Anything is possible. Let's talk about what did happen. Let's talk about what we've got. They could have shown you proof that the Bundy blood drops were contaminated, not the mere possibility. No, I'm talking about evidence that gives you a reason to conclude that that happened, and that they never could do. And they could have done it if it were true, but they didn't. And not one expert they brought in on the DNA did even one test on the blood evidence, the evidence that we have that proves to you that the Defendant committed these murders; not one, with all those experts you saw. And the reason for that, ladies and gentlemen, is that it isn't true. The blood on the Bundy trail comes back to the Defendant because it is his blood. The blood on the rear gate comes back to the Defendant because it is blood he left there on the night of the murders. So they took you through all this tortured and twisted road one moment saying that the police are all a bunch of bumbling idiots. The next moment they are clever conspirators. And now ask yourself did they ever prove who planted, when, how? And it is a fact that the Defense doesn't have to prove anything, that is a fact, but once they do decide to put on a case, once they decide and proof something, their witnesses are subject to the same scrutiny as the People's witnesses are. Your jury instruction, as I've told you, makes no distinction. It is up to them to do the best job that they can to make their point and I think a good example of how they failed to do that miserably in this case is the EDTA, that preservative that you find in the purple-topped tube. They have got to make you believe that blood was planted. It is the cornerstone of their Defense, it really is, because as I've pointed out, if you know that is his blood left on the rear gate, if you know that is her blood on those socks, what are you left to conclude? Now, what do they do to show you, to prove to you the cornerstone of their Defense? What do they do? They take our tests, our tests, and they have some other expert, who neither did the test himself nor could come in and try and interpret those graphs for you. Not only that, but he does it inconsistently. He writes a report. If you recall, he wrote a report in which he said he found one parent ion and one daughter ion, not the full daughter spectrum that would permit identification of EDTA, but the same finding of one parent ion, one daughter ion that Mr. Martz said he found in his own blood, in his own unpreserved blood, which tends to prove--no, which does prove--that the blood on the rear gate, the blood on the socks are just like Agent Martz' unpreserved blood, natural blood, not from a preservative tube. So what do they do with that? Here is what happened. Dr. Rieders wrote that report and he said the blood on the sock, the blood on the gate, one parent ion, one daughter ion. Wrote that report I believe on July 17th. A few days after he wrote the report he found out that Agent Martz had just done the test on his own blood and come up with the same result he got on the sock and the gate. Very, very low noise readings and only two of the three ions he should have found, which leads you to understand that it was unpreserved blood. Well, now he has got to do something about that. He has to answer that contradiction because now what we've got is he can't address this. We have proven conclusively it was not EDTA blood. He has got to do something to make his testimony weave its way around. So he gets up on the stand. For the very first time on this witness stand he makes a new conclusion and now he says I find a peak that shows the second daughter ion on the sock. Dr. Rieders, what happened between the time of your report and your testimony? Did you do some tests? No. Did do you some experiments? No. Well, are there some new graphs? Yes, Agent Martz' blood. Not new graphs on the sock; acts Martz' blood. He had to change his testimony to encompass evidence that refuted his conclusion completely. But what they gave you is somebody who did not one test. With access to all the evidence, he tested nothing. They have the experts to do the tests. They did nothing. They had the experts to do experiments to prove things they want to prove about it. Nothing. That is the cornerstone of their defense, ladies and gentlemen. They did nothing. And what does that tell you? What that tells you is they know this is not EDTA blood. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Having a lawyer stand up in front of you and say something, no matter how often it is said, doesn't mean it is true.

I include myself in this. You know, I only argue what the facts show, what I believe the facts have shown, and any reasonable inferences that you can draw from them. That is all. I cannot stand before you and tell you something that is false, that is untrue. You need to go with what is true, with the evidence, with what we have and the reasonable common sense deductions that you make from that evidence. I don't ask you to take my word for anything. That is why we present evidence. That is why we call witnesses. If it isn't in the record or it doesn't make sense to you as a logical inference from what you've heard, reject it. I don't care who says it. Reject it. But do the same for the Defense. Hold me to that standard. Hold them to that standard. When you hear them try to tell you that all this evidence was either contaminated or planted, ask yourself does this really makes sense? Was--what evidence was I given to prove that? Is there any evidence that really shows that? Or is it smoke and mirrors? Is it all just smoke to cloud everything, cloud all the issues, distract you? Take a little piece here, take a little piece there. Kind of reminds me of that story about all these guys that are blindfolded and each one goes to a different end of an elephant. One grabs the tail and he says feels like--feels like a rope, and another guy grabs the trunk and he says feels like a fire hose, and another guy grabs the leg and says feels like a tree, okay? Not one of them got it right, did they? Take off the blindfold, it is an elephant. You put all the pieces together. You put the whole picture together and you can see the truth. But what they have done systematically is fragmented the case. This is not new, you know. They did a very good job of it. They are fine lawyers and they challenged the People's case as they should and that is good. You put the state to their proof. That is what we have to do. We have to deliver. That is our job. And we have been aware of what is happening, hearing their fragmenting. They take little pieces out of context and focus on only that little piece and take a little piece of a picture focus on only this little piece of a picture. And forget about all the rest that puts it all in context. Give Henry Lee second generation photographs that he can't see anything on instead of the good stuff, the original photographs that would show him what is going on on Bundy walk there. Now, back to DNA. I'm sorry, I digressed. Even when it is analyzed using the PCR method, it is not quite so easily contaminated as the Defense would have you believe. As you have heard, it is used every day to save lives and you always use it, you have learned, in very non-sterile conditions. What does that mean? War dead, soldiers who die in jungles and in deserts, those are not sterile environments, ladies and gentlemen. Those are very dirty environments, but they use the PCR test to go identify those soldiers. And why do they do that? So they can notify next of kin. That is a very serious responsibility. You better be right. You better be right. Now, if it is good enough to go and notify next of kin that their son, their daughter, their husband, their father, has been murdered or killed, excuse me, on a battlefield, then it better be good and reliable stuff. So if it is good enough for that, on body parts being recovered from jungles and deserts, it is pretty hearty, pretty durable. Now, Dr. Lee, the Defense expert they gave the DNA evidence to examine, who is a forensic expert, approves of DNA testing in criminal cases. Notice they didn't ask him to look at the evidence here. Notice they didn't ask him to tell what he thought of the results in this case. A forensic expert, a criminal expert, they didn't ask him. Who did they bring in? Dr. Gerdes. Dr. Gerdes, who has admittedly no experience in forensic cases, came in to tell you about validation studies and dot blots, but what did he do in this case? What forensic criminal experience does he have? Zip, none. Why do you even use a guy like that in a criminal case when you've got Dr. Lee? And don't forget Dr. Blake. Dr. Blake who is renown as a scientist who is one of the foremost experts and leading ones in the forensic use of PCR technology whom they had watching the testing at DOJ, examined the evidence in this case, took cuttings of the evidence in this case at cellmark, never sat in that blue chair for the Defense. Why not? Where was he? If you have evidence to prove that there is something that--that there is contamination in these samples, you have an expert who is there watching the testing who is an expert in the field of PCR, does it in criminal cases all the time, he is renown.

You never call him. What sense does that make? What does that tell you about what you've been given here in the nature of the defense? Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen. And by the way, when DNA degrades, as you've been told, it doesn't turn into someone else's type; you get no result. And you may remember--no result, I mean degrades, nothing. You may remember that Dr. Cotton testified--she was asked well, how--how would a swatch in which DNA is all degraded get contaminated with another person's type? How could that happen? She says really they have got to be touching. The swatches would have to come in contact. A swatch of somebody else's type would have to come into physical contact with a swatch where the DNA had completely degraded. She could not envision flying DNA, as they have tried to sell you in the defense, because DNA just doesn't jump or fly. And don't forget, in case you had, we even did prove that their contamination theory was untrue. If you remember, we had a lot of testimony about what we call substrate controls. Now, all the substrate controls are really--you know, I think you will remember it is very simple. You go and you collect a bloodstain from here, (Indicating), and then in order to make sure that the blood type you are going to pick up there isn't the result of something underneath that was already there before the blood came down, you take a little swatch right next to it to show that the ground underneath didn't have any DNA. And we did that. That was done at Bundy next to every bloodstain, systematically done. Now, how do you--how do they help you? When you to go test the swatches, the blood-stained swatches and the controls are tested the same way. And if you have contamination, the controls should come up showing DNA. And the controls on the Bundy walk did not. And there you go. Oh, I wanted to go over an instruction with you. This is a long instruction that has particular relevance to this case.

It is called--this is the instruction about circumstantial and direct evidence. There are a lot of words in this instruction, I must also say. Let me first say something to you about direct and circumstantial evidence. This--this instruction explains them both. I don't know how well. You know, I'm not a big fan of the way they are written. I think they could be a lot clearer, frankly. But they talk about direct and circumstantial evidence. This one is just circumstantial evidence. You have another instruction that distinguishes between the two. You are told in these instructions that: "Direct and circumstantial evidence are of equal weight. Neither one is better than the other." Now, an example of direct evidence would be an eyewitness, someone who would say, "I saw him, I saw that." We have an eyewitness in Allan Park, okay? His testimony, seeing the man we know to be the Defendant walking into to the house at Rockingham. Allan Park testified to his observations. That is direct evidence, okay? Circumstantial evidence is evidence that leads you to infer, okay? For example, in this case, the blood, the blood at Bundy dripped by the killer next to the bloody shoeprints. It is not direct. Somebody didn't see the murder being committed, didn't see the murderer leaving the crime, but you have the blood of the murderer left behind. Kind of like, well, you have the blood on the rear gate that actually identifies Mr. Simpson. That is kind of like a fingerprint. Okay? That is circumstantial evidence, as opposed to seeing it. Now, in terms of quality, there is no difference, the law has no favorites, but when you think about it, you think about it logically, circumstantial evidence has a lot of benefits that direct evidence doesn't. What is that? It gives you a lot of quality assurance. It gives you independent corroborating bases on which to believe that the Defendant is guilty. Instead of relying on one person's observation, one person who might be mistaken, who might be tired, who might not have observed very well, you know what happens because you saw it happen in this case. What happens with an eyewitness? They start out saying, for example, you know, a robbery, okay? I was standing on the street corner and I saw the Defendant go over to the woman and grab her purse. Okay? Purse snatch. Okay.

Cross-examination. How far away were from you that woman? Where were you standing? Were they standing in shadow? Do you wear glasses? How much of the Defendant's face did you see? Half, three quarters? Only a quarter? What kind of hair did he have? What kind of shirt did he wear? What kind of pants did he wear? What color eyes did he have. Did he have a goatee? Did he have a mustache? Did he have a beard? And so on and so forth. And the witness starts to get torn down, and if that is all you've got, that is all you've got, that is, this person's observation, makes you a little unsteady about whether or not you really have enough proof to give you that certainty that you need. Now, contrast that with the following: You have the Defendant committing a purse snatch and what you have is someone who hears the woman scream, sees the back of a man running and then a few minutes later the Defendant is caught three blocks away holding her purse. Assume for a moment that she cannot really identify her attacker. You got him with her purse just a few minutes later. A lot of things can be said about how it got to him, but that is circumstantial evidence, but even that circumstantial evidence is not nearly as good, it doesn't come close to what we have in this case. In this case you have circumstantial evidence of the blood. You have hair and fiber. And you have some of the conduct evidence and the opportunity evidence. You have a wealth of evidence in this case all pointing to one person: The Defendant. Now, this instruction. Usually when I see lawyers argue this they take out one paragraph and they only talk about that one. I want to talk about the whole instruction here. Okay. Begins in the very first paragraph with: "A finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the Defendant is guilty of the crime, but two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion." You will see the words reasonable, rational throughout these jury instructions, because that is what it is all about; reason, common sense, logical, rational. All right. I'm going to jump around between this and I'm going to come back and forth to this instruction because there is a lot here, but in the third paragraph, this is what I told you about a little bit earlier. "If you have two reasonable interpretations"--remember I talked to you about--I gave you the example of the Bronco that could have been on Ashford or could have been gone completely at the time that Charles Cale was walking his dog. You had two reasonable interpretations from that evidence when he said he couldn't see the Bronco on Rockingham. At the point in time he testified based on his testimony you had two reasonable conclusions to draw; either that it was not there at all or that it was on Ashford and he didn't see it. "When you have two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to guilt and the other to innocence, you adopt the interpretation that points to the innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt." That is when they're equally susceptible of two reasonable interpretations.

"If, on the other hand, one interpretation of the evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable." Reasonable, rational. The Defense will argue to you many things; inferences that could be drawn, just like the possibilities I talked to you about. Ask yourself are they reasonable? Because if they are not, if those inferences are not reasonable, then you are to reject them and accept the reasonable. And that is why I keep referring to common sense; rational, logical. All right. I would like to start with hair and fiber. If you remember Mr. Deedrick testified about the microscopic comparisons of hair and fiber in this case, and when he did so--well, first, let me point something out. His testimony was uncontradicted by any other expert. His testimony is not disputed. His conclusions are not disputed.

And you know that the hair and fiber evidence was examined by at least two other experts for the Defense. Now, when Mr. Deedrick testified he told you what his conclusions were based solely on what he could see through the microscope. That is all he can tell you about. He did not take into account the results of the DNA testing. He didn't take into account the testimony of Kato or of Allan Park; none of that. He looked through a microscope. So all he can tell you is that the Defendant's hair shares the same microscopic characteristics as, for example, the hair and the knit cap found at Bundy or the hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt. He can only say it is consistent, shares the same microscopic characteristics. But when you take into account all of the evidence, including the DNA, including the testimony of Kato and Park, including the Defendant's opportunity to commit the murders, including his post homicidal conduct, you know it is his hair. You know it is that fiber. So now we are going to put it all together, so when I talk to you now about that is the Defendant's hair in the cap, I'm talking about not just Doug Deedrick's testimony. I'm talking about his testimony along with everything else, all the reasonable inferences that you can draw, all the logical conclusions that you come to knowing all that you know in this case. Now, I'm not going to talk about every conclusion that Mr. Deedrick testified to. Some of them were only testified to to give you more information, more background, more knowledge about what you expect to find in this testimony. So let's start--what I would like to do is start with the bodies at Bundy and move away from them, as the Defendant moved away from them after the murders, and analyze all the evidence that was left behind from that perspective. And just so you know, I will show you a couple of photographs from the crime scene, but I'm not going to put up any Coroner's pictures. I have seen enough of that for a while. So when I describe the wounds from the Coroner and that sort of thing, I'm just going to describe them. You are not going to see pictures from me. You can see them back in the jury room if you like. All right. Let's start with the knit cap. Can we get the Bundy board?

Your Honor, when I--with the knit cap, I think we have to cut the feed. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Bancroft, this has remains on it.

Okay. Again this is an argument board. You are not going to get it back in the jury room. This is just for me to talk to you and show you stuff with.

All right. 230 can you see it now?

All right. The knit cap. You can barely see it under the plant here. This was the position in which it was found. Now you see how the Defendant could miss it in the dark. It is underneath that plant I'm pointing to right here, that patch of blue here, (Indicating). On that knit cap you recall that the--well, it is the Defendant's hairs. Now, let me refer specifically to Mr. Deedrick's testimony in this regard because what he told us is this: He said there were hair--the hairs that he said were consistent with the Defendant's, he found nine inside the cap. It is clear--extrapolating from his testimony, it is clear that nine--there were nine I think naturally shed hairs is what he said, not fragments, but naturally shed hairs, that he wore the cap from that. Now, what is interesting also is that he talked about fragments that were found inside the cap, hairs of black origin that were not consistent with Mr. Simpson's, and so I asked him, you know, what about those hairs? He said they were treated, chemically treated.

How long were they in the cap? Can't tell. They could have been there for years, because you can--you know, life experience, if you ever had anything knit like that kind of a loose weave, you will have it in evidence, you can check it out, it is going to get hairs in it and those hairs could stay there for a very long time if it is not washed and it is not laundered. So that is why I asked the Defendant's hairdresser, what about the Defendant's former wife Marguerite, did she treat her hair? What about Arnelle, did she treat her hair? These are other people, people that could have worn the cap whose hair--the fragments, old fragments could be from, but the nine naturally shed hairs inside the cap that were consistent with the Defendant's were different in quality than those, because they were not fragments and therefore unlikely to be old. All right. And taking into account everything that we know, those were his hairs in the cap. He wore the cap. He also found on that cap fiber. He said it was consistent with the Defendant's--the carpet from the Defendant's Bronco. And he talked to you about the unusual nature of the--the trilobal cross-section of that fiber, and he showed you photographs of it through the--that were taken from the scanning electron microscope. You will have that back in the jury room if you want to see it, it is very interesting stuff, but what we know from all we know, that was a fiber from the Defendant's Bronco on that cap. Now, that is very important because that actually--with that cap we have tied the Defendant and his car to the crime scene at Bundy and now you see, to summarize, on the knit cap we have the Defendant's hair and the Bronco fiber from the carpet in his Bronco. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, let's go to Ron's shirt. Now, on Mr. Goldman's shirt we have the Defendant's hair and we have the blue black cotton fiber. Now, of course the Defendant's hair is of obvious significance. Mr. Deedrick was asked whether or not that hair appeared to be--the hair that he said was consistent with the Defendant's, whether it appeared soiled. He said no. That was very important and that was very important for this reason: If we had simply found hairs of the Defendant in the soil of that area at Bundy where Ron Goldman was lying, we probably would not think that was a big deal. Why? He visited the place. He was there. Pick up the children, leave the children, and that there might be stray hairs lying around in the soil, you know, falling from whatever reason. This would not be very significant. I wouldn't be standing here talking to you about it right now. But you have an unsoiled hair on the victim's shirt. That is important. And that makes the distinction. Because if it had been something that he picked up from the soil, then you should have seen dirt in it. The fact that it was unsoiled means it was the result of contact between the Defendant and Ronald Goldman that night during the murders. We certainly have no reason at all to believe there was any contact between the Defendant and Ronald Goldman before the murder is committed. We have something else on Ron's shirt. We have the blue black cotton fibers. All right. So what is the big deal about that? Well, you recall that Mr. Deedrick found blue black cotton fibers in two other places and the blue black cotton fibers that he found that shared the same microscopic characteristics as those he found on Ron Goldman's shirt were found on the Rockingham glove and on the Defendant's socks. So what could that be? Well, clearly those are fibers from what the Defendant was wearing this night. You recall what Kato described. He was wearing the dark blue to black cotton sweatsuit with long sleeves. Now, a sweatsuit has banded ankles and is going to be in contact with your socks. Obviously, too, a sweatsuit, you know, if you have those--if you have an elastic ankle, exertion, you are going to pull the pants up, it is going to rub, there is going to be some friction there. And it is natural, it is also common sense, that you will find fiber from one piece of clothing transferred to another, which is why if you recall when he was testifying, I asked him did you find any of Ron Goldman's shirt fibers on his jeans? Yeah, I did. Not a surprising thing. Very common. Same thing happened with the Defendant. And when he had contact with Ronald Goldman, when he attacked Ronald Goldman, he left fibers from what he was wearing on Ron Goldman's shirt. And when he went to take--and in wearing that sweatsuit over those socks, he left fibers on those socks. And in having maybe the Rockingham glove in his pocket, when he was running down the south pathway picking up fibers from it, from his clothing, when the glove fell out, it still had the fiber from his clothing and that is why you have those fibers sharing the same microscopic characteristics with all the tests he performed on them, there were quit a few, in these three places, going to the crime scene, the south pathway and the Defendant's bedroom. So with this piece of evidence we have again tied the Defendant to the murders and this link carries us from Bundy clear into the Defendant's bedroom in Rockingham.

Your Honor, for this next slide would you cut the feed.

And here is a summary of what we have just discussed, the Defendant's hair on Ron Goldman's shirt and blue black cotton fibers.

And another piece of the puzzle. All right. Now, let's move away from Ron and start up the walkway. Now, for this I'm going to direct your attention to the board, the bloody shoeprints. Now, the bloody shoeprints actually start down here--I will just hold it up for a minute. On this very first photograph on the bottom you can see the shoeprints right next to the blue knit cap. It starts between--okay. And those bloody shoeprints go all the way down the walkway until you get to about halfway when they fade out. This is another important piece of evidence that proves the Defendant's guilt. The shoeprints are all size 12. The shoeprints were all--and by the way, size 12, less than ten percent of the male population wears that size and the men who wear that size tend to fall within the height range of 5-11 to 6-4. The Defendant is 6-2. And these are not just any size 12's. They are expensive shoes, casual shoes that cost 160 bucks; not dress shoes, shoes that would be worn by a rich man, the kind of man who would wear cashmere lined gloves. And what is more important is that those shoes were only sold in forty stores in this country. Out of how many thousands, maybe millions of stores in this country, these shoes are only sold in forty of them, and one of those stores was Bloomingdales, the store the Defendant shopped in regularly where he would buy shoes, both dress and casual, as you've heard the testimony. They stopped selling those shoes back in 1992, but during the time that they sold them, the Defendant was shopping at Bloomingdales. Now, as we move down the walkway we see that there is only one set of bloody shoe prints and Mr. Bodziak I think made that very clear, especially on his last visit, only one set were bloody shoeprints and all of them were consistently Bruno Magli size 12. And there is the summary. The Defendant's shoe size is 12, less than ten percent of the population expensive men's, rare shoes sold at very few stores. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, we look to the left of the bloody shoeprints and we see the blood drops on the walkway. These are the blood drops left by the murderer. I've already talked to you about that and it is clear because they go all the way alongside to the left of the bloody shoeprints down that walkway. Five blood drops, all of which match the Defendant. Now, of the four inside the gate, four on the walkway that is inside the gate, all four were done with PCR. One was also done with conventional serology. You recall there was testimony about that from Greg Matheson. But all of them match the Defendant. As we get to the rear gate, we see that there is more blood and this blood also matches the Defendant. Now, on the rear gate I think I have already talked to you about that, the blood that matches the Defendant was type 1 in 57 billion. In other words that is his identity, that is his blood. Then we go out to the driveway and you recall blood drop no. 52 and that drop was also done with RFLP and in that blood drop out on the driveway you have the typing I think determined with RFLP was one in 170 million. The reason for the lower number is because there are fewer probes, it was a weaker sample. The reason for that--let's talk about that for a minute. You have a different environment--and I think it is important to note on the walkway--we don't have a beginning picture of it here--there are other pictures that you have in evidence that will show this. The walkway is very dirty and it is concrete, it is porous, it absorbs. On the other hand, on the gate you have a smooth surface. It is up off the ground and it is not as much in contact with dirt and with the elements and it is not going to be absorbed in the gate because the paint on the gate prevents it from doing that, which is why you have higher molecular weight DNA.

The more that DNA is subjected to bacteria, to dirt, that degrades it, the more it is going to degrade, the less DNA you are going to have. The dirtier the environment, the less the DNA, the cleaner--less hostile environment, the more DNA, very simple, so you have more than DNA on the gate than you do on the dirty walkway. The gate is not the cleanest thing in the world, I guarantee, but you do have--it is up off the ground, you do have a non-absorbent surface, so that is part of the reason for the higher weight DNA. The other part of the reason is that the rear gate, by inference from all of the testimony, that stain was collected and taken down right away instead of sitting in plastic bags in a hot truck. All right. So you have all of the blood on the walkway match the Defendant. You have RFLP results on the rear gate that identifies the Defendant. You have a--a drop on the driveway, one in 170 million. That is a virtual identification of the Defendant under all of these circumstances as well. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, let's talk about the Bronco.

All right. Mr. Escobar, would you just show that briefly to counsel, please.

All right. Thank you.

All right. First of all, just consider the fact that there is blood in the Bronco at all. I mean, ladies and gentlemen, do you have blood on the interior driver's door of your car, on the dashboard, on the console? I mean, think about that. And all at the same time. As for the amount of blood in the car, how much would you expect to see? When you think about it, the Defendant inflicted the wounds that bled out on these victims, the ones that really bled out from behind them, the throat cut that was demonstrated to you by Dr. Lakshmanan. So if he is standing behind them, they are bleeding out this way, how much blood is he going to get on him? Not very much. And he certainly wouldn't be getting any on his back which is where he is going to be in contact with his seat, the back and the back of his legs. If any blood at all on his hands from touching.

So the blood that you see in the Bronco is actually, logically speaking, where you would expect to see it from a cut hand or from a bloody glove that is dropped down next to the console. It is the amount you would expect to see, it is where you would expect to see it, given the circumstances of this case. Now, let's talk about the cut finger. Look at where we found blood on the door. You found blood inside the well of the driver's door handle and you found some closer to the driver's window. This blood in here, in the well of the driver's door handle inside the car, how do you get that blood there? Think about where you would have to put your hand? How about where you would have to be sitting when you put your hand there? When you get out of the car, if you are seated in the car, in the driver's seat, and you need to open the door to get out, that is what you do, you put your hand in the door handle to open it in a seated position. So that blood got on there after he--when he drove back from Bundy with the bloody finger to get out of his car. That is the only position you could be in to get the blood in the well of that door handle like that, because to get it there you are opening the door, and to be opening the door from inside the car you would be seated in the car. So now we know yet another fact that shows that he was bleeding in that car long before he went out to get his cell phone from the Bronco to leave for the record the airport. Now, the Defendant is not claiming that the Defendant's blood in the Bronco was either planted or contaminated. They concede that one right up front. And that is because they can come up with an explanation for that one. Remember the razor sharp cell phone? But remember it is only the evidence that they can't otherwise explain that they resort to the desperation theories of contamination and planting. But it is not only the Defendant's blood in this car, there is also the blood of Ron and Nicole in that Bronco. And there are other people who saw that there was blood in that car at Rockingham in the early morning hours of June the 13th. Do you recall another witness called by the Defense, Officer Don Thompson, who was guarding the car and kind of taking care of business at Rockingham? He saw the blood in the Bronco as well. Now, you may remember that the blood on the console was initially collected--by the console I mean the area here marked by the no. 31, this number tag that is in between the seats. Testimony was that Dennis Fung collected blood from that console on June the 14th at the print shed. That was before it went to Viertel's, that tow yard where it seems that everybody and his brother went to look at that car. Before it went there Dennis Fung collected that blood. Now, the results of the blood collected by Dennis Fung on the morning of June 14th indicated with PCR testing the presence of blood from the Defendant and from Ronald Goldman. And it indicated that the response--it was mostly the Defendant's blood in that mixture. Now, you heard all the testimony about the insecure conditions at Viertel's and how the car was kept unlocked because they didn't have a key for it and you may remember that the Defendant had to

Be--that the Bronco had to be towed from Rockingham because early in the morning when the police had contacted the Defendant, if you may recall, Kato testified that the detectives asked him for a key to the Bronco because it was locked, they couldn't get inside it, and he couldn't find a key. And you may also recall that there was testimony indicating that the car had to be towed because it couldn't be unlocked, they didn't unlock it until the 14th when they had to do that with a slimjim. Basically had to break into it.

Well, after the Bronco left Viertel's, I think it was about a month later, it went to a more secure location, and at the request of the Defense an examination of the Bronco was conducted in their presence. And Michele Kestler told you how she saw that Dennis Fung had not collected all of the blood off the console and she said, let's collect the rest of it. So they took the console out and Greg Matheson actually swatched the remaining blood off the console in the presence of the Defense experts, and that was on I believe August 26th, either August 26th or September 1st. Now, that blood that he swatched on either August 26th or September 1st in the presence of the Defense did not go through LAPD testing at all. That blood went straight up to the Department of Justice for testing. And it came back with an RFLP match that you heard late in the trial. RFLP meaning we had more DNA in it and we were able to say--we were able to match the blood again to the Defendant and Ron Goldman. That is very important for two reasons: No. 1, it shows you that it is not so easy to contaminate DNA. It is not so easy to contaminate blood. Even though that console sat there in the Bronco at Viertel's where everybody had to go and check this Bronco out, the results that were obtained on the morning of the 14th, before it went to Viertel's, are the same as the results that were obtained about two months later, two and a half months later. So it tells you also that PCR testing is accurate. But of course even more importantly, it tells you that Ron Goldman's blood is in that Bronco. And there is no reason for his blood to be in that Bronco, an RFLP match, unless the Defendant committed the murders and had the blood of Ron Goldman on him to swipe on that Bronco. Now, there is something else about that Bronco that I wanted to point out to you. Can we put the photo up? For this I think it is better to show you the picture up on the screen.

Which exhibit is this?

This--which one is this, John. ?

This is a photo of the Bronco driver's side floorboard.

Yes, your Honor.

All right. Item 33.

Excuse me. What number, your Honor?

All right. Miss Clark, proceed, and we will have Mr. Fairtlough tell us which one this is.

We are trying to try and help the resolution here a little bit. I showed you a photograph during the trial that I think it was a lot clearer than what you are seeing now. This one is very faded.

Okay. We are going to get a clearer picture for you. What I'm going to point out to you, though, ladies and gentlemen, is the bloody imprint that was on the driver's side of that carpet. On the driver's side of the floor mat where a driver would put his foot we find a bloody--a bloody imprint that Mr. Bodziak told you had characteristics consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe of that pattern that he talked about and the bloody imprint that was tested and matched to the blood of Nicole Brown. That carpet piece was cut out of the Bronco by Dennis Fung on June the 14th at the print shed. Now, think about this one for a minute, because just the fact of having blood in that location tells you something. How in the world do you get blood on the floor mat in a position where a driver puts his foot unless you have stepped in blood and then sat in the car and put your foot on that spot? How else? How else? How many times have you stepped in blood and how many times have you tracked it into your car? I don't know how many. But you can see just logically somebody who is walking around with bloody shoes gets in to drive his car and the carpet comes up--there you go--and this is People's--

People's 172.

People's 172. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have the laser light?

I'm going to ask Jonathan to point it out to you. You can probably see it, though.

Do you want to use the laser?

Oh, great. This is easier. Look. See right here, (Indicating), and that is what we had testimony about with respect to the blood testing and with respect to Mr. Bodziak. But when I sat and I listened to that, I thought, gee, I don't know how--how much clearer it could be. I really don't. You have the bloody shoeprints going down the walkway. Understandably on concrete, a hard surface they fade out. And then you put that same bloody shoe that obviously got blood up in the grooves of the patterns of the shoe on to a soft surface like a carpet that picks up that blood, whatever is remaining. How else did it get there? And those bloody shoeprints that lead away from the bodies of Ron and Nicole reach right into the Defendant's Bronco. All right. We have--you can already see we have such a wealth of evidence that we could probably stop right here, but, frankly, I would like to, but I have to finish going through all of the evidence, and the Bronco went back to Rockingham, so let's go back to Rockingham as we trace the steps. And I will quickly review the evidence for you at Rockingham.

Thank you, Mr. Escobar.

All right. So he gets in the Bronco and he drives back to Rockingham, parking it on Rockingham just north of the Rockingham gate where we see it in all of the photographs. Now, as I have described earlier, the Defendant runs down the south pathway, and you are thinking to yourself, you know, why? Why would he do that? And I talked to you about disposing of the knife. Really common. Murderers want to get rid of the murder weapon, they think that is the one thing that can nail them. He is running back to that rear lot. He never gets there because he crashes into the air conditioner dropping the glove. Why would he need to put the knife on his own property? You are thinking why not drop it in a dumpster on the way home? Doesn't that make sense? Why would you want to do it, leave that on your own property or bury it on your own property? He can't. He can't because he is famous. If someone sees him hanging around near a dumpster on that night of all nights at that time of all times, dropping something into a dumpster, they are going to recognize him and he is going to have a witness, a witness who is going to put him very close to the scene of the crime, at the very wrongest time he could be there, right after the murders. He can't dispose of evidence in public. Every move he makes is noticed. So he has got to find a private place and that is the one that makes the most sense and he doesn't have a whole lot of time to get real creative here. So what do we find on the Rockingham glove, the one he drops? We find everything. Everything. We find fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt. We find the hair of Ron. We find the hair of Nicole. We find the blood of Ron Goldman. We find the blood of Nicole Brown. And we find the blood of the Defendant. And we find Bronco fiber from the Defendant's Bronco. We find blue black cotton fibers just like those found on the shirt of Ron Goldman and on the socks of the Defendant in his bedroom. And on this glove he is tied to every aspect of the murder; to Ron Goldman, to Nicole Brown, to the car, and of course that is why the Defense has to say that the glove is planted, because if they don't, everything about this glove convicts the Defendant, where it is found, what is found on it, what is found in it, even a black limb hair found inside the glove. Everything about it convicts him. Even though the planting theory is ridiculous, when you think about it, you give it a little rational thought and you realize it is absurd. Whatever you think of Mark Fuhrman, nobody thinks much of him, he couldn't have done this. Why couldn't we have done this? It is not just the fact that all the other officers who were there before him saw only one glove. Think about what he knew at the time he went out to the south pathway? He didn't know whether or not there were eyewitnesses to the crime that would say somebody else did it. He didn't know if there was going to be someone who said I heard voices. They weren't his. They weren't Mr. Simpson's. He didn't know if the Defendant had an airtight alibi and had maybe left on the nine o'clock flight to Chicago. He didn't know any of that. He could have--what he could have done, by planting evidence, is been wrong and completely fouled up the solution of the case, because he is doing something like that without knowing anything about the case, subjecting him--himself. Think about his own self-preservation, so incredible and in--an incredible felony. He is in big trouble, in big trouble. And all that has to happen is that an alibi is disproven or an eyewitness comes forward, neither one of which he knows anything about. They can be out there for all he knows. Probably thinks they are. So think about that when you consider this theory of the Defense. You know, I mean, it is like dismissing logic and reality and reason all at once, throw them out the window, because nothing makes sense about that theory, nothing from even Mark Fuhrman's point of view. But I think if you look clearly at the evidence, if you look straight to it and you use your common sense, you are going to see this. You are going to know this. You will. But the bottom line is, and I think that you will reach the same conclusion, no one planted that glove. You know why? Because they are his gloves. They are his gloves. Think about all the evidence you heard now. Remember that he is a size extra large. The gloves are a size extra large. The glove at Rockingham is a mate to the glove at Bundy. They are a pair. A pair that are the same exact type purchased by Nicole on December 18th, 1990, one of only 200 pair sold that year. Gloves that are cashmere lined, gloves that cost $55.00, rich man's gloves, gloves that were exclusive to Bloomingdales, gloves that were not sold west of Chicago, gloves that the Defendant was wearing at football games from January of 1991, just a few weeks after she bought them, until the last football season before the murders.

Now, you will recall that there was a photograph that was shown to you. First of all, the receipt. There was a receipt that was shown to you that showed that when she bought the gloves she bought two pair of gloves and a muffler on December 18th of 1990 and there was a photograph shown to you during one of the football games that I'm trying to remember the date of, I think it was `92, I think it was `92, in which he is wearing a brown jacket, a brown muffler and the brown gloves. Doesn't it make sense that when she bought the muffler, she bought it to match at least one of the pair of the gloves, and there he is wearing it? And you see him wearing those gloves in the photographs that we showed you right up until the last football season before the murders. And the gloves you saw him wearing in all of those pictures that we showed you at all those football games are the gloves that you have right here in evidence in this courtroom. And you recall--

May I have a moment, your Honor?

Excuse me. We are trying to pull up that picture for you.

Okay. You have testimony that was taken on the--on this photograph, you see the muffler, the jacket, the glove.

Mr. Fairtlough, what exhibit is this?

We believe it is 614, your Honor.

Thank you.

Okay. I think it was January of `92. If you need to have that reviewed for you, it is in the testimony. Okay. Now, I know that you recall the glove demonstration when the Defendant put the gloves on, the crime scene gloves on. Now, he mugged for you and he tried to act like it was real difficult, it was real hard for him and almost impossible to get it on. Well, I'm sure it wasn't as easy as usual, he didn't have to ever wear them before every latex gloves. As Mr. Rubin told you, that makes it a great deal more difficult to put gloves on and being sold gloves, the blood that is soaked into them, soaked in and made them that much less stretchable because really the issue is stretchability, not so much size. If he had had the chance to put them on, wear them for awhile, they would have stretched back out, they would have been a better fit than they were, so it might have taken a little effort and a little time, but you ultimately would have seen that of course they do fit. And it is no different than an experience that we all have in our lives you have leather gloves, they get damp a little bit, you leave them to dry, you don't wear them for a while, they are tight. You have got to drag them on, pull them on. You wear them for a little bit, they sketch back out. And again, that is common sense, that is something we have all had in our life's experience, but if you really try you can do it. But have you ever tried to put shoes on a child that doesn't want shoes puts on them or jacket on a child that doesn't want the jacket to be put on? You know, they can't do it. They are going to kick, they are going to scream, they are going to avoid you, they are going to struggle and they are going to squiggle and it is not going to happen. That is the same thing we have here. He doesn't want to show the gloves fit. But did you see how quickly he snapped them off? If they were so hard to get on, how come they came off like that? And they did. And I will tell you something else that really struck me. If I were asked to put on the gloves, the bloody gloves that were used to murder the father of my children, I would not be laughing. I would not be mugging. I would not be playing games. I wouldn't think it was funny at all. Is that the attitude you expect, the laughing and the mugging, putting on the bloody gloves that were used to murder the mother of your children?

Your Honor, I object. I object. Improper.

Sustained. Move on.

The point here is that the person who wore those gloves wore size extra large.