All right. Miss Clark, you may resume.

Thank you, your Honor. The point here is that the person who wore those gloves wore size extra large. If they shrunk before that night, he wouldn't have worn them. What do you do with gloves that don't fit? You throw them away, right? That is why he was able to wear them. He would have bought gloves that did fit. That is what he would have done. Now, the testimony has told us that the gloves in evidence are smaller now than when they were new, so the issue with all that has been done to them blood soaked, frozen, unfrozen, who knows what, the issue is how they fit at 10:00 p.m. Just before the murders on the night of June the 12th. The issue is how stretchable they were then before the murders at 10:00 p.m. On June the 12th. And we know that those gloves fit him on the night of June the 12th because he wore them, the size extra large, the size you know fits him, because he put on a new pair of extra large in this room, as Mr. Rubin said, they fit him beautifully, and he did that, of course, without the benefit of latex--I say "Benefit" sarcastically--latex to catch on them. So you have in these gloves all of the points that I have described and as shown on the slide. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, let's move back down the walkway, the south pathway that is, that dark narrow south pathway, and when he ran back down there the Defendant undoubtedly saw that the limousine was already there because it was pulled up facing into the driveway at the Ashford gate. It would be hard for him to miss. And he knew that he should already have been home. He was running late. And don't forget, you know he is pretty shook up at this point. He is running into the air conditioner and banged into the wall. He is worried, got to be worried about the fact that Kato is going to come out and worry--and try to investigate the source of the noises. And he has got to get out of that south pathway because if Kato sees him back there how is he going to explain that? How is that going to look on the night of the murders of the wife and Ron Goldman, if Kato comes outside and sees him in that dark south pathway? What is he doing there? So he has got to get back in that house and he has got to get back in a hurry, which is why there was no time to hide the knife behind the guest house. He had to get out of there, which is also why there was no time to realize that he had dropped a glove. All right. So he goes into the house, which is at the point that Allan Park sees him go in, which is a couple minutes after the thumps are heard by Kato. The Defendant went upstairs quickly, he answered the intercom when Allen buzzed him this fourth time, I think, and he needed to collect himself, he needed to buy time. He left Allan sitting and waiting at the gate while he got ready to go, but he took off his socks, he reopened the cut on his finger, and that is why you have blood on the bathroom floor, and under pressure to get out of there, get changed and get going, because the limo driver is downstairs waiting. He left the socks on his bedroom floor. And in that one simple careless act gave--gave us the most--possibly single most devastating proof of guilt in the case, because on that sock, on that sock we found blood that matched Nicole Brown, blood that matched the Defendant and the blue black cotton fiber.

Now, I've already talked to you about the significance of the blue black cotton fiber, fibers from the clothes he wore, clothes that we never found, with the fibers that share the same microscopic characteristic as found on the shirt of Ron Goldman doing on his socks and on the Rockingham glove. Those are fibers picked up from the clothes he wore that night. And we never found them. He got rid of them. Now, the Defendant's blood on that sock gave an RFLP match, once again putting him within one in 57 billion people. You would have to go through 57 billion people to found blood type as the Defendant's as we found on that sock. That is his blood on the sock. That is an identification. But that is not all. We found Nicole's blood as well. Now, on this, on sock B, we have actually two stains for Nicole. Sock a we have one stain. Now, there is something interesting about these sock stains that perhaps was not made clear during the testimony. I want to bring it out now because it is very important to this notion of planting. Gary Sims testified, and when he did, he told you about the fine spatter that he found above--on sock a that he found above the Nicole Brown stain on sock A. Little dots. I think he said there were like ten of them above the Nicole Brown stain. And on sock b he found little tiny spatter between the stains, two Nicole Brown stains on sock B. Little fine spatter. Kind of like the little spatters you would get when you stepped in a puddle or a pool of blood. Mr. MacDonnel didn't want to talk to me about those little spatters. You know why? Because that little spatter proves to you that nothing was planted here. That blood got on his sock because he was wearing it at the crime scene when he was committing the murders stepping in pools of blood. That is how that blood got there and that is why you have that fine spatter. And as I've told you now, there was a smaller stain, I think there were two smaller stains of Nicole Brown that were only good enough for PCR testing and there was one large stain that was good enough for RFLP testing. And the testimony gave us the fact that you would have to look through 6.8 billion people to find the blood type of Nicole that was found on that sock. And of course once again that is identity. We have proven it is hers and only hers on this planet that was on that sock. All right. So with all of this blood evidence, what we have done, and fiber and hair, look at all we have traced, look at all we have proven, we have linked the Defendant to the crime scene, we have linked the Defendant to the victims, we have linked the Defendant and the victims to his car and that link has reached from Bundy into his bedroom at Rockingham. They are all interwoven by time, by space, by occurrence, by science; all linked. Now, let's turn to the murders themselves, and in this section I would like to talk to you about the manner of killing.

All right. In this section I'm going to talk to you--I'm not going to start this way, but ultimately I'm going to talk to you about the law of homicide, what the People are required to prove in terms of proving that a murder occurred, what is a first degree and what is a second degree murder. Before I do that, I'm going to address some preliminary questions that--these are not questions the law requires us to answer, frankly. These are just kind of questions that you have, the things that you might want to debate in the jury room. I would like to give you some ideas about these questions and ponder them with you for a little bit, but let me--let me preface my remarks by saying that this has nothing to do with the elements of the crime that we are required to prove. In terms of our requirements of proof as to who did it and what they did, this has nothing to do with those, just so you know, because this is a matter of, as I told you in the jigsaw puzzle, this is the piece of sky, but it is interesting and it might be something that you are interested in, so in that light I'm going to talk a little bit about it. First of all, how could one person do this without the victim's being able to scream or escape? How long did this take to accomplish? What about these murders leads us to believe that it was committed by only one person? I will start with the last question first. First of all, if someone else was involved, that certainly does not mean that the Defendant didn't do it; it just means that he got somebody else to help him. That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it, though. I'm not saying that he did. I'm not saying that there was a second person there. I'm just saying that that alone doesn't mean anything. But secondly--first of all, if someone else was involved, on a purely basic level of observation, look at the nature of the wounds inflicted to each victim, and I don't mean look physically, because I'm not going to show them to you, but I mean you can probably remember. The nature of these wounds--you know, as I watched the testimony, I thought only one person could have done this because they killed the same way. The stab wound to the back of the head, the coup de grace slash to the neck, the targeting of the neck that way, the style of killing is the same. That is just a lay person's observation, but it is kind of a practical common sense thing. The murders look the same. You also heard a great deal of testimony concerning the murder weapon, weather it was single or double-edge and whether all of the wounds could have been inflicted by a single-edge knife. This goes to the determination whether or not it was one or two killers, although I must say two killers could have single-edged knives, although there was no testimony indicating whether you could match a particular knife to a knife wound. Dr. Lakshmanan testified in this regard that all of the major wounds were inflicted by a single-edged knife. He indicated to you also that there were certain other wounds, lesser wounds, in which he couldn't tell whether it was made by a single or a double-edged knife. But it would seem to make sense that if all of the major wounds are made with a single-edged knife, why would you come in there then with a double-edge knife to do the little ones? It kind of makes sense that a single-edged knife was used. But beyond that, scientifically I think we had Doug Deedrick testify that he examined the damage in Ron Goldman's shirt and he determined that--and a shirt of course is less elastic and less messy, if you will, than flesh, and he was able to see the damage in the shirt and see that it was the knife--that the cuts in the shirt were made with a single-edged very sharp knife, which tends to support and corroborate what Dr. Lakshmanan said. So the upshot of all that testimony is that to the extent that anything can be said based on what the wounds permit and a description of the murder weapon, it would appear to me a single-edged knife. Another indication that the murders were committed by one person comes from the blood evidence, and this is one of the few areas where there was really no dispute to the accuracy or the reliability of the result. And here is a result we haven't yet talked about. Cut feed, please. Sorry, your Honor.

All right. This is People's--

People's 100. All right. You see that blood drop on the bottom of the boot, ladies and gentlemen, (Indicating). It was--that is the sole of Ron Goldman's boot. That is a photograph taken at the scene at Bundy after the Coroner arrived, because you can see he is lying on that sheet. All right. Now, that blood drop was tested and it was a high amount of DNA and it was a high amount of DNA because as you can see it was dripped on a part of the boot that doesn't look that dirty and it obviously dried on that boot.

So the DNA did not degrade as badly as it did on the concrete. Again that is a non-absorbent surface, plastic, so it was preserved better. Now, what the result of that drop was, was a mixture of the blood of Ron and Nicole. Now, what does that blood drop mean? First of all, obviously that blood drop, and I think Henry Lee even testified to this, was dripped on the sole and Ron Goldman was already down when it was dripped on the sole. How could it have dripped on the sole of the boot in that manner? Well, it had to have come from the murder weapon, from a knife. Those drops are dripped on, cast off drops from the murder weapon, from the knife. And that means that Ron had already been cut badly enough to leave a quantity of blood on that knife and it also means that Nicole had also been cut badly enough to leave a quantity of blood on that same knife, because unless one knife has the mixture of blood of both victims on it, how can you get one blood drop from both victims? You see what I mean? The blood of Ron and Nicole mixed on the knife, it dripped onto the boot, and that is why you get a blood drop with the mixture of their blood. And that shows you one murder weapon.

Now, in addition to all of that, add the fact that you have virtually no evidence of the presence of a second killer. I mean, there should be something left, but there was really virtually nothing. Now, Dr. Lee tried to tell us about a second set of shoeprints, as you recall, but I think Mr. Bodziak made it very clear what this was all about. The only shoeprints that did not match the Bruno Magli was the one shoeprint he found on June 25th after police officers had walked through the crime scene. You recall those photographs two weeks after the crime, after cameramen had been on the walkway. I mean, what does that one shoeprint mean? It means nothing. And it certainly has nothing to do with the murders. Now, what about the hair and fiber? Does that tell us anything in terms of whether or not it was one or two people that committed the murder? Now, as I've already mentioned, with respect to the hair and fiber, Mr. Deedrick testified to hairs--transacting amounts of treated hairs that were not consistent with the Defendant's inside the knit cap or on the knit cap. He also testified, though, that he did not know how long those hairs had been on the knit cap, they could be there for a very long time, but other than that, there was really no hair and fiber evidence that could be directly connected to the murders that was associated with anyone but the Defendant, and by that I mean hair or fiber on the victims or on the objects found at the crime scene that were directly and obviously involved in the murders, such as the glove or the knit cap. Dr. Lee testified to stray fibers and hairs that were in the dirt or that were on the envelope that was lying in the dirt. But stuff lying around in dirt could have been there for weeks, could have been there for months. And as I told you before, if we had found hair consistent with the Defendant's in the dirt there I wouldn't be standing here and talking to you about that stuff, because so what? Show me something that is directly connected to the murders and there was nothing. Nothing. And you know that if there was somebody else there they had to leave something of themselves there. There was a struggle. Things happened there. Fur was flying there, as you can see.

Now, while I'm talking about hair and fiber, there is one other piece of that evidence that tells you that the Defendant acted alone. And that is this: You recall that Mr. Deedrick testified that he found Nicole--well, Mr. Deedrick said he found hairs consistent with Nicole Brown's on the shirt of Ron Goldman and we know from all of the evidence that that is Nicole's hair on his shirt. Think about how that happens? If the killer kills Nicole or attacks Nicole in the initial attack, and I will get back to that later, and he touches her hair, touches his head, he gets her hairs on him, goes over to attack Ron, those hairs will be transferred. And Mr. Deedrick talked to you about how transfers occur. Logically her hairs would get on Ron's shirt if the person who attacked Nicole then went over to Ron. There would be no reason for the transfer to Ron's shirt of Nicole's hair if two people were involved in these murders. Logically speaking, two people are involved, one takes on Ron, one takes on Nicole, but you don't have one person attaching Nicole and moving over to attack Ron if two people are there. No one wants to take their time committing murder. As a matter of common sense you are going to get in and you are going to get out and if you have got two people available to do it, one is going to take one and one is going to take the other and you are not going to have that kind of movement of hair from Nicole to Ron. So it is very clear, the crime scene really makes it very clear, that there is evidence of only one killer and all of that evidence establishes that that is the Defendant. Next question. How long could it have taken? On this subject there really is some agreement. There is agreement that all of these wounds could have been inflicted very, very quickly. Even Dr. Baden didn't disagree with Dr. Lakshmanan, said it could have been just a few minutes. Now, when you realize--you look at this crime scene, look at what you have, look at where you have it. It is apparent from the evidence at the crime scene that Ronald Goldman was taken by surprise, and I will get to Nicole in a minute because there is evidence with respect to her, too, but first let's take Ronald Goldman because that is the one who struggled. You see--do we have that picture--can we cut the feed, please, your Honor? Thank you.

Okay. This is 43-E, your Honor. All right. You see the envelope and it is just--just inside the gate. You remember, because you were there, how small that area is in--that caged area in he--at Bundy, very, very, very tight and that envelope is virtually with one step in the gate, it is dropped, and we have blood drippings on the envelope that indicate that it was dropped and then Ron bled, dripping onto that envelope. That indicates surprise. Do we have the keys?

I'm going to show new a moment where the keys were found as well. He drops his keys also. Now, I know a lot of suggestions were made here about how you can use keys as a weapon. I don't see how that really make any sense, frankly.

How do you use keys against a six-inch sharp knife? And how do you see any evidence there that he even had them in his hand long enough to think about that? Those keys were dropped and they were dropped right inside the gate and I will show you the photograph of where they were found.

People's 56-C. You see the keys right by the gate? Now, those are a little bit--if this is the gate, right here, (Indicating), if you step inside, it is a little bit down to my right as I'm gesturing, but again, they are right inside the gate. They are right inside. Dropped. Ron is taken by surprise. Now, Dr. Lee tried to say that the struggle with Ron was not a short struggle. What does that mean? What does that mean? More than a minute? More than five? The fact that Ron struggled is clear. But what is also obvious is someone who gets stabbed and is flailing about can get blood all over the place as he is struggling to back away from his attacker. That happens very quickly. You can imagine in your mind's eye somebody flailing, flailing about trying to get away from their attacker, a big person with a knife in a very, very dark area, in a very, very confined space. He hasn't very far to go, ladies and gentlemen. He has only got a few feet to move and he is backed into a corner like that. Where is he going to go? He flails backwards trying to avoid his attacker. The number of the contacts that you see, the bloody contacts on the fence were made at once as he is flailing, and that is what you see on that fence. You see a young man bleeding, backing and falling, vainly trying to get away from the Defendant who has him cornered in a cage and is coming at him with a very long knife. Now, I'm going to talk in a little more detail about how one person could do it, how. Dr. Lakshmanan spoke of the fact that Nicole suffered only two--I think again two defensive wounds, one to the back of her left hand and I think it was one to the right of her palm. She struggled very little. As Dr. Lakshmanan told you, there were--there was--she was rapidly, I think that is what he said, rapidly incapacitated. She was disabled very quickly. There were stab wounds to the back of her head that indicated movement, perhaps as she tried to run, stabbing her in the back of the head. An abrasion to the right eyebrow indicates that she was pushed or fell into a hard surface such as the wall or the stairs. She was stabbed in the left side of the neck four times. There was some movement shown on her part with respect to at least one of those stab wounds in the left side of her neck which indicates there was still some effort at resistance. And now, most importantly, Dr. Lakshmanan found evidence of a scalp and brain contusion caused by a blow to the head done by either a fist or the base of a knife, a contusion that was likely to cause unconsciousness, which in fact we know it did, because when the Defendant cut Nicole's throat for the last time, there was no indication of any movement on her part. It was a clean cut. That final coup de grace had smooth margins that indicated no resistance on her part. And there is a little bit more evidence of that that I will talk about later, but what is very important about these early wounds to the head and neck is that Dr. Lakshmanan told you there was evidence of bleeding in that brain contusion that showed that she lived after the infliction of those wounds for at least a minute and maybe more, likely in an unconscious state, certainly disabled, at least a minute, maybe more, before the final blunt throat cut was delivered. Please cut the feed, your Honor.

45-B. Now look at the upper step, ladies and gentlemen. You can see that she bled out on that step above her for awhile before she came to the final spot at the foot of the stairs. And Dr. Lakshmanan testified that Nicole was unconscious when the final throat cut was administered and she was put down at the base of those stairs. If she lived for at least a minute, if not more, after she was hit on the head and struck unconscious, before her throat was slashed for the last time and she was up on that upper step where you see the first pool of blood, what was the Defendant doing during that minute or more as she was laying unconscious or incapacitated on that upper step bleeding? What was he doing before he came back to administer the final coup de grace? With Nicole disabled the Defendant had ample opportunity to deal with an unsuspecting, unarmed Ronald Goldman who had just come to do a favor for a friend. And I remind you of the testimony--I remind you of the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan in which he described the very narrow and confined space, the cage in which the Defendant cornered him, a cage that left Ron nowhere to run and nowhere to hide literally. The Defendant had all the advantage. No matter what Dr. Huisenga says, he talks about Tarzan's grandfather, he is built like Tarzan, he is built powerfully, and even Dr. Huisenga said, admitted that whatever the--whatever the Defendant's disabilities may be, they did not prevent him from performing the actions necessary to commit these murders. And the Defendant had the advantage. He had the advantage of size. Ron Goldman was only five foot five, 175 pounds. Nicole Brown, 5-5, 125. The Defendant, 6-2, 210 pounds. He also had the advantage of the knife. He was the only one armed in this combat. He was the only one, and he had the advantage of surprise.

He knew what he was going to do, but they didn't. And don't forget, too, the adrenaline factor. That is real important, that is important, and Dr. Huisenga talked about that because adrenaline pumps you up, and even Dr. Huisenga talked about how much football players get pumped up, and you know, they have to. They have got to go running though these huge men. I have never see men that size on the football field. You have got to be able to knock them, run, run through them, and you have got to get pumped. You have got to have a killer instinct to do that and that is what the Defendant did. And that is what did he that night. And the Defense can talk all they want about this new rare form of arthritis the Defendant supposedly has that allows to him swing a golf club, lift a heavy-set of golf clubs in that heavy golf bag. You will have it back there in the jury room. You will see what I mean. Lifted it not once, but a few times that night. And carry heavy suitcases. That curious form of arthritis that somehow prevents him only from doing the movement required to stab and murder these people. But that is not what Dr. Huisenga, his witness said. He could do it. He could do it.

Now, let's talk about the attack of Ron. Ron was attacked with the Defendant behind him, that much is clear. The wound inflicted to the neck, those control wounds--and I will talk a little bit more about that and some of the other stab wounds--and Ron struggles. Unlike Nicole, he is not so easily put down. He struggles and he grabs the Defendant who is holding him from around the neck with his left hand and holding the knife in his right. Ron is struggling and he is grabbing at anything he can and he is grabbing at the hand that is holding him and that is how the glove comes off. And by the way, that is why the right glove doesn't come off, because the right glove, the right hand is holding the knife, holding the glove in place. But from the point forward--from that point forward after the Defendant first attacked him, Ron's death was not a matter of if, it was just a matter of when, and Ron was totally on the defensive from the start trying to ward off the knife and to back away and in the process hitting the fence, the trees and everything around him in a desperate effort to survive. And all of this had to have happened very quickly, and I say this as a matter of common sense.

It didn't take Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown more than a few minutes to be overcome and slashed to death. And that is not really surprising. Think about it. A boxing match, each round is what, three minutes, and this is with men that are both prepared ready to do battle and--in good condition who are not taken by surprise, who are prepared to do battle. And we know knockouts occur in the very first round. They certainly happen within a minute, and that is with trained professionals. Same thing with martial arts matches, very quick. All right. Next question. Why did he leave the cap, glove? This one is probably very easy. It was late, he had to catch a flight, this took longer than expected. Ron Goldman was not expected at this scene. He was not supposed to be there. But it is only because of him, because of the struggle that he put up that we have the cap, we have the glove and we have all this evidence, Ron's shirt, the blood. Because of the struggle with Ron we have all of this evidence. But it is not--I'm not saying that the Defendant was not aware, as he was leaving the scene, that he knew he had lost evidence, because he was. There was evidence given to you by Mr. Bodziak who testified that he saw hesitation shoeprints down the Bundy walk, that he saw evidence that the Defendant walked down the walkway, stepped back against the north--north wall, and stepped out as though to look back at the crime scene. And what that shows you is evidence that I lost my cap, I've lost a glove, but he is thinking about going back, but doesn't dare. Time is running out. He might be seen by someone. The longer he remains, the more likely to be detected. And probably the dog is howling already. And so he has to leave. Don't forget, too, that the glove and the cap are in complete darkness underneath that plant in that very dark, dark area in the front of Nicole's condominium. Now, I know that I have not explained every move that was made by the Defendant, which blow came first, which one came last and which one came in the middle. The law doesn't require us to do so. And of course there is a simple reason for that, because short of a videotape, we very rarely know exactly how any crime occurred. People who commit murder obviously try not to do that in public and where everyone can see them. Their victims can't talk and they can't tell us what happened. We have to look to the physical evidence and we have to use our common sense and our reason to make reasonable inferences to determine what happened to the best of our ability. And even if we had a videotape, ladies and gentlemen, it wouldn't show you everything, what happens before the tape starts, what happens after the tape ends, and what if--of course a camera only picks up what is in its lens. So if you saw, for example, a videotape of this case that had Nicole, that was able to focus on Nicole but not pick up Ron, and you saw the Defendant killing Nicole and slashing her throat and then he stepped out of range to attack Ron, would you thereby conclude that he didn't kill Ron? No, of course not. Of course not. So the law does not require that we prove how a murder was committed, simply because in that case we would have on--we'd have very, very few convictions for murder. The law requires that we prove that a murder was committed, who committed it and what degree of murder it was. So the order of wounds makes very little difference. It doesn't answer any of those questions that we are required to answer, and that is what we are here to determine, is those questions that the law asks us to prove. But there is one aspect of the nature of these murders that is a very telling point when you think about who did it. When you look at these pictures, ladies and gentlemen, you see rage, you see fury, you see overkill. These--this is not the mark of a professional killer. These are not efficient murders. These are murders that are really slaughters, that are personal. And in that respect they reveal a great deal about who did them. No stranger, no Colombian drug dealer; a man who was involved with his intended victim, one who wanted to control her and failed, and in failing found the one way to keep her under control where she could never slip out of it again, and that man is this Defendant. I have one more to go, so--