Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, my apologies to you for the interruption of Miss Clark's opening argument to you. Something transpired that had nothing to do with the argument itself that I needed to take care of before we resumed. Miss Clark, you may resume. Thank you.

Thank you, your Honor.

Counsel, we'll take a break at 3:15.

Okay. So we were talking about the blood on the outside of the door. It could have gotten there at Rockingham when he went out and opened the door, getting ready to leave to the airport or it also could have happened obviously at Bundy. With the blood drops and the bloody shoeprints leading out to the driveway, a very reasonable and very logical inference is that his hand was still bleeding when he went to reach for the door to open it at Bundy.

The point here to make is that it doesn't matter at which point you think that blood was placed on the outside of the door because the important point to get is that he was already cut, he was already bleeding when he went to his Bronco. Whether it was after the murders at Bundy or whether it was at Rockingham to go and get the cell phone out, that finger was already cut. That's the point. So why did he tell Dr. Baden that he got the cut getting the cell phone out of the Bronco? When you look at the blood at Rockingham, that's an obvious lie. Why did he do that unless he knew that he had to come up with an explanation for something that was very, very incriminating. You got blood in the bathroom, you got blood down in the foyer. But the most important point is that you have the blood on the outside of that door. No matter whether you think it happened at Bundy or Rockingham, it sure didn't happen as a result of getting that cell phone out of the Bronco. I never heard of a cell phone that sharp either, but that's another point. See what I'm getting at? In any case, so what we've demonstrated with this time line is this. We have gone all the way through the time line. We have shown you between 9:36 and 10:54, when Allan Park saw the Defendant go into his house, the Defendant's whereabouts are unaccounted for. You also saw that during that time that his whereabouts were unaccounted for, all of these things were occurring. We're talking about the barking dogs when Steve Schwab and Allan Park who comes and looks at the Rockingham gate not once, but twice and sees no Bronco that is by the Ashford gate and sees no Bronco until ultimately he sees the Defendant come in the house and talks to him on the intercom. So during all that period of time, you have the Defendant out in the Bronco. That, ladies and gentlemen, is one piece of evidence that proves the Defendant's guilt, opportunity, one piece of the puzzle. I don't know if--I don't think I've given you the example I would like to give of a jig-saw puzzle. It helps to talk about reasonable doubt in this frame. When you think about reasonable doubt, you think about not only a doubt found in reason opposed to mere possibility as I talked to you about before, but you talk about something that's missing that you need to believe that the Defendant is guilty. And in that sense, I compare it to a jig-saw puzzle. In order to get the picture, to know what a jig-saw puzzle is depicting, if you're missing a couple pieces of the sky, you still have the picture. You know, for example, it shows a house and--you know, and a dog and a kid in the yard and that sort of thing, you can see the picture. You miss a couple pieces of the sky sometimes, you do lose those pieces, no big deal. You've got the picture. You've got it clear. You've got it certain and, you know, you got all the necessary pieces of the puzzle. So I kind of compare a jury trial to that because it often happens that there are things that are not shown to you, things that are not proven to you, and that's why the law requires that we prove certain things. There are other things we are not required to prove. I am going to get into that later. But those are like the pieces of the sky, you don't need them. It would be nice, but you don't need them. All right. So we've talked about opportunity. Now, we know he had the opportunity, the time to commit the murders. We know that things were happening at Bundy during that time. Now, let's talk about the cuts on the Defendant's left hand because this is very significant. It's significant because of when they appear and it's significant because the Defense doesn't deny it.

The Defendant cut his hand on the night of June the 12th. That is conceded. That is not in dispute. The blood found on the blood trail at Rockingham is in fact the Defendant's and that is conceded. There is no dispute. Even Kato saw the blood in the foyer. If you recall when he was testifying, as he left that morning about 7:30, he saw the blood drops on the floor of the foyer and that was before the Defendant ever came back from Chicago. Now, it's also clear that the Defendant cut himself on the night of the 12th after the recital. As I told you, you have that picture showing his left hand. No cuts. So it was on the night of the recital--I mean, it was on the night of June the 12th on the night of the murders his left hand got cut after the recital. Now, add to that the fact that the cut is on the left hand, but he's right-handed. And the killer lost his left glove at Bundy. Now, we know that the killer cut his left hand because we have the blood drops to the left side of the bloody shoe prints. So now we have the Defendant getting his hand cut on the night of his wife's stabbing, cut on his left hand, which just happens to be the hand that the murderer cut that same night. That's an alarming coincidence. And there's more. We know that on June the 15th, the Defendant went to see Dr. Huizenga, not his own doctor. No, this was not even a doctor he had ever seen before. This is the partner of a doctor that treats his lawyer. And he's not an arthritis specialist. He's an internist. And this doctor describes four cuts, four cuts and seven abrasions on the Defendant's left hand and on the right hand, a little paper cut on the pinkie, four cuts and seven abrasions, and the murderer was cut on the left hand when he lost the left glove. You know, I can see getting one cut, maybe two on your hand. But four cuts and seven abrasions? And we're supposed to believe that that's unrelated to a murder in which the killer's left hand was cut and bleeding as he left the crime scene. But there's more. When the Defendant got the call in Chicago from Detective Phillips, he tells him of Nicole's murder, he realized he had to come up with an explanation for the cut on the middle finger, and that's why we got to hear from the Chicago Detective, Berris. He recovered the broken glass in the sink. If you recall, there was a picture shown to you of that hotel room where the Defendant checked in on the morning of June the 13th. Now, the story that they wanted to sell you is that the Defendant got that big cut on the middle finger when he broke the glass after hearing of Nicole's murder. But there's a couple problems with that story. First of all, how do you cut yourself on the back of your finger by slamming a glass down? I mean, I have a real hard time picturing how that could possibly happen.

For the record, your Honor, I'm showing 581-A and B. I'm just going to show the picture of that so I can refresh your memory, you can see what that looks like. That's the sink and that's 581-B. All right. Now, let's show the actual glass in the sink. All right. And there is the glass as it was found by Detective Berris in Chicago. Now, Dr. Baden theorized when asked how would you get a cut on the back of your finger by slamming a glass down, he theorized without any basis, without any evidence, he theorized, well, if you swipe the glass into the sink. I don't know why you would do that with the back of your hand like that. I mean, that one's hard for me other by--but if you did, assume you did, you would get cuts on the back of your hand, not just one on the back of your left finger, middle finger. You'll get it on the side, you'll get it maybe here (Indicating), maybe here on the palm. There were none. There were none. You saw the photographs of Defendant's hands that were taken. You heard the descriptions of his hand by Dr. Huizenga. You heard the description of his hands I think also by Dr. Baden. There was no description of any cuts on the left side of the palm or of the hand. You'd see that. Not just one cut on the back of the finger. Again, this is common sense. Now, and if it's true he cut his hand on the glass, where's the blood? See any blood? I don't see any blood there. There's no blood on the glass. There's no blood on the sink. And how come there's no blood on the paper cover of the glass? If that's where he had cut his hand, you should see the blood on the glass, you should see the blood in the sink, you should see blood on the paper cover. You see nothing. I'm not saying he didn't bleed in the room. I'm saying he did not get that cut for the first time in the room. That cut was already there. That cut got reopened, but that cut did not get had in that room.

Now, if they want to claim you don't see any blood because he ran water over it, I'm not sure why he would do that, but assume he did. Then how come the paper is not wet? Shouldn't this paper be wet if he ran water over the glass to wash down the blood, wash the blood out of the sink? It's not wet. You can see it. The significance though of this glass breaking act is really that it shows his effort to conceal a wound that he knows will be highly incriminating. This act shows consciousness of guilt, ladies and gentlemen. He knew the wound had importance because he knew how he got it. So he had to provide an alibi for the cause of that cut. And when he came back to Rockingham, he wore that bandage around his finger like a neon sign saying, see, I just got cut, it just happened because he surely wasn't wearing that big bandage when he left. So he had to make a big deal about the bandage he was wearing that morning so that he could claim that he just got cut that morning, not last night. Now, the only problem with that was that when he tried this little cover-up in the Chicago hotel room, he didn't know that the police had already found his blood at Rockingham in the Bronco. So by that time, the Bronco door, they were able to see inside the Bronco although they couldn't get inside because it was locked. And they certainly saw the blood in the bathroom and they saw the blood in the foyer, and they saw all that before he got back from Chicago. He didn't know that though. He didn't know that. So while he was in Chicago, he thought they'd see that, that he had better cover it up. And that's what's significant about the story that he told to Dr. Baden, because when he got back to Rockingham, after he knew that they had already seen his blood and they weren't going to buy the story about cutting it in Chicago, "We got your blood here before you ever got back"--so that Chicago story isn't going to wash. Now he's got to come up with another story. So he comes up with a story he gives to Dr. Baden, which is, "I went into the Bronco and cut myself on that razor sharp cell phone." It's an attempt to explain away incriminating evidence, explaining it away with a lie, and that shows consciousness of guilt. And there's one other thing. It's kind of a simple common sense thing and something that it is your job as jurors to do. You use your common sense. You use your life experience. That's very important because that's part of evaluating the facts as a Judge and that's what you're here to do.

Using your life experience, stop and think about the blood at Rockingham just for a moment. Sure people get their fingers cut. May not happen every day, but it happens. It's happened to me. I'm sure it's happened to you. And I don't know whether anybody's ever gotten their finger cut on a cell phone. That might be a little bit more of a rare occurrence, but the thing is, when we do--when we cut ourselves and we drip blood, what do we do? We clean it up. You drip blood around the bathroom, you drip blood in your kitchen, you drip blood in the foyer, you get a napkin, you clean it up. It's just a natural--it's something that you wouldn't even think about doing, but you would do it. Now, in all the months that you've been sequestered, how many blood trails have you left in your rooms from the bathroom to the hallway? How many times in your life have you left a trail of blood around your house or your apartment and not cleaned it up? And we had evidence from the Defendant's maid that he is a very neat and tidy and clean person. And he leaves blood on his bathroom floor and he leaves blood on his foyer? So the cuts in this case, cuts to the Defendant's hand and the blood that he leaves around that doesn't get cleaned up, these are very important points. And I am going to summarize for you. The hand injuries occurred at the time of the murder on the left hand, a left-hand glove was lost at Bundy, a left hand. There's what's called the DNA evidence. There's the Defendant's blood trail at Bundy to the left side of the bloody shoeprints. Defendant leaves the blood trail at Rockingham, but he does that, he doesn't clean up and the Defendant makes the statement to Dr. Baden admitting bleeding, bleeding in the murder vehicle shortly after the murders. These are all very significant points that demonstrate conduct by the Defendant, actions as well as words that show you consciousness of guilt. And we have another piece of the puzzle. Now, we're talking about conduct. Let's talk about post-homicidal conduct. How would you expect someone to act after they committed the murder? Do you think you know what a murderer looks like? It's been a long time, but you might remember, I asked you some of these questions during voir dire. I asked you, "Do you think you know what a murderer looks like?" You all said no and rightfully so.

The scariest homicides are always the ones where the bad guy is handsome, charming, someone who doesn't look like a murderer. That threatens our sense of security. We want to believe that bad people look like what they are because we can steer clear of them. Strictly as a matter of our personal security, we want to know. We want to know. And when we can't know, then we are deceived by the appearance of a pretty face. Then our sense of security is threatened by that. Our life experience tells us that we cannot predict what a killer looks like. We cannot say this one does or that one doesn't. We know it's a command of common sense. You can sit next to a killer in the movies and you can stand behind them in line, stand in line for the bus with a rapist and you wouldn't know it. Well, the same is true for post-homicidal conduct. No different. What exactly do you expect someone to do after he's committed murder? If he wants to get away with it, he's going to do everything in his power that he can, and that's just common sense. So whatever his image is of someone who is not guilty is the image he will try to project. And to the extent he is accurate in determining what that is to the extent that he has an image that comports with our own of what an innocent person would do, we will be deceived. Now, Mr. Simpson is not the first killer to commit murder and drive a car, to commit murder and fly in an airplane. They don't wear any neon sign saying, "I just committed murder." I know that's common sense. But there are certain things that he can do, things that tell you that it most certainly was not business as usual on the night of June the 12th after he murdered Ron and Nicole, and some of them I've already discussed. So I'll just briefly list them. Forgetting to set the alarm after Kato told him about the thumping, lying to Allan Park about having overslept and after speaking to Allan, not letting him in the gate, leaving blood in the bathroom and in the foyer, leaving his socks on the floor, normally a very neat and tidy person, complaining of being hot and sweaty, a cool night, the broken glass in Chicago which was to be his excuse for the cut on his finger until he found out the blood trail was discovered before he got home at Rockingham. And there's a couple more. Although he got up early for an early morning golf game as he told Kato--you recall that testimony I'm sure. When he got on the red eye flight to Chicago, left at 11:45, that unlike the rest of the passengers, he didn't sleep. He stared out the window. He read, but he didn't sleep. After being up since 6:00 that morning, by 11:45 at night, you'd think he'd fall asleep on that flight. You think he'd hit that seat and go right out. But he didn't, and he can't because he had a lot on his mind. And something else you may have noticed. The passenger on the plane who apparently spent the whole flight watching him, Steve Valerie, said, "I saw him staring out the window, I saw him reading, but not sleeping." This was a witness called by the Defense. He also observed that Mr. Simpson at that time wore no socks, and that's because he left them on his bedroom floor. There's one more thing. Detective Phillips--remember that Detective Phillips testified that he called the Defendant in Chicago at 6:05 in the morning. You recall when he testified, he went into the house with Arnelle and with the other detectives. They made an effort to locate the Defendant at that time and Arnelle called the Defendant's secretary, Cathy Randa, and then they got the information from her as to where he was located and they called him. As you recall, I showed the phone bill that indicated they called at 6:05.

Now, Detective Phillips testified that he told the Defendant Nicole had been killed. And what did the Defendant do? Did he ask how? No. Did he ask who? No. Did he ask where? No. Did he ask when? No. Did he ask whether it was a car accident? No. Now, think about the reasonable response. Someone is informed that the mother of their children has been killed and a detective calls and says, "I'm sorry to tell you this, but the mother of your children has been killed." What do you do? Wouldn't you think that the first reaction--I can understand shock. Wouldn't you think that the first reaction would be one of disbelief? No. First response, deny it, no, that can't be because you don't believe--you know, you don't believe someone close to you can be met with violence. Even if it's a car accident, you have a sense of disbelief about can't be, you know, someone I know doesn't die that way. Can't be. And so in your effort to make it where it might be real or to test the truth of the statement, you ask questions. How did it happen? When? Who do you think did it? Where did it happen? What was the cause of death? How could this be? Not one of those questions, not one.

And I think probably the first thing that you normally ask is, "Was it a car accident," one of the first things that pops in your mind. But he said none of those things, ladies and gentlemen. He asked none of the questions that an innocent man would ask. So now you have another piece of the puzzle. You have opportunity, you have the cuts on the hand and you have post-homicidal conduct showing you consciousness of guilt all over the place.

Miss Clark, we're going to break at 2:30.

I'll do a quick wrap-up of this section and--

All right. So this piece of puzzle, post-homicidal conduct. Now, we've spoken of a whole list of things, and I added to it forgetting to set the alarm, leaving blood all over, not cleaning it up, complaining of being hot and sweaty, the broken glass in Chicago, the behavior on the airplane, not sleeping on the red eye flight after being up since early morning and the behavior after the notification by Detective Phillips, not asking any of the questions an innocent man would ask. I am going to move into another section. Do you want me to stop here?

Let's take a break. Ladies and gentlemen, remember all of my admonitions to you. Let me ask you to step in the back.