We're really hanging out together today, aren't we? I hope you all had a real good dinner. I am going to conclude my remarks for you at this point in about--I don't want to say exactly what time. Lawyers are always wrong, but I really think about a half hour, and I am going to talk about the law of premeditation, and that means first and second degree murder. Let me tell you briefly what I forgot to tell you in the very beginning.
In all criminal cases, because the People have the burden of proof, I argue to you first and Mr. Darden will then argue to you. That's the Prosecution. Then the Defense will argue. Then because we have the burden of proof, we get to argue again. We get the last word so to speak, but it's fair because it's our burden, okay. So you are going to hear from me again. I'm making now to you the bulk of my remarks. I hope and pray not to be taking as much of your time when I stand up to speak to you again at the conclusion of the case. I just wanted to let you know that's the order of things. That's the way it goes in criminal trials. All right. So let's talk about the degree of murder, is it first or is it second degree because you will be asked to determine this question also. And you will have the law of first and second degree murder back there, and if I can give you a hand in stepping through the law to understand how it applies to the facts, I would like to try to do that now and be of some help to you. The Defendant is charged with two counts of murder, and you're going to decide whether they are first degree or second degree. And in order to do that, what you do is, you apply the law to the facts. That's what a Judge does. And it's actually much simpler than it sounds. And let me start with the basic law of murder. Legally speaking, what is murder? Could we have--
You are going to have written forms in the jury room. You can talk about them. You can go over them again. All right. "Every person who unlawfully kills a human being with malice aforethought is guilty of the crime of murder in violation of section 187 of the penal code." Okay. "In order to prove such crime, each of the following elements must be proved: "No. 1, a human being was killed." Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown obviously human beings. Elements satisfied. "2. The killing was unlawful."
And what they mean by that is, there's no legal excuse for the killing. That's not even an issue here. "3. The killing was done with malice aforethought." Okay. That's the issue. Let's talk about that. Malice can be either express or implied. In this case, the only issue we have is express malice. What is express malice? Express malice aforethought means that a person had an intent to kill where there was no lawful reason to do so, and malice does not require any hatred or ill will of the victim. So, for example, regardless of whether the Defendant liked or disliked Ron Goldman or never even knew him, malice is shown if the evidence shows that he intended to kill him. With the kind--now, how do you determine if there was an intent to kill? We're not talking about premeditation. We are talking about an intent to kill. How do we prove that? Look at the pictures. This one is proven easily when you look at the nature of the injuries that were suffered by the victims in this case. The unlawful intent to kill is very obvious. These victims were virtually hacked to death.
So you have malice shown in the nature of the injuries, the nature of the wounds that were inflicted upon them. So malice--express malice is shown. Just look at the pictures. Aforethought--malice aforethought, what does that mean? That just means that the intent to kill was formed before the actual killing occurred. It's not an afterthought. That doesn't mean premeditation or deliberation, and we'll talk about that in a minute. And again, with the nature and the number of the wounds that were suffered by these victims, it's very obvious that the killer went to great lengths to disable and kill them with the throat slashing wounds alone. The preformed intent to kill is very clear. In fact, malice aforethought in this case again, it's proven so clearly just with the Coroner's photographs and the pictures of the victims at the crime scene where they were found. So you look at those photographs, you can see that there was a preformed, even if it was just a second before, intent to kill these victims and a great effort made to kill the victims with the nature of the wounds. And there you go. We've applied the law to the facts just like you'll do back in the jury room to determine what was done.
Let me give you an example aside from--let me give you an example. This is a case I remember from a while back, a very simple example of second degree murder. In this example, a young man was standing on a street corner with his girlfriend. Another young man came and drove up to him on a--rode up to him on a bike. He asked the young man on the corner, "Hey, where are you from?" The young man on the corner responded, "I'm not from around here." The young man on the bike pulled out a gun, shot him to death. Second degree murder. In that example, you have a preformed intent to kill although no evidence that the young man planned to kill when he first rode up on the bike, but it was preformed in the second that the young man on the corner said, "I'm not from around here." (Snapped fingers), second degree. Because when he pulled out the gun, he clearly meant to kill even though it was what you'd call a rash impulse. That's second degree murder. And the bare minimum in this case, at the very, very, very, very least in this case, we know we have second degree murder. That's the very least that we have. But now we ask, do we have more? Is there more? Do we have evidence that the murders were of the first degree, that is premeditated and deliberate? In asking this question, what we're really asking is whether there's evidence that the Defendant weighed and considered the question of killing and the reasons for and against the choice because that's what we're talking about in terms of premeditation. The answer to this question, just like all the others, comes from the evidence. We look to all the evidence in the case and we ask, is there evidence of planning, is there evidence of premeditation in the manner of killing, is there evidence of preparation for the act of killing? I'll address all these questions right now in the course of the argument, but I can tell you that the answer to these questions is yes. I'll briefly discuss the law with you and then I'm going to show you how the evidence can be applied to the law to answer all of the questions. But yes, we do have premeditated and deliberate murder. First of all, premeditated. Let me see. I think we have a jury instruction for this.
I don't think we have it right now. That's okay. I'll just tell you. Premeditated is what it sounds like. It does mean considered beforehand. And it's important to remember here that there is no time requirement. The jury instruction states that the law does not undertake to measure in units of time how long the thoughts of killing were considered before they ripen into something that we call premeditation and deliberation. And the reason for that is very simple and the law and the jury instruction you have will tell you so. Circumstances vary in each case. Each case is unique, has a unique set of facts, and each Defendant is unique and has a unique thought process. And so you cannot say, well, three minutes is not enough and five minutes is plenty. You can't do that. So it's not the consideration in terms of how much time because you can premeditate within just a few minutes, even seconds.
Here's the jury instruction. Here's what I was saying. You'll have this in smaller form and it won't be highlighted, but you'll have it back in the jury room. This is the area I was directing your attention to. "The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length of time during which the thought must be pondered before it can ripen into an intent to kill which is truly deliberate and premeditated. The time will vary with different individuals and under varying circumstances." And that's common sense. I mean you'd think that, wouldn't you? "So the true test is not the duration of time, but rather the extent of the reflection." So even if you want to say, for example, that premeditation and deliberation happened in a mere few minutes or seconds, you're going to have to show that during that time, there was deliberation. Deliberation is really the issue. What do we mean by that? Under the law, "Deliberation" means that after giving careful thought and consideration, weighing the considerations for and against, the killer decides to and does kill. And that's really what the crux of the matter is in a premeditated and deliberate murder; can you show that kind of weighing and considering of the consequences. And this is to be contrasted with a second degree murder because in second degree murder, you have what is known as just a rash impulse and--do we have that?
Here's second degree murder. I just wanted to give you a chance to contrast it. "Murder of the second degree, the unlawful killing of a human being with malice and aforethought." We talked about that. That's intent to kill. "When there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill--" there's an intent to kill, "--but the evidence is insufficient to establish deliberation and premeditation." Okay. So you have basic murder, murder of the second degree. And then, if you have more, if you have premeditation and deliberation, you have murder of the first degree.
To give you an example of first degree murder, let's add to the example I gave you previously of the young man on the bike, he goes up and he shoots the young man standing on the corner. To make this a first degree murder, this time assume the following: Assume that the shooter knows who his intended victim is. Assume further that the shooter is a member of a gang and that the intended victim is a member of a rival gang, okay? The young man standing on the corner, his gang recently killed somebody in the kid's on the bicycle gang. The kid on the bike knows this. He sees the victim on the corner, recognizes him as a rival gang member, a member of a gang that just killed a member of his gang, and he decides pay back time, we are going to get this guy, we are going to show him and it's my time to do it. And now knowing who the victim is, knowing what his motivation is, knowing that he's going to pay him back, he rides up to the young man on the corner, goes up to him, pulls out his gun, shoots him at point blank range. There's first degree murder. He's got a premeditated and deliberate idea of what he is going to do and why he's going to do it, and then he goes to and does do it.
Now, in this example, we see the evidence of planning and we can see the cold calculated decision to kill that is all accomplished very rapidly when he sees and recognizes the victim as a member of a rival gang. Here's a noncriminal example of premeditation and deliberation. That is something that to show you we make decisions that are premeditated and deliberate every day. Let's say that you come downtown with some of your friends. You come downtown to have dinner one night, go into the restaurant, have a good time. The hour gets late, and by the time you step out of the restaurant, it's already--the streets are almost deserted, very, very little traffic on the streets. You and your friends walk to the corner, and when you walk to the corner, you see that the "Don't walk" sign is flashing. But it's late, you're tired, you don't want to wait. The "Don't walk" sign is flashing, you step out, you look this way, you look that way, you don't see any traffic, you cross the street. As you stepped off the curb, that was a premeditated and deliberate decision. It didn't take very long, but you weighed the consequences pro and con, you said, "Well, I could get in trouble. There might be an officer around. I might get busted for jaywalking, but then again, doesn't look like anybody's there and it's probably okay," and you cross the street. Premeditated and deliberate decision. So you can see why it doesn't take long. It's not the length of time. It's the quality of the time spent. Okay. So that's first degree and second degree murder. Second degree, a rash impulse, intent to kill with no premeditation and deliberation. First degree murder, premeditated and deliberate, a weighing of the consequences pro and con and a clear and deliberate decision to act and then the murder. Now, the question is, do we have evidence of the premeditated and deliberate type in the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown? As I've told you, the answer to that question is yes. Now, I would like to break down this evidence into three categories. For me, this is the easiest way to analyze a case to see if there was premeditation and deliberation, and I hope it works for you too. Here's the first category; is motive. Do we have motive? Now, under this category would fall the subject matter that Mr. Darden is going to address. So I'm not going to discuss it with you other than to mention that the past episodes of domestic violence between the Defendant and Nicole, that evidence is evidence of motive. I'm not going to say anything more about that because Mr. Darden will address it. The next category is planning activity, what did the Defendant do that shows us that he was planning to commit murder. Okay. Now, I'm going to come back to those questions I asked you to bear in mind earlier in the argument. Remember I asked you to think about this? Why did he go out--why did the Defendant go out and ask Kato for five's, for the skycap to break the hundreds that he had if he was already going to go out and eat? Remember I asked you that in the beginning of my argument? The significance of that, of asking Kato for the five's, asking him for change when he already knew he was going to go out and get something to eat and could obviously get the change at that point--he obviously didn't need Kato to give him those five's. So what was the point? And even when he went out with Kato and he got the change back, he didn't keep it. So getting change from Kato was not the point. And none of his conduct is consistent with what he's telling Kato. None of it makes sense unless you look behind the words.
What was he doing? What he was doing was, he was setting up an alibi with Kato. He's going out to see Kato so that Kato can say that he saw him. He can--then Kato can later say, "I saw the Defendant. I saw him at 9:00, 10 after 9:00. He told me where he was going. He said he was going to get something to eat." So if it's discovered that his whereabouts are unknown during the time of the murder, he at least has someone to say, "Well, wait a minute. He told me." He has a noncriminal explanation for where he was. So he comes up with a pretext of needing change for the skycap, and it's a good way to remind Kato that he's going to be out of town too. He'll have Kato remember that alibi also. "I need change for the skycap." Unfortunately, Kato stepped in his way. Kato invited himself along, and the Defendant would have been hard-pressed to refuse because think about that. If Kato is going to be his alibi to tell anybody who later asks that, "I saw the Defendant at such and such a time, and he said he was just going to go out and get something to eat," and then he says, "But I tried to invite myself along, but he wouldn't let me go with him," then you have further evidence of consciousness of guilt. Then it's going to look suspicious. Why wouldn't he let him go with him? What's the big deal? He lets him live there. So the Defendant agrees, takes Kato with him. This unexpected development, however, eats up time for him, time that he could have had out thinking about what to do, something that he was getting ready to do, getting ready to commit the murders. So instead of going to a real restaurant, which he had the time to do at 10 after 9:00--the limo isn't going to get there until 10:45. Even if you assume there was some packing to be done for a one-day trip, how long does that take? They could have gone to a restaurant. But no, they didn't. They went to McDonald's and they went to a drive-through, the quickest way you could possibly think of to get some food, and he went there in the Bentley. Now, think about that. Why take the Bentley? Why not take the Bronco if all you are going to do is go to McDonald's, unless there's something in the Bronco you don't want Kato to see. The knit cap, the knife, the gloves? If Kato sees those on the night that he intends to commit those murders before he has committed them and the police get to him and say, "What did you see, where were you, I mean, what did happen, what happened in this case," he's going to say, "Ah, that knit cap, I know where I saw that." These things have to pass through his mind. Now he's got these things in the Bronco, he doesn't want Kato sitting in that Bronco with him. So they took the Bentley. Now, once they got their food at McDonald's, the Defendant eats his in the car all the way home. Why do that? You've got plenty of time to take it home, eat it in your house, relax, live a little. It doesn't have to be rushed like that. But he eats it quickly. Why? Because now, his time has been eaten up by Kato coming along, time that he doesn't have. Kato saves his. And it was interesting because he complained about being tired. It was about--was it 20 after 9:00, 25 after 9:00? They were in the car on the way back I think it was, and he complained about being tired, and Kato said, "Well, why don't you take a nap? He said, "Well, I got no time." When I heard that, "Got no time," the lime--it's 9:25. The limo doesn't come until 10:45. You've got time to lay down unless you're planning on doing something else. But what was really telling was, after they got back when they both got out of the car and Kato walks straight for the house and the Defendant stood there by the Bentley not moving, watching Kato. Why do that? Why do you stand there and wait? Why not go in the house? Why not get back in your Bentley or get in the Bronco? Why do you wait for Kato to get out of sight unless you don't want him to see where you're going, unless you have it in mind that you're not going to go back in the house. You don't want to take the time to do that and you don't want him to see you going to the Bronco. Now, there's much more evidence of planning, planning that you see at the crime scene itself. And in that, I mean, the Defendant wore dark clothing. The dark blue, black cotton sweat suit that Kato described, perfect in the nighttime if you don't want to be seen. The dark blue, black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman, the socks, the Rockingham glove, the fibers of the clothing he wore, the watch cap and the gloves. It was June the 12th. It's a summer night. Why do you need these cashmere-lined gloves and a watch cap on a summer night unless you're going to commit a crime, unless you're planning, unless you're preparing to commit a crime? Gloves are easy. Why wear the gloves? Fingerprints. You don't want to leave fingerprints. And he didn't. You heard from the print people. He didn't. Watch cap. A partial disguise. If he has to walk around the house, if he's going to be standing at the front gate, he doesn't want someone glancing to make the immediate connection. He doesn't want someone to see exactly who it is right away. Now, he doesn't intend to be there but a minute. But a watch cap over that head is going to make sure that doesn't look like something that he would wear and it throws someone off. Now, those items alone show clear evidence of planning, planning activity, planning for a murder preparation. But there's more. There's also timing. And by that, I mean, we know that the children were asleep at the time these murders were committed. We know that from the evidence. But who else would know when the children were going to be in bed? Who else would know when they would be safely out of the way? Who else would know when Nicole would be home alone with the children? Who else would know the perfect time to attack and get Nicole without the children being in the way? The Defendant. And that not only shows premeditation, it also shows identity, who did it. Now, there's one more thing that shows evidence of premeditation and deliberation, and that's the knife. In the inventory tape that you have in evidence, the Defendant's closet is shown and it's shown that he had in that closet a gun. He had a gun, but he chose a knife. And this choice is evidence of planning. A gun makes noise. A knife doesn't, particularly if your intended victim is half your size. A gun is registered. It can be traced and bullets can be matched to guns. And even if you get rid of the gun, the type of bullet can be determined. It can be determined to have come from the type of gun you used to have, so that if you get rid of the gun, it's looking even worse almost than if they catch you in possession of it. Suddenly you don't have the gun after your wife was shot to death and a bullet that could have come from that gun. But not a knife. A knife can't be identified to the exclusion of all other knives in making this wound or that wound. You can't match a knife to a murder. A knife isn't registered. All of these things make a knife a better weapon of choice than a gun. But maybe more than all of that, a knife is up close and personal. And that's the kind of murders these are, ladies and gentlemen. These murders are up close and personal. If your desire is to vent your rage on someone, a gun is far too sterile. It's far too removed. But a knife, it's lethal, but it affords the opportunity for the expression of violence, power and control at very close range. The choice of a knife is evidence of planning and it too is also evidence that the Defendant is the murderer. Now, there's more evidence of premeditation and deliberation in the nature of the wounds themselves. Let's start with Nicole. As I previously discussed, Nicole was incapacitated very quickly. She had little, if anything, in the way of defensive wounds to her hands and she had no opportunity to defend herself. Likewise, the four wounds in close proximity on the left side of her neck very close to one another, they indicated very little resistance and they suggested that she was controlled or otherwise incapable of moving away to avoid being stabbed. And the gaping neck wound, the final coup de grace that nearly decapitated her, that is classic evidence of a cold, calculated, premeditated murder. Now, recall that this was a wound that was three and a half inches deep, severed both carotid arteries and both jugular veins. This wound was so deep that the tip of the knife took a quarter-inch gouge out of her vertebrae. As you recall, and I've discussed it before, when this wound was inflicted, Nicole was incapacitated and helpless. There was no resistance indicated in the wound. The edges of the wound were smooth. And I told you there was something else that indicated she was unconscious, and that is this. The evidence of her knuckles unbloodied in an area where blood had already pooled around her showed that she was incapable of raising her hand to protect herself, incapable of raising her hand to try and ward off the knife or the hand that held the knife. No. The knuckles stayed in contact with the pavement and didn't get the blood on them that they would have gotten had she been able to raise a hand to do something to protect herself, and it's further evidence of her unconsciousness at the time that that final slash was inflicted. Now, you remember, as I indicated to you earlier, the testimony indicated that the bleeding into the contusion in her brain showed that she lived for a minute or more before that final throat wound was administered to her. Now, that final gaping wound in her neck was inflicted upon an unconscious victim or very least, incapacitated, is clear evidence of a cold and calculated decision to kill, when a victim is already incapacitated and the Defendant goes back to her, pulling back her head. She's lying there basically unconscious, he pulls back her head and he slashes the throat to such a degree that she's nearly decapitated, that was a cold and calculated decision to kill, to make sure she was dead, and it allows for no other reasonable inference. Now, Ronald Goldman. Now, once again, a very significant point with respect to Ronald Goldman. As with Nicole, the neck is the target once again, and we know that from the neck wounds on Ron described by Dr. Lakshmanan. Why the neck? Why is the neck the target? Because it's a short kill. It's something we've all heard about; go for the jugular. You go for the jugular because you cut it, you slice that neck, that person's dead. That is a sure bet. That's a sure thing. And the fact that the neck is the target for both victims indicates to you also a cold and calculated decision to kill. That is the epitome of a premeditated murder. Now, let me point out, with respect to Ron, you have those two wounds. You recall those two lines across the neck almost parallel to each other with very little bleeding in them that Dr. Lakshmanan indicated were inflicted early on in the struggle? They're evidence--and the reason they're important is that they're evidence that the Defendant controlled Ronald Goldman, controlled him to the point that he could hold him and draw the knife across the neck in lines that were nearly parallel to each other, holding Ron from behind him, left arm around him with the right hand drawing the knife. And Ron struggled to break free of that control, and because he struggled and because he put off the fight, it took the Defendant a little longer to incapacitate him than it did Nicole. And you heard the cross-examination, you've heard the Defense attempt to say that Ron Goldman fought with his attacker. Ron struggled, but it was not a struggle with the Defendant. It was a struggle to save his own life. It was a struggle to escape. The Defense wants you to believe that Ron fought, that he punched the Defendant. This was not a fight, and the reason we know this was not a fight was that Ron's palms were cut. For your palms to get cut, your hands have to be open. If your hands are in a fist, you're not going to get your palms cut. It's just as simple as that. And Ron's palms were cut because his hands were up as he was trying to ward off the knife trying to defend himself. And those abrasions on the back of his hands that were made so much of, they are fully consistent with Ron flailing back, hitting the trees, hitting the sapling, hitting the fence. There were so many areas for him to hit and get those abrasions, abrasions that are not at all consistent with a fist hitting a face or a body part. And if you look clearly at those photographs, you'll see what I mean. A fist is a fist, and you're going to get more than one little scratch in one little area. You're going to get much more than that. You don't have it here, and the reason you don't have it here is that you have evidence on the back of the hand that shows Ron Goldman falling backward as you know he did by the blood on the fence behind him. There's no question about that. And you have his blood on the stump that he's around. You have a lot of evidence to show you what happened here, and it wasn't a fight. This was not a fight. To call this a fight is to call drowning swimming. The sheer number of wounds suffered by Ron as he struggled to pull away to escape, the sheer number of these wounds is consistent with only one thought. Ron Goldman must die. But beyond that, there is evidence in the wounding that the murder of Ron Goldman is of the first degree. The wound to his left abdomen, if you recall that one, the one that severed the aorta, a wound that ordinarily would have bled profusely into the abdominal cavity--and you expect to find all of that bleeding in the abdominal cavity if the blood pressure is normal. If the person is breathing, that blood pressure will force the blood into the cavity as a result of the wound to the abdomen. But there was very little blood to the abdominal cavity. And like Nicole's final wound, there was no evidence of movement on Ron's part. The margins of the wound were clean, which indicated that there was no resistance offered by Ron and this wound was inflicted when Ron was very near death already. It was an unnecessary wound. It was a wound inflicted to make sure that Ron was dead, and it shows that the Defendant took great pains to go back and deliver the final coup de grace to Ronald Goldman. But no matter when each wound was inflicted, in what order, the bottom line is very clear. The Defendant could not leave a witness alive, alive to tell what he saw. He had to deliver the fatal blows and make sure that they were fatal. The Defendant surely didn't anticipate that Ron would be there that night. He came to murder Nicole. But once Ron showed up, he could not allow him to walk away with the knowledge of what he had seen. Ron was a witness who had seen what no one was supposed to see. Ron was the ultimate threat, so Ron had to die. And the intent to eliminate a witness, ladies and gentlemen, is a premeditated and deliberate decision. It is a cold and a calculated decision and it is not a decision that takes very long. As I pointed out before, the jury instruction tells you the law does not undertake to measure in units of time the degree of thought that goes into the thinking called premeditation and deliberation. And now you can see this is a perfect example of how such a decision can be made in mere moments. The Defendant has Nicole Brown down, Ron Goldman comes walking up with the envelope, a witness, and the decision is made, (Snapped fingers). That's all it takes. "I can't let him live. I can't let him stay alive." Ladies and gentlemen, this is strong and it's compelling evidence that proves that the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown were premeditated and deliberate murders of the first degree. Now, okay, let's address the special circumstances charged in this case because with all of this evidence of premeditation and deliberation, it is after you determine the degree of the murders that you go on to determine whether the special circumstances are true. Now, if you find that the evidence establishes murder in the first degree as to either Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown, then you have to determine whether the special circumstances are true or not. Now, in this case, the decision is very easy because the only special circumstances that we have charged is multiple murder. And for this special circumstance to be found true, the Defendant must be found guilty of both murders first of all obviously, and then secondly, at least one of the murders has to be determined to be murder in the first degree. So if you find murder in the first degree as to one victim and murder in the second degree as to the other, the special circumstance is true. If you find murder in the first degree as to both victims, the special circumstance is true. However, if you find murder in the second degree as to both victims, then you must find the special circumstance not true. Now, the Defendant is also charged with having used a knife, a deadly weapon or dangerous weapon in the commission of these murders. And if you do find him guilty of the murders, of course, that decision is very simple. Obviously a knife was used to commit these murders. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we've proven with all this evidence that I've reviewed with you easily beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the premeditated and deliberate murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown.
And I spoke to you before a little bit about direct and circumstantial evidence. This is what they call--well, this is a physical evidence case obviously and they call it circumstantial evidence. Now that I've reviewed all of the evidence, you can see what I'm talking about when I say a circumstantial evidence case gives you much more assurance of the guilt of the Defendant. And that is because of this. In a direct evidence case, you may have one eyewitness to tell you, "I saw it." That means you have one thing to rely on. But in a circumstantial evidence case, especially this one, you have many things to rely on. You have the blood at Bundy. You have the blood of Nicole on his socks. You have his blood on the rear gate at Bundy. You have Ronald Goldman's blood in his car. You have his hair on Ron Goldman's shirt. You have the fiber from his clothing on Ron Goldman's shirt, on his socks, on the Rockingham glove. You have the Bronco carpet fiber on the Rockingham glove. You have the Bronco carpet fiber on the knit ski cap. The wealth of evidence in this case is simply overwhelming. If we only had the Bundy blood trail that matched the Defendant, it would be enough proof to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we only had Nicole Brown's blood on his socks, that would be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we only had Ron Goldman's blood in his Bronco, that would be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But we have all that and much more. And now, let me summarize for you what we have proven. One piece of the puzzle. We've proven the opportunity to kill. We've given the time window in which he was able to kill because his whereabouts were unaccounted for during the time that we know the murders were occurring. We have the hand injuries that were suffered on the night of his wife's murder to the left hand, as we know the killer was injured on his left hand. We have the post-homicidal conduct that I told you about, lying to Allan Park, making Allan Park wait outside, not letting Kato pick up that little dark bag, his reaction to Detective Phillips when he made notification, when Detective Phillips said to him, "Nicole has been killed." Instead of asking about a car accident, the Defendant asked no questions. We have the manner of killings, killings that indicate that it was a rage killing, that it was a fury killing, that it was not a professional hit, the manner of killing that indicates one person committed these murders, one person with the same style of killing. We have the knit cap at Bundy. We have the evidence on Ron Goldman's shirt of the blue black cotton fibers, the Defendant's hair. We have the Bruno Magli shoeprint, size 12, all of them size 12, his size shoe, all of them consistent going down the Bundy walk. We have the Bundy blood trail, his blood to the left of the bloody shoeprints. We have the blood in the Bronco, his and Ron Goldman's. We have the Rockingham blood trail up the driveway, in his bathroom, in the foyer. We have the Rockingham glove with all of the evidence on it, Ron Goldman's fibers from his shirt, Ron Goldman's hair, Nicole's hair, the Defendant's blood, Ron Goldman's blood, Nicole's blood and the Bronco fiber and the blue black cotton fibers. We have the socks and we have the blue black cotton fibers on the socks and we have Nicole Brown's blood on the socks. There he is. I haven't even spoken--you haven't even heard yet about the motive. You haven't even heard the why of it, the why he did it. And you know he did it. Now, these murders did not occur in a vacuum, and it's very important evidence that you've heard in the beginning of this case. They occurred in the context of a stormy relationship, a relationship that was scarred by violence and abuse. And this important evidence completes the picture of the Defendant's guilt as it explains the motive for these murders and shows you what led this Defendant to be sitting here in this courtroom today. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
These victims were virtually hacked to death. So you have malice shown in the nature of the injuries, the nature of the wounds that were inflicted upon them.
A gun makes noise. A knife doesn't, particularly if your intended victim is half your size. A gun is registered. It can be traced and bullets can be matched to guns.
He had to deliver the fatal blows and make sure that they were fatal. The Defendant surely didn't anticipate that Ron would be there that night. He came to murder Nicole. But once Ron showed up, he could not allow him to walk away.
To call this a fight is to call drowning swimming.
If we only had Nicole Brown's blood on his socks, that would be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But we have all that and much more.