All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

And Mr. Darden, are you prepared to continue on with your argument, sir?

Yes, I am, your honor. Thank you. Good morning, sir.

All right.

CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED) BY MR. DARDEN

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

I hope everybody--I'm sorry. Mr. Fairtlough, would you just briefly show that to counsel, if you can. I hope everybody had a good sleep last night. It was a long day yesterday, and I thank you. Let me thank you in advance for hearing me again this morning. I don't expect to take up the entire morning. In fact, with any luck, I won't take up more than half of it, but we will have to see. Well, you will recall where we left off yesterday. I was telling you about this defendant's relationship, this man's relationship with Nicole Brown, and I told you that it was a simmering relationship. You know, it was--it was a slow burn. It was a slow burn. And I described for you and discussed with you some of the testimony that you heard in this case, testimony you heard from witnesses about their relationship, and we talked about the 1985 incident involving the baseball bat and the Mercedes Benz. We talked about the--the 1989 incident and the fact that the police had been there eight times before. Both the defendant here and Nicole Brown both--both admitted that, so I guess it is true, right? We talked about the incident at the red onion when the defendant grabbed Nicole by the crotch in front of a bar full of strangers and humiliated her. We talked about that. We talked about his admission to Shipp about his jealousy after the 1985 incident. We never talked about the testimony we heard from Denise Brown. You remember the testimony from Denise Brown when she talked about some of the--the really, really nasty things he would say to Nicole? As you may recall, Denise, Denise Brown, Nicole's sister, testified that during the time that she was pregnant the defendant would call her names. Do you recall that testimony? He would caller a fat pig and he would call her a fat pig in front of other people. I don't know what you should--you should extract from that. I mean, have you ever heard of such a thing? I don't know. I would suggest, however, that that is some indication of how he really felt about her. You know, sometimes you get in a relationship, people get in a relationship, and you have one--one half of the relationship who is dominant and you have another half who is somewhat passive, and the dominant half dominates the other half and what--what effect do you spouse this would have on Nicole, that is, being called a fat pig by her husband while she is pregnant? What affect would that have on herself esteem. Because you are probably wondering, well, hey, if he did all of these things to her, if he said all of these things to her, why did she stay? Well, there is old song and the words used to go that--oh, I think it was the dramatics, I can't really recall, but there was a couple of lines in the song where they said the strong give up and move on and the weak give up and stay. You know, if you badger a person long enough, if you beat them down long enough, if you wear them down long enough, pretty soon you strip them of their dignity their self esteem, and they are weak and they are submissive and they can't go; they can't stay. You know how that is. Everybody knows how that is. We've all been in bad relationships before. You have friend, you see them in these bad relationships. Why? Why do they say? Why do they stay? Usually they feel they don't have a choice. They don't know that they have a choice. They forgot that they had a choice. And in their minds they have no choice. She is a fat pig. But we talked about that yesterday and we talked about justice and we talked about what the real issue in this case was about and I pointed the defendant out to you and I told you he killed her and you've heard the evidence in this case. He killed Ron Goldman. O.J. Simpson is a murderer. That is what the evidence indicates. That is what the evidence indicates. That is what the evidence shows. It shows that he is not just a murderer, but he is a double murderer, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that I have to stand here and tell you this because I would rather be somewhere else. I'm sure would you rather be somewhere else. Who wants to really have to confront and deal with these issues? But we have to because we have a duty. Marcia and I have a duty and you have a duty as well. Your duty is to look at all the evidence, to be fair, be conscientious, be objective. And your duty is to look at all the evidence, the totality of the circumstances, everything.

We don't want you to just look at one piece. Don't just look at the prosecution's case. Look at the entire case. Look at everything. Because when you do, when you do, what can you say except he did it and we have proven it and we have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. And we talked about the safe-deposit box yesterday and we talked about the fact that Nicole knew that she was going to die and we know that she knew that because she told the police that in 1989 and we know that she knew that because of what she saved for us, the roadmap she left for you in that safe-deposit box; the letters, the photographs, the will. You recall that testimony. And as we went through the progression here, through the history of his abuse of Nicole--and by the way, not every incident here on this chart is an incident necessarily of abuse, but we wanted to lay out the history of their relationship as well, and so that is why you see things like divorce and et cetera, so we are not trying to mislead you. But we thought it was important that you know how the relationship developed over the years. And this is an unusual relationship, you have to agree. There is something wrong here. Henry lee said there was something wrong. There is something very wrong here. This is a slow burning, simmering relationship, and it is just like I told you yesterday, the fuse is burning. The fuse is burning, folks, and it is getting shorter and it is getting shorter and it is just getting shorter. But this morning, you know, I want to take things a step further, if I may, if you will allow me to. Let's just cut right to the chase. Imagine the defendant in his bronco. He is full of anger and he is full of rage and it is nighttime and he is driving that bronco and he is full of jealousy and the fuse continues to burn and the focus of his anger is Nicole. For some reason in his mind she has done something that he can't ignore, something that has set him off. He is jealous, he is raging, he is raging, he is out of control. And he is in that bronco and he is driving as fast as he can toward Nicole's house and it is about ten o'clock. He is out of control, folks, he is completely out of control. And when he gets to Nicole's place he quickly parks the bronco and he gets out. It is ten o'clock. He is in his bronco. He is at Nicole's house. It is nighttime. But we are not even talking about June 12th. We are not talking about June 12th, 1994. We are talking about October 25th, 1993. All along I have asked you to be open-minded, to be open-minded about this man and who he is, and we have suggested to you, and I think we have proven to you, that he is not the person that you see on those TV commercials and at half-time in those football games. That is his public persona. We all have one. We all have one. We behave a certain way when we are in public and we behave another way when we are at home. You know what they say. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. And the fact that you--we may see you and you may see us doesn't really mean that you know us or that you know me or you know Miss Clark or Mr. Cochran. You see us here in public. But what are we? What are we really? What are we really inside? What are we really at home? Well, we have a very, very nice example. Well, "Nice" is a bad choice of words. We have a very, very important example of who this man is, of who he is at home, of who he is in his private life. It is the private side, the other side of him. And I want you to listen to a tape, a tape of an emergency call, and you recall that I played that tape a long time ago, months ago, and you probably forgot about it up until yesterday, I hope, but I'm going to ask you to listen to that tape in just a moment. Now, you know some people say, well, how could--how could O.J. Simpson actually kill this woman and Ron Goldman when her kids are in the house? You know what I mean? They say, well, who would do something like that? Well, he would. Keep this in mind, if you will, if you think it is important. In 1989 when he beat her you will recall that when the police came and wanted to take her to Parker Center to have photographs of her injuries taken, you will remember that she said, "I don't want to go. I just want my kids. Just take me back home. Take me back home to my kids. My kids are at home. I want to be with my kids." The night he beat her his kids were in the house. And when you listen to this tape from October 25, 1993, after the first couple of minutes you will hear the defendant in the background yelling and screaming and raging. You will hear that rage and you will hear Nicole on the telephone say, "The kids are upstairs." The fact that the kids are in the house means nothing to this man. Mr. Fairtlough, Mr. Wooden.

Which exhibit is this, Mr. Darden?

Which exhibit is this, Mr. Fairtlough?

21.

Thank you.

I think we have heard enough of that. You will have this tape in the jury room. I am just a messenger and I think you get the message and you get the message straight out of his mouth. You hear this man in the background raging. He is raging about a picture, a picture of a man he saw at Nicole's house, a picture of a man she had apparently dated how many months before? How many months did Nicole say? About 18 months or something like that. It is on the tape. And Nicole said on that tape as well that "It always comes up." This man, that issue always comes up. Apparently this man and that issue is of great concern to the defendant, of so much concern that he apparently just can't get it out of his system, he can't put it behind him, he can't forget it. He can't forget it. And you hear him back there yelling and screaming at Nicole. You hear the language and you hear the things that he is saying about her and you hear him in the background saying, "I don't give a shit any more." That is what he said, a old relationship, a past boyfriend, a boyfriend she apparently had at a time after she moved away from his home and after she filed for divorce. A year and a half and he still hadn't gotten over it. And it is October 25 of 1993, and Nicole doesn't know it at the time, she knows he is going to kill her at some point, but she doesn't know at the time that she only has eight months to live. Now, we offer this tape to you, as I said before, so that you would know who you are dealing with and because you have a right to see him, the private side of him. When you listen to that 911 call, as you take it back into the jury room, listen to the part where she tries to calm him, where she is on the phone and it sounds as though he is getting closer to you because you can hear his voice more clearly and his voice is raised even higher than before. And as she tries to calm him, she tries to calm him by using a calm voice of her own. You get what I'm saying? I mean she says, "O.J., O.J." About three minutes before she was in tears on the phone calling the 911 operator, but he comes near, he is enraged, she is trying to calm him down with a calm voice. What does that mean? Is that helpful to you at all? Let me suggest to you that what that means is that she has been there before. She apparently feels as if she has a way, some tack, some approach that might help calm him down. It is Nicole's approach to her problem when the defendant becomes enraged, a calm voice, and she is scared and you know she is scared. You can hear the fear, you can hear the terror in her voice when she calls the 911 operator, but he gets close and she gets to the point where she has to calm him down. She is the calm one. She is the one who is in jeopardy, but she is the one with the calm voice. 1993 was the same year that the defendant talked to Kato Kaelin. Remember Kato Kaelin was living at Gretna Green with Nicole. He was living in the back in the guest house. And he talked to Kato just before Nicole moved to Bundy. You remember that conversation? You recall that testimony?

This is an example of this man's control, of the control he had over Nicole, the control he exercised over her. Kato was living with her. Kato is going to be paying rent to her, to Nicole. This is money, this is income, okay? She is divorced from this man. She is not his wife. She is not his wife. She has not been his wife since 1992, okay? Kato lives there. She has no relationship, no intimate relationship with Kato. She has a right to have him live there in the guest house if she wants, and as she moves to Bundy, if she wants Kato to rent a room, she has that right. This is 1993. He has no right to interfere with that, but he wants to exercise control over her. This is about control. He is about control. This is all about control, ladies and gentlemen. It is all about control; the beating, the humiliation, all of that. That is how you control people. You beat them down, they lose their self esteem, you humiliate them and pretty soon they are like puppies. He talked to Kato and he said to Kato that it wouldn't e a good idea if he moved to Bundy, it wouldn't be right. You remember? Well, you know, you meet people and you get involved in relationships and he continued his relationship with Nicole and you have to take people at face value and take it how it comes to you, you know what I'm saying? If he wanted to be with Nicole, then he should would be Nicole the way she is, and if the way she is is that she needs a tenant to pay rent to make it or whatever, that is her thing. He should just accept that, but he doesn't. He talks to Kato and what does he do? He bribes him. He bribes him away from her. Kato was going to pay 450 to $500.00 a month rent at a Bundy. He bribes Kato and how does he do that? Kato, come live with me at Rockingham. We got the Jacuzzi, the estate, the tennis court. You got your own room. And what is it going to cost you? What is it going to cost Kato? Nothing, zero, zilch, scratch. It is free. He has bribed Kato away from her. And she is upset about it. You heard the testimony. Nicole talked to Kato and she begged him not to do as the defendant asked. She told Kato that he was being manipulated. This is control. But Kato told you from the witness stand that the deal was too sweet. It was a freebie, free stuff, free rent and board, free room and board. How could he turn it down? He turned his back on Nicole and Nicole was angry about that. Nicole named her dog Kato. Think about that. Nicole named her dog Kato.

I'm not suggesting to you that--that this man was angry and depressed and consumed with jealousy each and every moment of the day or each day that he was with Nicole. I'm not saying that. I'm sure that there were periods of calm. I'm sure that there were periods when they had a good time. I'm sure there were times and periods when things worked out great for both of them. But always beneath the surface looms this jealousy and this anger and this passion and that rage, the rage you just heard on that tape. And you know, if you are in Nicole's position and you know all about this and you know that, hey, there are certain things that can set him off, that can set that fuse to burning, that can make that fuse shorter and shorter, then you are going to tread lightly, right? You are going to try and do everything you can not to upset him. And that is control. They went back and forth in their relationship. They make up, then they would breakup. They would try to get together. They had kids. That sound natural, right? I mean, you know, there is nothing wrong with that, per se. And as I understand the testimony, as I recall, that they were together again in the spring of 1994.

Despite all of that, despite everything that had happened, that happened up until this point, 1994, she moves in January to Bundy and in the spring she begins dating the Defendant again. And Kato Kaelin told you from the witness stand that they had some kind of commitment, either to each other or she to him, I'm not sure of all the details, but you heard the testimony, and if my memory fails me, then, you know, rely on the testimony in case I'm incorrect. But they had some kind of agreement or commitment that she would date only him or wouldn't date anybody else before he left to go to New York for football season. She was supposed to date only him until August, and Kato said that that was a commitment, that they had that commitment. Well, somebody broke the commitment apparently. May 19, as I recall, is Nicole's birthday and for her birthday he gave her an expensive bracelet and on her birthday, as well as I recall, she was sick with pneumonia. That was the testimony, that she was sick, and I think someone said--and it may have been Miss Arnelle Simpson--that the Defendant had brought her soup, taken soup over to her on her birthday because she was sick, or maybe the day after her birthday, but sometime around that time period. But for some reason Nicole broke--broke off their relationship. She broke off the relationship. For some reason on may 22nd or thereabouts Nicole got the courage, the strength to break this relationship off. Now, you have to assume that when someone moves out of your house, that that is n attempt to break off a relationship, and you would think that he would get the point. And when she filed for divorce you would think that he would get the point. Then when the divorce is final you would think that he would get the point. But they go back and forth for whatever reason--and I'm not saying it is all his fault. I'm sure it is Nicole's fault also, if we can fault anybody for you, but she returns that bracelet on or about may 22nd, 1994. She couldn't be bought, she couldn't controlled any more. She had had enough. And I--and when you look at the things that transpire after may 22nd, 1994, you get the sense, don't you, that he finally got the message? It is over. It is over. She can't be bought. You can give me this expensive gift if you want to, that is fine, but I'm not staying in this relationship, take it back, and she gave it back to him.

And the Defense would like you to think that--that this was a--but there is no dig deal to this break-up, that Nicole Brown was upset, that he wasn't upset about it, but was he? Christian Reichardt testified from the witness stand for the Defense and he told you that the Defendant had been depressed during the weeks leading up to the murder also. He had been depressed because of his failing relationship with Nicole. He was depressed because she couldn't make up her mind as to whether or not she wanted to stay in the relationship. You recall that testimony? He was depressed about that. But it seems to me that perhaps his depression turned to anger. Do you have the IRS letter? In the days that followed--and we don't know everything that happened between them in the days that followed, but we know that at some point there was a letter that he wrote to her. We assume that he wrote it because his signature is on the back. And this letter has been marked as evidence and Mr. Fairtlough will get the exhibit number. The actual letter has been marked as evidence, and the letter is dated June 6th, and it is signed O.J., O.J. Simpson, and in the letter--now remember this is--there are no hard feelings here if you believe the Defense case. And this letter begins: "On the advice of legal counsel and because of the change in our circumstances I'm compelled to put you on written notice that do you not have my permission to use my address at Rockingham as your residence or mailing address for any purpose, including but not limited to information and tax returns filed with any taxing entity." Well what is this? What does this letter mean? How is this letter helpful to you? How many times do we break up with someone and then send them a letter a few days later or two weeks later in legalese? And what are the changes in their circumstances that he is referring to? The change in their circumstances is that she has decided that she does not want to deal with him any more and now he is out to hurt her, he is going to hurt her. This letter is People's 25, your Honor.

Thank you.

Did Nicole have some kind of tax problem? Looks like it. In the last paragraph he says: "I cannot take part in any course of action by you that might be misleading to the IRS or the franchise tax board." What is he suggesting to her? How should she receive this letter? And look at the carbon copy. Mr. Cochran asked someone on the witness stand if they knew that Marvin Goodfriend was his accountant, as I recall. We've heard that Leroy Taft is his lawyer. A carbon copy to his lawyer and his accountant. What is going on here? This is supposed to be an amenable break-up? No hard feelings? This is control. This is a subtle threat. And if you disagree with me, fine. The Defense disagrees with me, that is fine as well. But let me tell you something. When the Defense began the Defense case--well, not the Defense case, but when Mr. Cochran did his opening statement, he told you about a witness he intended to call, and this witness seemed to be a pretty important witness and would seem to be, given the evidence that you've heard in this case.

He told you about a woman named Dr. Lenore Walker and he said to you at page 11783 that: "There is an expert in the U.S. whose name is Dr. Lenore Walker and that she is by all accounts the no. 1 expert in America on the field of domestic violence." And he said that: "She has been called by some the mother of the battered women's syndrome."

He went on to tell you that she was a psychologist and she had interviewed and tested the Defendant. The things that I am saying to you and discussing with you today, the testimony that you heard from the witness stand about the domestic violence, the beating, the abuse, the intimidation, the threats, the stalking, did they call one witness to rebut any of that testimony in the People's case? They called 58 witnesses in the Defense case. How many came to address the 1989 incident or the October 23, 1993, incidents that you heard on the tape? Why didn't they call Dr. Walker who could have put this all in perspective for you if what the witnesses said in this case aren't true? I mean, it wasn't true. Dr. Walker could have interpreted this letter for you, but they didn't call Dr. Walker. They wouldn't call Dr. Walker. They better not have called Dr. Walker. And Dr. Walker never stepped foot into this courtroom while you were here in the jury box. They are a group of very, very fine lawyers. They called some of the most expensive experts money could buy. But we didn't see Dr. Walker. We didn't she her explain to you why this letter is insignificant, if that is the Defense position, or why this cycle of violence that led up to Nicole's murder doesn't help to establish motive from a practical sense. And there is something that he said to you on page 11793, and I want to take a moment and shown it to Mr. Cochran before I read it, if I can.

When he finishes I want to read to you something Mr. Cochran told you he would present to you in this case.

And at page 11793 he said to you: "I'm going to tell you about the facts," he says, "So you will hear from Dr. Walker and you will hear about the battery of tests and I think you will find that she will say that in looking at Simpson, that in looking at O.J. Simpson, she tested him--and interviewing him and looking at him, at this point she finds no evidence of antisocial personality disorder, and I think you will find that becomes very important in this case." So where is Dr. Walker to come here to testify, to take--to take the witness stand, to sit in the blue chair and tell you that none of this is important, that everything I've told you for the last three hours is insignificant and unimportant? Where is she to tell you that he does not suffer from some antisocial personality disorder? She ain't here. And had she come here and expressed an opinion that this was unimportant, we would have cross-examined her, but they can't touch this. They can't touch this. This is important evidence. You have to consider it when you consider motive, when you consider the issue of identity, the identity of this man as the killer of these two people. You have to consider this on the issue of premeditation. This is important evidence. As the days proceeded on we know that he hired an interior decorator. As I recall the testimony, Paula Barbieri, his new girlfriend, you know, the one that he was so happy with--it is odd, but on the one hand they say he was happy with Paula Barbieri, and on the other hand Kato said that he told him, the Defendant told Kato that he, the Defendant, didn't know if Paula was the one. I don't know. But let me tell you something about this letter just to go back and this whole interior decorator situation. The fuse is burning and it is getting short, okay? It is getting short. He is trying to erase her presence, for instance, from his home, okay? This is how short the fuse is getting. He is trying to erase her presence from his home. He has hired an interior decorator to redecorate the bedroom, the master bedroom was it, and the bathroom. They are going to rip out the plumbing. The places she had been, they are going to change. They are going to erase her presence from the house. He is going to erase her presence from the house, or at least he is going to try. He is angry and he is upset. He has been rejected and he doesn't like that rejection and he is trying to get over her, he is trying to get beyond this. And so what does he do?

And what does he do? And what does he do? They do work awfully hard so I can't get upset at them.

Page 19.

Your Honor, I'm not sure, what is the exhibit number on this? I'm not sure.

I believe it is--

Mr. Fairtlough, what evidence exhibit is this?

I'm just about to look that up, your Honor.

Let me know. Mr. Darden.

Oh, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. So what does he do? He gets rid of her wedding photo, their wedding picture, puts it underneath the bed. He is trying to get beyond this, but he can't get beyond this because the fuse is burning, because he is upset and angry that the relationship was terminated by her. I mean, you look at this picture, you look at them, after you are divorced and after you break up with someone, you don't usually keep the pictures out, right? I mean you don't, but do you throw them underneath the bed? You put them in a box or you get rid of them altogether. That is what you do. But in this case, in his case, he is trying to get over her, but he can't. He can't get over her. He can't get beyond this. On the one hand he throws this picture underneath the bed and on the one hand she is out of sight and he hopes out of mind, but on the other hand, she is just beneath the bed or where has access to it, where he can grab it and where he can look at it. He is beginning to obsess with her, he is becoming obsessive with her and he is trying to replace her at the same time with Paula. His relationship with Paula supposedly blooms again all of a sudden at about this time right after she breaks up with him. If she broke up with him on May 22nd and by June the 6th or whatever he and Paula are back together and now they are ripping the plumbing out of the house, people need space, you need time when you end a relationship, especially one that lasted 17 years. He is trying to replace Nicole with Paula and he is trying to find some sense of control. But the fuse is burning. And I just wish Dr. Walker had been here to help explain this to you. I'm sure she could have done a better job of it than me--than I have so far. And so we move on. The days pass--and that photo was People's 536, the wedding photo. And the days pass and we begin to approach June 12th, the day of the recital. You recall that the Defendant had conversations with Kato Kaelin that day and he talked about Nicole, he talked about her dress, he talked about how short it was, he talked about the relationship being over, you know. It didn't appear--you tell me, maybe you disagree--that he and Kato Kaelin had that kind of relationship, the kind of relationship where he would vent his frustration, his frustrations regarding Nicole to Kato. I don't know. You saw Kato and I don't know why anybody would want to express their personal problems with Kato Kaelin, but he did and he talked about Nicole a couple of times that day to Kato Kaelin. And Marcia cross-examined Kato Kaelin and directly examined Kato Kaelin and they talked about those conversations, and as Marcia mentioned yesterday, you know, Kato had a bias and he was biased in favor of the Defendant. You know, he minimized things. That is not to say that he just outright lied about things, but he minimized things. I think he minimized the tone of the Defendant's voice when he talked about Nicole. I think he minimized how upset the Defendant was when he talked about Nicole, but hey, whatever, the Defendant is supposedly seeing Paula. And it is the day of the recital and what happened that day? Well, the fuse got shorter. I will tell you why. Paula, his new girlfriend, wanted to go to the recital, the recital where Sydney was going to be performing over at the school, and they had an argument about that, for lack of a better term. They had a disagreement about that. She wanted to go. He didn't want her to go. He wanted to go alone. He told Kato that, that they had a disagreement about that and she was upset. Well, why is that important? It is important because she left.

It is important because Paula left, she left Rockingham, she left Los Angeles, but apparently he didn't know that. Apparently they had their disagreement about the recital. Paula got mad, Paula left town. It is pretty apparent that he didn't know that. I can't tell you how bad that disagreement was or if there were raised voices or whatever, we don't have any of that in the testimony or in the evidence in this case, but we do know that Paula left and that he didn't know where Paula had gone. And the fuse is getting shorter, because what happened that day is this: Paula, as a woman, I guess you know she is asserting her womanhood, she is supposed to be his woman, now she wants to go to the recital. Why not? He won't let her. Why won't he let her? Because he still has hope for Nicole. He still has some hope. He still has some hope. He doesn't want Paula to go to the recital. He won't let Paula go to the recital and Paula realizes why and she packs up and she leaves. That afternoon the Defendant called Nicole. And we will get the right photo board up.

That afternoon he called Nicole's house. He still has got hope. I mean, she has always come back, right? Each and every time that they have--they have gone back and forth many, many times. They have always gotten back together. She has always come back, but she isn't coming back this time but he still has hope. He is put in a catch 22 situation of sorts that day when he and Paula talk about her going to the recital. He has to make a choice that day. He is either going to go to the recital where Nicole is alone, you know, hope in hand, or he is going to choose Paula. It is either Nicole or Paula. If he takes Paula to the recital, takes her out in public, takes her around Nicole, takes her around the Brown family, he has made a choice now. Okay. It is public. Everybody knows he has made a choice. He is now with Paula. Because he couldn't make that choice because he still had hope and he still had hope for Nicole. So he called Nicole on June 12th. He called her and talked together at 2:18 in the afternoon. It was a four-minute phone call. And something happened during that phone call. Well, let me tell you what else. After he finished that four-minute phone call with Nicole, he tried to call Paula. As soon as he hung up with Nicole, he tried to call Paula in the 305 area code, Florida, right here, (Indicating). The phone call lasted--it began at 2:18, it lasted four minutes. At 2:22 he is calling Florida. Something happened. I don't know what happened. Something happened. Whatever happened during that phone call, he had a need to talk to Paula thereafter or immediately thereafter, but he is calling Florida looking for Paula. But we know from the testimony and the evidence in this case already that Paula is in Las Vegas in a hotel room being paid for by Michael Bolton. He doesn't know where she is. Sounds like she got upset, stormed off and went about her business, but he can't find Paula. He is having a problem with Nicole. He is about to lose all the women, both the women in his life, and the fuse is getting shorter, folks. It is getting shorter. And the frustration is building, okay, and the anger is building. And something has triggered his anger because in all of this--you know, this is a tension--this entire relationship over a ten-year period is filled with tension because of the doors being kicked in and the punches and the slaps and the intimidation and the control and all of this. This is a very, very tense relationship and things about are to explode because he has that conversation with her, he has that conversation with her, he can't find Paula. And by the time he gets to that recital that afternoon around five o'clock he is fit to be tied. He is angry. You heard the testimony of Candace Garvey, Steve Garvey's wife. She was also at the recital. She knows the Defendant. She had known him for a long time. He came into the recital. She and Steve spoke to him. They said hello, how are you, how you doing? What was her testimony? What was her response? There was no response immediately. If you recall her testimony, he had a blank stare on his face. He was distracted. She told you that it was as if he looked right through her, as if he didn't recognize that she was there. She told you that his demeanor that afternoon in the recital frightened her and she told you that he was angry. And Denise Brown testified as well about that recital and they told you that he was angry and he didn't look to be or act like the O.J. Simpson they had come to know. Candace Garvey said that he was distant, that his anger was simmering, that he had this look of simmering anger. He was in a slow burn and the fuse was getting shorter. Something set him off. And perhaps what set him off was this four-minute phone call at 2:00 in the afternoon. Perhaps his inability to find Paula that afternoon set him off. Okay. Now, the fuse is really burning now, the fuse is getting shorter, and there is going to be an explosion, folks. There is going to be an explosion. He arrives at the recital, he sees Candace Garvey, literally ignores her. He is angry. He takes a seat in the auditorium. He sees the Brown family seated in the auditorium, Juditha Brown, Lou Brown, Nicole's parents and her sisters. Nicole is seated with them or near them. He goes over to the Brown family and he greets everybody in the family, every one of them. He greets everybody but Nicole. He doesn't address Nicole. This is a family event, right? His daughter, Nicole's daughter, at the recital dancing, but he doesn't address that because he is angry, he is consumed with anger and the fuse is getting shorter. He doesn't appear to be like the O.J. that they knew, the man that they knew. Candace Garvey is frightened by his demeanor. What does he do? He takes a seat behind the Brown family. No seats near the Brown family. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with the fact that he sits in a seat behind the Brown family, but as Denise Brown told you on the witness stand, after a few minutes he just abruptly got up and moved. He got up, took a chair, and in the dark in this dark auditorium, because the program was going on, he takes that chair and he moves into the corner and he sits in the corner of the auditorium. Denise Brown told you that she could not understand, she did not understand why he did that. She told you on the witness stand that she didn't say anything to offend him. Nobody said anything to offend him. Why is he so angry? Who is he angry at? Well, common sense will tell us that he is angry at Nicole. Why? Because he didn't address her. But for another reason as well. As he sits there in the corner in the dark, he is isn't watching the program on the stage. He is watching Nicole. Candace Garvey told you this, Denise told you that as well, that whenever they looked over at the Defendant that he was not looking at the stage or the program on the stage or the kids dancing up on the stage. They told you that every time they looked over in that dark corner at the Defendant he was staring at Nicole. He was staring at Nicole. And that simmering anger that he had, folks, he was about to lose control. There was a--the fuse is getting shorter, the fuse is getting shorter, and there is about to be an explosion, he is about to lose control, and he is about to lose control like he did on those earlier occasions. And sure he didn't kill her on those earlier occasions in October of `93 or in 1989. But that was then and back then the fuse was a lot longer. But now the fuse is way short and it is awfully short. And when the program was over, when the program was over, clearly he knew that the relationship was over. In the past he had done things to Nicole and she had come back, but not only that, the Brown family, he still had the Brown family, but when you consider the evidence in this case, you see that after the recital, Nicole and the kids and the Brown family went to the Mezzaluna for dinner. They didn't invite him to go. He has been rejected, completely rejected. He has been rejected in public and this is how these things work. This is how these things work. You may sit here and think, oh, well, you know, this isn't such a big deal. Why, sure, perhaps in your lives and in your relationship this wouldn't be such a big deal, but you have to put it in the context of the relationship that they have had. This is a big deal. It is a big deal to him and he is rejected in public. They go off to dinner. He is left to go off to dinner with Kato Kaelin. You know, he isn't used to rejection, by the way. He is a celebrity. We talked about that earlier. Celebrities get the best tables, you know. You always get everything you want. You get what you want. There are no rules for celebrities. But on June 12th he isn't getting what he wants and so he goes home.

And the fuse is getting shorter and it is getting shorter and he talks to Kato Kaelin and he complains about the dress she wore and the fuse is getting shorter. Christian Reichardt was called by the Defense and he testified that he spoke to the Defendant at nine o'clock that night and that when he spoke to the Defendant that the Defendant was jovial, happier than he had been in weeks. He went from simmering anger at the recital to jovial at 9:00 P.M. that night. Well, what happened? Why is that? It is because the Defendant has developed a plan, he has come up with a plan to rid himself of the problem that has plagued him for 17 years. And he talks to Reichardt. He called Reichardt, as a matter of fact, if you believe that testimony. So many weird things going on that evening, he wants $5.00 for the skycap, Kato gives him a twenty, he is driving the Bentley to McDonald's, he is calling Christian Reichardt at nine o'clock and he tells Reichardt that he is packing. Right then at nine o'clock he is packing to go to the airport. That was the testimony from Reichardt. But then you have these other witnesses come in, Miss Arnelle Simpson and Gigi, the maid, they come in and they tell you that he always packs at the very, very last minute and rushes around the house and now everybody knows that, that he does that. What is going on here? Why is he packing now? Why is he doing these things with Kato Kaelin? Why is he jovial all of a sudden if you believe Christian Reichardt? Because he has a plan and he knows what he is going to do. He has had enough. The public rejection that day is enough, folks. Let me tell you, the fuse is so short at this point that he is about to explode. The next thing we know he is in that Bronco. He is in the Bronco at ten o'clock or earlier. We don't know when exactly he got into that Bronco, but we know that at ten o'clock he is into that Bronco and he is driving in that Bronco. And why wouldn't he be? How do we know that? We know that, as Miss Clark said, because he keeps the phone in the Bronco and he is panicked and he is out of control and he needs someone or something to help calm him. And so what does he do? He calls Paula. But he calls Paula in two places. He calls Paula at a 310 area code in L.A. and she isn't there. Then he turns around and he calls Paula at a 305 area code and she ain't there either.

Paula Barbieri probably could have stopped this whole thing that night if she had been there to receive his phone call, but now Paula is gone, Nicole is gone, and whose fault is all of this? It isn't his fault, it isn't the Defendant's fault. It is Nicole's fault, it is Nicole's fault, and that is--even in 1989 when he beat her, when he came out of the house he blamed her. Remember when he spoke to Edwards? He didn't want her in the house any more. He had two other women. Then we come to find out that she found out that he had been to two women and she was upset about that and wouldn't sleep with him, but he took it out on her. When you listen to the October 25, 1993, 911 tape, he is blaming her because she had a relationship with a man a year and a half before she had moved out, after she had filed for divorce when she was literally a single woman out there on her own. He always blamed her. Everything was her fault. And his break-up, his problems with Paula, the fact that he lost Paula was her fault. It was her fault because she went back and forth in terms of their relationship. And the fuse was short and the fuse was about to explode. Are you going to take a 10:30 break, your Honor?

Yes.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will stand in recess for fifteen minutes.