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. And Mr. Darden, you may continue with your argument.

Thank you, your Honor. We are getting there. I've talked much longer than I had ever expected, and I don't apologize for that, because I think it is necessary that we have this discussion.

Mr. Darden, if you would keep your voice up just a little so I can hear you. Thank you.

So I apologize in a sense I guess, but I have a duty and you have a duty and I'm not going to have much of an opportunity later I think to talk to you, and so I wanted to share these things with you, because I think they are important and because I think they may help guide you in your deliberations.

But when we left off we were talking about the fuse, how short the fuse was getting and how the Defendant was on his way to Bundy in that white Bronco, the same Bronco he drove that night in October in 1993. And so he is on his way and he is panicked and he is out of control and he is calling Paula and he can't find Paula. He calls her in L.A., he calls her in Florida. She is no where to be found. He can't find her. He has lost her. And he has lost Nicole. And whose fault is this? It is Nicole's fault. He made a choice that day. He chose Nicole over Paula and he lost them both. And so he arrives at Bundy, and Miss Clark discussed with you yesterday the details of the murder, of both murders, and I don't want to, you know, repeat all that she said, but one of the things that she said that I just want to elaborate on a little bit is his choice, his weapon choice, the use of a knife. This is a rage killing and it is up front and it is personal and that is why you see all the brutality that you see. Common sense tells us that. I mean, we know that just from life experience and from living in L.A., we know what kind of killing this is. This is a rage killing. And he is using a knife because he is there to settle a personal score, a personal vendetta that he has. He stabs this woman in the neck. He is right there. I mean, it is one-on-one. And the rage that he has, the anger, the hate that he has for her that night at that time, it is like it flows out of him and into the knife and from the knife into her, into her. And he kills Goldman and he kills her in this rage. And let me make it clear to you, he is in rage, but he has made a conscious decision, a premeditated decision, a deliberate decision to go there and do what he is about to do with this woman, otherwise why would he take a big knife with him, right? He killed her that way because he wanted to make a statement, he wanted to teach her a lesson, he wanted to let her know, he wanted her to be there face-to-face, to know just who it was who was doing this to her. With each thrust of that knife into her body and into Ron's body, there is a release, you though, a small release, like a tiny time capsule, like contact, there is a release, a gradual release of that anger and that rage and he stabs and he cuts and he slices until that rage is gone and until these people are dead. And after that rage is gone he is better. One of the most remarkable things about this case that is after this man, him, (Indicating), after he did this to these two people, he didn't run away, he didn't jog away, apparently he didn't limp away. You heard agent Bodziak's testimony. He just walked away. He had released all of that rage and that anger during this homicidal fit he was having as he killed these two people. Now, I'm just a messenger. I hate to be the one to stand here and tell you about these things, but this is a murder case. This is what he did. All these things we talked about, these are the things that he did. This is how he lived. This is his life, okay? And so I think we have come full circle at this point. We have shown you that he had the opportunity to kill. We have shown you that he had the motive, that he had a motive to kill. We have shown you in this trial that he was physically capable of killing. We have shown you that he had a reason to kill. We have shown you that he would have killed, could have killed and did kill these two people. He is a murderer. He was also one hell of a great football player, but he is still a murderer. And so we have come full circle. There was Ron and there was Nicole and--Ron, he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nicole, she was in the wrong place for a long time, and there is this common factor, this common element between the two of them, one thing they had in common with this man, this Defendant. And so we began with them, two very much alive, vibrant human beings. We went through 1989 and 1985, through the beating he inflicted on her and we went from that in `85, into 1989, and we came to this point on June 12th at Bundy.

Your Honor, could you cut the feed.

So we have come full circle, and the only common element in all of this and the only direction in which all the evidence points is to O.J. Simpson. And I told you when this began that I had the hardest job. Nobody wants to do anything to this man. We don't. There is nothing personal about this. But the law is the law and it applies to us, it applies to you, it has to apply to him.

He made a promise a long time ago. He promised to love and to cherish and to keep her. He married her and he made those promises to her. He promised to be her husband and he was. And let me say to you that every wife killer or ex-wife killer starts off as a loving husband, and in every household where there is a marriage between a man and a woman there is a picture just like that picture right there, (Indicating). There is a picture just like that on every mantle in every home where the husband killed the wife. What he did that night on June 12th, the night of June 12th, to these two people, this brutality, is a violation of every law, high and low, that we can possibly think of. And I suppose there are some people that say, hey, we should cut him some slack, and you know, if this were a case of, you know, theft or embezzlement or something like that, you know, you can always make restitution, but this is a very, very serious charge. Two people are dead. Let me say that what you do in this case is entirely up to you. You are the jury. When I sit down, I sit down. I'm done. I have completed my duty. I have done what the law requires me to do.

I have lived up to the oath, my oath as a member of the District Attorney's office. And I presented, we hope we presented the best evidence we could. And if we didn't present the best evidence we could, don't hold that against us. I just want you to--you know, when the time comes to go into the jury room, I just want you to--somebody, somebody just say let's calm down, let's elect a Foreperson, let's read the law, let's take a minute and let's just look at the evidence. I would just like you to use your common sense when you do. When you do that, when you use your common sense, when you try to be objective, when you remove all of the emotion out of this case, when you remove all of the sympathy and passion and when you just look at the facts, the evidence as best you can, you will come up with the right decision. The world is watching and everybody wants to know what you are going to do. Marcia Clark and I know you are going to do the right thing under the law. And whatever you do, the decision is yours, and I'm glad that it is not mine. Let me turn my attention, and hopefully yours, to the Defense case, if I can talk about that a little while. They put on a Defense. They called 58 witnesses and they called 58 witnesses in this case to hopefully raise a reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of this man. You heard from some real, real muckity-mucks, some real big shots in the field of science and forensic science and DNA, and you heard from Henry Lee, a real impressive group of experts. I suppose when you consider our case, you have to consider their case as well, and you have to assess the credibility of their witnesses, just like you have to assess the credibility of our witnesses, and when it comes to assessing the credibility of witnesses, you apply the same standard, regardless of whether it is a Defense witness or a Prosecution witness. You have to decide whether or not that expert testimony is worth anything or what it is worth. I hope that when you do that, I hope you keep in mind that, you know, people made a lot of money testifying in this case and you should consider that on the issue or question of whether or not those witnesses are biased. But study the Defense case carefully, I insist that you do, as painful as some of it might be for you.

But consider this: The Defense that they put on in this case, it wasn't really an affirmative Defense, wasn't the kind of Defense where they showed you that he wasn't there, okay, at the time of the murder. They never--they never did that. They never showed you that. What they did was they attacked all of our evidence. Well, not all of it. They didn't attack the domestic violence. There are lots of things that they attacked initially, only to find out of course, only for you to find out that they didn't have a chance with it. But what you really wanted to know in that Defense case, and I can't talk to you directly, but I'm going to assume you are reasonable people, you have common sense, good common sense, you are all successful at life. What you really wanted to know, correct, maybe I am wrong, but what you really wanted to know is where was he at the time of the murders? Right? Where was that Bronco? Have they proven to you that that Bronco was not at Bundy or could not have been at Bundy? That would have been very helpful to you. Would that not have been impressive to you? Isn't that the kind of evidence you want to hear, that you want to see, credible reliable evidence on that issue. That is the kind of evidence that raises a reasonable doubt. They didn't do that. They didn't put on that kind of evidence because they couldn't put on that kind of evidence. They don't have that kind of evidence. We all know where the Bronco was at 10:15. It was at Bundy. You would have liked to have known that some other person was with Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman, right? I mean, wouldn't you like to have--wouldn't you not have liked to have seen some evidence from some witness that the person--

Your Honor, this is improper.

Overruled.

--that killed these two people was someone other than the Defendant? When Mr. Cochran spoke to you during his opening statement, he talked to you about witnesses, witnesses that he intended to call, and he gave you the name of those witnesses and he told you what they were going to say. You know, we did the same thing. I did the same thing. You know, on domestic violence I told you I was going to call a few other people. I didn't. I think you got the point. And I can't keep you here forever. Apparently this sequestration thing is a real drag, right, and I would like to end this experience, and I can understand that, but he promised to present to you the testimony of some witnesses who, had they testified, could have--could have perhaps raised a reasonable doubt in this case. So where are all those people? Who are those people? Well, one of those people he mentioned was a woman named Rosa Lopez? Do you remember this in his opening statement? He said that Rosa Lopez was the maid that lived next door to 360 north Rockingham and she would come had here and testify that the Bronco was parked at 8:00 P.M. that night, the night of June 11th, that it was parked in the exact same place the police found it the next day and that it was parked in the exact same manner, tail sticking out, remember that? He said he was going to present that testimony to you. He was going to call this witness. Well, where is she? Where was she? You would have liked to have heard that testimony, wouldn't you? He didn't call her. He told you about a woman named Mary Anne Gerchas and he told you that she would testify that she was out on Bundy Avenue and that she saw four men running, two Hispanic men, two white men, and that a couple of the men wore knit caps, we have a knit cap at the death scene, and that this happened at about 10:45. That is what the Defense told you they would do. They told you they would call Mary Anne Gerchas to give you that information, and you probably--you may not remember all the names, but I'm sure you remember that when you heard this that, wow, the Defense is going to call these people, whoa, this is going to be some dog fight. I mean, these people are going to come in here and they are going to provide an alibi. Rosa Lopez is going to give an alibi by showing that the Bronco had been there all night. Mary Anne Gerchas was going to come in and testify that, hey, there were other persons, other men apparently running from the area near 875 south Bundy, a few of them wearing ski caps consistent with perhaps the real killer, a killer other than this man here. Did they call Mary Anne Gerchas? What happened to her? Where is that testimony? You would want to hear that, wouldn't you? And right after they talked about Gerchas they talked about a man named Tom Lang who was supposedly down the street who also saw somebody. They told you that Tom Lang saw Nicole Brown standing on the street at Bundy embracing--embracing someone, and that Tom Lang, as he stood there on the street, also saw a man standing some distance behind them, a man who appeared angry, a man standing there with his hands clenched looking at Nicole and this other person, the person she was embracing. It is right there in the transcript at page 12,225. Where is that person? We already talked about Dr. Lenore Walker. Where is Dr. Walker? He told you Al Cowlings would testify. Where is A.C.? He told you that the Defendant was out chipping golf balls. He told you Paula Barbieri was going to come in and testify about her relationship with the Defendant. We didn't get Paula Barbieri. What did we get in terms of her relationship with the Defendant? We got other people, people on the periphery, the stuff you needed to hear to raise a reasonable doubt, and you are reasonable people, never got presented in this case. It never got presented. What you got was a lot of smoke. You got people like Gerdes telling you that the crime lab is, you know--can't be relied on, but then the substrate controls are all clean. You got guys like Professor MacDonell out doing glove experiments where he has taken his own blood and then he is putting it on a new pair of Aris gloves and he is rubbing it around like this, (Indicating), to see if they shrink.

When you look at the Defense in this case you will see that it really isn't helpful at all. It is all smoke. It really is all smoke. And you know, you are going to have to be careful when you deal with that Defense evidence. Some of it was pretty good, though. I mean, that stuff they did to Fuhrman was textbook stuff from a legal perspective, but even that you have to look and say, well, what does it do for us? It upsets us. But then you have to look at all the evidence and see how it is helpful, if it is helpful at all. They called demeanor witnesses and witness to testify to the Defendant's demeanor after the murders, and Marcia Clark talked to you about that, you know. Murderers don't walk around with neon signs saying "I just killed somebody." People do things, commit crimes like this, especially a rage killing like this one, he will calm down, they will calm down and they want to get away with it. He wanted to get away with it, so he certainly isn't going to do anything that is going to draw attention to him. But they showed you these photographs. They showed you photographs of the Defendant and some women at an event the night before the murders. Remember that? Because he had Carol Connor, the woman with the keyboard vest come in and testify about the event the night before. Remember she told you that she witnessed an exquisite romantic moment between the Defendant and Paula Barbieri? Well, what does that do for you? How does that help you resolve this case? It doesn't help at all, especially when you consider the fact that he and Paula had a disagreement, for lack of a better term, over his refusal to let her go to the recital the next day. But beyond that, it is a picture. He is at this big fancy event and somebody says "Will you please pose with us for a picture?" Well, when somebody takes your picture, what is the first thing they say? "Cheese." What point is it? What good is it? What value is a picture like that when somebody is posing for you? And even in that video after the recital, he sees the video camera. He looks right toward it. Posed-for pictures are worthless. And they call that guy McKay. Remember Mr. McKay who worked for the AARP--was it the AARP or the American Association of Psychologists or something like that in Chicago, and there was a golfing event and the Defendant came to the event as the spokesperson for Hertz and Mr. McKay and the Defendant and two other gentlemen took a picture together. They are posing for a picture. Not only are they posing for a picture, the Defendant is basically at work, he's a spokesperson for Hertz. It is his job to go out and play golf with these people. So how does that help you? There is nothing in the record that establishes for you--and I guess Dr. Walker could have done this--whether or not, you know, murderers have neon signs over their heads that indicate they are a murderer. How do you know? How do you know? Whenever you watch TV you watch the news and some brutal killing happens and it is the neighbor, they always interview the neighbors of the neighbor who did the murder and the neighbor says how was he? How did he act? What kind of guy was he? Well, he was a nice guy. They always say that. You don't know. You can't tell. The testimony you heard about demeanor on the airplane and at the airport was a waste of your time really, but if you want to attach some significance to it, you go ahead, it is up to you. I mean, you are the jury. And the only demeanor really that is important was his demeanor that night, you know, after he got into that Bronco and headed toward 875 south Bundy. But this Defense that they have put on in this case is what we in the profession call a shotgun Defense and it is the Defense as old as the law. Way back in the day--way, way back in the day, even back when I was in law school, old lawyers and old law professors shared with us the old school approach to a Criminal Defense case, and every lawyer knows this. You are a Criminal Defense attorney and you have a tough case. This is what you do. You argue the law. And if the law is against you, you argue the facts. And if the facts are against you, you raise hell and blame somebody else. When the facts and the law are against you, blame the police, blame the Prosecution, point the finger elsewhere, create a smokescreen. And that is what they have done in this case, ladies and gentlemen, smoke and mirrors. That is it. That is what you've got. They put on those timeline witnesses. Remember Ellen Aaronson and Danny Mandel, Judy Telander, Pilnak. Remember Pilnak? She was the woman that had two watches. If you haven't learned anything else about this case, I'm sure that you have learned that there are people who are banging at the door to get in on this case. Those people and the testimony they had to offer really wasn't helpful at all. I mean, Danny Mandel and Ellen Aaronson were on a data blind date. They went to the Mezzaluna. They say that they walked past Bundy. In fact, Ellen Aaronson gave an interview to the police the day after the killings and she told the police that she passed Bundy at eleven o'clock, but once she heard about the Prosecution's theory of the case, well, what does she do? She went back to the Mezzaluna, she talked to Mandel. They got together and they attempted to reconstruct what they did that evening. She told the police she passed at eleven o'clock. Mandel told the police they passed between 10:28 and 10:32 and he knew that because he checked his watch, but even Mandel, even Mandel himself didn't know whether he passed 875 south Bundy that night or not. He didn't know. He didn't know until--if it ever happened, he didn't know until he and Aaronson got together and started putting their notes together trying to do as they say, to reconstruct what happened. His time and passage at 875 south Bundy contradicts her time. They got together on this story because they got together and attempted, as they say, to reconstruct what happened. What good is this testimony to you? And if they want to say they passed at 10:28 and there were no dead bodies out there, well, fine. I don't know how they can say that. I mean, they are on a date, they are looking at each other. That pathway is pitch dark and we know that. We know that because when the bodies were discovered the police were called and Riske said he couldn't even see any bodies up that pathway when he first arrived and got out of his car. He had to walk all the way up the pathway and use a flashlight. The only reason anybody found the bodies was because of Kato. Not Kato the human, Kato the dog. So how much attention were they paying to that particular pathway? There are lots of pathways leading to lots of condominiums on Bundy drive. That testimony isn't helpful to you at all, but hey, deal with it whatever you like. Then they called Francesca Harman. Remember her? She testified that at 10:20 she was driving west on Dorothy, okay, and she is driving west on Dorothy south of Bundy and she got to Bundy and she made a right-hand turn. She didn't see any bodies. Then I asked her some questions. I said, well, when you made that right-hand turn at--at Bundy, did your headlights hit 875 south Bundy? I mean, did they sweep across the front of the condominium? What was her answer? No. I asked her did your lights hit the gate at 875 south Bundy? She said no. So I asked her this: Did you tell the Defense that your lights didn't hit the gate at 875 south Bundy? And what was her response? I didn't have to. They were in the car with me. They took her out on a test drive to have her show them the route she took that night. It was clearly apparent that she could not have seen what was in front of 875 southbound because her lights never hit the front of the location and they called her to testify anyway. What does that say about the Defense case that you heard? Well, it says they are desperate. That is what it says. We are not wedded to a 10:15 time frame, okay? The killings very well could have happened at 10:15, but they could have happened at 10:17 also. They could have happened at 10:21. We called witnesses to the stand to testify to a point in time that they first heard the wail of that dog, of Kato, because we know that the wail was a plaintive wail and we know the dog was in distress, and so we know that something was happening, something very bad was happening to the dog's master. And if the dog was first heard around 10:15, I don't know, that may mean that the Defendant is hiding outside and the dog is aware of it. It may not necessarily mean that the killing happened at that specific time. It happened somewhere around 10:15. We can't give you the exact time. We can't give you the exact time to the minute. If they want to push the time to 10:30, push it to 10:30, because anyway you look at it, he has still got time to get to Bundy because we know he is in the Bronco at 10:03. He has got to time to get to Bundy and do these killings and get back to Rockingham by 10:54 or 10:45. Their witness, Robert Heidstra, told you that on the Sunday night you could easily drive from 875 south Bundy to the Defendant's house and he knows that because Heidstra, he worked next door at the Salingers, okay? He worked at the Defendant's neighbor's house. He told you that you could drive there from 875 south Bundy under four minutes on a Sunday night easy. So it doesn't make--it makes us no difference. Makes us no difference at all as far as all of the timing is concerned. But they also called Denise Pilnak, the woman that wore two watches, and she came in here and showed you her two watches so that you would find her credible and believe her because she wanted to get in on this case. Weird stuff. Weird stuff. But you--I don't know. She testified that she drove--what did she drive? No, she came home with Judy Telander and she made some phone calls and she kicked Telander out of her house at a certain time and all of this and how--all of that. How does she know that? Well, because six months after the murders she put together this timeline, six months later. So how is that helpful? Then there is Telander and she is describing her drive up Bundy or around or near Bundy and near Bundy. You know what is weird is that when you look at Telander's testimony and you look at Harman's testimony and you look at Heidstra's testimony and you look at Pilnak's testimony and you look at Aaronson's testimony and you look at Mandel's testimony, all of these Defense witnesses, and what you see, what you come away with is this: These people were all at Bundy at the same time basically. If you believe them, they are all basically on Bundy at the intersection or within view of 875 south Bundy. They are all there in this small area basically at the same time. But when you talk to them, when they testify, they all tell you they didn't see any cars, they didn't see any people walking, they didn't see each other. Mutually exclusive, they mutually exclude each other. All of that testimony, they contradict themselves. They contradict themselves. And I'm not here to say these people are lying or whatever. They may just be mistaken, I don't know. But you have to evaluate their testimony and I just think it is important that you--that you take note of that. And I hope as well that you would take a look back at the timeline witnesses, if that is what we can call them, the ones that we called, Mark Storfer who was concerned that the dog barking might wake his little boy, and so he told you what time it was. He looked directly at the clock and he was interviewed the next day, the day after the murders. He knew what time it was when he heard the dog barking. Look back at Eva Stein. She lived in the condo directly above the walkway where the bodies were found. She lived right next door at 873 south Bundy. I believe her time was 10:20. Was it 10:30?

10:20.

It was 10:20. Those are the People you can rely on in terms of time. They are right there. They live there, they live right there near 875 south Bundy.

So you've heard the Defense and you have heard the Prosecution case, and as I said before, you are going to have to make the decision in this case, and you know, whatever decision you make we will live with. But after I finish talking to you today, the Defense is going to talk to you, and I don't know who is going to talk to you or who is going to talk to you first. I would ask that you listen and listen as attentively as you have listened to me, apparently, but I'm going to ask you as well that you keep in mind that as you listen to them consider this: Hope at least that they can somehow extrapolate from all the evidence we've heard in this case where the Defendant was at the time of the murders. If he ain't the murderer, where was he? Maybe they can tell you that based on the evidence in this case. And they put on a Defense, and bear in mind and insist I think if they can explain to you what happened to O.J. Simpson's Aris light 70263 gloves, the gloves found at the murder scene, the same style of gloves purchased by Nicole, the same style of gloves you see him wearing in that January 6, 1992, game photo. Where are his gloves? They called 58 witnesses. They called the maid, Gigi Guarin. They called Miss Arnelle Simpson. He never owned a pair of those gloves. I don't recall the Defense asking them if he owned a pair of those gloves. I don't recall the Defense asking the maid, the woman who kept the closet, who put things up, who did the laundry, I don't recall them asking her if he owned a pair of gloves like that, like the ones we found at Bundy, like the one we found behind his house. And I don't recall them asking the maid whether or not he owned a pair of Bruno Maglis. This is stuff you would want to know. Insist that the Defense explain to you just who does--who kills two people wearing $200.00 leisure shoes if it ain't this man, if it ain't this Defendant? Ask them to explain to you why the bloody shoeprints leading away from the body are size 12, his size. And where did all that blood come? Why is it when he spoke to Tom Lange, he told Tom Lange the shoes he wore the night before were white Reeboks? They put on a Defense and you would expect that if the man that Allan Park saw entering the Defendant's house that night was not the Defendant, would you have expected them to call that man to tell you that, hey, it was me. It wasn't the Defendant, right?

If O.J. Simpson did create or cause those thumps on the wall behind Kato Kaelin's room, what did it? When he hears these the Defendant doesn't seem too concerned those. Kato is frightened enough to grab a flashlight, he is frightened enough to tell the woman he is talking to on the phone, hey, if I'm not back in ten minutes, call the police, worry about me, or words to that effect. But when he tells the Defendant about these thumps on the wall, he isn't too concerned about it. He has Westec Security. We know that because the police talked to Westec, because they entered his house. Did the Defendant call the police to say, hey, I may have a prowler on my property? Did he tell Kato to? Did he call Westec, his private security, to come check this out? Did they? No. Why not? Because he knew. The Defendant knew who caused the thumps on the wall. It was him. Why did he lie to Allan Park about being asleep? He wasn't asleep. And there are a variety of questions, a variety of questions that you ought to insist be answered, that should be answered by you, by the Defense before you even consider acquitting this man of these very, very brutal crimes. The whole thing with the cut on his hand, what a fluke that is. Are you going to fall for that? They talk about cover-ups. That is a cover-up. That is a cover-up. Ask them to explain to you how--how it is, if there were two killers, how the other one got out of that bloody criminal scene without leaving any evidence of his presence. A major, major question in all of this is what happened to that little black bag, the bag on the driveway, the one that Kato offered to go get that night just before the Defendant left for the airport? The Defendant said "I will get it, I will get it." What happened to that bag? Has it been seen since? The Defense--well, we know that some of the luggage apparently taken to Chicago by the Defendant was seized by retired Judge Delbert Wong. Remember the Louie Vuitton bag, the one the Defendant came back from Chicago with, the one he gave to Robert Kardashian? You saw it on tape. What happened to the little black bag? What happened to the contents of that Louie Vuitton bag? When you look at the tape, you see Kardashian standing there in front of the Defendant's house and you can tell that that bag is full, but when that bag comes to Delbert Wong, to Judge Wong, when it is pointed out to him, when it is seized by him months and months later, there is nothing in the bag. The bag is empty. What was in that bag? Ask them to explain to you why it is that if he didn't do it, why then is there a ton of evidence pointing to him and only to him. And ask them to explain to you, hey, if this is a rush to judgment, why then did the police go out to that house eight times prior to 1989? Why didn't they ever arrest him? And if this is a rush to judgment, why did the police stand out in front of the house, in front of 875 south Bundy that night for a couple of hours doing nothing, as the Defense has asserted, doing nothing but waiting for Vannatter and Lange? That is a rush to judgment? This is no rush to judgment. Unfortunately this is just how things go. Those cops got out there to conduct a murder investigation and that investigation led them to Rockingham. They followed the blood trail. Using your common sense and when you evaluate all the evidence, you should do the same thing, take a look at the crime scene and follow that blood trail, because when you do, you are going to follow it right into his house, into his yard, into his bathroom, into his bedroom, right into his lap. And that blood trail went nowhere else. It didn't go anywhere else and it didn't go to any other person. When I began this discussion with you last night, you know, I talked to you about justice and what justice really means in this case. And it just means doing the right thing under the law. I mean, basically that is all it means, following his instructions, just do what he tells you to do, the way he tells you to do it, and you will be fine. And I've spent hours talking to you and I've talked to you about the explosion, about that fuse, how the fuse gets shorter. We have explained to you the--that he had the opportunity and the means and the motive to do it and that he did it. And we discussed a little bit about the smoke. We talked about the smoke the Defense has put up. You got to find--you have to find your way through the smoke. One of the first things they are going to tell you is the Prosecution's case lasted six months and ours lasted two months. They are going to tell you that. You just keep in mind who was cross-examining those witnesses for days and days and days about minutia, about minutia. There was a lot of minutia in this case and you know it was because you didn't write it down. The Defense got lost in minutia in their attempt to confuse you and to raise a reasonable doubt.

Well, let me explain justice to you this way and then I will sit down and I will be quiet. The People put on their case, the Defense put on their case, and I assert that the Defense case is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, all about distracting you from the real evidence in this case. So imagine the smoke and imagine a burning house. Imagine that you are standing in front of a burning house, and from inside that burning house you can hear the wail of a baby, a baby's cry, a baby in fear, a baby about to lose its life. And you can hear that baby screaming. You can hear that wail. Now, that baby, that baby is justice. This is baby justice. Usually justice is a strong woman, but in this case justice is just a baby. And you hear that baby and you hear that wail and you see the smoke, you see the Defense. There is all this smoke in front of you and you feel a sense--you have a sense of justice and you have a sense of what the law requires and you have a strong commitment to justice and to the law and you want to do the right thing while justice is about to perish, justice is about to be lost, baby justice is about to be lost. And so you start to wade through that smoke trying to get to that baby. You have got to save that baby, you have to save baby justice, and you happen to run into smoke, find your way through the smoke, and if you happen to run into a couple of Defense attorneys along the way, just ask them to politely step aside and let you find your way through the smoke, because the smoke isn't over, okay? The smoke is good to get heavier because they are about to talk to you. Let's use your common sense. Wade through the evidence. Get down to the bottom line. And please do the right thing. It has been a Honor to appear before you and we will wait for your verdict.