Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

As I mentioned to you, we had some preliminary matters we had to take up out of your presence. We're now ready to proceed with the Defense argument. Mr. Cochran.

Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

You may proceed.

Judge Ito, my colleagues on the Defense, my colleagues on the Prosecution, the Goldman family, the Brown family and to the Simpson family. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

The Defendant, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson, is now afforded an opportunity to argue the case, if you will, but I'm not going to argue with you, ladies and gentlemen. What I'm going to do is to try and discuss the reasonable inferences which I feel can be drawn from this evidence. At the outset, let me join with the others in thanking you for the service that you've rendered. You are truly a marvelous jury, the longest serving jury in Los Angeles County, perhaps the most patient and healthy jury we've ever seen. I hope that your health and your good health continues. We met approximately one year and one day ago on September 26th, 1994. I guess we've been together longer than some relationships as it were. But we've had a unique relationship in this matter in that you've been the judges of the facts. We have been advocates on both sides. The judge has been the judge of the law. We all understand our various roles in this endeavor that I'm going to call a journey toward justice. That's what we're going to be talking about this afternoon as I see to address you. The final test of your service as jurors will not lie in the fact that you've stayed here more than a year, but will lie in the quality of the verdict that you render and whether or not that verdict speaks justice as we move towards justice. Now, you'll recall during a process called voir dire examination, each of you were thoroughly questioned by the lawyers. You probably thought, gee, I wish they'd leave me alone. But you understood I'm sure that this is very serious business. Our client, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson, is on trial for his life, and so we had to be very, very careful, both sides, in trying to get people who could be fair to both sides. You'll recall those questions, that you keep an open mind, which I hope you still have even to this day, that you wouldn't be swayed by sympathy for or passion against either side in this case, that you would give both sides of this lawsuit the benefit of your individual opinion. No one, no one can tell you what the facts are. That's going to be your job to determine. It's not a question of age or experience. We talked about that. This is one of those jobs where you kind of learn on the job, and so it's important that you fully understand that and that's why voir dire was so very important as we asked you all of those questions before you were sequestered, before you were actually picked. Now, each of you filled out the questionnaire and you answered the questions honestly I'm sure. You know, Sister Rose said a long time ago, "He who violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith himself." And, of course, both sides of this lawsuit have faith that you'll live up to your promises and I'm sure you'll do that. You know, Abraham Lincoln said that jury service is the highest act of citizenship. So if it's any consolation to you, you've been involved in that very highest act of citizenship. And so again, we applaud you and we thank you as we move toward justice. One other entity or group of ladies or two ladies that I should thank are our marvelous court reporters. They have been patient with us. They've been here from the very beginning. We very much appreciate them in their service and I especially appreciate them because sometimes I speak rather rapidly and they have a tough time keeping up with me. So I trust that today, if I start to speak too fast in my zeal, Miss Moxham and Chris will bring that to my attention. I'm sure they will. Now, in the course of this process where we're discussing the reasonable inferences of the evidence, I ask you to remember that we're all advocates. We're all officers of this court. I will recall the evidence and speak about the evidence. Should I misstate that evidence, please don't hold that against Mr. Simpson. I will never intentionally to that. In fact, I think you'll find that during my presentation, unlike my learned colleagues on the other side, I'm going to read you testimony of what the witnesses actually said so there will be no misunderstanding about what was said about certain key things. But remember that we are all advocates. And I think it was Miss Clark who said saying it so doesn't make it so. I think that applies very much to their argument. Ultimately, it's what you determine to be the facts is what's going to be important, and all of us can live with that. You are empowered to do justice. You are empowered to ensure that this great system of ours works. Listen for a moment, will you, please. One of my favorite people in history is the great Frederick Douglas. He said shortly after the slaves were freed, quote, "In a composite nation like ours as before the law, there should be no rich, no poor, no high, no low, no white, no black, but common country, common citizenship, equal rights and a common destiny." This marvelous statement was made more than 100 years ago. It's an ideal worth striving for and one that we still strive for. We haven't reached this goal yet, but certainly in this great country of ours, we're trying. With a jury such as this, we hope we can do that in this particular case. Now, in this case, you're aware that we represent Mr. Orenthal James Simpson. The Prosecution never calls him Mr. Orenthal James Simpson. They call him Defendant. I want to tell you right at the outset that Orenthal James Simpson, like all defendants, is presumed to be innocent. He's entitled to the same dignity and respect as all the rest of us. As he sits over there now, he's cloaked in a presumption of innocence. You will determine the facts of whether or not he's set free to walk out those doors or whether he spends the rest of his life in prison. But he's Orenthal James Simpson. He's not just the Defendant, and we on the Defense are proud, consider it a privilege to have been part of representing him in this exercise and this journey towards justice, make no mistake about it.

Finally, I apologize to you for the length that this journey has taken. But, you know, when you're seeking justice, there are no shortcuts. If you were to trade places with either side, you'd want someone to fight hard for you and vigorously, especially if it was a person who maintained their innocence from the very beginning of the proceedings. Some of you in voir dire talked about that. You've been involved in other cases where you felt the lawyers didn't stand up. Well, I certainly hope that in this case, on both sides, you felt the lawyers did their best to represent their respective positions. And we will continue I'm sure to do that so that although I apologize for the length of the trial, I hope and I trust that you will understand that in a journey towards justice, there is no shortcut. Finally, with regard to your responsibilities, we asked you at the very beginning to don't compromise. This is not a case for the timid or the weak of heart. This is not a case for the naive. This is a case for courageous citizens who believe in the constitution. And while I'm talking about the constitution, think with me for a moment how many times you heard my learned adversary say the Defense didn't prove, the Defense didn't do this, Defense didn't do that. Remember back in voir dire? What did the judge tell us? Judge Ito said the Defense could sit here and do absolutely nothing. One of you is from Missouri, and he reminded you--who's from Missouri here--saying to the Prosecution, you show us. Now, we didn't do that, but we don't have an obligation as you see--you heard from the jury instruction. And at the end, I will show you some others. We don't have to do anything. We don't have to prove anything. This is the Prosecution's burden, and we can't let them turn the constitution on its head. We can't let them get away from their burden. It's my job--one of my jobs is to remind you of that and to remind them of that. But that's their burden. They must prove Mr. Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, and we will talk about what a reasonable doubt means. And so now that we have this opportunity to analyze the facts of the case, I agree with one thing that Mr. Darden said. To this task, I ask you to bring your common sense. Collectively, the 14 of you have more than 500 years of experience. I know you're all young, but add that by 14--you won't hold that against me I don't think--500 years of experience. You didn't leave your common sense out in that hallway when you came in here. We're going to ask you to apply it to the facts of this case. I'd like to comment and to compliment Miss Clark and Mr. Darden on what I thought were fine arguments yesterday. I don't agree with much of what they said, but I listened intently, as I hope you'll do with me. And together, hopefully these discussions are going to be helpful to you in trying to arrive at a decision in this case where you don't compromise, where you don't do violence to your conscious, but you do the right thing. And you are the ones who are empowered to determine what is the right thing. Let me ask each of you a question. Have you ever in your life been falsely accused of something? Have you ever been falsely accused? Ever had to sit there and take it and watch the proceedings and wait and wait and wait, all the while knowing that you didn't do it? All you could do during such a process is to really maintain your dignity; isn't that correct? Knowing that you were innocent, but maintaining your dignity and remembering always that all you're left with after a crisis is your conduct during. So that's another reason why we are proud to represent this man who's maintained his innocence and who has conducted himself with dignity throughout these proceedings. Now, last night, as I thought about the arguments of my colleagues, two words came to mind. And I want to--I asked my wife this morning to get the dictionary out and look up two words. The two words were "Speculative" and "Cynical." Let me see if I can get those words that she got for me.

I asked her--I was thinking about this case--to go to Webster's. And I want you to tell me what does it mean to speculate, what does it mean to be cynical, as I thought about my colleagues' arguments and their approach to this case and their view of this case. "Cynical" is described as contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives, gloomy distrustful view of life. And to speculate--to speculate, to engage in conjecture and to surmise or--is to take to be the truth on the basis of insufficient evidence. I mention those two definitions to you because I felt that much of what we heard yesterday and again this morning was mere speculation. Understand this, ladies and gentlemen; that none of us in this courtroom were out at 875 Bundy on June 12th, 1994 after 10:30 or 10:45 in the evening, so that everything we say to you is our best effort to piece together what took place in this case. When people theorize about things that may have been and talk to you about short fuses, you're going to see it's just that. It's speculation. People see things that are totally cynical. Maybe that's their view of the world. Not everybody shares that view. Now, in this case--and this is a homicide case and a very, very, very serious case. And of course, it's important for us to understand that. It is a sad fact that in American society, a large number of people are murdered each year. Violence unfortunately has become a way of life in America. And so when this sort of tragedy does in fact happen, it becomes the business of the police to step up and step in and to take charge of the matter. A good efficient, competent, noncorrupt police department will carefully set about the business of investigating homicides. They won't rush to judgment. They won't be bound by an obsession to win at all costs. They will set about trying to apprehend the killer or killers and trying to protect the innocent from suspicion.

In this case, the victims' families had an absolute right to demand exactly just that in this case. But it was clear unfortunately that in this case, there was another agenda. From the very first orders issued by the LAPD so-called brass, they were more concerned with their own images, the publicity that might be generated from this case than they were in doing professional police work. That's why this case has become such a hallmark and that's why Mr. Simpson is the one on trial. But your verdict in this case will go far beyond the walls of Department 103 because your verdict talks about justice in America and it talks about the police and whether they're above the law and it looks at the police perhaps as though they haven't been looked at very recently. Remember, I told you this is not for the naive, the faint of heart or the timid. So it seems to us that the evidence shows that professional police work took a backseat right at the beginning. Untrained officers trampled--remember, I used the word in opening statement--they traipsed through the evidence. And it was interesting because the Prosecution didn't agree with that at the beginning, but later on in this trial, we heard Mr. Goldberg, talking to witnesses, use my words, "Traipsing" through the witness scene, that scene there at Bundy. He used our words because they understood. We knew what we were talking about. We were able to demonstrate it through the videos. They delayed unconscionably routine procedures in notifying the Coroners. They didn't call the criminalist out on time and yes, they allowed this investigation to be infected by a dishonest and corrupt detective. They did that in this case. And they may try to back away from it all they want, but that's very important, as you're going to see, to this case and the resolution of my client's innocence. Because of their bungling, they ignored the obvious clues. They didn't pick up paper at the scene with prints on it. Because of their vanity, they very soon pretended to solve this crime and we think implicated an innocent man, and they never, they never ever looked for anyone else. We think if they had done their job as we have done, Mr. Simpson would have been eliminated early on. And so this case is not--let me say it at the outset--is not about attacking the Los Angeles Police Department. We're not anti-police in making these statements. You're not anti-police. We all need the police. I just said we have so much crime in this country, we need the police.

But what we need and what we must demand, what all of us should have are honest, effective, nonbiased police officers. Who could demand less? Any of you say that's not what we should have? And so let me tell you about how we're going to proceed here this afternoon. The Defense has one opportunity basically to address you. This is after the Prosecutors are finished. I will address you first, and after I'm concluded--and I will talk generally about the lay witnesses and overview of the evidence and what you've heard. I will try not to bore you. I'll strive to be honest in my discussions, to be relevant, to be concise of what we talk about here. When I'm finished, Mr. Barry Scheck will come before you and address some of the forensic issues. And then finally, after Mr. Scheck finishes, I'll come back and conclude some concluding remarks regarding what you've heard over the course of the last two days at any rate. Now, you understand that because the Prosecution bears the burden in this case and in all cases, Miss Clark will argue last to seek to rebut that which we bring up. Presumably, she won't be back up here talking about all kinds of new things, but seek to rebut that which is being argued.

And let me tell you up front, if she brings up anything, we may be precluded from standing up saying, "Wait a minute, your Honor. Here's the answer to that." But you can then substitute your common sense, your judgment in that place, and that's required in this journey toward justice. Now, at the outset, let's talk about this time line for the Defense. I said earlier that Mr. Darden did a good job in his argument, but one thing he tended to trip over and stumble over was when he started to talk about our case. He doesn't know our case like we know our case. It was interesting, wasn't it, because first he stood up and started talking about the time line being at 10:15. Then he said, well, they didn't prove anything, but, "Golly, well, it may have been as late as 10:30." That's interesting, isn't it? Never heard that before. You look back and see what Miss Clark promised you a year ago. 10:15. 10:15 was all they talked about, and they were going to use, because of the incompetence of this investigation, the wail of a dog. So that's what we've been relegated to in this case because of this very, very important investigation.

But having said the Defense doesn't have to prove anything in this case, we did in fact. So Mr. Darden can talk all he wanted to about his theories about motive. They're just that, his speculative theories about motive. But when it came down to the end, he wasn't talking about motive, was he? He was trying to talk about our time line. Why would he do that? Let's talk about why he would. Because the Defense in this case called many witnesses who corroborated each other and who shattered the Prosecution's time line. Now, these are witnesses to a person who were known by the Prosecution, but discarded by the Prosecution. Why? Because they didn't fit their tortured, narrow window of opportunity. So when you invisualize for me that jig-saw puzzle where they want to reduce this case down to a jig-saw puzzle, the part that deals with opportunity is the time line. And we're going to start off with that because in a search for truth, let's look for the truth. Not some contorted, twisted truth, but the real truth, the facts that you heard during the course of this particular case. We think after you look at this time line for the Defense, you will agree with our earlier analysis. This is a case about a rush to judgment, a case where there's been obsession to win at all costs, and in the words of Dr. Henry Lee, something is wrong with the Prosecution's case. Let's start off with Francesca Harmon. Francesca Harmon is a lady who left the dinner party on Dorothy at about 10:20 P.M. she drove west on Dorothy and Bundy and turned north on Bundy. So she would be heading north toward 875. She saw nothing, heard nothing, no barking dogs, lady known, of course, to both sides. And so you see this graphic regarding Francesca Harmon. And I think to familiarize you with that, I think at 10:20, as I understand it, that's the approximate time that she would pass by or near Nicole Brown Simpson's home there. You see it with the "X" marked there in this photographic. That's Miss Harmon. We followed Francesca Harmon with Ellen Aaronson and Dan Mandel, remember, the two people who had been on their first date. They had gone to Mezzaluna. And they were interesting young people. I think you would find them credible. By the way, you hold all witnesses up to the same standard. No side has a priority on the truth. These are witnesses known to both sides. We're the ones, however, who elected to call them and bring them here for you.

You know, how they walked home from this first date at Mezzaluna, walking directly by the walkway at 875 south Bundy, and they said they passed by there. Remember, they were clear, they passed by there at 10:25. And you'll see the little kind of purple lines shows you the route they took. So they passed right in front of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's home at 10:25. And you remember, they continued on. So they were over on Darlington Street by 10:29. She said that it took them about four minutes from the time they passed 875 south Bundy to get home that evening. This was their first date and I guess, as I recall, this was also their last date. They saw no blood, they saw no barking dogs. I submit to you, if the bodies had been there, they could have been seen. Now, why do I say that? I say that because we have a contact print in evidence--and I'm going to ask Mr. Harris, if he can, to show us this contact print. This is an item you will be able to take back in the jury room. This is a photograph taken by Mr. Rokahr at night and it will let you see, when Mr. Harris gets it into focus, that scene that particular night, what you could see with regard to this body. Your Honor, you may want to cut the feed on part of this. 33, Howard.

Now--and this exhibit is what number, Mr.--do you have it? I believe it may be 86. I'll get it for you as soon as he takes it off, your Honor. Now, this exhibit--and we'll try to give them to your Honor when we first get them up there.

Thank you.

This exhibit no. 86 was a photograph that we got late in the trial from Mr. Rokahr, the photographer, who was called by us. You see that document over there? That's a contact sheet. Remember, we talked about all of these photographs in sequence, and this first roll were taken at night. This is going to be a very, very important role for you as this case progresses. This is a photograph at night of what you could see from across the street. And there were lights in and around there. And so when Mr. Darden stands up here as an advocate and tells you it was pitch black and you couldn't see anything, this is the photograph that was taken before the sun came up. This photograph was taken at night. It's not pitch black.

We know also that, according to the evidence, blood had flowed down that walkway. There were bloody paw prints that went southbound on Bundy there. So you see that photograph. You see that photograph. Now, you can be an advocate. We're all sworn to do the right thing. We talked about his oath. Your oath is also to tell the truth. It's not pitch black. We have the evidence. And I am going to try to do that throughout where they have misled you and have said things not correct. I'm going to try and straighten it out for you. Mr. Harris, why don't you tell the court now what that number is.

1369.

No. 1369. And that's Rokahr. We're going to come back to some other photographs on that, but you'll recall his testimony. And the reason why 1369 is so important is because it is undisputed that at 10:25, Mandel and Aaronson walked passed there. If there was blood down on that sidewalk, if there had been--a killing had taken place, if there were dogs barking or wailing, don't you think given that, that had you been out there, you'd see it?

So the time has come now to stop all this folly and fantasy. Let's deal in reality and in the facts of what took place and what you can see with your own eyes. I don't want you to speculate or theorize. When I sit down, I want you to understand what the facts are of this case. Mr. Harris, you can take that down. After that, we had Denise Pilnak and Judy Telander. You know, and I think, again, as advocates, we have a responsibility to treat all of these witnesses with respect. These people didn't ask to come down here. These people don't ask to be maligned. I don't think anybody really wants that with the exception of one or two, and most of them were called by the Prosecution. So when Denise Pilnak, the lady who wore two watches, comes in here and tells you--I ask you to judge her credibility like you do all the witnesses the court has instructed you. You hold all witnesses up to the same standard. You look at the reasonableness of what they have to say. You look at their bias or interest. You look at their demeanor on the stand. You use your common sense. You use your visceral reaction, if I can use that word, to make a determination of whether or not you think this person is telling you the truth.

None of these people know or knew O.J. Simpson with the exception of the people who were together. They don't know each other. They're witnesses available to both sides. But in the search for truth, we're the ones who subpoenaed them and brought them in. Let's look at Denise Pilnak. She tells you that she was at home with her friend, Judy Telander. She is across the street from 875 South Bundy. She's south and across the street. You'll recall that. She spoke of how eerily quiet--remember those words? It was at about 10:24 P.M. when Telander left her house, and she remembered that because she wanted to get Telander out of there. She had been there all day and she wanted to use her computer or something to type some letters. Remember that? So she went outside on the porch with Telander, as I recall. And Pilnak just didn't come to you and tell you that. Pilnak did something else. She--and I believe, your Honor, that's exhibit 1237. She showed us--

Phone records.

The phone record, your Honor. She showed us that she got on the phone as soon as Pilnak left and called her mother, remember, she said in Gardena. And you look there on June 12th at 10:25 P.M., she made a call to Gardena. She was able to fix the exact time that her friend left. And she said to us something very interesting; that it was quiet when her friend left and the quiet continued for at least another 10 minutes. So that would be 10:25 to 10:35 at the earliest. She says that at 10:35 is the first time she heard dogs barking loudly that particular night. And so that she, as you will see, along with Robert Heidstra confirm each other. They don't necessarily know each other, but they confirm each other as to when this barking really, really began. Now, they weren't laying in bed and had been asleep like Eva Stein. They weren't like Miss Elsie Taestart, who is across the street who didn't really know what was happening. These are people who were outside or in that area who can come in here and tell you why they remember these particular times. They were wide awake, up and about, outside around the time when this barking took place. Then we call this man, Robert Heidstra. You know, because it came out that Robert Heidstra had been talking to the Prosecution, remember what he said?

Now, this is the man--who is an interesting man--who details cars. He's the man who is well-known to the Prosecution. Remember, he talked to Detective Payne, almost right away during the investigation to Payne and he told Payne the same thing he told you in the course of this trial. This is what he said. He says he lives nearby and he has these two elderly dogs, one of whom I recall was 14 years of age. And so these dogs walk kind of slowly. Remember that. He walks and he takes this route. Now, that graphic up there shows you the route he takes. Remember, he told you he left home a little bit late that particular Sunday. 10:15, he leaves home and he proceeds on this route and, you know, he's in that alleyway that runs parallel to Bundy and he knows this neighborhood. He's been doing this for more than 14 years. He knows not only the neighborhood, he knows the dogs, he knows their barks, he knows the gates, he knows when they clank, he knows all of that. This is an interesting situation. Wouldn't you have thought that--of all the witnesses in this trial, in this journey towards justice, this is the only witness who ever heard any voices. But they didn't call him. You know why? Because it doesn't fit in their time line as you're going to see. And so he tells you that. And you'll recall, he's directly opposite Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's condo in that alley when he hears what he believes is the Akita start barking. And that's at about 10:35 P.M. he recognizes he says the Akita bark since he walks that way, that same way each and every evening. So while in that alleyway, east of 875 south Bundy, he hears a voice yell, "Hey, hey, hey," and he says he then hears a gate slam. Now, he goes on and says at about 10:40, 10:45, he sees this white vehicle which he describes clearly as a van or a Jeep. Now, they will try and tell you all these things about it being some Bronco, but he never said anything about a Bronco. He said a van or a Jeep. And the important part was--is what he tells the detective. But he says it goes southbound on Bundy away from, this is where Mr. Simpson lived. And can you imagine, in this area in West Los Angeles and Brentwood, the number of white vehicles there are and must be in that particular area? But the reason why they didn't call him is because at 10:45, at 10:45, O.J. Simpson cannot be guilty of this crime, can he? How do we know that? How do we know that, ladies and gentlemen?

Well, yesterday, in her zeal and advocacy, Miss Clark tried to push the time back from 10:40 or 10:45 that Kato heard those thumps. She tried in her chart there to push it back, remember, to 10:53. Some of you probably were surprised. There's been no testimony about that. So let me tell you--let me quote for you. Counsel, this is page 19873. This is Miss Clark talking to one of her favorite witnesses, Mr. Kato Kaelin. "By Miss Clark: And what happened with that picture when the thumps occurred?

"The picture tilted from--that would be right to left. "The picture moved? "Answer: Yes, it did. "At that point that you heard the thumps on the wall, sir, approximately how long had you been on the phone with Rachel Ferrera?" Remember, he started to call his friend, called his girlfriend. "About a half hour." This is after he went back in the house, he called his girlfriend.

"So approximately what time was it when you heard the thumps on the wall?" Answer by Mr. Kaelin: "At about 10:40." At about 10:40. Now, this is the time when the dogs first start to bark over there, about 10:40. "Is that exact 10:40," Miss Clark says. "Well, what I remember. I didn't look at the clock, but around 10:40. "Question: Do you recall previously testifying that it was 10:40 to 10:45? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Okay. And is that correct?

"Answer: Yes." Now, that's their witness. That's their witness. That's what he has to say. There's no question he's there. They know he's there. You know he's there. They don't call him. What about this search for truth? Can they handle the truth? You will be making that kind of decision.

And so we then know, according to this, that by the time Heidstra sees this vehicle turn south on Bundy, Kato Kaelin has already heard the three thumps on the Rockingham wall outside of his room. You know, that's so interesting because Miss Clark tried to change how those thumps sounded. Now, remember--this is something you will never forget probably. I won't come all the way over there, but let me see if I can duplicate--Kato Kaelin said--here's how he said those thumps sounded, (Indicating) one, two, three, except he used that thick place up there. He said they were thumps, almost like a signal; one, two, three (Indicating) is what he had to say. And, of course, you'll recall that. Your notes are much better than ours I'm sure. Apparently the Prosecution in their zeal and their obsession to win would have you believe that Mr. Orenthal James Simpson is so amazing that he can be in two places at the same time even though they're miles apart. And when Darden was talking to you today, remember, he used Heidstra to say, "Well, on a Sunday evening, you could make it over there in about four minutes." Remember he said that? Well, in their own--in their own drive-through that Vannatter did between five and six minutes--you saw it. It took close to six minutes. He didn't tell you that again today. And if you want to get a flavor for how--we heard the word desperate a couple of times, but how witnesses were treated--these are ordinary witnesses, regular citizens. Let me share with you a transcript regarding Heidstra. Counsel, I'm going to be looking at 36368 through 36370. This is how Mr. Darden treated this witness who helped to shatter their time line and establish O.J. Simpson's innocence. "Didn't you tell us yesterday that the voice was a youthful voice? "Yeah. Sounded like a young voice. "Okay. When you heard that voice, you thought that that was the voice of a young white male, didn't you?" And there was an objection you may recall. "The voice sounded like the voice of a white male," Mr. Darden said.

"Answer: How could I say that it is a white male? I don't know the voice. It could be anybody there. "Question: Did you ever tell

Mr. Stevens, my investigator, that it sounded like a white male? "Answer: No. Never saw Mr. Stevens come in here and say that. "Never said that?

"Answer: I don't recall that at all. I said it was a clear voice, but never what kind of voice, white or brown or yellow. "And then there was that second voice, correct? "Right. "And that second voice, that voice sounded deeper than the first voice, didn't it? "Answer: A little bit, but I couldn't hardly hear it with the dogs, the commotion with two dogs there. It was very short. "Did you ever tell anyone that The second voice was a deep voice? "Answer: Was deep, was deeper

Than the other one, than, `hey, hey, hey.'" okay. Then we get to the question at line 22, counsel. "The second voice that you heard sounded like the voice of a black man; is that correct?" Objection. "The witness: Of course not." Now, you know, we can be advocates. Those questions--nobody ever came in to impeach that man. He told you he heard two voices. He told you when this took place. He told you why, because he walks his dogs. He knows that neighborhood. A search for truth. You see, their job is not to just try to convict. Their job as Prosecutors is to make sure the innocent go free also, to make sure all the witnesses come to your attention as we've had to do in this case. So you can see that these responsible citizen witnesses who came before you were oftentimes treated roughly and ridiculed and attacked by the Prosecution in their obsession to win. You don't think Heidstra was attacked? Remember he was asked the question, something to the effect, "Are you a citizen here," because he was from France apparently and something about his job and his little apartment because he's a car detailer. Everybody is entitled to dignity. That's what we fought for in this country. You don't treat witnesses who just come in here--they don't get paid to tell the truth like that--just purely and simply because they're not saying what you want them to say in your contorted version of what the truth ought to be. But you saw that yourself. I don't have to tell you about it. Interesting enough, they chose not to mention even one of the Defense witnesses in Miss Clark's discussion of her time line. The Prosecutors noted that none of their time line witnesses asked to be involved in this case. Well, none of the witnesses we called asked to be called in this case. They came forward. You saw how they were treated, and yet, they told you what they observed. But perhaps the most important thing about them is, these aren't any family members. These aren't people who know O.J. Simpson. These are just people who happened to be out there that particular night. And I think you can now see from that graphic that they all passed by there. We tried to make it as clear as we could. It's common sense. It's common sense just like he said. It becomes very, very clear right at the outset. So if you accept the Prosecution's scenario, it's not enough time for O.J. Simpson to commit these murders given the evidence that we understand. Let me just succinct it at the very beginning to help you understand where I am going on this. Remember Bodziak they like to talk about so much? F. Lee Bailey cross-examined Bodziak the first time he was here. Bailey got him to say this remarkable thing about whoever left out that back gate turned and went back the other way. It's pretty interesting because--I didn't see all those prints, but that's what he says. They went back to the scene. Remember that? That's what Bodziak had seen. Darden said this morning the killer or killers that went that way, they weren't in any hurry. They went that way and then came back. You take that along with the fact that the credible evidence regarding this struggle took between five to 15 minutes. Now, that's what Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Michael Baden said. They not only told you that, they showed you why that was true. You know, while I'm about it, just to digress for just a moment, Mr. Darden talked this morning about calling witnesses or not calling witnesses. Isn't that interesting? Now, they're the Prosecutors. They are the ones who have the burden. In the History of Man Runneth, not to the contrary. Nobody around here can remember any time that the Coroner who did the autopsy, the actual autopsy on these bodies wasn't called by these Prosecutors. Why do you think that was? They didn't call the Coroner. They chose instead to call Dr. Lakshmanan who came in here. They showed you what they thought about him. They talked about this man so badly. I mean for eight days, we heard Dr. Lakshmanan talk to you. They talk about length of time in this trial. Let me put that in perspective for you. For eight days, Dr. Lakshmanan sat on that stand and went through direct examination by Brian Kelberg. Check your notes if you think I'm wrong about that. Bob Shapiro got up and took three and a half hours and demolished him, because at the end of the day, Lakshmanan told you this:

"Well, these were deaths that were caused by stab wounds and the time of death was between 9:00 and 12:00." Remember all those discussions about big ticket items, big ticket items? And when you get back into the jury room, you will have a lot of fun trying to figure out all those red and blue marks that they drew over the Coroner. They spent eight days trashing their own Coroner and they didn't call him. Why is that in this search for truth? They call somebody else who's not even there at the autopsies who has the benefit of our experts, Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf, who point out to him the mistakes that Golden has made. He then runs in here and testifies about those mistakes that we had discovered. Remember, ladies and gentlemen, in this search for truth, our experts were in place right away. O.J. Simpson was paying for these experts to find the killer or killers. And you'll recall the evidence that Dr. Lee, Michael Baden, Barbara Wolf were offered them at the beginning. So the idea is from the beginning, there was this search for truth. And so I mention that parenthetically at this point because I think it's important. You talk about not calling witnesses in every murder case, it's basic that you've got to call the Coroner. But they did a number of things in this case, ladies and gentlemen, that had never been seen before. Of the top of our heads, four detectives going to the scene to notify somebody who is not even a next of kin. A detective carries blood 25 or 30 miles around in his pocket. They do things that you have never heard of before in this case. Is it because it's Orenthal James Simpson? And so as we look then at the time line and the importance of this time line, I want you to remember these words. Like the defining moment in this trial, the day Mr. Darden asked Mr. Simpson to try on those gloves and the gloves didn't fit, remember these words; if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. And we are going to be talking about that throughout. So to summarize, if you take the witnesses that we presented who stand unimpeached, unimpeached, and if you are left with dogs starting to bark at 10:35 or 10:40, 10:40 let's say--and we know from the most qualified individuals, Henry Lee and Michael Baden, this was a struggle that took from five to 15 minutes. It's already 10:55. And remember, the thumps were at 10:40 or 10:45--O.J. Simpson could not be guilty. He is then entitled to an acquittal. And we have talked to you and you've heard from the court and my colleagues talked to you about this whole idea of circumstantial evidence. I want to talk to you a little more about that now. We showed you the incredible evidence that it would be impossible, O.J. could not, would not, did not commit these crimes. And where you have a circumstantial evidence case, this becomes very, very important. The Prosecution then must disprove our time line beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they don't, you must acquit. He would then be entitled to an acquittal. So let's see if we can look quickly at this jury instruction, sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence, generally. Mr. Douglas is going to help me today. Can I have just a second, your Honor?

Certainly.

Thank you, Mr. Douglas. Now, in both places, you can see this instruction. It's called "Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence," evidence generally. And to be as accurate as possible, let me allude to all of it, less I favor one portion or another, and together we can consider it. This is the law that his Honor has already given you as it relates to circumstantial evidence, which this is in this case, about opportunity to commit these crimes.

"However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only (1) consistent with a theory that the Defendant is guilty of a crime, but (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion. "Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the Defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count, either one of these counts is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to guilt and the other which points

To innocence, you as jurors must adopt that interpretation which points to Defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt. "If on the other hand, one interpretation of such evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable." I put that up at this very moment because you've just seen the time line which is circumstantial evidence of O.J. Simpson's innocence because he couldn't have done the crime given this time. So under that scenario, even if the Prosecution's time line was reasonable, if they're both reasonable--I think you must agree ours is reasonable--it becomes your duty to adopt that which points towards innocence. But even further, if theirs is unreasonable and ours is reasonable, he's still entitled to an acquittal. The only way they're entitled to a conviction is ours is unreasonable and theirs is reasonable, and I think you can see and understand that's not true, that shouldn't happen, that's not the facts of this case.

So before I look at their time line, let me just see if I can summarize what I believe the Prosecution has tried to tell you about their theory in this case. And this is just kind of rough, but listening to them yesterday, they try to tell you that an insanely, jealous man stalks his ex-wife, stabs her and a male visitor in a murderous rage, leaves a bloods--trail of blood to his home, barely catches a plane to Chicago, in a rush to go there, leaves one glove at the murder scene and one glove behind his house. In the Defense of this case, you have heard evidence about O.J. Simpson's great life. Not only did he have a great life, he had a great day that day playing golf, comes back from being out of town all week long, comes back to go to his child's recital, goes to that recital, prepares in the evening to get something to eat, a hamburger. By the way--I have to stop at this point. I'm glad Miss Clark doesn't know this, but, you know, if you've ever been to McDonald's, they don't like you to bring hundred dollar bills in there. You know, you can't get a hundred dollar bill changed there generally. Some of these things about common sense, some people don't know.

Objection.

Sustained. Counsel, you're beyond the evidence here.

Well, all right. Thank you.

Proceed.

You use your common sense about fast food places. He then takes a shower, barely catches his plane to Chicago, someone murders his wife and this male visitor for reasons unknown in this trial. Others seek to implicate him as the most obvious suspect, but the investigation becomes a tragic combination of sloppy errors and cover-ups trying to achieve his conviction. Those are going to be pretty much the hypothesis that you heard and will be hearing in this case. Under whatever scenario, based upon what I've already told you in this first hour of the argument, this man is entitled to an acquittal. But let's now turn briefly to the Prosecution's time line scenario. And you heard Miss Clark yesterday talk about this time line and talk about these witnesses. And she relies very heavily on this Pablo Fenjves. You remember him? He's one of the early, early witnesses who started off I think talking about a plaintiff wail of a dog at 10:30. It got pushed back to 10:15. But it's interesting because Darden, not Marcia Clark, has now come back and conceded, well, you know, maybe it really was later. They did a pretty good job. You know, so he's saying that. But Pablo Fenjves told us that he's in that alleyway--down the alleyway and across from where Nicole Brown Simpson lives 10:15, 10:30, whatever, 10:20. Eva Stein next door was asleep, claims she was awakened. You ever wake up at night? You might see the time, right, you might not. She says about 10:20 or so, she thinks she hears dogs barking. Well, I presume that dogs bark throughout that neighborhood all the time. We don't know, and that's the problem with trying to convict somebody or set the time of death by a dog barking. Louis carp, her boyfriend, comes home sometime after 10:20. And then, of course, Miss Elsie tester, the lady from across the street, doesn't know when or what was precisely when she heard the barks. Then there's Mark Storfer. Mark Storfer, interesting man, because you remember, he's the man who always set his watch five minutes fast he says presumably. He told us here in testimony--counsel, 17090--says:

"At 10:28 is when I looked at the TV , which was a couple minutes after I had gotten in the room." Right. Okay. And then he talks about: "I looked out the window of our bedroom that faces north Bundy to see if I could see where that dog was or what was going on. It was pretty dark and I couldn't see anything unusual and I couldn't locate the dog. I also looked out the west-facing window of our bedroom to see if the dog was further over to the west--we face the alley on the west side--and I could not see anything at that time either." Now, this witness becomes kind of important, doesn't he, because the Prosecution is going to tell you that no matter what time it is, whether it's 10:40 or 10:45 or whether it's 10:15 or 10:20 or 10:25, Mr. Darden makes this big quantum leap, the Bronco was there. Well, where is Mark Storfer who looks down that alley--and what exhibit is this, Mr. Harris, do you know? Exhibit no. 38, your Honor. This is looking northbound down that alleyway. And you recall this because we've all been out there and you recall where Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's condo is located. And you recall that it's sitting out in the driveway there, right there (Indicating). There's a black Jeep Cherokee as I recall. And you see this man, you presume he looked up this alleyway, he didn't see any white Bronco. Nobody ever tells you about any white Bronco parked back there, doesn't tell you about any car parked back there. So when you see People tell you about mountains of evidence and oceans of evidence, their oceans soon become little streams, their mountains become molehills when you look at the facts. So we go on. In addition to Mark Storfer looking up that alley and seeing nothing or seeing no car or doesn't see a dog, we hear about the other witnesses who become pretty much part of the time line. Miss Clark does take some licenses regarding time. She says that Mr. Goldman leaves Mezzaluna, and she said at about 9:50 P.M., says he goes home and changes clothes, that he talked to Stewart Tanner about getting together later that evening. Remember that? He talked about going to Baja Cantina out at the Marina.

Wouldn't you think it would be logical to expect if he worked all day, when he went home to change clothes, he might have showered, might have gotten something to eat, especially if later on, when you hear Mr. Scheck, you look at the amount of food, undigested food that was still in the stomach of these two victims. But in a rush to judgment, in a rush to contort these facts, Miss Clark tells you yesterday let's give him five minutes. And he's been working all day, he's got to change clothes, he's got to come home. Let's give him five minutes or 10 minutes, correct? She says let's give him 10 minutes. That seems to me to be really, really fast. What it really is, ladies and gentlemen, is more of that speculation. She doesn't know how long Mr. Goldman was there. None of us know that. We know he changed clothes. She has absolutely no idea. But so you understand that when you look at when somebody says something like that to you. And then as part of their time line, she tells you yesterday that there's something sinister in Mr. Simpson seeking change to buy a Big Mac from McDonald's. I suppose that if you're in this jealous rage, if the fuse is running so short, it's interesting, isn't it, to stop, go get a hamburger at McDonald's? Does that make any sense to any of you? Does it make sense to you to drive to McDonald's? There's no evidence that he tried to tell Kato Kaelin not to come. The evidence is that these two men got in the Bentley and went to McDonald's. The evidence is that while O.J. Simpson is in this murderous rage, he's worried about money to tip the skycaps at the airport because he has $100 bills. So he gets $20 from Kato Kaelin. What's unusual about that? Kato Kaelin is living there for free. So I suppose he could give him $20. Then Kato Kaelin wants to go get something to eat. And Miss Clark said they could have gone to a restaurant. Well, you can do anything I suppose. But the facts are, they went to McDonald's to get a hamburger. O.J. Simpson ate the hamburger. Presumably he was hungry. Now, what's sinister about that, unless you're cynical in your view totally of this case. Kato Kaelin, their witness. They called him. They turned on him. You observed him. I ask you to hold him up to the same standards you do all the other witnesses, but I ask you, don't misquote him. Tell the truth about what he had to say. And so when he says 10:40 or 10:45, don't try to make it 10:52.

So if you believe in this Prosecution's theory, there's this blood leading down to this rear walkway. And Miss Clark told us yesterday and unveiled her theory. Here's what they ask you to believe. O.J. Simpson comes home from these brutal murders in a Bronco that he must be driving awfully fast to get back in this time frame. He parks this Bronco out there by the Rockingham gate, somehow gets in the gate, gets down the side of his house. And what does she tell you? He bumps into the air conditioner. Let's examine that for a minute. The evidence is, O.J. Simpson lived in this house for 17 years. Who do you think knows this place better or the best of all? This is his estate. This is where he lives. This is where he's raised his children. This is where he's been married. This is where--two marriages. He knows this place. So as part of their fantasy, their theory, their speculation, they have O.J. Simpson walking down this walkway running into an air conditioner. Well, if he ran into the air conditioner, where is all the bruises since he ran into the air conditioner? Where is the sound that he made?

That doesn't make any sense. You see, the reason why they come up with this running into the air conditioner is because they can't say he climbed over the fence because there's too much shrubbery there not broke. They really don't know if he can climb over the fence with his arthritis. They have him then walking down this walkway bumping into the air conditioner. But, ladies and gentlemen, you know, we're talking about common sense here. Bumping into the air conditioner and then he just leaves? Is that what happens? Let's look at this. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. You all remember this. What exhibit is this, Mr. Douglas?

116, your Honor.

I'll stand over here so I won't be in your way. Thank you. Under this scenario, under their scenario, while Allan Park is out here somewhere looking over in this direction, they have O.J. Simpson rushing back, parking the Bronco out here, and somewhere or other, he gets all the way down here. Remember, Fuhrman told you how far that was.

He gets all the way down here where this air conditioner is out here by Kato Kaelin's room. You'll see this right here. They have him running into this air conditioner. So he doesn't know his own house. He's all the way back here. And she says the reason he's back here is because he's going to go back here and he's going to bury the knife and the clothes. Isn't that something? How does she know that? She just makes that up out of hole cloth. Do you believe that's reasonable? Is that reasonable to you? Does anybody on this jury believe that? That's what you were told yesterday. He runs in this air conditioner and then, you know, bumps in, drops his glove. That's what she told you. Doesn't make any sense at all, does it, ladies and gentlemen? Doesn't make any sense at all. No sound from Kato Kaelin. Then what kind of--you know, the sound has always been very confusing. Maybe not to you, but to me. Kato Kaelin goes (Indicating), more like a signal than anything else, "Come out here" or whatever. But those are the facts of Kato Kaelin and what happened. And that's her theory. That's her reasonable rational theory that you have to buy into, which I think that you will find to be totally ridiculous. Remember, down this same way, there is a door in that side room there. If Mr. Simpson wanted to get in his house, what would stop him from going in that side door--who knows this house better--if he wanted to be not seen? I suppose he would know better than anybody else. Doesn't make any sense. Doesn't make any sense at all. What they are now trying to tell you--and here's something else that's equally implausible. She tells you that the reason why Mr. Simpson couldn't stop and hide these clothes is because he's too famous or too well-known. Remember that? She said O.J. Simpson is too famous and too well-known to stop and try to hide clothes or whatever that nature. Well, let's take that just a little bit further. Part of what makes their theory so ridiculous is, is O.J. Simpson going to get in a white Bronco that's well-known in Brentwood, drive over to his ex-wife's house, park the Bronco in this well-lit alleyway that you've just seen, leave the car there? Everybody knows him, knows that car. That's equally preposterous. So she can't have it both ways. He's too famous to stop and try to throw things in a dumpster the way she put it. He is equally too famous to drive this car, go there under these circumstances. That is preposterous. So if you believe the Prosecution's theory--and they told you all this about a bloody trail--where's the blood back there, ladies and gentlemen? There's not one drop of blood. Where's the blood back there? Where's the trail that leads to that glove? And further, look at this. Look at this, ladies and gentlemen. That's not something I'm making up. You see this with your own eyes. Look at the glove. Now, when that glove is picked up, remember seeing any blood on the ground? No blood on that shrubbery, no blood on anything there. Where's the blood? Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony? Where's the blood on the ground? Where's the blood on the leaves around there? Where's any of that? That glove looks as though it's been placed there. That glove looks as though it's been placed there. You look at A, you'll see how far it is out to the street. So their theory doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense. And so they get mad at Kato Kaelin and they tell you why he's biased, he's just indebted to O.J. Simpson, so we just can't trust him. But yet, they want you to trust him about the knocks on the wall and he becomes part of their theory. But their theory doesn't make sense. And when you are back there deliberating on this case, you're never going to be ever able to reconcile this time line and the fact there's no blood back there and O.J. Simpson would run into an air conditioner on his own property and then under her scenario, he still has the knife and the clothes. But what does she tell you yesterday? Well, he still has the knife and he's in these bloody clothes and presumably in bloody shoes, and what does he do? He goes in the house. Now, thank heaven, Judge Ito took us on a jury view. You've seen this house. You've seen this carpet. If he went in that house with bloody shoes, with bloody clothes, with his bloody hands as they say, where's the blood on the doorknob, where's the blood on the light switch, where's the blood on the banister, where's the blood on the carpet? That's like almost white carpet going up those stairs. Where is all that blood trail they've been banting about in this mountain of evidence? You will see it's little more than a river or a stream. They don't have any mountain or ocean of evidence. It's not so because they say so. That's just rhetoric. We this afternoon are talking about the facts. And so it doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. And so she has him then still with the knife, still with these bloody clothes, and then she does something very unusual again on the time. Remember, she gave Mr. Goldman 10 minutes to get dressed and to go over to Nicole Brown Simpson's house with this envelope. Mr. Simpson she says walks in this house in the walkway--and by the way, they were wrong. She was wrong about something else, again, I would like to read you. She's wrong in her description of Allan Park, if I can locate it. Allan Park said he saw this figure in the walkway only. And so that we're clear about that, let me just read it to you. I don't have to just tell you what I think it is. I'm going to read it for you. 20571, counsel, line 17. "Yes, I saw a figure come down. Well, not come down, but I saw a figure come into the entranceway of the house just about where the driveway starts." Saw a figure come into the entranceway of the house just about where the driveway starts. You see that right there, the driveway is. That's what he said. Yesterday we were trying to put it all down here, have him come because that was convenient to their theory, but that's not what the witness said. You look at the facts of this case and you'll see, not what they tell you. Continuing on, there's absolutely no evidence at all that Mr. Simpson ever tried to hide a knife or clothes or anything else on his property. You'll recall that Fuhrman--and when I get to Fuhrman, we'll be spending some time on him as you might imagine. But one of the things he said was that he encountered cobwebs further down that walkway, indicating, if that part is true--and I don't vouch for him at all--there had been nobody down that pathway for quite some time. And so she talks about O.J. being very, very recognizable. She talks about O.J. Simpson getting dressed up to go commit these murders. Just before we break for our break, I was thinking--I was thinking last night about this case and their theory and how it didn't make any sense and how it didn't fit and how something is wrong. It occurred to me how they were going to come here, stand up here and tell you how O.J. Simpson was going to disguise himself. He was going to put on a knit cap and some dark clothes, and he was going to get in his white Bronco, this recognizable person, and go over and kill his wife. That's what they want you to believe. That's how silly their argument is. And I said to myself, maybe I can demonstrate this graphically. Let me show you something. This is a knit cap. Let me put this knit cap on (Indicating). You have seen me for a year. If I put this knit cap on, who am I? I'm still Johnnie Cochran with a knit cap. And if you looked at O.J. Simpson over there--and he has a rather large head--O.J. Simpson in a knit cap from two blocks away is still O.J. Simpson. It's no disguise. It's no disguise. It makes no sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Good time, your Honor.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-afternoon recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions. We'll stand in recess for 15.