All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all of our jury panel members. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, again. And Mr. Cochran, you may continue with your final argument.

Thank you, your Honor.

CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Thank you for your patience thus far, and we will start up again and see if we can make it to dinner. When we left, just before we broke, I was sharing with you a knit hat or a knit cap that we've heard so much about in this case and it reminded me that there was testimony early on that Detective Lange had refused basically to pick up a knit cap inside the Brown residence. It was shown to him I think by some of the lawyers and one of the investigators on that date, because these are fairly common, but they don't really disguise anybody who is noticeable, do they? And although I was the guinea pig here this afternoon, if you were to put a knit cap on, how is that going to disguise you? We have been together. I would know your face anywhere now and you would know mine. And the people in Brentwood, in West Los Angeles, would know O.J. Simpson. They know his car, they know him. That is where he lives. Even the Prosecutors say he is so famous that he can't go anywhere where he wouldn't be recognized. Now, one of the things about the People's timeline or whatever is that you will recall that some of O.J.'s bags were already packed outside of the house on that bench when Kato came outside to investigate the thumps which he had heard. And this is interesting, because the Prosecutors have kind of talked at cross purposes on this. Kato at some point comes out because he hears these thumps allegedly and he has a little tiny flashlight or I think the court called it a pen light or a mag-lite or something like that. It was something small. Because it was dark back down that walkway. Apparently he went partway down that walkway and then he came back. It is interesting. He came back and at some point he lets Park in. And I remember all these questions about opening the gate and everything. Remember there is a dog there named Chachi and there is a lot of talk about these dogs and you've heard a little bit about these dogs. And one thing as the Prosecutors make these kind of wild speculations, you know now, now know that the Akita dog bought by O.J. was Chachi. Remember one of the dogs died, and like a good dad, he let the dog stay at the other house sometime with his son Justin and they named the dog after Kato, I think the understanding of what you've heard from Arnelle. But at any rate, I point that out because we know there was another dog over there named Chachi, a black dog, a black chow. But while Kato is out looking for these thumps--what happens with these thumps? Mr. Simpson talks to him. In fact, they go in the house together because Mr. Simpson is going to help him look or help him find a larger flashlight and then someone says or he is reminded that Mr. Simpson is running late for his trip, so then he then takes off. My understanding of the facts is Mr. Simpson said, "I will call you later and have you put the alarm on" because he was getting out of there. Parks was already there. But I think the interesting thing to remember is that some of the bags were already down, including that golf bag, were already down there. So it is not any unexpected trip. He started putting things down there. If you look at everything in a cynical, fashion you heard this morning, aha, there was a knapsack over or nap bag or some little bag they were talking about over on the driveway. Well, if you are golfer, isn't it reasonable to assume there is golf balls in there? And if you put that in your golf bag, what is the big deal? Because they have got to try to theorize and try to explain everything, which they can't explain. They weren't there, they rushed to judgment and it leads to this kind of wild speculation. You have to do that when you don't have a case. That is all you have seen them do time after time after time. With regard to that walkway, lest I be totally clear to you, if O.J. Simpson had been the one for whatever reason to walk into that air conditioning, where is the hair and trace? Where is the fiber? Where is the blood? They want to tell you about his fingers bleeding one minute and it stops bleeding, and in Miss Clark's scenario he bleeds, it coagulates, stops bleeding and then it starts bleeding again, because that is convenient for their theory. You know, as I listened to both of them, I wanted to call them doctor. Dr. Clark told you, well, gee, look at that blood drop. That cut is not big enough for a blood drop. She is not a doctor. How does she know that? Dr. Darden for the love and the forlorn. He speculates on and on. This isn't imagination. This is real life. This isn't anything for murder she wrote. If they tried to sell this story to murder she wrote they would send it back and say it is unbelievable. You are going to see it as we tie it together. It is nice to have vivid imaginations, but here in this courtroom we are searching for truth on this journey for justice. So we know that Kato had some concerns. He was looking around. We know that at some point Mr. Simpson comes down the stairs carrying the Louis Vuitton bag or whatever and Mr. Simpson leaves about 11:00, 11:02 for the airport. I think that is pretty clear based upon the evidence. And you will recall that Miss Clark again gives Mr. Simpson five minutes to rush in, according to her theory, he rushes in, changes clothes, disposes of all these clothes, showers, packs, doing everything and comes downstairs and composes himself. Can you imagine that? Who do they think they are talking to? In five minutes he does all these things. And then they tell you that, you know under this post-homicidal way you act, you will get yourself all composed and you just do this. This is preposterous. They are not experts. They can't testify. Those are just their wildest, rankest theories. You use your common sense when they tell you things like that. O.J. Simpson was O.J. Simpson, the way he always appeared by the people who knew him and talked to him. We will talk more about that when we talk about demeanor, but the reason they can't explain his demeanor and the way he acted like he always acts--they then talk about, well, you can't tell he is a murderer. Those are all very convenient words, aren't they? They fly in the face of reasonable activity by a reasonable man on that particular night. So there is Allan Park. O.J. Simpson comes down within five minutes of the time that they believe he goes upstairs. No time to dispose of bloody clothes. What about blood on the carpet? What about dirt on this white carpet? How does he shower? How does he get dressed? It doesn't make any sense at all, does it? Park himself says the golf bag was already packed and ready to go when he pulled into the driveway. And Miss Clark went to great trouble to tell you how credible she thought Mr. Park was and how he tried to lay everything out, and I think by in large we agree with that, but I think if you are going to quote Mr. Park, you ought to quote him accurately and not attempt to mislead or whatever. And so what I did is I went back to the transcript again where Miss Clark told you and showed you that photograph yesterday about whether or not Mr. Park saw or was looking at the Bronco or looking for the Bronco on the night of June 12th. You remember that? She told you yesterday I spent a long time with him and so I remembered because I asked him questions and his response and his response. I asked him at some point: "I'm asking you if you look to--made an effort to see if there was a car parked? "Answer: No. "Was that a correct answer at that time? "Answer: Yes. All right. "Question: There might have been a car parked there and you didn't see it? "Answer: Correct. "And the reason why you don't know one way or the other is because you weren't focusing on any cars or paying any attention; isn't that right?"

I went on to ask still another part of the question: "Basically your goal was to get Mr. O.J. Simpson--try to get him to the airport on time, isn't it? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: That is what you ended up doing, isn't it, sir? "Answer: Yes." Now, that is the testimony, so that is fine to come up here and tell you because they want to fit their theory that he didn't see the Bronco out there and do all the drama, but isn't it better to read the record if you want to be accurate, which I have just done for you? Isn't it reasonable to ask Mr. Park also, Mr. Park, if you were around the premises there and you were up at Ashford and down at Rockingham, did you ever hear a Bronco comment driving up? Did you hear a door slam? Did you ever hear an engine of a Bronco? And fortunately we asked him some of those questions. I asked him about seeing a Bronco in the past. And remember he talked about seeing one back in `88 or something of that nature and so then I asked him this question: "And would I be correct in assuming that those engines can be loud on occasion, those cars, being the broncos? "Answer: Could be. "Question: You didn't hear the engines on any cars or anything that sounded like a Ford Bronco that night, did you? "Answer: No." Now, again I have read from the transcript for you. I previously read to you about where Mr. Park said he saw Mr. Simpson in the entranceway of the house. We will put that aside. So we know that Mr. O.J. Simpson was preparing to leave for this trip that had been long planned, and when we summarize then the two timelines, it seems to me that their timeline is not even reasonable. It doesn't make any sense. It is a much less credible version than the testimony you've heard from our witnesses. Their version does in no way disprove the Defense timeline. We don't have to even put that forward, but we did. There then must be a reasonable doubt. Consider everything that Mr. Simpson would have had to have done in a very short time under their timeline. He would have had to drive over to Bundy, as they described in this little limited time frame where there is not enough time, kill two athletic people in a struggle that takes five to fifteen minutes, walk slowly from the scene, return to the scene, supposedly looking for a missing hat and glove and poking around, go back to this alley a second time, drive more than five minutes to Rockingham where nobody hears him or sees him, either stop along the way to hide these bloody clothes and knives, et cetera, or take them in the house with you where they are still hoisted by their own pitard because there is no blood, there is no trace, there is no nothing. So that is why the Prosecution has had to try and push back their timeline. Even to today they are still pushing it back because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't fit. That is why they abandoned Ellen Aaronson, why they abandoned Dan Mandel, why they didn't want to call Denise Pilnak, why they didn't want to call Robert Heidstra. That is why we are now hearing this preposterous add-on of time that the thumps may have occurred at 10:15. That is Miss Clark's wish list, but that is not the evidence in this case. Let's turn our attention for a moment and let's look at some other things that don't fit in this case. As I started to say before, perhaps the single most defining moment in this trial is the day they thought they would conduct this experiment on these gloves. They had this big build-up with Mr. Rubin who had been out of the business for five, six, seven, eight years, he had been in marketing even when he was there, but they were going to try to demonstrate to you that these were the killer's gloves and these gloves would fit Mr. Simpson. You don't need any photographs to understand this. I suppose that vision is indelibly imprinted in each and every one of your minds of how Mr. Simpson walked over here and stood before you and you saw four simple words, "The gloves didn't fit." And all their strategy started changing after that. Rubin was called back here more than all their witnesses, four times altogether. Rubin testified more than the investigating officers in this case, because their case from that day forward was slipping away from them and they knew it and they could never ever recapture it. We may all live to be a hundred years old, and I hope we do, but you will always remember those gloves, when Darden asked him to try them on, didn't fit. They know they didn't fit, and no matter what they do, they can't make them fit. They can talk about latex gloves. It doesn't make any difference. They could talk about shrinkage. But we did something even better, didn't we? We brought a man who won the Dondero award, Dr. Herb MacDonell, who did an experiment on these Aris light gloves and they wanted to talk about liquid or blood shrinking them. You will see it up there. And what did he say? They don't shrink. Put as much blood as you can on them. They don't shrink. It doesn't work. They have the power of the state. They could have done their own demonstration. They didn't because you know he is right. So we went about and proved to you these things. We didn't just stand up here and speculate as to what might be. We called a leading witness who came in and passed that on for you. You could see the overlays on there. They cannot explain that. They could have called witnesses. They didn't. We called the witness to prove beyond any doubt those gloves don't shrink. The gloves didn't fit Mr. Simpson because he is not the killer. Now, then they will say and Miss Clark said the other day, well, gee, these gloves had been thawed and they had been frozen and they had been all those things, but remember Susan Brockbank? Those gloves were measured on June 21st, 1994. Those gloves were basically the same size now as they were June 21st, so that won't work. They come and tell you all these things, but it won't work, and so if you looked at gloves--and here is the overlay. And there is something else about these gloves that I want to take a minute and share with you before we talk about Mr. Rubin and his testimony. You saw these pictures of the gloves. We had a couple of pairs of Aris lights and when you have gloves that don't fit, you can hardly do anything with them. It makes it very, very tough. I will put on a pair of Aris light gloves that are real tight and you will see how tough it is to try and get these on my hands, but I will put them on anyway here.

It is the same kind of gloves that Dr. MacDonell did his experiment with so there would be no mistake about the leather and all those things they like to talk about. They are hard to get on. Not as hard as Mr. Simpson, but they are hard to get on. The reason I wanted you to see these gloves, because they want to tell you that when you take off gloves, you take them off by this "V" portion. Remember this? Somebody testified. You don't take off gloves that way. One of the People's witnesses said that. You don't take them off that way. So we are asked to believe that in this tremendous struggle that night in which Ron Goldman fought so valiantly that somehow or other in that struggle somebody took these gloves, the way you pull gloves on--I don't have to tell you this. You pull them off like this, even Rubin knew this, pull them off like this, the gloves came off like this, (Indicating), not through any way like that, (Indicating). So I think it is interesting, when you look at these gloves and you look at what they are trying to have you believe. They talked a lot about in their rebuttal case about the glove pictures and the glove photographs. Remember that each of the glove photographs were taken or pictures of Mr. Simpson were taken in the winter. And you know the evidence. Mr. Simpson was living in New York generally from August through January when he is at football season and working for NBC sports. Generally in southern California you don't need or wear winter dress gloves in California. You don't go skiing in Aris light gloves. And you remember that the police, in searching Mr. Simpson's house, you remember Detective Lange. They searched O.J. Simpson's house for gloves, for shoes, for clothes. Found one brown glove. And I want you to look at, at some point, the brown glove that looks very similar to the brown gloves that Mr. Simpson--

Objection. That misstates the testimony. That is outside the record, your Honor.

Sustained.

What? One brown glove.

Okay. This glove was picked up on June 28th, but what I was saying was this glove came out of Simpson's house. And I ask you to look at his glove, you will have this back in the jury room, look at it compared to some of the gloves he wore on the photographs. The--there were no Aris light gloves in O.J. Simpson's house. That is the point. They took this one glove on June 28th. That is the point. And the point is quite simply Richard Rubin. Let's put him in perspective. Bob Blasier questioned him. On his fourth trip here we discovered a letter that he had sent to the Prosecution. This man had become a soldier in the Prosecution's army. Wrote them a letter saying he wanted to come to their victory party. The problem with that letter was he wrote the letter before we had ever had a chance to put on our case. That is solidifies the rush to judgment, doesn't it? Because in America you have a right to wait until you hear all the evidence. That is what makes this country great. People are not making up their minds at the beginning. You don't decide baseball game or a football game at half-time. You wait until the end.

That is what this judge tells you everyday. Keep an open mind until you've heard everything. But Rubin wasn't going to do that. He was getting ready for the victory party in his own letter and wrote to them and he asked further, send me your cards, I want Mr. Hodgman's card, Miss Clark's card, and I will build a memorial to him on his wall the number of times he had come out here. You talk about people who want to be involved in this case, you stack him up to those other people who didn't want to be here. Richard Rubin is one of those people. And it goes to his bias. It goes to his interest. I'm telling you the facts. We told you about this letter. You've got to deal with that if you are going to be fair and impartial in this case. And then, as with all the Prosecution's evidence, they are going to tell you that something is not like what it seems. They take a Bloomingdales--in which there is no size or color or anything else on this receipt--and I find this particularly interesting because it is part and parcel of the Prosecution's case, isn't it, the way they have done things in this case. Look at this receipt from Bloomingdales, and this is in evidence--do we have a number for the court?

372-B, your Honor.

372-B your Honor. This is this famous purchase, December of 1990, wasn't it? The lot number or the style number is 70268. That is what it says. It doesn't say anything about 70263. Two items. It says $77.00. $77.00 is what it says for those two items. It doesn't say anything about $55.00. It says $77.00. And it doesn't say anything about color or size or anything of that nature and it doesn't say anything about any mufflers, but yet you have been treated and told, oh, these had to be Aris light gloves. That looks like a computer-generated receipt. I wonder how if it was incorrectly inputted it didn't spit it out. This transaction apparently went through and whatever was purchased was purchased. The point is it is part of again the weakness of the Prosecution's case in telling you one thing and the record shows something else. You don't have any receipt anywhere when you get back there that says anything about 70268. You don't have one witness who ever says that Nicole Brown ever bought any Aris lights and gave them to O.J. Simpson. There is no such witness because it didn't happen. And the rest of it is speculation and theory on their part. Cynical speculation I might add to try to rush to judgment and win at any cost. Now, you heard during Mr. Darden's effective argument last night a lot of statements. And just before I get to that part, let me say a couple other things about Mr. Rubin that might be appropriate. Remember, Mr. Rubin is an interesting witness. When he was brought bank out here this last time he was asked, well, look, how many glove manufacturers are there in the world? He acknowledged there are over 100. Then Bob Blasier asked him a question, well, you know, how many did you check with? Two. He checked with two and then he stopped looking. Remember, he found out that this Brossier stitching can be made on singer sewing machines. Some of you may know more about that than I do, but they stopped making them after a period of time, but he stopped looking after a period of time and never called anybody else. And that is interesting. That is the way the Prosecution witnesses have conducted themselves throughout. Compare that he stopped looking with Agent Martz who finds three of the four things you need to find EDTA on the sock and the back gate. Rather than looking carefully for the characteristic, the fourth one, he stops searching and uses a far less discriminating test. Consider the EAP b found under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails where they try to come in and tell you it is a degraded BA and a cross-examination. Again Blasier got Matheson to admit there was no specific support in any of the literature for a BA degraded into a B, and this was by all accounts a double-banded B. The reason they didn't want to pursue that, because she may have scratched somebody with a b type, but they never pursued those things. The second hat at Bundy. The Bundy location inside, when the Defense investigator finds this hat, nobody wanted to collect it. They refused in fact to collect it. When we in this trial, before you, discovered that evidence had been moved at Bundy and that a key piece of evidence, the piece of paper, had disappeared, they didn't do anything to find out about it that we know of. I am concerned about those kind of things. But it is important--and when you look at Rubin--because you put him along with the other Prosecution witnesses and the things that they have had to say. I have told you about the Bloomingdales receipt. I told you about Brenda Vemich who came in. One other thing about Brenda Vemich. That was the day, I won't forget that day probably. She was a pretty tough witness. I was just trying to talk about receipts and things and she was pretty tough. And remember we asked her the question, well, who is the lady, who is the person, who is the salesperson for this? And that lady whose name was Hollings or something like that was in this building. They never called her on that receipt. They didn't have to call her, but we know she was here because Brenda Vemich told us. We also learned something else about these gloves, that even an extra large--there is probably three different sizes, the undersize, the standard and the oversize. And it depends what lot you get. That is what it boils down to, ladies and gentlemen. We know that. That makes sense, doesn't it? And so when you look at everything regarding these gloves--by the way, the lady's name was Olina Phipps, P-H-I-P-P-S. She was in the courthouse and of course was never called by the Prosecution. Shoe he was the actual sales clerk. But I think that the important thing about these gloves that Mr. Rubin was helping us with, in a couple of the pictures of the photographs of the gloves Mr. Simpson obviously had a heat pack on his hands inside the gloves. You could see the heat pack. If you live in cold weather, you know about that. Try though they will about shrinking--and they are going to show you, gee, it is raining out there and doing all those things. Isn't that preposterous? They will do anything to try to contort and distort the facts, try to get away from that tactical mistake showing you the gloves didn't fit. Spent all this time on that and the gloves still don't fit. Rubin can't help you. Rubin is biased. He can't find those gloves because O.J. Simpson has never had those gloves. For them to say otherwise is rank speculation. Now, as I said with Mr. Darden, we heard a lot of information about this so-called domestic discord that he talked about last night and today, and you know, we've been told in this case over and over again that you are to do your job devoid of sympathy or passion or emotion, and I dare say you are very, very intelligent people. And it is very, very hard for any of us to sit here and have to look at photographs of dead bodies, people who did not deserve to die. This case is about who committed these crimes, not trying to make you and the audience cry about what happened back on June 12th. So they can do it over and over again, but it is not going to work because you understand this case is not about trying to appeal to your emotion. This case is about the facts and whether these facts establish guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. You all understand that. So we heard last night and we are treated to this morning some very, very interesting observations by my learned colleague, Mr. Darden. Let me start off by sharing with you, and I will use his board on "Evidence of other crimes."

Now, this is interesting because Mr. Darden started off by saying, well, you know, we are going to put together this other piece, it is not really one of the elements of the crime of murder, motive, but we are going to talk to you about motive now. We are going to tell you and convince you about the motive in this case, and then he spent a long time trying to do that. As I say, he did a fine job and addressed the facts and conjured up a lot of emotion. You notice how at the end he kind of petered out of steam there, and I'm sure he got tired and he petered out because this fuse he kept talking about kept going out. It never blew up, never exploded. There was no triggering mechanism. There is nothing to lead to that. It was a nice analogy, almost like that baby analogy, the baby justice and the house of fire. You don't have to go through the house of fire. You have to keep yourself on the prize, the house of justice, a city called Justice, and that is what this is leading to, so this is what it is all about. The court--Mr. Darden looks up there, says, well, gee, judge, whatever limited purpose, but let's talk about the limited purpose for which all of his argument was about. When you talk about this evidence of other crimes, such evidence was received--excuse me, sir--and may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show the characteristic method or plan or scheme about identity or motive. For the limited purpose for which you may consider such evidence, you must weigh it in the same manner as you do all other evidence in the case. You are not permitted to consider such evidence for any other purpose. So this isn't about character assassination of O.J. Simpson, as you might think at first blush. This is about Mr. Darden trying to conjure up a motive for you. And at the outset let me say that no, none, not one little bit of domestic violence is tolerable between a man and a woman. O.J. Simpson is not proud of that 1989 incident. He is not proud of it. But you know what? He paid his debt to that and it went to court. He went through that program. And the one good thing, and no matter how long Darden talked, from 1989 to now there was never any physical violence between O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson. Those are the facts. He kept going back and forth to `85, `89, `93, but there is no physical violence. In fact, let's look at the incidents that he talked about just quickly. And keep this in mind. This is supposedly for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show common scheme and plan, identity or motive; only for that limited purpose. Keep that in mind. He didn't bother reading all this to you. Let me read you something else again that goes along with this as we consider this evidence. The court has already instructed you about motive, and I listened very carefully as my friend read this, and he got to one part and he stopped, but I want to read you the rest of it. "Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown. However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in this case. Presence of motive may tend to establish guilt."

He stopped after that last part. Let me read you the rest of it. "Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence. You will therefore give its presents or absence, as the case may be, the weight to which you feel or find it is entitled." I wonder why he didn't read you the part about absence of motive in this case? Because as long as he stood up here and tried to talk to you, he couldn't show any physical violence after 1989. He could talk about 1985, the incident involving the Mercedes. Mr. Simpson wasn't arrested then. He can talk about 1993. Certainly you hate to think that two people could have an argument like that, but there was no physical violence. In fact, the police came out, if you recall, and did some further taping. These people were upset and they were arguing, but they never fought on this occasion. They never--no blows on this occasion. And certainly no one wants, if you think in your background, would not want your worse argument ever tape-recorded.

O.J. Simpson had perhaps his worse argument tape-recorded. And then he had the audacity to stand up here and say, well, they didn't call Lenore Walker. We didn't call Lenore Walker because it wasn't necessary. Talked about me saying she had some tests to say Mr. Simpson was not antisocial, had no antisocial personality. If that wasn't true, why didn't he call her? Because you don't have to call all witnesses. Just like he said. At some point all of us I think got the message. There are certain horrors of sequestration. I dare say we would still be trying this case, left to our own devices. Somebody had to have some good sense in this courtroom. We had to bring this matter to a close. We did what we set out to do, to demonstrate to you reasonable doubt. We think we have done that. We could call a lot more witnesses, as I talked to you about in opening statement, but I don't think that is necessary. Another word about opening statement. In opening statement I stood before you and I told you this is what we expect to show. This is not evidence. That was in January. This is what I would hope the evidence would show. If there is a witness that I didn't feel was credible or we didn't feel was credible, I wouldn't call that witness. If there is a witness that is not available, we didn't call that witness. If we didn't feel a witness was necessary, we wouldn't call that witness. The Defense doesn't have to prove anything. We have done that in this case, proved things, however, but we don't have to prove anything. So if a witness wasn't called, don't hold that against O.J. Simpson. You hold that against me. And I don't think you can hold that against me because the Defendant doesn't have to prove anything. And remember, the judge has already instructed you as follows, and let me read it to you again so that we make this clear. Maybe Mr. Darden will remember this. "The Prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information and that the Defendant was a perpetrator of any such crimes--such charged crime. The Defendant is not required to prove himself innocent or to prove that another person committed the crimes charged." Well, that law is not just for O.J. Simpson. That is the law of the State of California, for everyone, and they know it. I told you at the beginning in this search for truth, in your courage, we cannot let them turn the constitution on its head. I am going to be the reminder of that. So continuing on. He talks about what might sound like character assassination over and over again about these incidents of controlling and jealous rage. Just because he says that supposedly makes it so. Isn't it interesting, 17 years these folks were married, two beautiful kids, beautiful life. Do you think they had any good times together? Do you think they ever want to talk about any of the good times? Think about even after `93. Remember they got a divorce, in their chart, in 1992. They tried to get back together. And Dr. Christian Reichardt told you, it wasn't O.J. Simpson, it was Nicole Brown Simpson who asked to get back together in 1993. They tried to work it out for about a year. They didn't live together, but they tried to work it out. They talked about this and they tried to date exclusively. They tried to salvage a 17-year marriage and you could understand that. It was her idea. It didn't work out and they went their separate ways. The evidence is he had been dating Paula Barbieri back in 1992 for almost a year, but when he got back with his wife in April or May of 1993 he stopped dating her. When he broke up with his wife again, he started dating her again. He wanted to give it a fair shot. Remember Arnelle Simpson said she would wake up sometime in the morning and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson would be over there with the kids at the house. It was during this period of time. They were trying to get back and get along. They all went to Cabo San Lucas. They had a good life together. It is interesting how the Prosecution doesn't want to talk about that at all in their cynical view of life, two or three incidents and say this just tells us the whole picture. Well, all of us, all of us, there is more to the entire picture, and I ask you rhetorically this question. Who would know O.J. Simpson better? His mother Eunice, his sister Shirley, his sister Carmelita, his daughter Arnelle? Or Marcia Clark and Chris Darden? Who do you think knows him when they sit up here and talk about his public persona and he has got this dark side? Those are all just words. He is a human being and he is not perfect. He is not proud of some of the things he did, but they don't add up to murder. There is no escalation of force and violence after 1989. It is not there. We don't have to call Lenore Walker. Your common sense tells you this. And then he goes into this kind of make believe fantasy world where he is going to try to tell you on June 12th he is going to conjure up this rage. June 12th. Very interesting date, isn't it? It is wonderful that we live in the age of videotape because it tells you about who O.J. Simpson. Cindy Garvey tells you how O.J. Simpson was. He was this mean dark brooding person at this concert, that he was going to kill his ex-wife because he didn't like his seats. Because he didn't like his seats or because he didn't invite her to dinner. That is how silly what they are talking about in this case as he tries to play out this drama. But let me show you, rather than talk--a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me show you this video. You watch this video for a moment and we will talk about it. This is for Chris Darden.

You will recognize some of the people in this videotape after awhile. Mr. Simpson kissing Denise Brown, Miss Juditha Brown, Mr. Louis Brown. Talking to a friend. That is his son Justin who he kisses, smiling and happily waving. Mr. Brown is happy. Laughing and falling down and laughing again, bending over laughing. You see that. You see that with your own eyes. You will have that back in this jury room. How does that comport with this tortured, twisted reasoning that he was angry in some kind of a jealous rage? Did he look like he was a jealous rage to you? Your eyes aren't lying to you when you see that. Thank heaven we have videotape. I didn't tell you about that in opening statement. Do you think that is pretty compelling? Thank heaven we have that. And we know in this city how important videotapes can be when people don't want to believe things even when they see on it videotapes and you saw that yourself. When you are back there and somebody tries to tell you there was some kind of jealous rage on June 12th, look at O.J. Simpson interacting with the Brown family and everyone else. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make any sense. He isn't brooding. He is not angry. He kisses these family members. He is laughing and joking. He is playing with his son Justin. Those are the facts, not what I made up. These are items that don't fit. And if you want to go a little bit further, let's talk about what we know about him that evening. That video is what, about six o'clock in the evening. Let's start at six o'clock on June 12th. We know he had a good day that day. He had a good week. We will talk about part of the week under demeanor, but let's just talk about that part of the evening. Six o'clock he is at that recital. You know, you go to a recital because of are proud of your child. You know at these recitals--and you can all think back, and those of you who don't have kids, this program is long and your child is 33rd or 40th in the program. You love everybody else's child, but sometimes you don't want to sit there during the whole thing, you know. We are told some stuff where he moved a chair around. Most auditorium seats are like those, you can't move those seats around. This is preposterous. Mr. Darden wasn't in that auditorium. And even after that video, like any proud papa, you know what O.J. Simpson did? Took a picture, a photograph with his daughter. Let's look at this photograph for a minute, if you want to see how he looks while he is in this murderous rage, while this fuse is going on that Darden talks about. Where is the fuse now, Mr. Darden? Where is the fuse? Look at that look on his face liked any proud papa. He is proud of that little girl and who wouldn't be proud of her. And this is post the dance recital. She has the flowers apparently he went out and bought for her. He is standing there with her. The photograph is taken. There is no way--we have no way of knowing that would be important. We have no way of knowing that Chris Darden some day would stand before you and try to make you believe that that man was in a murderous rage at that time and that we would bring forward that same picture so you would see it with your own eyes, so you would see that. What exhibit is that Mr. Douglas, sir?

I'm not sure.

Look on the back of it.

We will get it.

We will get that for you, your Honor. So thank heaven again for the visual. A photograph is worth a thousand words. So he can speak a thousand words and I could show you one photograph. He could speak a thousand more words and I could show you that video. What it does is he puts the lie to this theory about some kind of murderous rage. We didn't stop there. This is serious business. A man's life is at stake. So what do we do? We talk to Gigi Guarin, his housekeeper. O.J. Simpson by in large has a great relationship with all the women in his life, and you have met a number of them. Gigi Guarin is the housekeeper. You saw how she came in here. She was a great witness. She said she was at Knotts Berry Farm on June 12th. She was out with her family and at eight o'clock she wanted to stay over because she was due to come home that evening and she said "Can I stay over" and Mr. Simpson says, "Yes, you may." And so I asked her how did he sound to you? He sounded like Mr. O.J. Simpson always sounds, the employer that she knows, the relationship that she has with him. You saw her. You observed her. You saw her go through cross-examination.

Did she seem believable to you? Eight o'clock. I think so. I think you will find so. Then we know that at nine o'clock he talked to Christian Reichardt, his friend Dr. Christian Reichardt, and you saw Chris Reichardt come in here and talk to you. I thought he made a very, very, very good witness from the standpoint of what he had to say. He told you that O.J. Simpson sounded even happier than usual. He was more jovial, he got his life back together and he was moving on. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that an interesting way of looking at circumstantial evidence. Let me show you how we differ in this case. A doctor witness comes in and says O.J. Simpson is jovial at nine o'clock on June 12th. Pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say? I think you would love to have that. Anybody would in a case where you are supposedly in a murderous rage. Instead of Chris Darden standing here and saying, well, that is pretty tough evidence for us to overcome, he says O.J. Simpson was happy because he was going to kill his wife. Now, if you believe that, I suppose I might as well sit down now and I am probably wasting my time. I don't think any of you believe that. That is preposterous. It flies in the face of everything that is reasonable. You have these two reasonable hypotheses, his isn't reasonable, but assume it is reasonable, you would have to adopt this, that he is jovial, he is happy. They make a date for that next Wednesday and O.J. Simpson returns from back east. You remember that. That is the testimony. Mr. Darden tries to make a big thing of the fact, well, gee, you know, golly, was he depressed about the fact that they had broken up or they had finally broke up? He said, yeah, he had been down. He never said he was depressed. Said he was down or upset and who wouldn't be. Remember the last questions I asked. If you had just ended a 17-year relationship and it was over, you would feel down for a short period of time until you got your life on track. You wouldn't go kill your ex-wife, the mother of your children. O.J. Simpson didn't try to kill or didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson when they got a divorce, when they went through whatever they went through when Faye Resnick moved in. None of these things happened. Because of their rush to judgment to try to come up with some kind of a motive, that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't stop with just Christian Reichardt. And what he had to say--and of course I have his testimony also about what he said. He talked about the demeanor of the various people he talked about, but most importantly, he talked about O.J. Simpson's demeanor and how it was that night and how he appeared to be. Let me just read you this part here. This is 42537, counsel. "Question: Now, with regard to the statement about whether or not you talked about Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, that was not the thrust of any of that conversation, was it? "Answer: Not at all."

She wasn't on his mind. At this time he is talking about getting ready to go to McDonald's. "In fact, do you recall that Mr. Simpson had said to you that he was out of the loop, that he was glad to be out of the loop, that he had gotten his life together with his new lady? Do you remember him telling you that? "Answer: That's correct. "And who was that new lady? "Answer: Paula Barbieri."

Let me just make a comment about Paula Barbieri. One of the most outrageous things I heard yesterday was this wild speculation that O.J. Simpson had some kind of falling out with Paula Barbieri on that Sunday. Where is the evidence of that? That is preposterous. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Remember when O.J. Simpson came back into town on Friday? The first person that met him and they spent the evening together was Paula Barbieri, and it was interesting, because I was having trouble hearing you, she said I stayed at the house until one of you reminded me I went to the prayer meeting is where she left. They had been together that day and then on the very next day they went to this dinner in support of Israel. And I guess Mr. Douglas can show us that. This is that dinner. I guess he is really working up that murderous rage that day with those little ladies that he is with. They seem to be happy of taking a picture with him. We had no idea we would have to use this to show to counterbalance the specious, cynical, speculative theory that he had some kind of a time fuse. But that photograph again demonstrates that. And then we have the testimony of the lady who was there, Carol Connor, about what she called that exquisite moment, and I suppose she is an artist, you could tell by the way she was dressed when she was here, and she had written this academy award winning love tune and she sees things we don't see, but she said it was an exquisite moment between O.J. Simpson and Paula Barbieri when they were in each other's arms at that dinner. Was he thinking about Nicole at that point? Only in Chris Darden's mind. Not by yourself and anyone else reasonable. So again you have these photographs and these word pictures which I think amply destroys this.

Your Honor, exhibit 1227.

Thank you.

So he continues on about Paula Barbieri. He says: "You knew about Paula Barbieri; isn't that correct? "Yes, I did. "Also, Mr. Simpson had told you that he began dating Paula Barbieri on a regular basis; isn't that correct. "Answer: Yeah. "And you had said and indicated to the police in an interview Mr. Simpson seemed to like Paula a lot and seemed happy or at least happier than he had been before he was with Paula; isn't that correct? "That's correct, yes.

"That is what you told the police, isn't it, sir? "That's correct. "When you talked to the police, Dr. Reichardt, were you telling them the truth? "Answer: Absolutely. "And when you were coming here today to testify to this jury, are you telling them the truth? "Answer: Absolutely." And so once again I haven't tried to speculate. I have read to you what the witness said. Now, what about this thing that Darden keeps talking about that he knows isn't so, that the police had been out there eight times on so-called domestic discord cases? He told you that a whole bunch of times and this is why you have to look with some suspicion at what the Prosecutors tell you in this case. You remember Officer Farrell, the officer who was a sergeant, I believe, after the `89 incident went back to the station to try and check and see whether or not there had ever been any incident with any of the police officers in that division in West Los Angeles had been called. Check your notes. So what he did was he had occasion to check for other domestic discord incidents. This becomes rather important later, as you are going to see, so he talks to us. He says--the question is: "All right. So you talked to some officers? How many? Just tell me in actual numbers how many officers did you talk to altogether? "Answer: I can't recall. Maybe ten. "And did you take any reports from any of those officers? "Answer: I requested if they had any information to write out a report and give it to me. "Question: And you got a report from one officer, did you not? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: And that officer's name is Mark Fuhrman. "Question: That's correct.

"And was that the only written report that you received? " so now when Darden stands up here and talks to you about these eight incidents or whatever where nothing happened, they checked with at least ten of the police officers in that division, nobody had any recollection of anything, of going out there. Now, we know from Shipp the police would stop by there. We know that. Shipp told us that. There is some photograph in evidence of O.J. Simpson with Shipp and maybe some other police officers. That was a place they would stop by on occasion. But this telling you eight to ten times when they know that was their own witness, Farrell--and then he has the audacity about stalking. He tells you in opening statement he is going to show you that O.J. Simpson was stalking Nicole Brown Simpson. This is the Prosecutor. Did he prove one incident with stalking? Absolutely not. In fact, yesterday when he sat up here and told you about O.J. Simpson looking in the window of Nicole Brown Simpson's house, I was somewhat dismayed, so I thought, gee, I better get the transcript out again, since the record is the best evidence, not what they say. Because they say it is so, isn't so.

They said this themselves and so we talked about this and you remember Mr. Colby, Colby and Coe, two people who lived next door to Nicole on Gretna Green? You remember them? You remember those two? And Mr. Colby was testifying on this date. Counsel, it is 13176. "I saw him observe the residence next door and then walk around the corner which would be southerly and westerly on Shetland and go back around again and look again at the residence. "Well, let me just stop you there, all right, so that it is clear. When you first saw the man who was on the walk five feet from Nicole Brown's driveway--"Objection. "Yes.

"Then he walked in a southerly direction and then back around the corner, our house is on a corner like this, (Indicating), he then went southerly and then westerly and then back around again. "Okay. Did he walk back to the same spot he was in when you saw him initially? "Yes, he did."

He goes on to talk about him walking within five yards of Nicole Brown Simpson's driveway and then walks back. And you remember there was the incident where Mr. Colby by said he was embarrassed because he saw this black man in Brentwood and he called the police and then he found out it was O.J. Simpson. Now, nowhere are you going to find in that testimony O.J. Simpson was up looking in a window or stalking anybody. He was on the sidewalk out there presumably waiting for his wife or the kids to come home and then he left. That is how the people have twisted and turned things in this case. That becomes his incident of stalking. When you go back, you look at this evidence. And I know you are going to be fair and honorable. You look at this and you will see, you will make short work of this. You will make short work of an emotional argument. It was very emotional. But it doesn't add up. It doesn't fit. It wasn't factual. It is for a limited purpose. And here may be the coup de grace. All of these things are supposedly for motive, to show how somebody might have acted on June 12th. Interesting, isn't it. Again in the words of Shakespeare, they are hoisted by their own pitard. They talk about these incidents involving Nicole and Mr. O.J. Simpson. Every time they would have an argument everybody would know about it, whether it was in `89 or in `93, everybody would know about it because it would be loud, it would be arguing back and forth. There was drinking on the time in `89, January 1st. Remember the evidence was they had both been drinking. It certainly doesn't make it right, but they were loud arguments and everybody knew about it. What kind of characteristic is that in this case? This is a case about stealth. This is a case about somebody who it seems to me is a professional assassin who kills these two people. And the thing that is so outrageous for them to stand here and tell you that this is all about Nicole Brown Simpson. Any of you thought during the last year what if the perpetrators were after Ron Goldman and that envelope that he had in his hand that Dr. Lee found that smear on? Who in this courtroom would know. The rest is speculation. This is their theory that they tried to come up with. We don't know. This is a case of reasonable doubt. This is a case of an innocent man wrongfully accused. They can't answer those questions, no one can under these circumstances. And so we move on and look at other things that don't fit. We know that there was this terrific struggle involving primarily Mr. Goldman--Mr. Goldman as he fought for his life. Why no bruises on Mr. Simpson's body? Admittedly there was a violent struggle involving two very, very fit adults. And let's look briefly at the bruises on Mr. Goldman's hands. I don't think we have to cut the feed on this, your Honor, I don't believe. Remember we talked about this in opening statement. We had a large bruise on the knuckle, according to Dr. Baden and others, is consistent with Mr. Goldman's fight that he put up for his life. He struck something, probably a person at that point, but Miss Clark and the others can't even admit that. In the face of doctors, a doctor who did the reautopsy reexamination of the death involving Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy, tells you one thing. The Prosecutors said, oh, no, he must have been flailing back, he must have hit his hand against the tree or something like that. Only the facts that they want to put into this little contorted theory that we prove to you otherwise. We proved to you what is reasonable under the circumstances. So I think you saw this in my opening and I think that is further evidence this was a very, very real fight, and of course in a real fight and in real life fights are awkward and clumsy. Ofttimes the combatants are rolling around on the ground. And one of the really interesting things in this case is the dug out area near Mr. Goldman's body. The feed should be cut. This area I thought was very, very interesting and remember I asked Detective Lange about this, and this is going to be very important later on. You see this dug out area. Remember, this is the pager over there and there is the dug out area, (Indicating). That gives some idea of the ferocity of this altercation that took place. Remember Dr. Henry Lee talked about blood all around in this area, the keys one place, the beeper someplace else. This dug out area, (Indicating). Interesting, isn't it? Now, think with me for a moment. If you fought for five to fifteen minutes in an area like that, I suppose both parties would have a lot of bruises and marks on them, wouldn't they? Mr. Goldman did and I bet you his perpetrator does.

But there is something else again. They want to tell you and you will hear a lot about socks before we are finished, that these socks, these socks that all of a sudden appear in that video at the foot of his bed, were being worn by Mr. O.J. Simpson. Well, ladies and gentlemen, when you see these socks, what do you think the dirt and dust was on these socks now? Let's see if they can ever explain this. Where was the dirt that was thrown up and moved around on these socks? You are not going to see any. You are not going to see any dirt because those socks weren't there. You see that dirt? You see that dug out? You remember this photograph. What number is this, Mr. Douglas?

Exhibit 83, your Honor.

You remember this when you talk about this case and you wonder whether or not there is a reasonable doubt, whether or not this is an innocent man wrongfully accused, and so you look at this when you expect common sense would tell you there would be bruises and nicks and kicks and marks on all the perpetrators. With the heavy foliage there with the fence and the trees, you would expect scratches on everyone. Whereas Mr. Goldman has more than thirty stab wounds, you would expect this struggle five to fifteen minutes to have left that, but there is nothing like that in this case, nothing like that on Mr. Simpson's body. You have seen that before and you will see it again. Now, in this case--

Exhibit 1249, your Honor.

Thank you.

In this case in opening statement I showed you Bob Shapiro's foresight and wisdom. He had these photographs taken I think on June 15th. Instead of praising this lawyer who was interested in the truth, the Prosecution says, well, they went to Dr. Huisenga. That wasn't really his doctor. Isn't that preposterous. Dr. Huisenga, by all accounts, is a qualified doctor. He was the raiders team doctor. I suppose he is supposes qualified. This is Mr. O.J. Simpson's body as it appeared on June 15th. Wouldn't you expect to see a lot of bruises and marks on that body? You see his back. Some of these aren't very flattering, but this is not about flattery; this is about his life. Now, on his hands--there is some slight abrasions on his hands, but nothing consistent with a fight like this. You know it. I know it. We all know it. We will talk more about this, this so-called fishhook cut and where he got that. It will become very clear when we talk about demeanor where that came from. Miss Clark wants to try and confuse that, but that is very, very clear. So with regard to Mr. Simpson's physical condition, I don't want to just tell you to take my word, stand here and say, oh, yeah, he was in great shape on that day or he looked good or whatever. Fortunately we had photographs again, we had graphic evidence of this man's body. This man had not been in a life and death struggle for five to fifteen minutes. Miss Clark herself said it. She used a boxing analogy saying boxers fight for three minutes per round. Sometimes there is a knock out in the first round. But in this instance we know because of the way the injuries were and the blood that this lasted for this period of time. There was a violent struggle. That man that you saw up there was not involved in that violent struggle. And so we did call--Bob Shapiro called Dr. Robert Huisenga as a witness in this case, and you recall that Dr. Huisenga was a very, very--seems to me a very credible, honest witness. What did he say? He said that O.J. Simpson looks like Tarzan but he moves more like Tarzan's grandfather. That is not to say that O.J. Simpson wouldn't be capable of committing a crime. That is never what we were trying to say. What we were trying to say was that see this man for who he is. See this man for the arthritis that he suffers, that everybody in his family suffers with arthritis. You saw his mother. You heard his sister and you heard he has it worse than they have. He can still play golf. He can still do that. And some of you I hope don't, but if you have it in the early stages, you know what it is, certainly on certain days. What I think it means is you don't go out looking for anybody to be in an altercation with. O.J. Simpson by all accounts has trouble with lateral movement for moving side to side because you saw when I had him come over here those knee operations that basically spell NFL, National Football League, four or five minutes on the left knee and maybe five minutes on the right knee. That is the price that a running back pays. When I'm talking about running back--and wasn't it interesting yesterday, Miss Clark says O.J. Simpson was a football player and he has to run through the line and he has the killer instinct. Isn't that really stretching it, ladies and gentlemen? O.J. Simpson hasn't played football for fifteen years. That man is 46 years old now. He is not going to run with anything any more. But she doesn't know much about sports, does she? Because a running back avoids trying to be hit. That is what he does. The problem with them, they don't block, they always run, they try to get out of the way, so he is not looking for contact. He gets tackled, but running backs don't try to run over anybody, only like maybe Jim Brown or somebody like that. The rest of them run out of bounds. So they grab at everything. The killer instinct? Played football fifteen years ago and he was the best at what he did. He won the Heisman trophy, according to his daughter, the day she was born, emblematic of the best football player award. And so this was brought to you only to give some further factors about who this man is, what limitations, if any. He has to give you a complete picture of who he is. Now we shift our attention to Mr. O.J. Simpson's demeanor, and I want you to examine with me the conduct both before and after June 12th, 1994, and the manner which this man reacted and handled himself. You will remember--and let's start off with the week before. We could have gone further back. You know from the evidence that he travels all the time. He hardly has any time to have any fuse for anything. He is never here. He is always traveling for Hertz, doing something with sports. He is not here. This particular week was typical of the kind of weeks he has it seems. He was here on Monday. On Tuesday he and Paula Barbieri got together and met with this interior designer who had done work on his house before. She brought out he has done some work on that house to change the bathroom around and do some other work. She had a budget and they gave her a check. Now, it is so interesting, isn't it, you change your house or get some work done, Mr. Darden says that is to get Nicole out of the house. Is that stupid? I mean, does that make any sense to you? That is preposterous. The man has moved on with his life. He is having some work done, some interior decorating work done. We have proved that. You can't see the positive side of that? O.J. Simpson, a check for Collins, and Collins, Mary Collins, June 7, $1,000, that was the down payment on the work she was going to do. Again you saw her. You saw her come in. This work was to be done. They wanted to do it. And Paula Barbieri played a role and a great part in that work. After that he was on the road, went back east to play golf with Jack McKay, and you saw Jack McKay, and remember they were golf buddies and it was a Hertz thing--not Hertz but association of retired something or other--played golf, but the most important thing I thought was Mr. McKay indicated--this was the information. Mr. McKay indicated that he observed Mr. Simpson walking and walking with a limp. You will recall that. And then we came to the Carol Connor dinner where Carol Connor observed the magic moment on this Saturday. And then we call witnesses from the family. And just before we take the dinner break, let's talk briefly about these witnesses from the family and what they had to say. The first. We first called Arnelle Simpson, and you saw Arnelle on the stand. Arnelle Simpson, the Defendant's daughter, born the day he won the Heisman trophy. Any daughter would be proud and want to testify for her father. But you saw her on the stand. You had a chance to judge her like you do the other witnesses, to observe her credibility and what she had to tell you. She told you that her father always rushed around.

Told you something about him, too. When she got out of college at Howard University, she wanted to come home, he had a place for her to come home to. You know, children go away and they come back a lot these days. So Kato Kaelin--they make a big thing about Kato Kaelin living there. And I choose to think it says something about O.J. Simpson. He doesn't tell Kato anything. He didn't say I don't want you living with my wife, we are trying to get back together. I suppose a guy could do that if they are trying to get back together. He didn't say that. He said come and live in the guest house. They turned that around to something bad. That is something positive about this man who with such dignity who sat there for all these months, this human being, this Orenthal James Simpson. That tells you something about him. And so his daughter tells you a lot about him. You can tell a lot about a person, I suppose, by their children. That tells you a lot about him. And they are living together and their life together and what he meant about her little brother and sister would come over there in the early morning hours after they were trying to get together in 1994 in May, they would be out by the pool and she would see them, about the kind of life they had together and the dogs that they purchased and the kind of things they did. Maybe a little bit of the other side of what these incidents are they want to talk about in the distant past. The way O.J. Simpson really is and really was. You saw her. You observed her. And she told you how her father reacted when he got the news that his ex-wife had been killed. She told you. She had never before heard her father sound like that, how upset he was, how he lost control of himself, how distraught he was. You heard and you saw her on that stand. That is why we called her, so you would have better understanding, because we knew, I knew there would come a day that Marcia Clark would stand here and say, well, you know, he wouldn't react like he does when somebody gets this information, just like he did yesterday, because what Miss Clark forgot was I examined Detective Phillips. And you look back through your notes. The first thing that O.J. Simpson said to Detective Phillips was, "What do you mean she has been killed?" And then he kept repeating himself and repeating himself, and Phillips, to his credit, said he became very, very upset, kept repeating himself, and Phillips gave the phone to Arnelle Simpson.

So they can make--she can again theorize, fantasize all she wants. Well, he didn't ask, well, it was a car accident? Have you ever had some bad news given to you? There is no book that you go to. The only book you should go to is the bible or your God, whomever you believe in to help get you through it. There is nothing that says how you would handle yourself in those times. These Prosecutors don't understand that. They would stand here and tell you that that is preposterous. This man was upset. And you are going to see at everything he did from that moment that he found out that his ex-wife had been killed was consistent only with innocence absolutely that day. And so Arnelle Simpson helps us in that regard. She is followed to the stand by Carmelita Durio. Sister, loves her brother, but you knew that. She was called to talk about Ron Shipp, one of the witnesses in this case that the Prosecution called. It is interesting, isn't it, that neither one of the Prosecutors wanted to talk about this dream, because I think they are embarrassed by this. They didn't talk about it. They should be embarrassed; a dream. They elicited something about a dream. Was it a daydream? Was a night dream? Was it a nightmare? Was he looking out the window? What does it mean. Even the judge in his instruction says you can totally disregard that. I mean, who knows what that means? It probably doesn't mean anything because Shipp did not tell you the truth. If you listen to Carmelita, if you listen to Shirley, if you listen to Miss Eunice Simpson, Shipp was never alone with O.J. Simpson that night. He was an O.J. want-to-be and bringing police officers over there, still wanted to be a police officer, off the force for whatever reason, drinking that night, drinking in the past, as he said he was. He is not credible and the evidence he brings is so unreliable and so irrelevant that I don't want to spend much of your time with it, but you saw it, you heard it then. I ask you to consider Carmelita, Shirley and Eunice as against Ron Shipp, and I ask who are you going to believe? I think there will be no contest. And so you remember what Miss Eunice Simpson said when she said that he seemed a bit spacey was the way she described it. He was never alone, never talked about any dreams when Shirley went upstairs with her husband. They spent the night with O.J. Simpson. This was a time for family. This is a time where people gathered around. This is the time for people being sad. They sat on the couch with O.J. Simpson holding his mother's hand. You remember that. My mother told me that you could tell a lot about a person about how they treat their mother. You probably have heard that, too. And your mother is the one who always comes for you and to you in times of tragedy and stress. True to those words, there was Eunice Simpson, as she is this very day, right there by her son's side sitting on that couch. Who are you going to believe? Eunice Simpson or Ron Shipp, this want-to-be? I submit that you are going to believe Eunice Simpson. She knows her boy. He knows his mother. And then each of these witnesses who dealt with O.J. Simpson--and let me just quickly come to it and we will get a logical breaking point so you can get to your dinner--Allan Park who she places such great credence in found O.J. Simpson to be--his demeanor to be normal. He never met him before. He was a normal guy. He was glad to be carrying O.J. Simpson around. The only thing that he said was interesting, he said it was hot. O.J. Simpson himself said he was hot in the back of the car.

And I thought about this today and this morning when I was rushing around trying to get dressed and come to court today to look forward to seeing you all again, for another year and a day. I took a shower and I was trying to get dressed and I kept sweating. I kept sweating. And I thought about how that applies to this case, because you know, we talk about common sense. Do you ever rush around and take a shower and you are sweating? O.J. Simpson always rushes around, according to his daughter, according to Gigi. Those are the kind of common sense things we know. And so when we come back this afternoon we are going to talk about Kato Kaelin and how he found O.J. Simpson to be the same O.J. Simpson and we are going to talk about a range of people who see this man from eleven o'clock until the next morning until he comes back. We will take them one at a time, but they all have one thing in common, it is O.J. Simpson and he is acting normally, he is himself, not acting, and I think that I think is probably best, and there are a number of good witnesses in that regard. But Howard Bingham is a well-known person around here and let me end on this point. Howard Bingham gets on the plane--and he was funny because he was in coach and he wanted to try to explain that to you, why he was sitting back there in coach, and O.J. was in first class and he sees O.J. and he rushes up there to say hello to him when the plane takes off, remember? I asked him how did O.J. Simpson seem to you? He said it was the same O.J. I have always seen and known. And so rhetorically I ask you again, Howard Bingham in this area for years, known O.J. for years. Who do you think knows O.J. Simpson better? Howard Bingham or Marcia Clark and Chris Darden? When we come back, we will answer that question. Thank you.