Okay. Mr. Cochran, you may continue with your closing argument.

Thank you, your Honor. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good evening.

I'm glad you all came back. I appreciate that. Oh, I guess so. Now, where were we when we left off? We were talking about demeanor, Mr. Simpson's demeanor, and I think I posed a question with you just before we took our break about Howard Bingham, the photographer, who testified here, and I asked you the question, rhetorical question about who would know O.J. Simpson the better, his mood and how he appeared on this night; the Prosecutors or Mr. Bingham, who knew him for such a long time. It was a serious question because the Prosecutors I presume never met Mr. Simpson before we started this process. So I think it would be relevant for you to know about how somebody who knew him over a period of time saw him on that particular day, especially when they go into their doctor mode and they use terms like "Post-homicidal conduct." There's been no testimony in this case at all about post-homicidal conduct and about demeanor or how anybody acts in post-homicidal conduct. That again is more speculation. What we did in this case, we tried to call for you a number of witnesses who I think bear on this issue of demeanor, which it seems to us is totally relevant. For one thing, it totally rebuts this specious theory about any kind of a fuse or any rage that you've seen. We've done that. We've shared that with you already. And in the course of wrapping that up, keep in mind that both Kato Kaelin and Allan Park fall into the category of demeanor witnesses who place Mr. Simpson's demeanor as being entirely appropriate. And these are people's witnesses. So it doesn't matter whether we call the witnesses or they do. If you are in a search for truth, you look and see if there's a common thread of truth that runs throughout these witnesses. And I think we found that. Now, one of the things that I wanted to share with you, yesterday, Miss Clark in her argument tried to indicate something to the effect that Mr. Simpson didn't want Kato Kaelin I believe to spend time with him or something to that nature, as though he wanted to get rid of Kato Kaelin. It was part of her theory there. And I went back and looked at the testimony. At 19854, Miss Clark herself, when questioning Kato Kaelin: "When you got to that location, what did you do? "When I got to the door, yes, I turned. "Okay. What did you see? "O.J. "And where was he? "At the driver's side door of the rolls. "Did you say anything to him? "No. "What did you do? "I looked and said, `I'll eat in my room.'"

Then he went off to eat in his room. But there was--further on, it says: "Did you have any conversation with Mr. Simpson?" The answer was no. "And he said nothing to you? "No." So I think that was important to understand and put that record straight. But there was no discussion about whether Kato would go in the house with Mr. Simpson or whatever. They didn't talk. Kato went back to his room. Simpson was still out at his Bentley presumably trying to get ready to, you know, go on this trip which was long-planned. There had been some mention earlier of an argument at a Christmas party, and I wanted to again try and set the record straight before we went on with demeanor because I pulled up Kato Kaelin's testimony again. And what he says was that after--"Question: Did everybody go home together?

"Answer: Yes. "Everybody celebrate Christmas eve back at home? "Answer: At Rockingham, yes. "Question: Nicole, O.J. and the kids? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And yourself? "Answer: And Arnelle and Jason.

"Question: Whole family? "Yes." Now, what is it they tell you? There was an argument at the Jenner's and they don't tell you what the mood was. The testimony was, they left the Jenner's to go back home because it was Christmas eve and they all celebrated Christmas eve together. You've got to have the whole picture. Don't you think that seems reasonable? And there was some question about the flashlight, and here's what Kato Kaelin had to say about that, where he says:

"Then I said, `O.J., do we have a better flashlight?' and, umm, when I told him about the noise, he was going to take one way, I was going to go another way. But that is when I said, `we have this lousy flashlight. We need another one.'"

And so he was going to go inside and check. And then they went in the house. He followed behind. And then that's when Mr. Simpson had to then leave for the airport. So I think that again, I want to--I promised you I would always try to read the actual testimony to make it as clear as I could about where we were. Let me cut through a few housekeeping things before we get directly into the demeanor aspect. Miss Clark yesterday had made a number of points about phone calls and boards to Paula Barbieri. And you will recall we saw a number 305, which I think is in the Miami area code, and I think the evidence is that's a cell phone of some kind. And certainly if you call that phone number out here, you can reach people on a cell phone, and I find nothing unusual about that in regard to the calls that were made.

We--there also was some discussion about what Dr. Baden had to say about these cuts or cut on Mr. Simpson's hand. You'll recall that Brian Kelberg came back down here again and he asked some questions of Dr. Baden. I tried to pull up this testimony so I'd have it clear about when Mr. Simpson had gone to the Bronco to get the portable phone, when he went back to the Bronco apparently to get the paraphernalia and that phone and try to piece together as to when he got a small cut on his hand, not any large fishhook cut, which I think was clear from the evidence, at what point he may have bled inside that Bronco and/or may not have known that. So we read Baden--and this is at page 41182, question by Mr. Kelberg I believe. "What, if anything, did Mr. Simpson have to say as to the manner when he got cuts?

"Answer: That he recalled some blood after trying to retrieve his phone or some material from the Bronco, from a car, from a car that he had his phone. I think it was the Bronco, that he had gone to the Bronco to get something and may have somehow cut himself while getting stuff, stuff from the Bronco to bring with him to Chicago." Well, I think that it's important to tie this in with the fact that remember, Kato Kaelin and I think even Allan Park indicated that by the time they were there, Mr. Simpson finally came down the stairs, that when he left, there were bags already down. Certainly the golf bag, the other bag--bags already out there. He had been outside in that yard and apparently, according to Miss Clark's testimony, been at some point out to the Bronco and at some point he'd gotten this phone, this portable phone. We know he had gotten it because he made a phone call on that phone by 10:00 o'clock or by 10:03.

The car wasn't moving. This is a portable phone. And remember, I asked Gigi Guarin were there any portable phones inside that house. The testimony is, there were none. So there was no wireless telephone at Rockingham. So I think the testimony is and the reasonable inference is that Mr. Simpson made that phone call from that location to her cell phone number, 305 area code. Then once we--they left. As I told you, they left with Park. We know that was around 11:02. So now Mr. Simpson is in the car and you know how Park describes O.J. Simpson, nothing out of the ordinary. He says he's hot, but that's nothing unusual. And then Mr. Simpson gets to the airport. You remember those two young men who came in, Michael Norris and Michael Gladden. And these are the two airport couriers who were parked at the curb there, and one of them, Gladden, wanted to get Mr. Simpson's autograph. You'll recall that. And so even though Mr. Simpson was rushed and trying to get to the plane or whatever, he stopped and he gave his, "O.J. Simpson, peace to you." That was a signature that he gave at about, I think the testimony was, 11:20, 11:25 that particular night on June 12th. That was the testimony of Gladden.

Remember, they described O.J. Simpson as being kind of like a model or some kind of a poster boy for these jeans or whatever he had on. I think the way they described it, they felt he was dressed very neatly, looked very clean as the way they described him. And he was very approachable. He put some luggage down, then turned around and forgot about the autograph, then gave the autograph. You recall that? It was very interesting because Miss Clark said yesterday something to the effect, well, Mr. Simpson didn't put on his socks because he left his socks at home. Now, that was one of the most interesting things she said. You've been in this man's closet. You think that O.J. Simpson has one pair of socks? I don't think so. I think you saw his closet. You saw the clothes, the way they were lined up and the way they were. In fact, remember I asked the witness a question, is it trendy, is it fashionable that a lot of people in that part of town don't wear socks when they get dressed up to go out? They said, yes, that's fashionable. That's what happened. O.J. Simpson has lots of socks. And the evidence is--and it is so interesting, isn't it, because under the Prosecution's theory, if you do follow their theory, you're asked to believe that Mr. Simpson is in sweats and tennis shoes and I presume tennis socks, that he gets this urge to go and kill his wife and he takes off his tennis shoes and his tennis socks and puts on some dress socks and dress shoes--doesn't make any sense, does it--but keeps on his sweat clothes according to them. That's how preposterous their theory is in trying to make things fit, and you're going to see and you're going to understand that even better when we talk about these socks. So as O.J. Simpson then gets on the plane--and it was interesting because not only did he deal with Norris and Gladden, but he had an interesting man in the first class across from Steve Valerie. You saw Valerie, the young man who for pretty much most of that flight watched O.J. Simpson. Mr. Douglas, what's that number, sir?

1245.

1245. Just give you some idea of this plane. We talked earlier about Bingham. And remember, Valerie was right across from O.J. Simpson as he sat up there in the fourth seat or something like that, and he watched him and noticed him and described for you Mr. Simpson's demeanor. He looked at O.J. Simpson's hands.

That was really one of the important things about it because, again, when Miss Clark, who was Dr. Clark in this regard, talked to you about these--this cut or whatever, she was describing how a little cut won't make this amount of blood, but this large cut. By all of the witnesses who didn't know each other, O.J. Simpson did not have this fishhook cut on his hand when he went to Chicago. That's unanimous, all the witnesses. You heard them. You saw them. Further, you heard the testimony of Drs. Huizenga and Baden who said this is not consistent with a knife. It's consistent with some kind of glass cut because it's raggedy, it is jagged. You remember that. You remember the testimony, and we can prove it further by witnesses who saw him before he was in that room in Chicago and witnesses who saw him after. And we'll talk about that. So on the plane was Bingham, and then we had the pilot on the plane. And the pilot who was flying the plane came back and asked Mr. Simpson to autograph the log book, which he did, and I think we have a photograph of that. Again, you saw pilot Stanfield who described how Mr. Simpson was seated there reading a book, a light shining down on him, not trying to hide from anybody, not anything. He was sitting there reading his book, looked up, talked to the pilot and gave his autograph and they both continued on with their business. Then he gets to Chicago and he lands and he deals with Jim Merrill, the Hertz driver. You'll recall him. The Hertz driver describes the number of bags that Mr. Simpson has, the luggage when he arrives. He describes the duffel bag, the light duffel bag, the garment bag with "OJS," the golf bag, Louis Vuitton bag. All those bags are described by Merrill. Then, of course, you remember we talked about the knapsack bag, which we think logically had golf balls in it, was inside the golf bag. So Merrill watched O.J. in the luggage area meet with some--I think he said 20 different fans while waiting for his luggage. Merrill says that he was friendly, relaxed and he saw no noticeable cuts on his hands. That's what Jim Merrill told you. That was his testimony. So we brought him here from Chicago to testify in that regard. Now, I want you to contrast Mr. Simpson's demeanor and behavior after he goes to this hotel room in Chicago. After he learns of his ex-wife's death, everybody is consistent. Again, these witnesses don't know this person. He was emotional, concerned with the cut finger. Dave Kilduff--Mr. Simpson gets the call--and here's where I want you to think with me for a moment. I want you to look at how he reacts to this information. I've already covered how his daughter describes him. She's never heard him like this before. He immediately gets plane reservations to come back to Los Angeles. He's then trying to get back, trying to leave this hotel. It's early in the morning, trying to get back to Los Angeles on the first thing flying. He's trying to get somebody to take him back to the airport. He's there to play in a golf tournament that day. Obviously, that's never going to happen. So we know that Dave Kilduff, the Hertz manager, drove Mr. Simpson to the airport. And how he described--now, this is the first witness--O.J. Simpson's finger is bleeding, this fishhook cut, this cut that he got in that room when that broken glass was there. But the Prosecutors then with a cynical view said, well, that couldn't happen. Dr. Baden says in talking to Mr. Simpson, he got that cut when he brushed this glass into the sink. It's entirely consistent. Doctors deal with cuts, and they say this is consistent with a glass cut. Kilduff says that O.J. Simpson is crying and he's upset. He finally makes the plane. And I think it's important to note that when he makes the plane, he sits next to--I think in seat 9--to a lawyer by the name of Mark Partridge just fortuitous. And I thought very interesting about this man, Partridge. Remember, he's the man who was a patent lawyer who had gone to Harvard. And he observed O.J. Simpson on this flight back. He saw him make these phone calls. He saw his emotional state. He saw him trying to gather information. He saw his finger. He saw the Band-Aid that he had that came off. He saw that it was cut. You saw his testimony. These were all citizens, time line witnesses, like you or I who were brought here pursuant to a subpoena. They didn't ask to be here. They didn't volunteer, but they had relevant information about what had taken place and what had happened. So it seems to me that we in our search for justice, in our journey toward the city of justice, must take these witnesses seriously. But you understand with the power of the state, the Prosecution had an equal access to all these witnesses, but they didn't call them. They didn't call them because they didn't fit. They didn't fit and they didn't want to hear. So the Prosecutors decided to attack.

And you'll remember how these witnesses generally were treated. I thought Partridge was treated especially bad. Here's a man who was so concerned about no one stealing his notes--he wrote notes about what took place--not to publish them. He's a patent lawyer. So he understood. He put his name on the side of the margin to write down his notes because he knew it would be important. When he said he knew this would be important and he sent those notes to the Prosecution and to the Defense, he said, "I'm just a witness here. This is what I saw. Can I be of some help," they chose not to call him. They chose to attack him as though he had like something to hide. In fact, remember Miss Clark standing and saying something to the effect, well, you know how busy the LAPD was, maybe they wouldn't have time to respond to you. Well, maybe not, but this is an important witness. That was the only person in the world who sat next to O.J. Simpson on a flight back from Chicago with everything he was doing, continues to do is consistent with innocence. They didn't want to hear it. But we brought this again for you to hear. And I ask you to judge this witness as you do all the others. You remember Mark Partridge, and I think you will. Remember, it was unfair to attack a witness, a citizen witness, who seemed to be totally objective and careful. And there was Ken Berris, the police officer in Chicago. Miss Clark talked about him coming out here, but we brought him out here. We brought Ken Berris out here. He was the police officer who maybe three hours after O.J. Simpson left that room went in that room at the O'Hare Plaza was it 11:00 o'clock or thereabouts I think he said he went in the room, and he found the glass, he found the doily, he found the towel, he found the bedding because the maids had not done anything with regard to that room. He found this broken glass. And the evidence is, contrary to what the Prosecutor will try to tell you, is that this glass is consistent with O.J. Simpson cutting his hand on it, and this is the cut, is the fishhook cut. Now, you characterize witnesses like Kato Kaelin and Partridge, Denise Pilnak and some others who felt the wrath of the Prosecution, and you have to ask yourself why, in a search for truth, why did that happen. Then Mr. Simpson returns back from Chicago, and this was very interesting. And you will recall--because officer Don Thompson saw somebody looking at him. He's a very, very impressive big fellow. He's about six foot seven or eight. He's a big guy. Remember him, he's the officer who is very interesting and very honest because he said that immediately upon Mr. Simpson coming back to Rockingham at 12:00 noon now on June 13th, what happens? Vannatter had told him to hook him up. Let's see that if we can. I'll give you a number in a minute, your Honor

1250.

You'll recognize Officer Thompson and Mr. Simpson as he grabbed hold of him at that moment.

You'll recall that Officer Thompson had testified how he had been told by Vannatter to hook him up or handcuff him. He grabbed him by the arms as he went in there. And you'll recall the photograph. I believe that's Thompson there in the background--in the foreground. I thought Mr. Harris had that. But at any rate, you'll recall Mr. Simpson was standing over under a tree, and he handcuffed him until the lawyer Howard Weitzman came. You recall that because we saw that during the trial. That's Mr. Howard Weitzman, a lawyer, he's talking to Mr. Simpson. See that? Mr. Simpson's--I think Vannatter is going over to him and taking the handcuffs off I believe as the conversation goes on with Howard Weitzman.

All right. He's not handcuffed at this point. Thank you. That was no. 1250, was it?

That was 527.

527. 1250, your Honor. The point of that was, we have said and I told you at the beginning and I told you in opening statement and told you again today, this was a rush to judgment. At 12:00 o'clock on June 13th, Vannatter told Thompson to handcuff O.J. Simpson or to hook him up. Vannatter lied about that because he said in his testimony he never told him that. Thompson was very clear that he told him. He didn't do that on his own. But it shows this rush to judgment. Vannatter did not want to admit that and never did. We will talk more about him when we discuss the officers together. But it seems to me the important thing for us to remember is that after this video, Mr. Simpson you'll recall is on his way downtown in a vehicle with Vannatter and Lange. You remember Howard Weitzman talks to Vannatter, Simpson gets in the car with the police in the back, goes downtown without either his business lawyer or Howard Weitzman, rides with the police. We know, according to the testimony in this case, he talks with Vannatter and Lange once he gets down there. I think we asked both of them about this conversation. We heard nothing else about this conversation. He has no lawyer in there with him. He has no lawyer in the car when he goes downtown. After he makes this statement to the police, which we haven't heard, he then gives a blood sample sometime around 2:00 o'clock or whatever that afternoon on the 13th. He voluntarily gives this blood sample. He then has a photograph taken of a cut on his finger. There's no lawyer present during all of that. The lawyers are someplace else at that point. So Simpson is dealing with this himself because he wants to clear this up. He's innocent. He wants to get it over with. Everything, everything this man does is consistent with innocence. He finds out, he gets the first thing smoking, he comes back here, he goes right to his residence, he talks to the police, he goes downtown with the police, he goes in a room with the police, he has his finger photographed, he gives blood. His lawyers are off someplace else. That's what this man did on June 13th. They weren't there then. That's what he did, consistent with innocence. They want to talk about luggage. The testimony again of this honest Police Officer Thompson is that they wouldn't let O.J. Simpson's luggage on the premises. They talk about Bob Kardashian. They smear Bob Kardashian, good, successful businessman and friend. He can't come on the premises. They have to take the luggage away. Now, these people have search warrants. They can do whatever they want to do at that point. They have the power of the state, and they have the audacity to stand here and tell you that when retired Judge Delbert Wong brings the Louis Vuitton bag months and months later, there's no clothes in it? Now, is that folly? They're not supposed to unpack it? That is silly. I shouldn't waste my time on it, but that's what was said here. You heard it. They are the ones who turned away the luggage. So you remember that when they stand up here and try to talk to you about the luggage and they didn't have it or what was in the luggage or what was--brought the luggage back. And if he didn't have, by the way, that portable phone in his luggage, you'd hear about that also. So understand, we're going to talk about the facts, not any speculation. So what more then could an innocent man do? We've talked briefly about the cut or cuts on O.J. Simpson's hand. It's interesting, isn't it, because the one cut--and these officers were there with their photographer, take a photograph of this cut. Remember in those other pictures, there was a cut on the side of his finger here (Indicating), a nick or something like that, looked like a paper cut I think they said. And it's interesting because if that cut had been there June 13th at 2:00 o'clock or whatever time they took it, don't you think the police would have taken a photograph of that? They didn't. It probably wasn't there at that point. So it's very interesting. This is the only cut they got, but we know he nicked himself in several places according to what he told Dr. Michael Baden. Miss Clark makes a big thing about some smear or some little tiny smear of blood in the bathroom upstairs. O.J. Simpson had been back home since Friday, shaved, whatever. I don't know when it got there. He didn't know when it got there. Doesn't it strike you as strange that under her hypothesis, under her theory, he comes back home with these bloody shoes on, bloody clothes with this white carpet, goes upstairs, no blood anywhere, a little tiny speck in the bathroom? Does that seem to you to be reasonable or rational or related to this case? One thing about blood spots, you can never date them, can never tell generally how old they are. Another thing that doesn't fit, the fingerprints. They didn't call them, but we called Gilbert Aguilar. You remember that. He's the fingerprint expert. He examined and dusted and found 17 latent prints that he was able to lift at Bundy, the crime scene, the gate, the fence, the front door. He was able to identify eight of the prints after comparing the known exemplars of the known ones being the police officers, people you might expect around there. But there were nine identifiable prints that were never identified. Remember, I asked about these various systems that you can put the prints in. It doesn't work for palms, but it works for prints. "What efforts did you take to try to find out who do these nine identifiable prints belong to?" To this day, we don't know. Are those the prints of the real killers? We will never know. They have not found those prints. We brought this witness in for you. We established this for you.

The fingernail scrapings. Mr. Scheck will talk more about this, this EAP B. But remember, there's no literature to justify how they want to contort and twist it. This double banded b is more like a b than anything they can ever justify. And it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit in their case, so they can't explain it. Like the number 4 allele on the steering column, there's no number 4's in this case. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. They don't and they cannot explain that. Dr. Irwin Golden, the missing Coroner. This man was trashed by his own department--it was brutal--by his own boss. And if he thinks he was going to be treated any better, remember how Kelberg dismissed him at the end? He said, "By the way, the next time you come and testify, learn how to speak slower." That was his last remarks to a man--you look at your notes--his last remarks to a man he kept on this stand for eight days to tell us that the cause of death was stabbing, the time of death was between 9:00 and 12:00, that it could have been a single-edged, a double-edged knife. That's how they treated their own witness they kept here, the Coroner of Los Angeles County. But they didn't call Dr. Golden. Why not? Why is that? Why are we left to speculate about that? They didn't like his testimony. He couldn't help them is the more logical and reasonable inference, isn't it? Whenever there's a witness that they couldn't fit within their little theory, they abandon him and talk bad about him. A rush to judgment. Detective Phillips at the very, very beginning of this case--remember I had Phillips as a witness. He's a nice man, and I quote him when he said--remember when he called the Coroner after all these hours, after all these hours out there? Now, remember, he's off the case by then too because, you know, LAPD robbery-homicide division has taken over. They find that out at 2:00 something in the morning, remember, and they wait for Lange and Vannatter to come until after 4:00 something. Here's Phillips still out there now. They're over at Bundy and they call the Coroner. It's like eight hours later now as I recall. What does he say in a little tape I think that we may have? He says I think, quote, "We're sort of breaking the rules here." They're worried about how they are going to look. They're worried about the press more than they're worried about these bodies that are still out there, more than they're worried about people traipsing through that crime scene, more than they're worried about trying to protect the innocent and pursue the guilty, which they should be doing, which they're required to do under the law, notify the Coroner immediately.

Was sort of breaking the rules not calling the criminalist. This is in the early morning hours. You remember that. Look at your notes. It's like 8:00 o'clock or so, isn't it? 6:00 o'clock. Now, it's 8:00 o'clock because they're back at Rockingham. It's 8:00 o'clock in the morning now. The bodies were found by Riske at 12:13. The Coroner didn't come until about 10:00 o'clock. Remember that. Fung, when he does come, goes to Rockingham before he goes to Bundy, sort of not following the rules. That's what this case is all about, not following the rules. They're more worried about vanity and things like that, not about these victims. We can demand more and should demand more of our police and it does become very relevant. I'll tie it in with this, so let me make it clear. We heard yesterday some snide comment about, oh, we had the best witnesses that money could buy or something like that in this case. Consider Dr. Henry Lee. By all accounts, the number one criminalist in America, probably in the world. He didn't take any money. The money for his time that O.J. Simpson had to pay went to the state of Connecticut to help the police and police fund. You heard that testimony. So it's a real, real unfortunate thing when lawyers stand here and demean people with national, wonderful reputations who come in here who get compensated only for their time. The only ones not being compensated for their time here are you, and we apologize for that. But these other witnesses, the law allows them to be paid for their time out of their offices. You heard that. They're not doing this to make money to be subjected to this, be on television every day, have people probing into your private lives. Nobody wants that. It's not any fun for any of these people. It's certainly not right to stand here and say things like that. Those aren't the facts at all as you know them. Earlier I said that there had been an offer that Drs. Lee and Baden and Wolf would assist the Prosecution. They did not accept it, but they were out here at least to the extent they were allowed to do things. You'll hear more about the testimony of Henry Lee on that. You remember how he rushed into this thing, when he came back from Seattle, how he was treated. That's the only time he seemed to be a little bit upset. He rushed back here from Seattle, and how they treated him, this Los Angeles Police Department. That's how they treated the number one criminalist in the world in their search for truth. Then Detective Lange. Lange is different than these other detectives and things. You saw Lange for about seven or eight days. Lange is different. He made mistakes. He has misstatements as you're going to see, but he was different. Remember that one day--and I'll tell you how you can characterize and understand he's different. It's very interesting. He's been on the stand for seven or eight days. One day he came in, he was a little different. He was a little more testy. And I asked him, I said, "Detective Lange, there's an article in the paper today"--

Objection, your Honor.

Overruled. It's in the record.

"There's an article in the paper today where Mr. Darden said that you're being too nice in answering my questions. Are you going to be tougher now? You know about that, don't you?" "No, Mr. Cochran. I'm just telling you the way it is regardless." No matter how you asked this man a question or what anybody would want him to say, he seemed to try to answer the best he could. Now, we don't always agree with everything he did, but it was refreshing to have somebody like that who wouldn't be told by these Prosecutors or anybody else what to say or what to do even when he's criticized in the paper. That was Lange. But I said I didn't always agree with him because I asked him--I said when Riske said about that melting ice cream--now, we're not Henry Lee, not by a long shot. But it seemed to me that if there were ice cream that was still melting or partially melted at 12:40 when Riske saw it--and that's Riske's testimony, partially melted ice cream at 12:40--if they don't bother picking up--and that ice cream, remember when you were at Bundy, that ice cream is when you go down those steps, and it's on that little banister there as you're going out in the garage. Might mean that Nicole Brown Simpson went down there and was letting somebody out who had been there earlier that evening. We'll never know. When they saw all those candles lit around the bathtub and water in the bathtub, we'll never know because they didn't bother to check. They were too worried about how they would look notifying and worrying about the press. We'll never know. They said the ice cream wasn't important, but it was important enough if they had--and this is the evidence--they had an ice cream melting test. Remember, I asked Lange about this again. Lange's experiment showed that this ice cream--went back to Ben and Jerry's. It was Ben and Jerry's ice cream, remember that? It melted in an hour and 15 minutes. It should be totally melted by that time frame. If you extrapolate backwards, if Riske finds the ice cream at 12:40 and is partially melted, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let's say it all had melted. If you went back an hour and 15 minutes, that's 11:25. Now, if the children are asleep, Nicole is the one eating ice cream. That seems important to us. Maybe not to them. That seems important. That's another bit of evidence. When you cannot, because of negligence and incompetence, determine the cause of death, you have to look at other things. Isn't that reasonable? Those are the facts, ladies and gentlemen. That's what happened in this case. They tell you it's not important. We think that is important. Another factor. Remember that photograph in the kitchen? There was a butcher knife on the table and you see some flowers there. It seems to me that when they came home, the butcher knife was used to cut whatever was off the flowers, if it was string or some rubber band, to place those flowers in a vase or whatever in that kitchen.

You look at those photographs when you get a chance. I'm always intrigued about the things they didn't do in this case. Even Riske who said--and his candor was refreshing. "Have you had any training in crime scenes?" He said they kind of glossed over that at the academy. Remember he said that. I could have fallen over when he said that. They glossed over training in crime scenes at the academy. And, boy, was that ever more true. The first officer on the scene told us that. We knew that right early on, didn't we? It's nothing we made up. It's not about being anti-police. You saw the police you could believe and you now know the ones you can't believe. And anybody, anybody who believes that all police are perfect, that they don't lie, that they don't have the same biases and racism that the rest of society has, then they're living in a dream world. So this is not for the faint of heart. This is not for the timid. As I said, this is for the courageous who understand what the constitution is all about. That's what we're talking about here. And so let's look at it. Riske, the very outset, in addition, he doesn't get any training, but goes in the house, the first thing he does, he picks up the phone and uses it. I said, "Well, didn't you think that might mark some fingerprints or if it had one of those numbers where you could get the last number called, wouldn't that be important? Well, did you think about that?" Well, he didn't think about that. "Did you think about the fact that, you know, you shouldn't be touching that phone? And you have a rover. You have something on your hip, some way to call. You could have used those portable phones that Phillips had with all those private numbers on it." He could have done all these things. He didn't use any of those things. He walked in there. And then, "You didn't notice that on that phone in the kitchen, when they're looking so hard for Mr. Simpson, that there's a speed dialer that you press a button and it says, dad, and it says Nanna and it says all the people? If they wanted to notify the next of kin, they call, press the button." They could have called, but not these investigators. They didn't think about doing that. Too busy to hatch a plan, standing around in the street doing nothing from 2:00 to 4:30. These are facts. This is what you heard. This is this case, so-called trial of the century. This is how they conducted themselves. Then we come to those socks. Those socks. They just don't fit. They just don't fit. They just don't fit.

Watch with me now a video. I want you to watch the time counter in this time frame, and you'll understand how important this is.

1068, your Honor.

Now, where it says 3:13 P.M., Mr. Willie Ford says--all right. Back it up, please. This is Mr. Willie Ford going up into the bedroom. It's 3:13 where he says it's 4:14 because it hadn't been changed. It's 4:13 P.M. on June 13th, 1994. Okay. Thank you, your Honor. You look at the foot of the bed there where the socks are supposed to be. You'll see no socks in this video. And you'll recall that Mr. Willie Ford testified about this. And I asked him, "Well, where are the socks, Mr. Ford?" "I didn't see any socks." So now, that's interesting, isn't it? At 4:13 on June 13th, 1994, these socks are supposedly recovered, these mysterious socks, these socks that no one sees any blood on until August 4th all of a sudden, these socks that are picked up that Luper says he picks them up because they look out of place. "I don't see any reason to pick them up. I'll just take these socks because they look out of place." The only items that they took out of that place on that date is Lange. Lange takes the Reebok tennis shoes, the ones that he takes home. You remember that. That's all they really take because they don't come back until the 28th before they get that one brown glove. But these socks will be their undoing. It just doesn't fit. None of you can deny there are no socks at the foot of that bed 4:30 P.M. where then are the socks? Where are these socks, this important piece of evidence? Well, let me show you something. This board here was a board used by Dr. Henry Lee. This is interesting. Bear with me for a moment as you look at this.

Is this 1352?

52.

Thank you.

In this photograph here, the one on the left, your Honor, if you'll notice, the socks are at the foot of the bed. If you look close at this photograph, you'll see there's no little white card there. You notice how they put these little evidence cards there when they're going to collect something. No little white card on this photograph here. And this is interesting, because you see these straps on the bed. Now, Luper told us when he testified, these straps were like--he called them some kind of luggage straps. And these luggage straps are down at this point, aren't they? See how they're down? No evidence card and the socks are there. We come over to this photograph here. Notice how the strap is now up on the bed? No longer hanging down anymore. It's been moved up. And Luper says that's when he looks under this bed and he sees that photograph. By the way, how wrong can they continue to be? That's no wedding photograph. That's no wedding. That's a photograph they took at some formal event. You look at that photograph and see. That's how they speculate. And most times, they've been wrong. But this is interesting. The strap is now up on the bed. And you look at the socks. Now it's been posed for you. Here is this no. 13 out here with these socks. Now, you look back at that video, and you'll have it. You'll notice that the video has the strap down. So the video is at a time before this card was placed, before the strap is up, before this is about to be collected. Now, isn't that strange, because at 4:13, there are no socks there. Now, how do we tie all this together? Do you remember, Fung and Mazzola have a log. And on their log, they tell when they collected things. They tell us that they collected the blood in the foyer at 4:30, that they then came upstairs, that they collect--here it is as we speak.

1091, your Honor.

Thank you.

Can you move it over a little bit, Mr. Harris? Now, you see this where they collected things sequentially and they kept this log. And I think that you'll remember the testimony that at 4:30, they collected the blood in the foyer. Remember that? Let me see if I can point that out for you. In the foyer, red stain. And there's testimony--they testified 4:30. 1630 is 4:30. This is--well, this is at least 17 minutes after Mr. Ford is up there with that camera where there are no socks, right? So 1630, right there. They're downstairs. Then they say they go upstairs and they leave this time blank. But at 1640, they go and they look at this little red spot in the bathroom. Remember that? And they say in their testimony that the socks are collected between 1630 and 1640. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt, 1635. How could the socks be there at 4:35 when you just saw they're not there at 4:13? Who's fooling whom here? Setting this man up, and you can see it with your own eyes. You're not naive. Nobody is foolish here. Then they forget about this little strap exercise and they're posing stuff here. They move this off the bed, move this under the bed. They're going to make a big thing about this photograph under the bed. Then they put this number down here and they take these pictures for you later. But they didn't know that we would know or find out about Mr. Ford's video. So they took that video--you know, we talked about this early on. LAPD should always take videos of everything at that crime scene. They don't do that. But they took this video not because they wanted to help Mr. Simpson. If anything was missing or got broken, this was a civil liability video. Remember, they were going around taking photographs of things that might be missing of whatever if there was ever a suit later on.

But they got hoisted by their own petard again because the video has the counter and the number. They will never, ever be able to explain that to you because we've got the testimony in black and white as when they went upstairs and collected them. Those socks from the beginning is going to bring them down. So those are the socks, these socks. No dirt, no soil, no berries, no trace. Nobody sees any blood until August 4th. All these miraculous things start happening, and then--Mr. Scheck will talk more about this. Then we find out it has EDTA in it. Is it planted along with that back gate? How would it be on there? Why didn't they see the blood before that? There's a big fight here. Where is the dirt? Why would Mr. Simpson have on these kind of socks with a sweat outfit? Wait a minute. Now, you don't have to be like from the fashion police to know that. You don't wear those kinds of socks. You wear those kind of socks with a suit. You don't wear those kind of socks with a sweat outfit. Doesn't it make sense to you that those socks were in that hamper from Saturday night when Mr. Simpson went to that formal event? Those kind of socks is what you wear with your tuxedo when he was dressed with those other ladies. They went and took it out of the hamper and staged it there, and you see what happened. Is that not reasonable under these facts? I think you'll agree it is. It's the only reasonable explanation. It's posed there. And the reason for doing this is because they were out of place. But isn't that interesting, in the hamper in which Luper went and they all went, they didn't take anything else? You'd think the police would ask Mr. Simpson, "What were you wearing? In addition to the suit, what were you wearing that night?" They didn't take one thing. Yet we hear all this talk about, I wonder where the clothes went, I wonder where the clothes went. You'd think Mr. Simpson, who told them everything, cooperated with them fully, told them, like he told them about those shoes, what he was wearing. They didn't bother collecting those, did they? No towels, no nothing. She's worried about him taking this quick shower. If he took a shower, there's so much blood, he's covered with blood, why didn't they bring the towels in here? Something is wrong in this case. It just doesn't fit. When it doesn't fit, you must acquit. So the socks--I could talk about these socks forever, but I'm not going to do that because Mr. Scheck will talk about the forensic aspect of it. But let me just remind you of two quick more things. Dr. Herbert MacDonell came in here and he told you there was no splatter or spatter on these socks. These socks had compression transfer, and he used his hands to show you somebody took those socks and they put something on them and it went all the way through to side 3. Now, with all their experts bringing people back three, four times, they never had anybody to contravene that. How did that get over to side 3? How did it get over there? It wouldn't get there if there was a leg in the sock. Can anybody explain that? Can any of you explain that? Maybe Miss Clark can explain that. Experts can't explain it. Something is wrong. Then finally the EDTA which indicates the anticoagulant from a purple top tube is where that blood is from. The socks, as you know, are something that you want to get emotional about because we've known about these socks for some time. This is to say the least disturbing. It's worse than that though. In my opening statement, I told you about evidence that would be compromised, contaminated and corrupted and I told you something then. I said in this case, there's something even far more sinister. The socks are one example of that. Now, if you want to be fair deciding this case, you've got to deal with these socks. You'll get a chance to see them. Look for the dirt that you expect on them. Look for the spatter that you expect on them. Look and see why it went over to side 3. There's a leg in it. Now, isn't it interesting how you get this blood on this sock with your pants? Your pants have to be almost up. This would take a real contortion to do it. There's no way they could explain it. So let's just leave it where it is and Mr. Scheck will pick up on that. Then we've heard a lot about the so-called blood in the Bronco. Now, I want to tell you, I'm not anything like a scientist. In fact, when my mother and my father wanted me to become a doctor, I didn't because I wasn't that good in science. So I became a lawyer so I could talk. But let me tell you something. Even I know about amounts of blood, especially after this case. They tell you about all this blood in the Bronco. And you remember one of the early witnesses testified the total amount of blood on this console--on this console is .07 of drop of blood. Now, that's supposedly a mixture of Goldman and someone else.

Now, this is--I'm going to do a little Henry Lee experiment and I hope that it doesn't cause any--cause you any problems. Now, .07 of a drop--

Excuse me, Mr. Douglas. You are going to have to take this down.

This here, your Honor? .07 of a drop (Demonstrating), not even that much is the amount the testimony in this case is of the alleged blood on that console. Now, this is an amazing thing because you remember, this is the vehicle, in addition to everything else they did in this case, that's picked up, is towed away from Rockingham. You've all seen that photograph. It's taken over and ultimately ends up at Viertel's. Remember Blauzini, Willie Blauzini? Before we got to Blauzini, we dealt with John Meraz. Meraz says the vehicle was just open, you just go get in it. The press was waiting for him before he even drove it back. Everybody knew this was O.J. Simpson's vehicle and they were all looking at it, supposedly for all this blood that's supposed to be in here. This killer must have been covered in blood, and they say he drove this Bronco and he got in it. It would be covered with blood, wouldn't it? Everybody is looking for the blood.

Meraz says he gets inside the car. He didn't see any blood. Meraz said that. They malign Meraz because Meraz said he did take those receipts out of there that had--one had Mr. Simpson's name on it, one had Miss Simpson's name on it. But he said he didn't see any blood in there. They never called anybody to contravene that. But we want to make sure you understood what was happening. So we called William Blauzini, a man who works for pick-your-part as far as vehicles. And he was a pretty good witness, wasn't he? He said, "Look, this is my business, is looking in cars because I go in and buy them." He says, "I got in that car on June 21st and--" First of all said, "I went looking for blood because I had heard on the news there's going to be lots of blood in this car. So I went and got in the Bronco. It was not secured as usual. Bob Jones said, `oh, there it is over there. Go get in it.'" this is the same vehicle, no holds on it, could be released to Hertz, LAPD at work. He gets in the car on the driver's side where he stays almost five minutes, looking down, looking for blood, looking in the front. Remember, he takes his fingerprints or hands and puts them in the mirrors. Kind of like a souvenir in the right front window of the car.

He didn't see any blood. He looks all over for blood. Then he gets out, walks around, and I guess on the rear panel, as I'm leaning, again puts his hands again there. He walks around, looks inside the driver's side, looks back, looks all down on the console looking for blood. He's looking for blood, ladies and gentlemen, on June 21st, doesn't see any blood. Then he gets in the car. I asked him, "Did you look on the dash? Did you look on the door? Did you look on the console?" Didn't see any blood. He says that the patch on the bottom was cut out, the floor mat there, doesn't see any blood. Miss Clark cross-examined this man. He said, "Look, the Bronco is kind of high up. When I was getting ready to get in there, I rested my hands on the thing and looked right up there, and there was no blood in that Bronco." Now, this is very strange, isn't it? Here's a Bronco that has blood that appears, disappears and reappears and then disappears. This is the vehicle that's supposed to be secured, but it's not secured. Everybody gets in it. Meraz got it in, takes stuff out that could have been helpful. You know, there was a receipt there from Nicole Brown Simpson. There's testimony she rides and drives that car on occasion. That's forever lost to us because they didn't do their jobs again. Blauzini comes along, there's no blood in there. How do you explain all this when they talk about--stand up here and talk about an ocean of evidence? And may I say, this a tiny trickle of a stream, if anything. They're just words that they use. So this Bronco is particularly troubling. Less than that 7/10th's of that drop of blood is what's in that alleged console. Dr. Baden says the perpetrator would be covered with blood. Your common sense tells you the perpetrator would be covered with blood, five- to 15-minute battle and struggle of this dimension. And so it just doesn't fit. Something is wrong. How does anyone drive away in that car with bloody clothes with no blood there on the seats, no blood anyplace else? Every police officer who came in talked about how bloody this scene was. It doesn't make any sense. They can't explain it because Mr. Simpson was not in that car and didn't commit these murders. That's the reasonable and logical explanation. None other will do, and it's too late for them to change now these kind of shifting theories. So the Prosecution then has no shoes, no weapon, no clothes. They don't have anything except these socks, which appear all of a sudden under these circumstances. Now, when you want to think about the depths to which people will go to try to win, when you want to talk about an obsession to win, I'm going to give you an example. There was a witness in this case named Thano Peratis. This is a man who's their man who took O.J. Simpson's blood. This is a man who had a subpoena, at one point said he could have come down here and testify. They didn't call him. By the time we wanted to call him, he's unavailable because of his heart problem, remember? So what we did is, we read you his grand jury testimony I believe and we played for you his preliminary hearing testimony. And in that testimony, it's very, very consistent. He's been a nurse for a number of years. You saw him. He works for the city of Los Angeles. He says that when he took this blood from O.J. Simpson on June 13th, he took between 7.9 and 8.1 cc's of blood. That's what he said. That's real simple, isn't it? We knew that. He's sworn to tell the truth under oath both places, the grand jury and preliminary hearing. Pretty clear, isn't it? Pretty clear. You remember in my opening statement, I told you, you know, something's wrong here, something's sinister here, something's wrong, because if we take all their figures and assume they took 8 cc's of blood, there's 6.5 cc's accounted for, there is 1.5 cc's missing of this blood. There's some missing blood in this case. Where is it? The Prosecution wants to explain that for you to make everything real easy for you. So what do they do? What do they do? We were talking about the police before, but what do they do? Hank Goldberg doesn't give us any notice. He goes out there with a video camera with Oppler and this other lady, Miss Ramirez, and they take this bizarre home video of Peratis sitting there talking and mouthing words. It's the most bizarre thing. I mean as jurors, I'm sure you've seen some pretty high quality testimony here, but this was bizarre. He's sitting there talking about, "Well, you know, gee, I don't really remember how much I took," and he's going through all these gyrations. It was sad, the depths to which they had sunk to try--as part of this cover-up, to try to convince you that this man hadn't taken 8 cc's of blood. And at the very end of this case, we put in a syringe for you, the kind of syringe they used. And this syringe, interestingly enough, has markers on it. Not only--this wasn't a guessing game. It has 8 cc's right on it. I think it was a 10-cc syringe.

They knew what was taken. But that's the depths to which they will go to try to make it fit, and it just doesn't fit. That's what they'll do. You have to watch them. This is a classic example. You saw it with your own eyes. You heard the testimony. Need I say more? Is that a classic example? And there's another concrete example. Let's take Miss Laura McKinny. In all accounts, a nice and gentle lady who didn't want to be here. You heard the testimony. I had to go all the way to North Carolina to try to get these tapes. I had to go all the way to the North Carolina Court of Appeals to get these tapes. She comes here. She has proof about what she says. You know, there's conversations and there's conversations, but she has the conversations on tape. These Prosecutors, if you don't fit--you're going to have trouble, so much so that when Mr. Darden is questioning her, remember her famous response, quote, "Why are we having this adversarial conversation? Why do I detect this negativity? I'm just here to tell the truth. Aren't you in a search for truth, Mr. Prosecutor?" She said that. And then they went on to ask, "Well, why didn't you stop him from using this so-called `n' word?" She said, "I was in a journalistic mode. I didn't try to stop him from using that word anymore than I try to stop him from talking about cover-ups where male police officers have no respect for women police officers because they don't cover-up the misdeeds." That was her testimony from that witness stand. You saw her. She is credible; don't you think? She has tapes to back her up, but look at how she was treated by them. And Mr. Darden said something very interesting today. He said, "I'm just the messenger." Now, how many times have you heard that; "I'm the messenger. Don't blame me, I'm just doing my job?" There's no way out. He's a fine lawyer, but he can't hide behind just being a messenger. Well, whose message is he sending? Who is he representing in this message? He's a man of integrity. That statement is not going to fly; "I'm just the messenger." He's not any messenger. He's the Prosecutor with all the power of the State of California in this case. We are not going to let them get their way. We're not going to turn the constitution on its head in this case. We are not going to allow it. And so now we bring you to a segment of this discussion where we talk about, if you can't trust the messengers, watch out for their messages. Vannatter, the man who carries the blood. Fuhrman, the man who finds the glove. Remember those two phrases; Vannatter, the man who carries the blood, Fuhrman, the man who found the glove. Now, Detective Vannatter has been a police officer for 27, 28 years, experienced LAPD robbery-homicide man who was put on this case because of his experience, presumably because they had the resources downtown. You know what time he got there and what happened. One of the things that has been totally unexplainable to me is the fact that here you have Mr. Simpson cooperating fully, gives his blood, gives 8 cc's of blood we now know. Vannatter--the blood is then turned over to Vannatter. Now, we know that he could have booked that blood in Parker Center or could have gone over to piper tech. You see these two residences. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. And, your Honor, this is--okay. This is just the board, apparently not numbered. He's at Parker Center right over here in the police building, right down here, 150 North Los Angeles Street (Indicating). He takes this blood. He could have gone a couple of floors and booked the blood, the manual requires. But he didn't do that, did he? He could have gone over to piper tech, another facility right downtown here and booked that blood (Indicating). This is the reference sample of Mr. O.J. Simpson. He doesn't do that. What he does is, he goes way out in this area marked Brentwood heights. It must be 20, 25 miles, 27 miles, to go way out there carrying the blood in this unsealed gray envelope supposedly. Why is he doing that? Why is Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood out there? Why is he doing that? Doesn't make any sense. Violates their own rules. Why is he doing that in this case? Has he ever done it in any other case? No. Name another case where this has happened or you can ask them those questions all the time. With Bushey, "Officer Bushey, when have you ever sent four people, four detectives over to notifying somebody who is not even the next of kin?" "Well, Mr. Cochran, umm, umm, must be somebody, but I can't name you a case." There are no cases. These are the things they did in this case. So he goes way out there with that blood. Why does he do that? It doesn't make any sense. And so we know because we have--much of what happened is on video.

The strangest thing about this blood. He can't explain why he carries it out there. It gets even stranger, doesn't it, because supposedly after the blood is carried out to O.J. Simpson's residence, Vannatter gives the blood to Fung, according to what we heard, but Fung then uses some kind of a trash bag, a black trash bag and gives it to Mazzola, but he doesn't tell her that it's blood. Isn't that bizarre? Remember the video when Mazzola is walking along carrying it almost bumping into the hedges and the shrubbery? The most bizarre thing you have seen. She doesn't even know it. And then talk about cover-ups, Mazzola is asked, "Well, do you see--did you see when Vannatter gave the blood to Fung?" And she says, "No. I had sat down on the couch and I was closing my eyes on Mr. Simpson's couch at that moment. I wasn't looking at that moment." It sounds like a cover-up to you, always looking the other way, not looking, doesn't want to be involved, covering for somebody. It's bizarre, absolutely bizarre and it's untrue. It doesn't fit. So Vannatter, the man who carries the blood, starts lying in this case from the very, very beginning, trying to cover up for this rush to judgment. Those are words. That's rhetoric. Let me prove it for you. He tells us--and this is a board--the board is entitled "Vannatter's big lies," the man who carried the blood. He tells us that O.J. Simpson is not a suspect. That's the biggest lie we've heard probably in this entire trial. O.J. Simpson is not a suspect. They handcuff him within 30 to 45 seconds of the time he gets back here. He lies about that. Weitzman sees about getting him uncuffed and they take him downtown. But he does more than that. Not only does he lie about that at the beginning, he then feels comfortable enough to talk to these two brothers, Fiato brothers, and an FBI agent named Wachs. This is bizarre. The lead detective in this case put on here because of his experience is talking with these two guys who have been in this witness program for quite a while testifying for the government. Now, we know that in a rather unusual set of circumstances, they're in a room somewhere in some hotel drinking beer. It's not even Vannatter's case, and they're sitting around talking. And I asked the FBI agent, "Weren't you a little surprised that a detective would be talking to these two people about the Simpson case?" Well, we found out that there was a relationship allegedly between Denise Brown and one of these brothers, and maybe he feels comfortable. But why would he do that and what does he say? He tells them that, "We didn't go up to save any lives. O.J. Simpson was a suspect. The husband is always the suspect." But then he comes into court here, this lead detective, takes the stands again and lies to you under oath, says, "Oh, no. I never said that. I never said that. That would be a mistake if they said that. I never made that statement." He lied. He lied from the very beginning. He lied when they went over there. Then they bring in Commander Bushey, otherwise a good man, get him involved in this. Let me tell you something about what you heard about Phillips' voice. Phillips was talking to the Coroner's office about 7:00, 8:00 o'clock in the morning on June 13th. The man asked him to identify--"Well, yes, we have one male, female--one white female, one white male," as though he didn't know the names or whatever. Now, this is five and a half hours after Bushey said, "Go over and notify O.J. Simpson," who is not even the next of kin, "Because we don't want the family to find out about this like they did in the Belushi case." Remember him saying that? He's doing this all from his house, from his home. Phillips, if you look through his testimony, look back through your notes as to when he says he knows who this person is. But isn't it amazing that the children are already down at the station? They're at her house with a speed dialer. They know. Bushey knows. They don't follow his orders out. They stand out in the street, not investigating, stand out in the street planning, doing whatever they are going to do. But one thing they do, they decide that O.J. Simpson is a suspect in this case. Now, let me tell you why you're going to know that. They want to talk a lot about 1985, but he missed the whole point. 1985, something interesting happened in this case. In 1985, Mark Fuhrman responded to a call on Rockingham. Mark Fuhrman is a lying, purging, genocidal racist, and from that moment on, any time he could get O.J. Simpson, he would do it. That's when it started, in `85. When Farrell asked all the officers at West L.A., there are 10 of them, if they know anything about this residence, only one steps forward. And what does he say? "It's indelibly imprisoned in my mind," that call back in `85, four years later, he sits down and writes a report. Now, he knew what he was going to do on this particular night. So O.J. not a suspect. He went to save lives. He went to get a search warrant. That's why they were lying. He denies the statement to Wachs and Fiato. Then to get that search warrant, he lies to a judge. He says in the search warrant that O.J. left unexpectedly to Chicago. There's some writing on the search warrant--I think it's in evidence--and it's kind of interesting, because everybody knew. Kato knew he was going to Chicago. Everybody knew he was going to Chicago. It wasn't any unexpected trip, but I suppose it would help out. In fact, if you think about it, Miss Clark said this. "Well, that's why those socks were out there and everything, because he left in a hurry." Like he had one pair of socks. You know why those socks were out there. He left unexpectedly to try and justify what they were doing. It all comes back to Fuhrman when he says in that letter, "If I see an interracial couple, I'll stop them. If I don't have a reason, I'll make up a reason." This man thinks he's above the law. And even Darden, Mr. Darden, Mr. Christopher Darden, my friend, has to admit--he said it was textbook what's happened to their witness, not our witness. And so he lies to the judge. He lied to the judge. He's lied to you as jurors. Then he says that Arnelle and Kato said O.J. left unexpectedly. That's written in the warrant. They never said anything of the kind. Kato knew this was a planned trip for Hertz. He talked to Cathy Randa. Then in the search warrant, he says--he puts "Confirmed human blood on the door." That's never been tested, even to this day. Another lie in the search warrant. He denies telling Thompson in order to handcuff O.J. Simpson. Then he lies about O.J. Simpson's blood. Remember, there's testimony he got that blood about 2:30, and he was trying to push it back an hour. So, well, maybe like 3:30 because he had to explain. It's hard to explain those hours in there. Why does he walk around with this man's blood for--for three hours before he goes back to Rockingham? What is he doing with this blood? So he has an hour in there. You look at his testimony. He lies about between 2:30 and 3:30. Then Fuhrman testifies--between these two, I don't know who you can believe--Fuhrman testifies something about that when he talks to Kato, Kato tells him about these thumps, but he didn't tell anybody about it. He's so central to this case. He's got to be the big man who can solve this entire case. He doesn't tell the rest of them. Remember, he goes off all by himself for 15 minutes. He's just walking, goes off by himself supposedly where he finds this glove. No opportunity? We'll be talking about that.

But Vannatter comes in, says, "Yes, Fuhrman told me about the thumps on the wall," contrary to what Fuhrman had said. So these are the lies of the co-lead detective in this case. If you cannot trust the messenger, you can't trust the message that they're trying to give you. You can't trust the message. So this man who starts to lie from the very, very beginning. Let me have just a second. We covered the lies and the things that he did. And then they rope in Commander Bushey, try to back him up by saying, "Well, I ordered them to do this. It's a direct order to do this." Isn't that interesting? Let's think about this. You look at those logs and see how many police officers came out to Bundy and Rockingham. Maybe more than 30. You think that of those number of officers, that maybe one of them, maybe one of the patrol officers could have went to give him notice? It took all four detectives, all four LAPD experienced detectives to leave the bodies. They had to notify the Coroner. They didn't have a criminalist to go over to notify O.J. Simpson. Who's fooling who here? This is preposterous. They're lying, trying to get over that wall to get in that house. You don't believe so? You're talking about saving lives. Remember what Arnelle said. First of all, they all make this big mistake. They forget and they say, "Well, when we leave from the back, we go right in that back door of the house there, go right in the back door." But they forgot. Arnelle Simpson comes in here and testifies you can't go in the back door because remember, Kato had put on the alarm. You had to go around the house to the front. Arnelle had to open the keypad to let them in, remember? You think who knows better? You'd think she knows better or they know better? She had to let them in. So they're worried about dead bodies and people being in that house and saving lives? Who goes in first? Arnelle Simpson goes in first. These big, brave police officers, and the young lady just walks in there first. They don't go upstairs looking. They just want to be inside that house and make her leave to give Fuhrman a chance to start what he's doing, strolling around the premises and doing what he's doing there. Then we come to Detective Phillips, a nice man. But even he makes misstatements in this situation. Now, he knows Fuhrman probably better than anybody because he's the one who calls Fuhrman. He's the one that works with Fuhrman. Fuhrman in the culture of LAPD has been promoted. We have heard that in `85, when he goes out to this incident, he's a patrol officer. Now he's a detective, moving up in the ranks, working with Phillips. And Phillips calls him after 1:00 o'clock. Fuhrman has been down--somewhere down in La Quinta in the desert, and he comes back supposedly and he gets this call to respond to this location. And even Detective Phillips in this case--and I examined him. When I asked, "Well, Fuhrman told you, didn't he, about his going out on this call in `85 about this so-called domestic discord and then the `89 situation? You knew about that, didn't you," Phillips said, "No, no, no. I never knew. Nobody told me. I don't know anything about it. No, no, no, I didn't." And then Lange comes in here and then Lange's and Vannatter's report--right in the report--and it's in evidence, exhibit 1021--Lange directly impeaches Phillips, that Phillips did tell him about the `85 incident, that Fuhrman had told him he had been out on it. Why would he do that? Now, these are facts, ladies and gentlemen. This is what happened in this case before your very eyes. It's not anything I'm making up.

And who would know Mark Fuhrman better in this case, his lack of credibility, his lying, racist views than Ron Phillips, his supervisor, who apparently chose to look the other way. And I am sure he is as embarrassed as anybody else by this disgrace, Fuhrman. So it's important at the outset that we understand the role of Phillips as we understand the role of Vannatter. He was the one allegedly given this order by Bushey to go over and give the death notification. He didn't comply with it until much later. And presumably the reason they were going to go over was to give the notice to Mr. Simpson and Fuhrman was going because he was needed. Now, can you imagine this? Fuhrman with his views, genocidal views, was going to go over to give notice to O.J. Simpson, to help O.J. Simpson in his time of need. Can you imagine that? He's going over there to help him, help him with his kids. That is ludicrous. So from Riske to Bushey, you've seen and are seeing part of this code of silence, this cover-up, the cover-up that Laura McKinny talks about. The male officers get together to cover up for each other, don't tell the truth, hide, turn their head, cover. You can't trust this evidence. You can't trust the messenger. You can't trust the message. When Fuhrman gets on the witness stand and says, "I haven't used this `n' word for 10 years," you think Phillips knows he's lying? Some of you probably knew he was lying. It took those tapes to make those of you who didn't believe these kind of things exist to take place. Didn't he have an obligation to come forward under those circumstances? For--if Fuhrman speaks so candidly to this lady that he met in a restaurant in West L.A., you think he talks like that to the guys on the force? She talked about he said those words in police administration, police procedures. That's the way he talks. That's the way he is. Nobody came forward to reveal this. We revealed it for you. And let me just take a moment. This whole thing about the police and what they've done in this case is extremely painful to us and I think to all right-thinking citizens because you see, we live in Los Angeles and we love this place. But all we want is a good and honest police force where people are treated fairly no matter what part of the city they're in. That's all you want. So in talking to you about this, understand, there is no personal pride. But I told you when we started, this is not for the weak or the faint of heart.

And so let's move on. Then I just wanted to show you this part from Detective Phillips. This is what was asked of Phillips at 15084. Mr. Simpson and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson had been embroiled in previous domestic discord situations, one of these resulting in Mr. Simpson having to go to court. "You told them that too, didn't you? "Answer (Phillips): "I never told him that." He's talking about to Lange. So: "If--" My question: "If Detective Lange so indicates in his report, he's wrong? "Answer: If he tells you that I told him that, he may have learned that from Detective Fuhrman, but he didn't get the information from me. I never knew that." Then when Lange came in, I asked him the question about this same area. I asked Lange this question:

"So let's look at it together. Does that report indicate that Phillips stated that victim Brown was the ex-wife of O.J. Simpson, the well-known actor? "Answer: Yes, it does. "And does it say additionally Phillips stated that Mr. Simpson and victim 1 had been embroiled in previous domestic violence situations, one of which resulted in the arrest of Mr. Simpson? Does the report say that? "Yes, it does." And he goes on to talk about:

"Phillips told you that, didn't he?" And it goes on and says: "But he told you this before you went over to Rockingham; isn't that correct? "Answer: Yes." And so even Phillips was then impeached, and then Phillips tried as best he could to be a team player. It seems as though they got together--and Miss Clark tried to make a big thing out of this, but here's how he described Mr. O.J. Simpson when he told him that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson had been dead. "'what do you mean she's been killed? Oh, my God, Nicole is dead.' do you recall that testimony? "Yes. "What do you mean she's been killed? Oh, my God. Nicole is dead." Now, is that a question or is that a question; "What do you mean she's been killed?" They want to make something--I mean, is that preposterous? And then he goes on to say:

"He became upset and made that statement and he continued to be upset, continued to talk on the phone to himself. It took me several seconds to get him to talk to me again, to have him listen to me and he seemed very upset." These Prosecutors will tell you, oh, boy, there's something unusual about that. Find anything unusual about that? What do you think?

"He just kept repeating over and over again that Nicole had been killed. Eventually when I got his attention again is when I mentioned the children. You have to remember, this conversation took place very quickly. He was talking and I was talking and everybody was a little excited." That's what Phillips said. And so again, what I hope that I've done here is to let you share exactly what the testimony was. Then I asked Arnelle about it. She said:

"He was very upset. He was crying. He was saying, `Arnelle, I don't understand.' he was very upset, emotional." "Have you ever at any time in your then 25 years heard your father sound like that?

"Answer: No." She says he was upset, distraught, emotional. And then she describes him on that evening after he comes back from Chicago.

"He was seated with my grandmother, my aunt Shirley and Bob Kardashian was there, the family and friends. Some of his friends were coming and going. This was in the family room. "Now, with regard to his demeanor and how he appeared, describe again for the jury how he appeared before he left the room to go to some other place. How did he appear to you then? "He was just very upset. He was crying off and on. We were watching the news, and he kept talking to the TV saying, `you know, I can't believe this. I can't believe this,' in shock, upset and disbelief ." And I've read the other part for you about the police officers going in the back door, but she describes how they walk around and she opens the alarm. She's the one that went in, let the police in and she's the one who walked in first. And then even Tom Lange, personal favorite of mine--but in this instance, he made more mistakes than anything else. Human foibles and seems to be quite different than some of the others. Remember he told us how he took these tennis shoes that O.J. Simpson told him he was wearing? I said, "What did you do with those tennis shoes?" He said, "Well, I took the tennis shoes and I put them in the trunk of my car and was going to take them home for the night because it was too late to book them." Then we looked at this video, and the tennis shoes he got, remember, he put the tennis shoes in the front seat with him. Maybe he stopped halfway up on the road, on the freeway and put them in the trunk. But that's not what he did then. Then he was part of the group who says O.J. was not a suspect, turned his head perhaps. Maybe that's his partner. But you notice, he wasn't involved in this whole debacle with these Fiato brothers and agent Wachs. He wasn't involved. He's smarter. He didn't let that happen. You know, it's interesting because it's his case. That's his case that they're working on. You didn't see him come running in here trying to cover for anybody. He didn't do that, to his credit. Then we come, before we end the day, to Detective Mark Fuhrman. This man is an unspeakable disgrace. He's been unmasked for the whole world for what he is, and that's hopefully positive. His misdeeds go far beyond this case because he speaks of culture that's not tolerable in America. But let's talk about this case. People worry about, this is not the case of Mark Fuhrman. Well, it's not the case of Mark Fuhrman. Mark Fuhrman is not in custody. He's not--that's the man who they're trying to put away with witnesses like this, a corrupt police officer who is a liar and a perjurer. You know, they were talking yesterday in their argument about, "Well, gee, you think he would commit a felony?" What do you think it was when he was asked the questions by F. Lee Bailey so well put? And we'll talk about that at the very end, about whether he ever used the "N" word in 10 years and he swore to tell the truth and he lied and others knew he lied. But what I find particularly troubling is that they all knew about Mark Fuhrman and they weren't going to tell you. They tried to ease him by. Of all the witnesses who've testified in this case, how many were taken up to the grand jury room where they have this prep session to ask him all these questions? Miss Clark--I went back and I read again her introduction of Mark Fuhrman. How many witnesses did they do that with, where they took him up there and prepared him for this?

Because you see, they knew about the Kathleen Bell letter, but she didn't fit. She didn't fit what they wanted. They didn't want her. They'd rather malign her and believe this lying police officer. So they knew. Make no mistake about it. And so when they try to prepare him, talk to him and get him ready and make him seem like a choir boy and make him come in here and raise his right hand as though he's going to tell you the truth and give you a true story here, they knew he was a liar and a racist. There's something about good versus evil. There's something about truth. The truth crushed to earth will rise again. You can always count on that. So when Miss Clark so gently puts him on the stand and talks to him about, "Tell us how you feel about testifying today," "Nervous," okay, "Reluctant" and all the things about this bad lady Kathleen Bell--they brought it out at the beginning. "This bad Kathleen Bell saying all these mean things about you. Oh, and you don't--you don't know her even, do you? When we asked you to look at her on the Larry King show and you couldn't recognize her. You don't know her. Oh, well, it's just terrible, all these bad things happening to you, Detective Fuhrman."

Go back and you look at your notes of how the testimony was as they tried to bring him in here and pass him off. These things were all happening. Kathleen Bell's letter was in `85 and `86, the same time he went out to O.J. Simpson's house in `85 they want to talk so much about. What they are talking about is not even relevant. What we are talking about now is what happened in this case. It's so, after having made all these denials, been adopted and accepted by the Prosecution. And they put him on the stand and you saw it. You saw it. It was sickening. And then my colleague, Lee Bailey, who can't be with us today, but God bless him, wherever he is, did his cross-examination of this individual and he asked some interesting questions. Some of you probably wondered, "I wonder why he's asking that." He asked this man whether or not he ever met Kathleen Bell. Of course, he lied about that. "Never met this woman. I don't recognize her. I don't know her, gee, I don't know anything about that." Boy, and he sounded really convincing, didn't he?

He says, quote: "I do not recognize this woman as anybody I have ever met." That's what he says. Then Bailey says: "Have you used that word, referring to the `n' word, in the past 10 years? "Not that I recall, no. "You mean, if you call someone a Nigger, you had forgotten it?

"I'm not sure I can answer the question the way it's phrased, sir." And they go on. He says, "Well--" And then pins him down. "I want you to assume that perhaps at some time since 1985 or `86, you addressed a member of the African American race as a Nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part? "Answer: No, it is not possible. "Are you, therefore, saying that you have not used that word in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman?

"Answer: Yes. That is what I'm saying. "Question: And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person as a Nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman? "That's what I'm saying, sir. "So that anyone who comes to this court and quotes you as using that word in dealing with African Americans would be a liar; would they not, Detective Fuhrman? "Yes, they would. "All of them, correct? "All of them." That's what he told you under oath in this case. Did he lie? Did he lie? Did he lie under oath? Did this key Prosecution witness lie under oath? And I'm going to end this part and resume with him tomorrow morning. Did he lie? And they try to tell you it's not important. Let's remember this man. This is the man who was off this case shortly after 2:00 o'clock in the morning right after he got on it. This is the man who didn't want to be off this case. This is the man, when they're ringing the door bell at Ashford, who goes for a walk. And he describes how he's strolling. Let me quote him for you. Here's what he says:

"I was just strolling along looking at the house. Maybe I could see some movement inside. I was just walking while the other three detectives were down there." And that's when he walks down and he's the one who says the Bronco was parked askew and he sees some spot on the door. He makes all of the discoveries. He's got to be the big man because he's had it in for O.J. because of his views since `85. This is the man, he's the guy who climbs over the fence. He's the guy who goes in and talks to Kato Kaelin while the other detectives are talking to the family. He's the guy who's shining a light in Kato Kaelin's eyes. He's the guy looking at shoes and looking for suspects. He's the guy who's doing these things. He's the guy who says, "I don't tell anybody about the thumps on the wall." He's the guy who's off this case who's supposedly there to help this man, our client, O.J. Simpson, who then goes out all by himself, all by himself.

Now, he's worried about bodies or suspects or whatever. He doesn't even take out his gun. He goes around the side of the house, and lo and behold, he claims he finds this glove and he says the glove is still moist and sticky. Now, under their theory, at 10:40, 10:45, that glove is dropped. How many hours is that? It's now after 6:00 o'clock. So what is that? Seven and a half hours. The testimony about drying time around here, no dew point that night. Why would it be moist and sticky unless he brought it over there and planted it there to try to make this case? And there is a Caucasian hair on that glove. This man cannot be trusted. He is sinful to the Prosecution, and for them to say he's not important is untrue and you will not fall for it, because as guardians of justice here, we can't let it happen. We'll see you tomorrow. Thank you, your Honor.

All right. Mr. Cochran, would you take it down, please. Thank you.

I'm sorry, your Honor.

Thank you. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to conclude our evening session at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning. All right. Thank you, counsel. We're in recess.