Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

Mr. Scheck, are there any remains on this board?

No, there are not, your Honor.

All right. Thank you.

Now, we can tell, as Dr. Lee pointed out, on this lens there are smears of blood, trace evidence. There could have been fingerprints from the perpetrator who was going into that envelope. On June 22nd Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf got an opportunity just to look, just to look at the evidence, not touch or examine or test, just to look, and they saw two lens there, made a note of them. February 16th, think about it, that is the first time we got a chance to inspect and just even handle the evidence. You are already sitting here February 16th. There is something wrong. When we look at it, that lens is gone. There is no report, no record, no investigation of its disappearance. Nobody comes in and tells you what happened. Now, that tells you a lot. Did somebody take this from the laboratory as a souvenir? Did somebody walk off with this? How can that be? This is critical evidence in a case? How can that be? It just vanished down this black hole?

Now they are going to say we are Fort Knox. Nobody could get to the evidence in this case with our evidence tracking system. I should just tell you in passing, I'm sure you caught it, that even when it is booked into the evidence control unit and it is supposedly being tracked, they didn't say their computer tracking system is a chain of custody system. It isn't. They have all the evidence items in boxes, like the sock and the blood drops, and they will put them in the serology freezer and they are in a box there and then somebody will hit the computer and they can go in and then they can take any item they want out of that box. It is not tracked by specific items. There is no good security in this system. There is plenty of access if you want to tamper with evidence if you are authorized personnel, if you are a lead detective, if you are somebody there. It can happen. And the missing lens is you all you need to know. What is going on here? And if they come back and say, well, maybe Dr. Baden and Wolf are wrong, there was no lens to begin with, well, that is even weirder, isn't it? What kind of killer takes a souvenir like this? How does that fit in with their theory? The missing lens is a serious problem in this case. Now, the black hole symbolizes something else. You know, science is not better than the methods employed and the people who employ it. DNA is a sophisticated technology. It is a wonderful technology. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The issue in this case is not is DNA good or bad DNA technology. The issue is right or wrong. So Miss Clark gets up here and tells you, well, Dr. Lee said DNA is okay, therefore the DNA evidence in this case is okay. That is ridiculous. Dr. Lee said right way, wrong way. Dr. Lee is one of the authors of this report. Right way, wrong way. And something else. During the cross-examination of Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola and Mr. Matheson, we brought out a pamphlet entitled "Collection of DNA evidence," how you should do it. It was a pamphlet that was put together by Dr. Henry Lee in association with others. Mr. Fung had only heard of it, if you recall, after he was prepared to testify in this case, not before they all went out and collected the evidence. And in that report, as it was established, and Mr.--Agent Bodziak, I don't know if he really knows a lot about Dr. Lee. As he said he had limited knowledge. I mean, he is questioning whether he goes to crime scenes. The FBI is saying how do you collect evidence at a crime scene? Dr. Lee writes the manual and in that manual they say you don't put these swatches in plastic bags because you put wet blood swatches in plastic bags, you are going to degrade all the DNA in them. And they sat here debating whether you could do that for months, and as we will talk about it now, they are trying to turn that argument around, but it is just plain that they didn't know what they were doing here. And you can have the most sophisticated technology in the world and if you don't apply it correctly, you can't trust the results. There is no compliance with the NRC report. There is no compliance with the kind of standards that you would require in a life and death situation, and this is a life and death situation. And that is what you have to demand of a laboratory. And Dr. Gerdes is a man that deals with life and death situations, bone marrow transplants, organ transplants, disease diagnosis. He came in and told you about the standards that we demand, that we require, that ought to be the minimum. They are not close. You can't brush this off, as Miss Clark did in her argument, by saying sloppy criminalists, sloppy Coroner and that is all she said. I fully anticipate that most of the matters I am going to address to you she has been planning to address in her rebuttal summation because she certainly didn't address them in her closing argument, did she. You can't just say sloppy criminalist, sloppy Coroner, big deal. She said DNA--insult to your intelligence, frankly--DNA is used to identify the war dead therefore accept all the evidence in this case. That doesn't answer the question, does it? As a matter of fact, the DNA tests she is talking about are something that are all mitochrondrial dealing DNA tests and it has nothing to do with the DNA tests in this case and the war dead has nothing to do with what was going on in this case. Zero. It is not an answer, it is not this case, it is not the techniques. They argue that the Defense has to prove exactly how, exactly where, exactly when tampering occurred with any of this evidence. That is not our burden. That is not our burden.

They have to prove that this wasn't tampered with beyond a reasonable doubt. When people tamper with evidence they try to do is with some stealth, they try to cover their tracks, and as Mr. Cochran pointed out, it wouldn't take more than two bad police officers to do this and a lot of people would look the other way. Could we have 2.01. Now, the way that I would like to organize the rest of my remarks for you is a systematic study of the essential facts and the circumstantial evidence charged in this case talks about key points. "Each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the Defendant's guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Each essential fact. That is what is special about a circumstantial evidence case. For each essential fact they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail, if there is a reasonable doubt about an essential fact, you must acquit. Those are the rules. And when you are looking at a piece of circumstantial evidence, if it is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one points to guilt, one points to innocence, you must adopt the one that points to innocence. Could we have the next chart. So what I propose to do with you today, and I will try to do it as quickly as I possibly can, is go through what I believe are essential facts. Now, we don't have to prove anything and we don't have the burden of proof here and I'm going to confront each and every one of these essential pieces of evidence in this case and raise a reasonable doubt about it, more than a reasonable doubt, many reasonable doubts. But if they fail in one of their essential facts, you have to acquit. We are going to go through the sock--another reason I put this up here is that you will know when I'm getting close to done and you can follow along. The socks, the stains on the back gate, the missing blood, the hair and fiber, the evidence of struggle at Bundy, the testimony of Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee, the Bronco, the Rockingham glove. That is what we will be discussing this morning.

Let's start with the sock. We know that on June 13th when Mr. Fung went to collect the sock--not yet--he saw it on the throw rug--not yet--and he did not see blood. He did not see soil on the carpet. He did not see any trace evidence around, not on the stairwell, not on the carpet leading into the bedroom, not anywhere. There is supposedly a stain, an ankle stain, on these socks. You saw it, cut out, about an inch and a half. More DNA in that than anything in this case. Wouldn't that, if it were there, have left a transfer, some speck, something, if they are in a struggle? You have children; I have children. Did you ever see them go out to play in dirt like that closed-in area at Bundy, get into some kind of ruckus. Socks come back, they are filthy. It would have to be here if there is anything on them at all. Nothing. Nothing there. Now Mr. Fung is looking for blood. These socks are the only clothing they take. It is logical as a criminalist, as he admitted on cross-examination, that he would be looking at the ankle area, the one they would look to first, because that would be the most likely exposed. He sees nothing. He is running around trying to do testing of anything that looks like blood. No test of the socks. Then on June 22nd Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf were permitted to go to the crime lab and Michele Kestler shows them the socks. They see nothing. Now, we get to June 29th. This is very interesting. On June 29th the Defense wanted access to sample, split them, and the criminalists, Matheson, Kestler, the head of the laboratory and Yamauchi, are going through all the evidence in about a five or six-hour period, right there they are going through all the evidence to make an assessment of what kind of testing could be performed, of what kind of biological material or blood would be on any of these pieces evidence to see from testing, RFLP testing, how they could be divided. They also--Mr. Yamauchi said they were literally measuring the size of the swatches and making assessments and making examinations. What piece of evidence at that point is more important to these people than the socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom? Wouldn't you look at that?

And they told us that they took white paper and they put the socks on the white paper and if there is blood, inch and a half on that ankle, you know you saw it every time that we put something down, little specks would come off. Even when Miss Clark put those gloves on the very first day, we actually had it on white paper, you know, the plastic gloves and little pieces of trace fell off and we actually pulled those together, put them in a separate exhibit, because these kind of things fall off. If there were that stain on the sock, that big stain on the sock, they would have seen it. Gary Sims told you he was disturbed by it, that a trained criminalist should have seen it. You use light that is sufficient to look at what you are doing. They are now telling you we didn't have light. We didn't look at what we were doing. Please. Where I come from, that don't pass the laugh test. Now, what is the summary? The socks, on the report they do on June 29th, dress socks, blood search. None observed. None observed. That tells you all you need to do. Or none obvious, I'm sorry. I can't even remember that.

It is either none observed or none obvious. They have two different phrases, one on the handwritten report and one on the typewritten report. Okay. Then suddenly on August 4th Mr. Yamauchi can't remember it was some kind of general inventory, can't--Mr. Matheson might have asked him, he can't remember what the direction was. It wasn't specific to the sock. Somebody said look at--go look at this and then for the first time they find the stain on the ankle. Now we have evidence of the wet transfer going through surface 1, surface 3 through the little holes in the sock to surface 3. It is pretty simple. If there is a leg in those socks, you can't have the transfer. Professor MacDonell and Dr. Lee came in and they showed you the pictures of the little red balls and I don't think it is even being seriously contested that this is evidence of a wet transfer now. They are not contesting it really. Can't get it when the leg is in the sock. Their testimony stands unrefuted. There was no bloodstain expert that came in here and said that is not a wet transfer. Dr. Henry Lee, Professor MacDonell. Dr. De forest didn't show up here. Why?

Now, during the course of cross-examination of Dr. Lee and Professor MacDonell, the Prosecution sent up some hypothetical explanations for this that I'll view with you and each one of them was rejected by Dr. Lee, Professor MacDonell, but Dr. Lee in particular, as I recall, I think they gave him all of them, as highly improbable. Lots of things are possible, but he said these explanations were highly improbable. No. 1, the idea that at the time of the killings there could have been a touch with the finger from the victim of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson on the leg and that it wasn't dry when Mr. Simpson somehow got into that Bronco, came back to Rockingham, avoided Allan Park, ran down the side, left no bloodstains, hit the air conditioner, hit the stucco fence leaving no trace, somehow came in all with the bloody clothes, went up the stairs, left no trace of blood, left no trace of soil, left no trace of berries. Got into the house, took off the socks, left them there and then it is still wet. So if it is still wet when he takes off the socks, you get the transfer to surface 3. Well, there is a big problem with that. Then you should have seen something on the carpet if that is what happened. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit. Then the next explanation is on August 4th when Mr. Yamauchi did the pheno test taking the swab and brushing the stain to see if it were blood, that that somehow created wetness that transferred into the third surface. Or--well, Dr. Lee and Dr. MacDonell said that that doesn't make sense when you look at the stains because if that brushing had occurred you would see a diffusion and you don't see that kind of diffusion and that is not the way you do the test anyhow. Just touching it couldn't cause that kind of transfer through to surface 3. Highly improbable said the leading forensic scientists in America. Sweat. Next explanation is going to be sweat. Well, there was a stain from the crime scene, but sweating in the sock and then the sock is taken off and then somehow by process of sweat it transfers to surface 3. Dr. Lee and Dr. MacDonell said ridiculous, highly improbable you would see that same diffusion as with the pheno test and we don't see it. The next explanation. When Mr. Simpson is taking off the socks he coincidentally has a finger that touches surface 3 opposite the ankle stain, so it is not Nicole Brown Simpson's blood that is on surface 3, it is Mr. Simpson's own blood that he accidentally touched exactly opposite. That is a ridiculous coincidence. That doesn't pass the laugh test. That is the other explanation they floated. Then another explanation they tried. They showed Dr. Lee the new picture of the sock. Remember how they were folded up? They said, well, maybe blood of Mr. Simpson's, when you fold the sock over, landed on surface 3 coincidentally opposite the stain when they were bundled up and that is what created it. Again, rejected as a ridiculous highly probable coincidence. Now, none of these things make sense. Miss Clark also said, you know, there is a tiny spatter of Mr. Simpson's--Mr. Simpson's--some blood at the top of the socks of Mr. Simpson. She says, well, there is spatter there. Well, you know, doctor--Professor MacDonell said this is no spatter. Gary Sims doesn't pretend to be a bloodstain expert. Professor MacDonell, Dr. Lee, leading experts in this area. They didn't bring in anybody. It is ridiculous to say there is spatter there, and if it is spatter of O.J. Simpson's blood, how does that happen? What? Did he bleed so much that created a puddle and spatter on the top of the sock? Nonsense. The point is every explanation that they are desperately trying to come up with is a highly improbable inference. The most likely and probable inference is the one that is not for the timid or the faint of heart. Somebody played with this evidence and there is no doubt about it. And you know why there is no doubt about it? Because they got so upset in the opening statement about the socks, about the back gate, so upset that they sent it to the FBI. And Mr. Harmon wrote them a letter saying please refute the Defense theory that somebody tampered with this evidence. Please refute it. Those were the words. Not exactly an objective way of sending it out. Please test this for EDTA. Please refute what the Defense has to say. And Agent Martz never testified in the Prosecution's case. And you know why that is? And that is really all you need to know, because he couldn't refute it, because it is an inference consistent with innocence that they can't refute. There is EDTA. How does that happen? There is EDTA there. So if we could have slide 4. The sock. No blood on June 13th when it is collected. No blood on June 22nd when Dr. Lee--Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf see it. They looked for blood on June 29th on a lab paper with reasonable light, three people with 25 years of experience, and they don't see it. Most important piece of evidence. Examining it for purposes of court. The wet transfer to surface 3 unrefuted. And EDTA. Now, let's think about it. Is this coincidence? Kill that, please. Is this coincidence, all these things with the sock, or is it corroboration? I say it is corroboration that something is wrong, something is terribly wrong with the most important pieces of evidence in this case. It is a cancer that is infecting the heart of this case. You cannot render a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence like this. So if we apply 2.01, an essential fact, the socks, Miss Clark said an essential fact, whose interpretation is the most reasonable? And even if you give some of those cockamamie explanations some credence and you say, well, maybe ours is certainly reasonable enough for you to--you must adopt that, and if you must adopt it, really where does that leave us? Because, you know, there is another instruction that I submit has some relevance here. Could we have the slide now. Now, you've been instructed that: "A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole testimony of a witness who has willfully testified falsely as to a material point unless from all the evidence you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars." Thank you. Now, yes, that applies to witnesses, but I would argue to you that by analogy it applies to the messengers who are bringing you this forensic evidence as well. Because let's just think about the socks. The LAPD officers and lab people who are responsible for the collection of this, for the chain of custody, for preserving the integrity of this evidence, are the same people that are bringing you everything else. Remember what Dr. Lee said about the socks? He said it is like eating a plate of spaghetti. Looking--bowl of spaghetti I think he said. You see a cockroach. Do you then take every strand of that bowl of spaghetti to look for more cockroaches or do you just throw it away and eat no more? In your deliberations somebody may say, all right, I have a reasonable doubt about this essential piece of evidence; the socks. I have a reasonable doubt. They--it is reasonable that they manufactured this piece of evidence. But let's put that aside and look at everything else. Well, just wait a second. Just think about what that means. If they manufactured evidence on the sock, how can you trust anything else? How in this country, in this democracy, can they come in--there is no doubt Fuhrman is a liar and a genocidal racist. There is no doubt about that. But there is really no doubt either that they played with this sock, is there? And if that can happen, that is a reasonable doubt for this case period, end of sentence, end of case. It really, really is true. Not in this country. It is a test of citizenship. Not in this country. Now, let's go to the back gate. Could we have the next slide. Because, you know, there is more. There is more of this cancer.

We don't have the rest of that? Put it all up. 117--put it all up, Howard. 117 was the stain taken from the back gate, and you know, there was something very strong about it, wasn't there? The blood drops at Bundy were degraded and had extremely low DNA concentrations. 117 had enough for an RFLP test. It was 27 times as much as 47, the first blood drop, 45 times as much as 48, 270 times as much as 49, 51 times as much as 50, 11 times as much as 52. This slide, like most of them I'm going to show you, is in evidence and you know who brought us that testimony; Gary Sims from the Department of Justice. Could we have the next slide. That is 117, the one on the gate. Do them all. This is 115 and 116, the one on the lower parts of the gate. 15 times as much as 47, 22 times as much as 48, 135 times as much as 49, 25 times as much as 50, six times as much as 52. This supposedly has been out there from June 12th to July 3rd. And--kill that.

There is no question sunlight degrades DNA. Moisture and bacteria degrade DNA. Why are these concentrations so much higher? And another point. There is DNA concentrations but there is also a separate test, as you have learned when you look at those yield gels, for degradation. These samples are not degraded. How can that be? Nothing. Now, there is something interesting here, too. The Prosecution is now saying, well, it is on a different surface than the Bundy blood drops. Bundy blood drops are on cement. This is on a metal gate, painted metal gate. So there is something magical about this that will prevent it from degrading at all in over three weeks. It is--remember, the blood drop no. 50 is just a few feet from this bottom portion of the gate that is very, very close to the surface and all the same environmental insults. But you know what proves this argument totally fallacious? And I asked this question of Gary Sims, and you can go back. Remember the blood from the handrail? That was one of the last questions I asked him. It is very curious to me that they never typed that. They are still testing. Remember the blood on the handrail as you are leading up Bundy? Same kind of surface. Totally degraded. Remember the samples from the front gate? There was blood on the front gate. Gary Sims' testimony. No question about that, severely degraded, just like the other samples from Bundy. So those are the same kind of surfaces, so this explanation don't pass the laugh test. Well, what is the other explanation that Miss Clark offered you? Now, this is a whopper. She said, well, it is the plastic bags. I mean, that is rich. They spent weeks trying to deny that putting samples in plastic bags doesn't degrade the DNA. Well, it does. I mean, you know that from the moisture. So now they are saying on July 3rd, when Fung made this collection, he put these swatches in a plastic bag, but he didn't let them cook as long in a truck as he did on June 12th. It is our own incompetence, that is the explanation. That accounts for these differences. Well, you know that doesn't work either, for a number of reasons. No. 1, they were going, as you recall, on a tour of the crime scene and Fung--apparently right away they found--all of a sudden they found this stuff on the back gate and there is no testimony, zero, as to how long it took Dennis Fung to bring those back to the evidence processing room or how long he had them in a plastic bag or what other things they had him doing. There is no testimony that he immediately went back to the lab. He didn't continue with them in the tour or anything like that. And you know why it is significant that they can't come in here and argue that when they don't present evidence? Because they could have. Because we know that there are records of when you go back into that evidence possessing room and get in the door. They could have demonstrated--if they really wanted to put this argument before you, they could have demonstrated how long it took or they could have brought him back here to testify about it. But frankly, if they brought him back here to testify about that explanation so late in the game, you wouldn't have believed him, would you? So they can't use this plastic bag theory and they can't use that it is a different surface. They can't. It doesn't make sense scientifically. It doesn't fit. So what--what--you know, what is going on here? Now, there is another thing. They are going to say, well, you know, Officer Riske, Phillips, I believe, Fuhrman, Rossi, that night when they were entering the premises, the back gate, they had their flashlights and they were looking up and down and they think they saw some blood on the back gate, so they all testified to it, so you know it is there. Well, first of all, we know--you have been there--that this gate was rusty. There were all kind of darknesses, imperfections. There were berries all over there. There is all kind of discolorations. And what did they really see with their flashlights? It is not clear what they saw with their flashlights. But you know what is very, very interesting is that Lange said to Fung, go look, there is blood on the back gate, you should go look, and we have heard reports there is blood on the back gate. Now, this is very interesting. Could we put up the diagram. You may remember this. This is the diagram that Fung did of the back gate. Pull back on it. And you will recall the testimony. These are--the numbers you see, 115, 116, all those numbers, right, those are the photo numbers. You recall how they did the collection, that they started, they put down a photo number, not the evidence item number, so they started on the walkway with 112 and they put down 112 and that was sample 47 and they collected that. Then they went and they put down no. 113 and that was sample 48 and they collected that. Then they went down and they put down 114 and that was sample 49 and they collected that. Then they put down 115 and that was sample 50 and now we are right by the back gate and they collected that. Now, this is what shows you there was no blood on the back gate. Because at that point what do they do? They go to the front gate. They walk all the way back to the front gate where the bloodstain patterns are, that is 116, and then they go back all the way to the end of the driveway and then get the last blood drop, no. 52, 11. Why did they go all the way back? I will tell you why. Because Detective Lange had told Mr. Fung, as he testified, that there was blood on the back gate, and they looked, he heard reports of it, and they didn't see any blood on the back gate. So the only blood they saw on the gate was on the front gate, so they went back and collected 116. And you know what else shows you that? Could we have the picture? Where is it, Mr. Fung? They took no pictures of any blood on the back gate, 117. There is some discoloration there that may be consistent with 115, if it is blood at all, but there is no 116. So there is no pictures either. Thank you. Now, what else? What else? What else? There is EDTA on the stains from the back. So can we have a chart on this? Let's look at the back gate. No documentation or photos on June 13th. Discovered on July 3rd. DNA concentration. EDTA. Coincidence or corroboration that something is wrong, something is terribly wrong. There is a cancer at the heart of this case. This is a reasonable doubt. You put this together with the sock, how many cockroaches do you have to find in the bowl of spaghetti. This isn't made up. This isn't invented. These are facts. How could all of this be? How can--this is not--this is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence based on solid fact. You cannot on your oath reject this and, say, ah, it never happened. You can't. It is a reasonable doubt. Now, let's discuss EDTA, because that is obviously an important issue. They asked for the tests to be done after the opening statement. Refuted. And they didn't put them on because it doesn't refute. Reasonable interpretation of the evidence, if there is EDTA there, consistent with everything, comes from a purple-topped tube on the face of it. They didn't put them on. We had to call them. But you know, there is a very, very interesting point that you might have missed in Dr. Rieders' testimony when you compare Dr. Rieders and Agent Martz, and that is in January there was a gentleman named Henkhaus, works with the LAPD science division, and they were interested, after the opening statement, in seeing whether or not tests could be performed to detect EDTA. Do you recall who they called in at page 38414 of the transcript, of Dr. Rieders'? "Question: Incidentally, at one point were you consulted by the Los Angeles Police Department during the course of this case about methods to detect EDTA?

"Yes." He because shown this letter from Henkhaus. "Do you remember who that was? "Mr. Henkhaus. "And did you provide him with materials on a system in developing a method to detect EDTA? "Yes, of course. There was a letter with a number of citations on it." Before the testing was done, but they knew he was he going to appear as a Defense witness. They reached out to Dr. Fredric Rieders. Why? Because Dr. Fredric Rieders, a Ph.D., a distinguished teacher, he runs a reference lab outside of Philadelphia, a reference lab. People go to this laboratory when you want to develop toxicology techniques which are specialized and sophisticated because he is experienced, he is knowledgeable, he is learned. They asked him for work about EDTA. You know why else? Because Dr. Rieders testified he has expertise in EDTA and it is used to treat people for lead poisoning. He has been working with EDTA for something on the order of 20 years. He is the expert that you would call to interpret the data, so they asked him for references. And now they want to tell you that he is out of his mind, that he is not reasonable in his interpretation of this data and he shouldn't be trusted. Very interesting, isn't it? Now, you know when you evaluate the testimony of Agent Martz and Dr. Rieders, there really isn't that much disagreement. And remember the circumstantial evidence charge about whether if there is two plausible reasonable interpretations, you have to take the one that goes with innocence? There are three questions. Is there EDTA there? Dr. Rieders says yes. Agent Martz says could be consistent with EDTA based on the ms/ms readings. If it isn't EDTA, says Martz, I don't know what else it could be. Next question. If it is EDTA, how much is there? Now, both of them agree that it is in parts per million, not parts per billion. And both agree, when you examine the testimony, that if it is in parts per million, it cannot come from the EDTA we ingest in food that then is secreted into the blood. You don't have parts per million that way, because if you did, you would be in serious--you would have serious health problems. You wouldn't clot. You would bleed to death, as Dr. Rieders was pointing out. The next question. And this is where they parted company. Is the amount of EDTA here sufficient to have come from a purple-topped tube? Agent Martz says--Dr. Rieders says, unless you were treating somebody for lead poisoning and injecting EDTA into them, that is the reasonable explanation for parts per million in these samples of EDTA. Agent Martz says, no, I can't really say because I would expect there to be more EDTA in a sample left for three weeks on the back gate or in--on a sock, you know, that I'm seeing six months later, but he never did a single experiment to find out how much you would expect to get from stains that are months old and are subjected to environmental insults. And you saw that there were quantitation problems when they tested it. It would go up and down. So when you look at it, look at the credentials, Martz versus Rieders. Rieders has far more experience with EDTA. They wanted to hire him or they consulted with him I should say. Dr. Rieders works with the FBI. They go to him and consult, as you heard, on cases. He was working on a case with them at the time he came here to testify. He runs a reference lab that is specialized in these issues. Even though he does not have the $750,000 machine yet, the ms/ms that Martz is using, he understands it, seen it before, interpreted data from it, he is getting one soon. So it is not a question of machine; it is a question of the expertise to understand the data. Agent Martz, he--he is--he has a bachelor's degree, he had some trouble with pi, I don't want to belittle that, but he didn't even--there are some disturbing parts of his testimony, let's face it. He didn't even consider the validation studies that had been performed by others at the FBI laboratory. They are going to make a big deal with these. You know, he didn't look for that 132 daughter ion. I promised not to talk about daughter ions to some people, but he didn't perform the test to find that. All the digital daughters he threw away. He come up with this thing where he says he tests his own blood and he finds some level of EDTA in it but he threw away the documents about what he did. He put it in a test-tube for two weeks that has silicon in it, that has a red stopper in it that could be a source of EDTA. He doesn't go and test anybody else's blood. There would be certainly a phenomena that we found parts per million in parts of whole blood or his whole method is screwed up. They are going to come back and test more. They are going to come back and say, well, Dr. Rieders should have done more of a test on these level of samples. That is what they should have done. Well, you know, it is their burden. It is their burden after all. They say it is key evidence. She said it is their defense. Well, then why not get some real studies or do more studies or save the data or present something to this jury that is credible to disprove it? Miss Clark gets up here and says we have disproven that this could be EDTA from a purple-topped tube. If Rieders has no basis whatsoever for saying this, it can't be a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Well, saying it doesn't make it so. It is their burden. They have to disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt. They have not.

Objection, your Honor. Objection. That misstates--

Overruled.

An essential fact. That circumstantial evidence charge says, an essential fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Miss Clark got up here and told you this was essential. Have they done that? No, they haven't. That is many, many reasonable doubts. I would now like to talk about missing blood, and I think that we can talk about this in the following way: Access, opportunity and the smoking gun, nurse Thano Peratis. Could we have the first picture. Now, Detective Vannatter, the man who carried the blood, picked up blood from the Coroner's office of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, blood tubes that contained EDTA. Let's show them all. Remember these? These are pictures of both sides of the tubes. Just pull them out. I think the point is made. One after another covered with blood. He got those from the lab. He carried those. Those tubes, the testimony is, have EDTA in them. He carried them on June 15th. Now, we do not have records. There are no records of the amounts that were initially put in those tubes or where he went, how long he went. No real evidence that we can examine about that, but he carried. On the other hand, when we turn now to Mr. Simpson--that is enough.

Your Honor, objection. That--

Yeah. He testified he took them from the Coroner's office and even brought them to LAPD, but there is no record of how much was initially put in those tubes, so we can't retrace the amounts. Now let's look at the handling of the Defendant's, Mr. O.J. Simpson's, reference vial. Detective Vannatter, as Mr. Cochran pointed out, was so upset about how this goes that when he was asked, well, when did you get the blood vial? He said 3:30. Well, it was 2:30. We know that. His testimony is, he gets the vial of blood and he goes off and he has a cup of coffee and he is walking around Parker Center with a blood vial in an unsealed tube. And as you know, the rules are you are supposed to book it immediately. You can book it in that building, Parker Center. You can walk--go a mile away. Takes just a few minutes. And you book them at piper tech where the SID lab is, and you buy a DR number, which is the number for the case, and the case starts. That is what the rules say. But that is not what they were doing. Now, could we have the next--that is not it. I want the instructions.

There are instructions on this envelope that we reviewed I think with Mr. Yamauchi, which are fascinating. It says that the investigating officer--"Officer requesting withdrawal of blood shall, when the vial is returned to you, enter your initials, shake the tube vigorously. When the affidavit is completed, sign below as a witnessing officer and seal the vial in the completed sealed evidence labels." In other words, what you are supposed to do, after you get the vial from the nurse, is you put it in this envelope and the instructions say, "Using completed sealed evidence labels," you seal the envelope. Now, he has been a detective a long time. He knows the rules. And the testimony is he has never done this before, not seal it, not walk around with the blood. And now there is something else, and it is a little hard to see on this photograph, and we tried to get the original here, but at the very, very bottom there is something really weird that you can inspect--it is covered over by the label. You see the date. "I declare"--this is Thano Peratis. "I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true." And then it says "5/10/94." May 10, `94. Well, wait a second. This was June 13th. This envelope is an old envelope in the lab. It is something that Mr. Peratis had had around there for some reason that says May 10, `94. It is an old envelope in the lab? Why is that? What is going on here? They are not following the rules. He is grabbing this envelope. He is carrying around this blood. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit. It is a serious problem, isn't it? Now, the next thing that we have is this misnumbering, you will recall, of the blood vial, and Mr. Fung, as you remember, was stumbling over it. There is a problem here. The sneakers were brought in by Detective Lange the next morning and they were put in as 17. The blood vial is numbered as 18 indicating receipt the next morning after the sneakers and 19 is this hair that Mr. Fung took off the Rockingham glove, all that morning of June 14th. And you recall the testimony that we had in this case that Mr. Fung remembers he had such, you know, problems. He said, well, and I walk walked out of Rockingham, I had the tube either in my posse box, that metal box, or I had it this in my hand in the envelope, or I had it in a brown paper bag and I put it into the truck. And then we showed him videotape and all of a sudden it changed, and we had videotape of people inside and Vannatter bringing in the envelope and now the state of the evidence is that Andrea Mazzola was given a black trash bag and that she didn't know, nobody told her, that the envelope had been put in it and maybe some of those other evidence cards. And you saw the video where they walk into the truck and they throw that trash bag inside the truck and they go back to the lab and now the testimony is, is that they leave it out on the table in a trash bag after they, you know, putting the swatches in the test-tubes and they leave. Now--and they don't even refrigerate the vial. Now, this is a very odd story, to say the least.

And what--and I think what is really peculiar about it, when you get down to it, is the way the testimony came out. Andrea Mazzola said something very interesting. She said that when she saw the next morning, June 14th, the blood vial in the black trash bag, she realized for the first time that she had been the one that carried the blood vial out of the Rockingham residence. So she is saying that she knew that on June 14th. Are you with me? Now, we had all this--we spent three days on this, if you recall. Mr. Fung couldn't remember how the blood vial was carried out. These Prosecutors knew that there was misnumbering, that there was a problem with this blood vial and its transfer. They knew it was a problem. Now, if Miss Mazzola had known since June 14th that she had carried this out in a plastic bag, because she realized it looking at that at the next moment, how come nobody was told this? Why didn't somebody know this? Why didn't they interview these witnesses before they got on the stand for eight, ten days a piece? And this was obviously a crucial problem. Because there is something wrong here.

And of course when she ultimately testified, poor Miss Mazzola had to go over and sit on the couch and close her eyes for twenty minutes, because she was tired and didn't see what went on in the foyer. Now, look. I would submit to you I don't think that is all credible evidence. I think there is something really wrong here, but, you know, you don't even need it really if you think about it, because in terms of access and opportunity, all that really matters is what nobody can deny, and that is Detective Vannatter is walking around with a May 10th envelope that he should have sealed and he should have booked for three hours at least unaccounted for. What is going on? There is something wrong. It is not coincidence. There is something wrong, terribly wrong. Now, the last part really of the missing blood issue, Thano Peratis, the issue arose about how much blood was in the blood vial. Now, if you recall from the testimony, the first thing that happened is that Mr. Yamauchi got the blood and he stuck in a pipetter that says one mil and he created the fitzco card. So that is one mil. The next thing that happens--that is on June 14th. On June 21st toxicology gets there, and toxicology does things in an appropriate way. They measured how much blood was in the tube. They take a tube, they--as Mr. Matheson described, you fill it with water, you look at the other tube and you make a measurement, and they measured it to be 5.5. Now, if it is 5.5 and we started with eight cc's and Yamauchi took one, there is 1.5 missing. No way out of that. No way out of that. Now, Mr. Matheson came in and you saw these incredible experiments that he was performing where he went and he started taking--he looked at all the other times people went into the tubes and is saying, well, you know, if you pipette it out and you pipette it out, you may lose something over time. But let's face it, the Matheson explanations can't get around the 1.5 missing right away. There is 1.5 missing right away and toxicology proves it and they know it. So the only other way to explain the missing blood is Thano Peratis must have been mistaken. That is the only way. And what I will leave you with this morning are two clips from Thano Peratis, technology willing.

When we come back from lunch, we will discuss the meaning of this. Thank you.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the lunch recess. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss this case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:30. All right. Thank you, counsel.

All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Trower, let's have the jurors, please.

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

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

And, Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your argument, sir.

Thank you very much, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

When we left, we were--I showed you two clips from Thano Peratis. In the first clip, he was under oath. He said when he drew Mr. Simpson's blood, he looked at the syringe and that's how he knew it was between 7.9 and 8.1. No doubt about it, something he does all the time, routine, something people in this field would do and know. He looked at the syringe. Then, because he couldn't live with it, because 1.5 is missing--and they could have called Thano Peratis in their direct case and put him under oath--Mr. Goldberg goes out and does this statement, this strange bizarre statement in Mr. Peratis' home which they told you is unscripted or that is to say, let's not say gave a script, but common sense tells you that they spoke to this man before they went and did this videotape. And you could tell at parts, he literally said, "I don't remember," because he was forgetting certain parts of what he--I guess what it was--what was planned to say. But let's get down to the substance. I mean, this is not under oath. It is the only testimony you've gotten in this case that is not under oath, which is fairly extraordinary. But you know what's even weirder? It's what he said. His position is this now. First of all, you can see the syringe and you can see the calibrations on the syringe. So now he's saying, "Well, the syringe was turned over and I didn't see the numbers." Well, that's pretty strange, but I think that what's even more odd is that it is his position that he now realized that he goofed. How does he know? He says that he took one of these tubes--you know, these are items in evidence--and he looked at it, and he now remembers months later that when he drew Mr. Simpson's blood on June 13th, he can remember the level that the blood was in the vial. And based on his recollection of where the blood is in the vial, he then starts putting water into another test tube to get it up to that level, and then he says, well, that's 6.5. Well, that's not worthy of belief, is it; that you can remember all these months later the exact level and that's how you come up with 6.5? So not only is it not under oath and not only is it obviously a convenient recantation and appears to have been prepared, shall we say, to suit the Prosecution's purposes when things just didn't fit, but the story is an absurdity. It is just an absurdity. It is not worthy of belief. It is a reasonable doubt in and of itself. Blood is missing.

Mr. Scheck, which two evidence items are they?

This was the syringe, which is 1382, and 1124, a purple top tube of exactly the kind involved in this matter.

Thank you.

Could we have slide no. 9? So let's review the bidding. Missing blood, access opportunity and Mr. Peratis, the smoking gun. Detective Vannatter is walking around with this tube in a May 10th envelope unsealed going up for coffee, three hours. It is misnumbered. It comes in as 18, not 17, 18, after the sneakers which were brought in the next morning. There is at least 1.5 mil missing, no question about it, early in the game because of the toxicology entry, and then we have Mr. Peratis' unsworn recantation. Is this a coincidence or is it corroboration that something is wrong, something is terribly wrong at the heart of this case? It is a reasonable doubt because missing blood I submit to you, the blood is an essential fact, an essential fact in the Prosecution's circumstantial case. If you can't trust the man who carried the blood, if you can't trust where this blood went--I mean, EDTA missing blood. Coincidence? Corroboration? Something is terribly wrong. Now, I'd like to move to the blood drops found at Bundy. And there are two aspects of examining this evidence. The first has to go to the integrity of the samples and the second one goes to the issue of cross-contamination. First, I would like to address the issue of the integrity of the samples. We start with the handling of the swatches. And we know that they are not counted at the scene. They are not counted when they get back to the lab and put into test tubes for drying. They are not counted the next morning when they are taken out of those tubes. There's no count. The first time there's a count is when Yamauchi gets it between 9:00 and 11:20 that morning, June 14th. So we don't know how many swatches we started with originally. And as Dr. Lee told you, as all the criminalists told you, as Gary Sims told you, it is the first duty of a forensic scientist to document the evidence and to establish a chain of custody that preserves the integrity of the evidence so that you can bring it into court and good people like you can feel satisfied that you have honest, reliable evidence. That was not done. No booking until June 16th. It's in the lowest security area, that evidence processing room, where that metal gate can be lifted where supposedly you have to have a card to get in the door, but other people walk in and out and entries are not monitored. It is an unlocked cabinet, and in this phase, there's no way to trace the individual items. Now, we had asked your Honor for the bindles to be produced, but they have not been produced. But you can get them. You can get them when you go back into the jury room. And there is one absolutely extraordinary fact in this case. On August 23rd, Andrea Mazzola was called to testify at a hearing in this court, put her hand on the bible, swore to tell the truth. When she came in, she had her notes, the same crime scene log notes that she and Mr. Fung had reviewed in their testimony. She got on the stand and she was asked questions by Mr. Neufeld about how they went about collecting the swatches and the evidence in this case, and she described the process of taking up the swatches, coming back to the lab, putting them in the tubes for drying, taking them out the next morning, putting them into bindles, and then she testified that they initialed the bindles, that she, Andrea Mazzola, took some of them, Mr. Fung took others of them and she initialed the bindles, those little white bindles that the swatches were in. You all recall that. She said that under oath on August 23rd. And, you know, think about whether or not she would have good reason to remember and have a best recollection of what actually occurred when she testified on August 23rd. This case was the first crime scene that Andrea Mazzola had ever primary responsibility for collecting blood evidence, a good reason to remember. Between June 13th and August 23rd when she testified under oath, Andrea Mazzola had not done another crime scene. So there was nothing to confuse her. She collected blood from a crime scene. When she testified, she knew that this was an important matter. I realize that she did not know who Mr. O.J. Simpson was, fair enough, but she certainly knew that this was an important matter and that everybody was concerned about it, and you would expect that she would want to testify in a fashion to the best of her recollection looking at those notes. She said no question about it that she initialed the bindles. You will get the bindles. We laid them out for you. You can look at 52, 50, 49, 48, 47. Her initials are on no bindles. Zero. Something is wrong. We have the board. Dr. Henry Lee is quite a remarkable man. And we tracked this evidence. He was not--his offer was not taken up, he and Dr. Baden, to examine this evidence at the time it was collected. As the testing was going on, he really did not get a chance to examine and handle the evidence until February 16th while you're still sitting there. However, we did try to track it as much as possible and we were allowed to take pictures at the Cellmark laboratory of the swatches and we were allowed to take pictures of the bindles and measure them and weigh them because something was wrong. And then we found the wet transfers. This is very disturbing, as Dr. Lee indicates, because the uncontradicted testimony is that these swatches were put in test tubes to dry for 14 hours, and Dr. Lee gave you his best estimate that he thought they would dry within three. Then Mr. Goldberg came in with--do you have that study?--the Epstein Bar study. And if we go to cotton cloth, indicates that it should take about 55 minutes if you look at it under condition no. 1, that's at room temperature, to dry. They should have been dry. I expect they'll come in and they'll say there's a swatch sandwich, they were all stuck together so they wouldn't dry. Nonsense. Use your common sense. How do you get wet transfers like this? Well, within three hours of the time that they were taken out and put in bindles, if somebody had switched swatches, you'd see wet transfer. Now, it was a very interesting point in this trial where Mr. Matheson was asked some questions about knowledge that detectives had with respect to the collection of blood evidence. And he and both Mr. Fung testified to this; that detectives are trained in the collection of blood evidence in exactly the way that they do it at LAPD. Now, remember, the way they do it at LAPD is not the way one should do it for the collection of samples for purposes of DNA evidence. They haven't changed their procedures as was testified by Miss Kestler, the head of the lab, in terms of, you know, old conventional serology testing. So they're putting them in plastic bags and degrading samples. But put that aside for a second. Matheson is asked starting at 25031 of the transcript about: "Question: When you say evidence collection technique, have you ever taught detectives how to collect a stain using LAPD procedures? "Talking about biological stain, yes." And he goes on to talk about how they want detectives to have the capability to collect blood drops and they have an on-call system and sometimes a criminalist--excuse me--is not available, so they want detectives to swatch bloodstains. And he goes on to say, and I quote:

"We supply them with blood collection kids, simply a file box with the tools that are necessary to collect the samples." We're talking about here plastic bags, swatches and gloves. And: "Question: I know they are taught to, you know, take a control and use the distilled water and use the tweezer, the whole nine yards? "Answer: Yes. They are both shown in the demonstration form, we talk to them about it. It is demonstrated to them, and if time permits, we have practiced with them in class. "Question: And are detectives in fact collecting biological evidence in the Los Angeles Police Department and submitting it to your laboratory for analysis? "Yes, they do. Detectives have swatches." These detectives would put them in plastic bags just like Fung and Yamauchi. If they were to be stored for some period of time, it would degrade them. Even if they put swatches with EDTA blood on them, they still degrade them. These ridiculous techniques, if they were put into those envelopes and left wet transfers, the integrity of the evidence is in question. Something's wrong. We--well, admittedly, to be fair to the Prosecution, there's probably not enough sample left from the Bundy blood drops to take them out for EDTA testing. But they didn't do it. And I think you have to ask yourself a fair question given the way the blood evidence has been handled in this case. What would those results be? Just from this, you must question, must have a reasonable doubt about the integrity of this evidence. But when you consider the evidence, we have to take the evidence as it is and we have to reconstruct as best we can what's going on in the case as you must in a fair and unbiased way. And you consider the evidence, the whole issue of contamination arises. And it arises in a funny way because one can see that if these samples had been contaminated, cross-contaminated in a way that I know you have followed and I will review with you--and forgive me if I repeat details that I'm sure you've followed--that certainly would convince certain people that they were on the right track and maybe they wouldn't hesitate to tamper with other evidence after that to make the case look better. Could cross-contamination have happened on these facts? Before I go into detail, I would like to make two points, the same point I think I made at the beginning, Dr. Speed made.

If there was cross-contamination in the evidence processing room on the morning of June 14th when Mr. Yamauchi was handling the samples and Mr. Simpson's reference sample at the same time, were on June 13th to June 14th when Fung and Mazzola were handling these swatches, it wouldn't matter how many times you tested them after that. They all come back the same. So let's focus on what the issue is. It's what Dr. Speed was calling common mode error. In fact, if we could put this flow chart on the--you remember the Prosecution showed Dr. Speed a flow chart? It's a little hard to see there, but, Mr. Harris, if you could circle the evidence processing room. This was the final flow chart. There were two little houses that represent the evidence processing room that's drying on June 13th at the bottom and sampling on 6-14. And as you see in terms of the testing--no. Do both. Please circle both. This is an item in evidence. The circling won't be in evidence, although I was looking for it. I could have sworn Dr. Speed had circled one, but I couldn't find the examination. In terms of the work flow, that's where cross-contamination, contamination occurred in the way they handled these swatches on June 13th and June 14th. And if it happens there, it doesn't matter who else tests it or how many times. You can't validate it because if the DNA was cross-contaminated there, it's going to come out the same every time. Now--thank you. That's point no. 1. Point no. 2 is the presumption of regularity. You heard that the primary answer that Gary Sims and Robin Cotton were giving on why they distrusted the explanation of cross-contamination is, they said we must assume that substrate controls were handled in parallel with the other evidence items. Now, there's a lot of problems with making that assumption. No. 1, we know that Fung and Mazzola have no training in terms of why the substrate controls should be handled in parallel. In other words, if they handled all the wet swatches and then did the controls after, they didn't put them in a precise order, then it no longer serves as a control against cross-contamination. So they're saying we must assume that they were handled in parallel. And if we make that assumption, then everything--then we think controls worked. Well, there can be no presumption of regularity at the LAPD on how they handle these swatches, and the reason that they are not entitled to that presumption and the--well, there's, no. 1, Mr. Simpson is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But, no. 2, no. 2, we have proven that they're not entitled to it. Dr. Gerdes has proven it. Dr. Gerdes came in and he did an extensive study of the LAPD lab. Can we get rid of that circle? And I won't review all of what he said, but I think it's a fair assessment of this man's testimony that it is a solid, straightforward careful scientist who spent hundreds of hours reviewing data, doing an inspection, and what he found is that there was a cesspool of contamination in this laboratory. No mistake about it. Cesspool of contamination. The second thing that he proved, and you get that cesspool, how can you just assume you're doing everything right when we can prove they're doing everything wrong? The next part of his testimony that has particular relevance is the whole issue of contamination by control. If you recall, when he examined the controls, there were controls that would show that there was contamination at the extraction process; that is in the evidence handling, the per, the evidence processing room stage, as opposed to later when the amplification occurs or the so-called negative amplification control. And based on this data, he made the assessment that the contamination problem in LAPD is happening in that evidence processing room stage when they're handling the samples. Thank you. So we have proven that they are not entitled to any assumption of regularity in that evidence processing room in the way they handle the samples because they are getting this contamination all the time. Dr. Gerdes' testimony I think also proves something significant in this regard. He proved that they literally don't know what they're doing. It's a shame. They do a validation study where they're processing known samples and things like cases and they give a report saying there were no incorrect typeable results observed, and that's simply not true. And I know we went back and forth about the errors they made, but you recall the testimony. Some of the errors they made on their own validation study, Mr. Yamauchi and the others, were of the kind that could create false positives, that could convict innocent people. And they didn't even note in their own review of it that they made those errors. If they're saying they could be justified, then they should have at the least said there was some incorrect results observed and these are the reasons. But they didn't even do that because they didn't--weren't even aware of it. Mr. Matheson, who admits no expertise of any significance, is the one reviewing it. He didn't notice anything wrong. Dr. Gerdes, without going into too much, talked about how they don't change their reagents in a regular way like they do at DOJ, Cellmark or any other respecting laboratory. They didn't even realize that they had this contamination problem, which is even more frightening. And you did not see a witness come in to rebut Dr. Gerdes. One would have assumed that an independent scientist not associated with the laboratory would have come in here to refute his data. And they'll talk about, well, you didn't call Dr. Mullis. That person would have come in, Dr. Mullis could have been a surrebuttal witness. It didn't happen. I'm kind of surprised frankly--

Objection.

Overruled.

Now, they're going to say that or have said--and what have they said about Dr. Gerdes so far? He's paid money. He's not a forensic scientist, not qualified to review a DNA laboratory. Well, I think you're going to reject that for good reasons. He's reviewed 23 forensic laboratories, the work of them. He's visited seven laboratories. He plainly knows the literature in this field. He demonstrated that on cross-examination by a very fine lawyer. They couldn't ask him one question about an article he hadn't read or assessed. He's a microbiologist, which is particularly important training. I'm sure some of you know that from your own work, and that is a person who is a student of how contamination occurs, bacterial contamination occurs, clean methods, sterile methods. He has a Ph.D. in this field from UCLA. This man--his lab is accredited by a number of organizations in paternity testing, disease diagnosis, organ transplants, bone marrow transplants. Many organizations inspected, accredited his laboratory. He understands these procedures. This man deals with life and death every day, every day with DNA testing. The nerve of them to say, "You're not a forensic scientist. You can't assess a DNA laboratory in how they handle the samples there." That's audacious. That is not worthy of your consideration as an answer. Put on a witness, show data, get a self-respecting scientist to come in here and refute what Dr. Gerdes said. They couldn't do it. They wouldn't do it. They can't do it and that's why you heard no one. Because he's right. And the lab--and it's terrible. You could see they were training each other, Yamauchi and Erin Riley. They had no Ph.D. brought in to construct this place. That's not right. That's not right. You're citizens here. We are entitled to more than that. You can't run a lab like this. You can't then get up here in closing argument and go, we have a sloppy lab. We're dealing with life and death. Just like these transplants, we're dealing with life and death. It's too late to say now, ignore all this. You can't. Now, they're going to say he's doing it by medical standards. It's too high. You can't judge a forensic laboratory by the standards we use for medical DNA. But we went through this and we know frankly that forensics is more challenging. In medical applications, known samples, clean samples, unlimited amounts, they're not degraded. All that occurs in the forensic situation. There's no justification for saying the standard should be lower. And even under a forensic standard, whatever that might be--and frankly, these are the standards and, you know, they're not coming close to this book. Even by those standards, Dr. Gerdes offered a conclusion which I think is not unreasonable in the evidence and stand unrefuted; it should have been shut down. And that's what they're asking you to accept. But it goes further. You know, Miss Clark said--and I frankly think--I assume she is going to be answering all this in rebuttal. It is not--after all we went through with this DNA evidence, it's not enough to say to you--because you know a lot about this now--to say, oh, they're saying something about flying DNA caused cross-contamination. Flying DNA. That is not the contention. The contention is specific. It is in the evidence processing room. It is in the way these samples were handled. It is in the kind of lab they deal with. Can we have the next slide, please? Now, we know--and I know you know what this is about. When you take the swatches and you put them in plastic bags and you cook them for seven hours, you degrade the DNA. And as we went through it, Dr. Cotton admitted it. Gary Sims admitted it. Everybody admits it. It's fundamental. You can degrade the DNA so there's none left that's detectable. And if you cross-contaminate it with another sample from a reference tube from high concentration DNA--and remember, we're not talking about very much. The highest amount here is an RFLP test by Cellmark of 25 nanograms. And you know, because we've been through this, that is, you know, such a small amount, less than a drop of a very small speck can create the 25 nanograms of high molecular weight DNA. You know that now. I bet you before you came into this court, you never ever thought you would be literate in this. But you are. You know this now. Okay. Next. No. No. That's not it. Oh, yes. Now, there's an issue of risk factors, and you have to assess what was handled here in terms of what is an acceptable or an unacceptable level of risk. Now, we--you remember all these logos, and I won't go through all of them. But handling multiple swatches in a hurry, handling samples from both crime scenes at the same time, not changing gloves, not routinely between samples, not changing paper and washing down between samples, when you scrape the swatches out of the tubes creating aerosols, all these things create risk of cross-contamination. All these things Gary Sims told you, their witness, were wrong. But the single worse thing that was done, the cardinal rule of handling these samples in a DNA lab is the one in the upper right-hand corner, and that is handling Mr. Simpson's reference tube at the same time that you are processing the swatches and the glove. That is the biggest no-no that forensic labs have learned from bitter experience as we'll discuss in a minute. What happened in the evidence processing room that morning? We know that Mr. Yamauchi says he got the sample at about 9:00 from Mr. Fung. And on cross-examination, he said something that's really remarkable. Do you recall this? All of a sudden, he said, "I remember now. I opened up the tube, and the blood spurted up through the chemwipe and it got on my gloves." Now, he was a little vague about what he did with the gloves. He doesn't remember whether he put them in a bio-hazard bag right in the evidence processing room or got out and went to the serology room and got rid of them there. But all of a sudden, we now know there was a spillage of blood there. Now, that is extraordinarily significant because there's plenty of high molecular weight DNA in the smallest drop if you get it on your gloves or if you don't change the gloves. And frankly, I think there's no reason to believe he did, to contaminate these samples that we know are degraded. And it's so easy to do that and not be aware of it, and it's so easy to do that when you're in a hurry, and it's so easy to do that when you're only out of training for six months and you're in a tough position, and it's so easy to do that and not really be aware of it, so easy to make that kind of mistake when you really haven't had the training, so easy to do it when you're handling 21 samples that morning in one day, something that an experienced technician like Gary Sims tells you it takes days to do, so easy to make that mistake and cross-contaminate these samples. So easy. What's most important is that there's an unacceptable level of risk. You cannot accept this presumption that it all went right beyond a reasonable doubt. There's no way. Now, interestingly, when he says even by his testimony that he opened up the tube, the blood spurted out--let's give him changing the gloves, although there's no real reason to accept that frankly. There's still, by his own admission, going to be blood on that table, blood that you can swipe with your gloves or your hands. And it doesn't make--take much to do this transfer. He didn't wash down that table. There was no paper there that he changed. There's blood on the table. A fair inference. Now, the next thing that Miss Clark said--and I don't know if she was listening to the evidence that carefully in this phase of the case to be frank. She said, "Well, if there were contamination, if there were DNA flying around from Mr. Simpson's sample, then we would have seen proof somewhere else that his blood had contaminated other samples. That's what we would have seen." Well, there was. On June 15th, if you recall, a second set of samples was handled by Mr. Yamauchi. He had the reference tube from Nicole Brown Simpson, the reference tube from Ronald Goldman and he had item no. 12, which were the three blood drops picked up at the foyer in Mr. Simpson's residence. Those were the last drops picked up that day. They were the ones that were last put in a plastic bag, and Gary Sims has told us those were the ones that had the highest DNA concentration of any of the samples. Item no. 12, they are the one that got an RFLP result from Cellmark. So we know that item no. 12 is high concentration DNA. We know that item no. 12 was being handled by Mr. Yamauchi on June 15th with the reference samples of Goldman and Nicole, which were also high concentration samples. And Dr. Gerdes showed you how at LAPD and then on the polymarkers at Cellmark and then at DOJ, we got typings that were consistent with cross-contamination from item no. 12. And all the controls on those second days, those negative controls are clean because, as I'll discuss in a second, we've already proven these things happened with negative results; being clean, you get this type of cross-contamination. So this was proof that Mr. Simpson's DNA, by sloppy handling, was cross-contaminated and type lab after lab. And you heard that on cross-examination. Mr. Clarke didn't even confront Dr. Gerdes with this board. And, you know, he's a fine lawyer and he knows this subject matter well. He didn't cross him on it because they can't touch it. In order for this to be true, the only thing they can say is, well, there was an extraordinary series of artifacts that accounted for some of it, but it didn't account for this polymarker typing. That can't be an artifact. It's proven--thank you--and not refuted. And I should say one more thing in passing I forgot to mention. That when Dr. Gerdes showed you his study of cross--of contamination at LAPD, when you have these negative controls, you can have contamination in the negative controls come up clean. In fact, in the instances where he saw contamination, 26 percent of the time, the negative controls were clean. And there's reasons for that, because these negative controls are not always going to pick stuff up. And you saw it right here. There's proof. Now, there's one other point to be made about this issue of cross-contamination at the LAPD and that evidence processing room. We can't be anymore specific about it. There's no flying DNA. And that is, you have to have appreciation of how mistakes can happen with this technology. And we learned something about that from Dr. Robin Cotton. If you recall, the California association of crime lab directors gave a proficiency test where they used degraded samples in 1989. And in this test, they gave samples to Cellmark and to other labs, and they were false positives and Cellmark got two false positives, the first and the second time. You remember what Dr. Cotton told you about what they learned of that? When they did these tests, the second one in particular, the way that they got a false positive through cross-contamination is that they had a degraded sample. And the CACAD study is the only one where they're really sending these labs degraded samples just like here. It's a degraded sample. That creates a risk of cross-contamination, when you degrade out the initial DNA. And the only thing--you recall this. The only thing they could isolate is that they were handling the reference sample at the same time they were handling the degraded sample. And what was interesting about her testimony is, she testified that they had a witness in the room. In other words, when they were doing these proficiency tests, they were witnessed. Each transfer was witnessed by somebody standing right there. And all they could reconstruct, all they could reconstruct at the end was that they had made a mistake. This discussion started at 27517. Mr. Neufeld was asking: "And you determined that it happened at some point during the extraction process? "Yes, in dealing with the sperm fractions. "But even to this date, Dr. Cotton, would it be fair to say you don't know how the accidental contamination occurred during the extraction process? "Yes, that would be fair to say. "Question: And would it also be fair to say this cross-contamination, this accidental cross-contamination happened in spite of the fact that all of the sample transfers were witnessed by a second person to make sure no errors occurred?

"Answer: You are exactly right." Now, just think of the analogy. This is 1989. Actually, the second one also happened in 1990. This is when Cellmark was starting out. And even when they started out, they had far more qualified personnel than anybody that came in here from the LAPD. And they got a degraded sample and they handled the reference samples at the same time, and they still can't figure it out, that that's when the cross-contamination occurred. So it happens. And it happened to a much better lab than LAPD and it happened when they were just beginning, just the way LAPD is just beginning here with far less trained personnel frankly. So don't come in and tell us based on this evidence that it's unreasonable to suggest that there was cross-contamination, because all the evidence really, all the rational inferences point in that direction, that there was an unacceptable risk of it, and we have proof that it was going on with those samples from June 15th. Now, this leads me to a discussion briefly of numbers. We saw a lot of numbers in this case, and one of those numbers is--the judge has instructed you is what I guess is being called the "Random match probability." That is, what are the odds that somebody coincidentally has the same DNA pattern that they may find in some sample. And some of these numbers are pretty staggering. These are just frequencies, you know, one in a billion one in a trillion. Now, there are frankly some problems with these numbers. Dr. Weir, who came in here and testified that he's absolutely 100 percent right and these people are just wrong, then offered you numbers which he had to admit were wrong and inflated and biased against the Defendant. And Dr. Cotton, using Dr. Weir's methods, has come in here and told you that the database for a five-probe match at Cellmark for an African American is based on samples they got from Detroit. And in terms of how many people have been tested on all five probes, you get that it's a group of people from Detroit and just two of them. So there is some problems with these numbers. But let's put them aside because they're really, in a sense, irrelevant to the main issues in this case. There are problems with them and I don't think that you can just accept them at face value. But to find many reasonable doubts, they're really irrelevant. And the reason is that the issues in this case, as I'm sure you've realized, are, how did blood get on these samples in the first place, who put it there, did they get there through contamination, was there laboratory error, was there corruption, contamination of these samples? That's the issue. So the numbers really are irrelevant they're just telling you frequencies about samples, but it doesn't answer the question. Now, the judge has told you that laboratory error in these random match probabilities are a different phenomenon. They are. They are different things, and you know that from your own common sense. Let me give you a simple analogy. Let's say that we're trying to figure out the odds of somebody getting killed when they're walking across the street. There's lots of different ways that can happen. You could get struck by lightening, and the odds of that happening are probably like some of these random match probabilities, one in a trillion. On the other hand, if you're walking down the street, across the street and it's a busy thoroughfare and you walk out in the middle of traffic, the odds are greater you'll get hit and killed. If the cars are moving at 60 miles an hour, 70 miles an hour, the odds increase. If you walk out in the middle of the block, the odds are getting greater. If you're walking against the light, the odds are getting greater. The chances can be almost certain that you're making a mistake. So what you have to look at in assessing laboratory error are risk factors. And we know that the risk factors in the evidence processing room are unacceptably high as Dr. Gerdes told you, unacceptably high. So if we could review. Are the Bundy blood drops cross-contaminated? We have to look at the history of this lab. A cesspool of contamination, unrefuted. The contamination, as Dr. Gerdes says, is localized in the evidence handling, exactly where it looks like it happened in this case. The risk factors in that evidence processing room are unacceptably high. We have contamination from that reference sample board on June 15th of Mr. Simpson's blood going into two reference samples with the controls being clean and then we have the whole issue of Mr. Yamauchi spilling the blood. It's reasonable doubt. Now, I'd like to turn briefly to the hair and fiber evidence. You heard from--you know, Miss Clark can say it's his hair or it's his fiber. But as she had to say in her closing, that is not what the testimony was from the witness because hair and fiber evidence, as Mr. Deedrick pointed out, as we all know and as Dr. Lee pointed out, is weak association evidence. It ain't DNA. It is weak association. We are talking about broad similarities. You can't even say the word "Match" when you're talking about this evidence. It is really evidence by way of exclusion. You have to--they can't come up with a number and say this hair is--the odds of this being someone else's hair is 1 in 20. Can't even say that. It's just a question of looking at as many similar hairs to see if you can get an exclusion from a particular race. So there's no database. There's no number. It's just similarities. It is association evidence. Nobody is telling you that this is definitely somebody's hair or some particular fiber. Therefore, what you have to do with this kind of evidence, as Deedrick and Dr. Lee mentioned, is that you have to exclude other frequent visitors, for example, African American visitors to the Bundy condo area if you're doing a serious assessment of whose hair, man or woman, older children of Mr. Simpson, younger children of Mr. Simpson, others who were there could be contributors of the hair. Fiber is no different. The same general class characteristics. A big deal is being made about blue black fiber from some unknown source that's found on three objects and maybe more. Now, we have Mr. Deedrick talking about the blue black fiber at 35338, lines 12 to 17.

"Question: Do you remember what you told us in your direct examination about the amount of cotton fiber that is manufactured in the United States every year? "Answer: Five billion pounds. "Question: Okay. Do you have any idea whatsoever of the number of fabrics of blue black nature that looks black to the naked eye and were distributed in the Los Angeles area in the past five or 10 years? "Answer: I have no idea." You want to say 10 percent? What's 10 percent of five billion? Look around the courtroom. How many people are wearing blue black cotton fibers? Maybe some of you right now. So you have to look, when you're assessing this evidence, at background. Who could be contributing these hairs and fibers? And you can't say anything certain at all about the similarities. It's weak association evidence. We know that Mr. Simpson is a frequent visitor to the condo area. You would expect to find his hairs around there. You would expect to find Bronco fibers around there, not just from Mr. Simpson, but from Nicole Brown Simpson, from the children, from others who were in and out of that Bronco that's used as a utility vehicle. Just as a simple illustration, Dr. Lee--this is a soil exemplar that the LAPD took. They never made an assessment of the fibers. Here is hair and fiber that you just see in the soil from that closed-in area, okay. It's around everywhere. We shed them. It comes out. It's all around an area where people live. Now, one interesting character that could be a source of all these is Kato the dog. After all, Kato the dog is probably in that closed-in dirt area, one of the most frequent visitors, and Kato the dog is carrying hairs from all the significant members of the family and he's carrying Bronco fibers with him because he's a dog that shed. I have a sheep dog. You all have dogs. You know that is a phenomena. And Kato the dog, as we'll see in its significant point, is at the crime scene that night. In terms of assessing hair and fiber evidence, you have to look at the issue of contamination, particularly when you're talking about hair and fiber flying all over the place in a crime scene. I mean, this is where the issue of contaminating a scene is of critical importance. And how did they handle this scene? We have the issue of the blanket. I mean, this, as Mr. Fung admitted, was colossal stupidity. To take a blanket that people--Mr. Simpson and others with Bronco fibers, hairs from all kinds of African Americans on that blanket and then throw it out over the crime scene, over the bodies, over the evidence items, everywhere is asking for trouble. But perhaps the most significant problem here--and it's the one they haven't come clean on in this case at all--is dragging around the bodies. This was--in terms of handling a crime scene, this was really an incredible thing, because if you're trying to make associations about hair and fiber evidence from clothing of the two victims and what might have been in the dirt area, there were people shedding these things, and you drag the bodies all over the place over the evidence that you're testing. That--there's no integrity to that. It's ludicrous. And nobody ever came clean and said who it was that moved those bodies through the envelope and the hat. And we all know that happened, right? You have to admit it happened when they pulled Mr. Goldman's body through lord knows what was going on. It was moved and replaced, and nobody has ever come back and told you who put the envelope back in that different position, who put the hat back in a different position, who put the glove back. Nobody's ever come in and told you.

And they certainly didn't investigate. We'll talk about that in a little bit more. But we put in concrete evidence this kind of cross-corruption was going on in the hair and fiber evidence. Can we have the next slide? These were slides that were put in evidence by Mr. Blasier, if you recall, and this represented something really interesting. It had to do with bloodstains that--blood evidence that you found on the clothes, the dress of Nicole Brown Simpson on the left and the shirt and the jeans of Mr. Goldman on the right. And if you recall, there was not only blood evidence stains on the bodies themselves, but there was also in the area where they were taking controls. You know, you try to find an area where there's no bloodstain, you take a control, and those controls came up showing evidence of Nicole's blood on Ron's shirts, vice versa. Can we have the next slide?

Could we have the exhibit number for that, your Honor?

What is the exhibit number? I'll get you that. These are in evidence. The summary of the results were on those clothing--go back, please. Summary of the results, there were 23 stains tested. 16 of those stains showed carryover. And very interestingly, if Mr. Simpson supposedly committed these murders and his hand was cut and he's struggling here, no matches, no evidence of his blood on this clothing. But there is carryover between the clothing. Now, what does that mean? That means frankly that the bodies were dragged through the crime scene and blood from Nicole Brown Simpson got on Mr. Goldman and vice versa. And if that happens, that's how the fibers can get carried over too. And Miss Clark went on--I think she even put some little pieces of puzzle up there. She went on and on with this rank speculation where she was saying, "Well, we know that it was one killer, and we know it was one killer because we see some fibers that came from Nicole's dress and got on Ron's shirt or jeans and back and forth and that's how we know one person was going back and forth between two victims." Nonsense. This proves it. This proves that the hair and fiber and the blood evidence were all coming together because they--the handling of this crime scene is a disgrace, a disgrace. They're dragging the bodies back and forth.

Okay. Now, also, it should be noted that it came out during the testimony of Miss Brockbank that the two gloves and the two hats, the knit hat and the plaid hat found in Mr. Simpson's Bronco and the Bronco carpet that was cut out of the car were all placed in the same box. I mean, the way they handled this stuff, and then they want to come in and say there's integrity of the hair and fiber evidence is ridiculous. Briefly on the hat, we had testimony about dandruff. You heard Mr. Simpson's barber say in the off season, in the summer, spring, he gets dandruff. Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff. There's no dandruff in the hair in that hat. Now, if we look at the hair and fiber evidence as a whole, there are--and this is just weak association evidence. Nonetheless, there are powerful inferences consistent with innocence and these were put on slides that are in evidence. I would like to review them briefly with you. Both gloves, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Bundy glove, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Rockingham glove. That's the slide we put up. Do you know what we should have added to that slide? Very significant facts that I hope you don't forget. There was an unidentified Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove. Did they test Mark Fuhrman? Did we get a hair exemplar from him? Uh-uh. Also--and this is a fascinating point. Kato the dog, his hair was found on the Rockingham glove. And I'd like to read this testimony to you because I don't think it was an answer that Miss Clark particularly liked, and this was in the cross-examination of Mr. Deedrick. "Question: --" and they were talking about Kato's hair on page 34349 of the transcript: "Is the finding of such hairs, Kato's hairs on the Rockingham glove, accounted for by possible contact between the wearer of that glove, the murderer, and Kato the dog either during or immediately after the murders?

"Answer: Could have. It could have been a direct transfer from the dog or, as I stated before, an indirect transfer from hairs at the crime scene. "Question: That would say where? "Answer: On the ground maybe. Would have to have been on the ground. "Question: Have to have been on the ground? "Answer: Or perhaps from one of the victims who had been on the ground and collected the hairs. "Question: And that you previously described those as being common to the under part of the dog as opposed to the tougher, the coat?" Now, he's talking about the hair. This was a soft hair from Kato the dog found on the Rockingham glove. "Answer: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say the under part, under the fur, under the outer coat, which could have been on the belly, it could have been on the back, but it is just the soft, fine hairs that are closer to the body.

"Question: If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was in the Bundy residence, might you expect to find some fur hairs left behind in the soil? "Answer: I would expect that, yes. "Question: And if the Rockingham glove were deposited any time on that soil, the Rockingham glove being on the Bundy soil in the closed-in area were deposited any time on this soil, might that not explain the presence of those hairs?

"Answer: It could, yes." So very simply, he's saying that this is hair from the soft under belly of Kato the dog, the kind you would expect to be shed if he were lying on the ground there, not the kind that you get if the dog sort of passed you, all right, or comes up on you as you're--they're going to probably claim fleeing the crime scene or something. It's a soft hair. It's the kind you would find on the ground in the closed-in area.

What does that mean? That means that Rockingham glove started at Bundy. Somebody took it somewhere else, and you know who that was. Let's go on to the next slide. The socks. There's no fiber on the socks consistent with either glove. And these are cashmere gloves where cashmere would easily come out and get on your hands, transfer to the socks. No fiber consistent with Mr. Goldman's clothes. And we know there was hand-to-hand combat here. No fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes. Nothing on those socks. Also, we should add, no soil on those socks, no trace, no berries, nothing. Pretty interesting, those socks. Next one, please. As far as the hair is concerned, no hair from Mr. Goldman, no hair from Nicole Brown Simpson on those socks. Next, please. As far as Bronco fiber is concerned, no Bronco fiber is found on either glove. No Bronco--no fiber consistent with Mr. Goldman's clothes is found. No fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes is found. Next. As far as hair, no hair consistent with Miss Nicole Brown Simpson. No hair consistent with Mr. Goldman on the Bronco. Okay. And I should add, you know, in the Bronco, what they did is not only they take out that carpet, but they went in and they vacuumed it. They vacuumed it to get all the hair and trace. They vacuumed it. And even Mr. Deedrick himself, when he was talking about hair transfer, said, "Well, the way we get transfer is when you go sit down in your car, things move on you." There's nothing in the Bronco. How can that be? Now, I'd like to move on to the crime scene at Bundy and evidence of struggle, the testimony of Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee and I guess Dr. Lakshmanan who came in here as the person for the Prosecution to try to reconstruct that crime scene. You know, there are bloodstain experts and criminalists and people like Dr. Lee out there the Prosecution could have called to come in here and try to assess this evidence for you. They did not do so. They brought you Dr. Lakshmanan working over second-generation photographs who's a Coroner to do only one part as best he could with this evidence. Now, we know, as Miss Clark indicated in her closing argument, that Nicole Brown Simpson did struggle before her death, and we know that there were defensive wounds on her hands and we know that some of the wounds to her neck showed evidence of struggle. And then we have the fingernail scrapings. Now, Mr. Sims had said that he would expect that when you did fingernail scrapings, you would find--excuse me for just a second--he would expect that there would be skin under the nails. Now, he's a fine man and a fine forensic scientist. I have no quarrel with him, but he was admittedly testifying in an area outside of his expertise when he told you--he was saying that was his common sense understanding. But Dr. Baden came in and testified about what one ordinarily finds as a Coroner with fingernail scrapings. Dr. Lakshmanan didn't dispute it. And that is that with fingernail scrapings, when you find it, you find blood under the nails, but you don't find skin because when it grabs, the blood comes up, but the skin doesn't come with it. That's what Dr. Baden says you find. That's what the textbooks say you find when you get fingernail scrapings. So you would get blood, but not tissue. So let's explore that myth right away. But now we have a problem for the Prosecution, that when they do the fingernail scrapings, they come up on the EAP system with a B. That is not O.J. Simpson's type. That is not Nicole Brown Simpson's type. That is not Mr. Goldman's type. It is some other person.

And that's what their typing result showed. And so then it doesn't fit. It can't be right. So we have to see if we can make an assessment that would somehow undercut that finding. Now, remember, when you have two conflicting reasonable interpretations of evidence in a circumstantial evidence case, you have to go with the one inference that's consistent with innocence. Now, let's look at what happened. Mr. Matheson said, "I think what could be here is that we had--" can we show this slide? "--a four-banded BA from Nicole Brown Simpson that degrades into a two-banded B." Now, you recall this testimony I'm sure and the cross-examination by Mr. Blasier and the testimony by Mr. Sims who's been doing serology a lot longer than Mr. Matheson, had a lot of experience in forensic serology. These are the facts. The facts are in the literature. This supposed degradation pattern that Greg Matheson suggests could occur does not exist. There is no literature. Dr. George Sensabaugh, all the experts in this field, that doesn't happen. Nobody has seen it. Mr. Sims, who did more conventional serology than Mr. Matheson, said he in his experience has never seen a four-banded BA degrade into a two-banded B. Never. Mr. Matheson says he thinks he recalls somewhere he saw it. That ain't good enough. That kind of maybe, maybe I saw it, that ain't good enough. Maybe doesn't cut it in a criminal case. We're taking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is nonsense. Now, the other thing that they're trying to say is, all right, you can put aside the EAP b because there was DNA testing of some of that material under the nails and that came back as 1.1, 1.1, Nicole Brown Simpson's type. And they think that you're not going to understand this. But you do. Because as you heard, the EAP system is a red blood cell. A red blood cell does not have a nucleus. There's no DNA in the red blood cell. The EAP typing system is something that looks at antigens on the outside of that red blood cell. So you can have blood under that nail. Small amounts of blood under that nail test out to be an EAP B, and when you get the little bed of epithelial cells under the nail or either some other things, blood, that might have come in from Nicole Brown Simpson, that can type out 1.1, 1.1. But the initial scrapings, when they duck down, they came up with EAP B. And you can't get around that and you can't try to explain it away, and they don't bring in any serologist. Now, even Dr.--Mr. Sims--he's not a doctor--Mr. Sims, the best that he could do in looking at all of that--and they finally asked him the question, 28748. He says:

"Looking at all these findings, I can't exclude the possibility that the EPA B or that might have been from Nicole Brown Simpson. I can't exclude the possibility." That is not exactly a firm statement. That is again a maybe, and a maybe doesn't cut it in a criminal case. And when you have two reasonable conflicting inferences, you've got to go with the one consistent with innocence. And that's what this evidence shows. That's fact. I'm not making any of this up. Those are facts. Sorry.

You want a glass of water?

I'm fine.

Sure?

Now, could we have the board?

Cut the feed, your Honor.

There's the whole issue of Mr. Goldman and his struggle with a perpetrator or perpetrators. There were 30 stab wounds inflicted upon Mr. Goldman. Miss Clark told you about--well, there were cuts on his hand, his open palm. Sure. But what does that mean? If there are cuts on his hand and he is struggling with an assailant, it gets on the clothes of the assailant. Dr. Lee did an analysis of the scene based on the limited evidence that he could get, because they didn't document it in any way where you can do a good reconstruction, just a limited reconstruction, and we had multiple contacts, blood transfers in different areas of the closed-in area. And in each of these different areas where the multiple contacts occur, as you recall, there were also vertical blood drops. And the fair inference from that evidence is that there's a struggle. People are up against one area, then another area. Up against the other area, blood drops are going down. So there's a struggle in different areas with an assailant or assailants. I mean, we can just reason from facts. Dr. Lakshmanan got up--and there's a whole hypothesis here that it all happened so quickly by surprise, stealth, surprise. I mean, you can't do that. You've got to look at facts. You have got to do the best analysis, a fair inference from the facts. And the facts show that there's multiple contacts in these different areas from the bloodstain evidence by the country's, the world's leading analyst of this, whose testimony in these points stand unrefuted. There is, of course, as we've discussed, the dug-out area, particular struggle here. Even Detective Lange told you where there's--other areas where there's signs of struggle between the assailant and Mr. Goldman, soil on the socks. There's contact by the way that they're banging against the sides of the gate, such that pants are going to come in contact with--pants and shirt. Now, it's clear from the way the struggle went that at some point early on, Mr. Goldman sustained this wound to his neck and the blood began oozing down. And as Dr. Lee pointed out, he had to be standing--Dr. Baden, had to be standing vertical for some period of time because the blood could go down from his shirt all the way down his pants' leg. And we saw a lot of blood on the back of his pants. Now, if assailants are struggling together, there's going to be blood from the pants, blood from the shirt in close contact transferred to the assailant. Got to be. It's a bloody struggle. And that's what this bloodstain evidence shows. It's fair inferences from the facts. Now, the beeper and the keys. The significance I submit to you, the beeper and the keys, at the very least--put aside keys as a weapon. The significance is thrown--you know there's violence, tussling and struggling. The beeper is thrown down here and the other areas--another area of struggle, the keys are thrown down. If the keys were in the pocket, that's got to be a considerable tussle because for the keys to come out of the pocket in the other area or if the keys are in his hand, well, he is going to use that as a weapon. So you can't--you know, you can't have it both ways. It shows multiple banging and struggling throughout that area. Now, the key fact that Miss Clark conceded in her closing argument, key fact is what Dr. Baden told you about the time between the wound to the neck and the time to the last fatal wound in the chest. And this is just fact. As Dr. Lee would say, there's scientific fact, there's interpretation. We deal with fact. The fact is that this would have had to come first, the one to the neck. There's blood oozing down. And the last wound is to the chest. When the wound in the chest occurred--as Dr. Baden told you, there's only 100 cc's of blood in the chest. What that must mean is that by the time Mr. Goldman was stabbed there, his heart was compromised. It wasn't beating very hard. So you did not have the amount much more than 100 cc's of blood you would expect to find in the chest if it hadn't been the last--if not about the last wound. And Dr. Baden said from the time--just based on finding a hundred cc's of the bleeding, compromise of the heart, the time between the first stab and the last stab would be between at least five minutes, as much as 15 minutes, most reasonably 10. Now, that doesn't mean that the struggle took--the struggle went on from the first wound to the last wound for 10 minutes. What it means is--and this is what's crucial--that the assailant or assailants were there for that period of time. It could be that Mr. Goldman was subdued, was lying on the ground and they did come and stab him last and make that last wound. But we know from the facts that between this wound, the wound to the chest, most reasonably, 10 minutes. Somebody's there, at least some people are there for 10 minutes. Now, if the struggle occurs--starts 10:35, 10:50, based on scientific fact, Mr. Simpson can't be guilty of these crimes because he can't be two places at the same time, can he? Now, that time period is even, you know, longer.

They say, oh, take the five minutes. Give us, the Prosecution, you know, the inferences. Well, you can't. You know, you can't, because reasonable inference is, if it's between five and 15, most reasonably 10, you've got to take 10. You can't give them the five. That's not the way you can reason about a circumstantial evidence case. But even if you take the five, you know, something happened before that first wound some period of time. So the window, the time here that these murders took is not this incredibly quick event that is necessary for the Prosecution's time line, and that's based on a reasonable, careful scientific investigation of the evidence by Dr. Baden, one of the foremost pathologists, and Dr. Lee, one of the foremost forensic experts. This is evidence. Now, the next thing I'd like to point out has to do with the bloodstain imprints on the envelope. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot this. Thank you very much. One other thing I should mention about the struggle, a critical point. I can't believe I left it out.

Mr. Blasier, are there remains?

No.

Where did this come from? Dr. Lee testified it is a fresh cut. You can see when you examine the clean part of the top here, or is it a fresh cut from a sharp instrument consistent with a knife? Think about that. Think about that. What does that indicate about the nature of this struggle? Mr. Goldman, one or two assailants, somebody coming towards him. He kicked. Dr. Lee testified that by the angle that is consistent with the foot being raised in the air and a sharp instrument coming down, there's kicking. And if there's kicking, why are there no bruises on Mr. Simpson's body consistent with that kick? And why didn't anybody else come in here and point out this cut on the boot? Very significant evidence. And, of course, there's the dirt on the boot, which you would expect to see, and blood on Mr. Goldman's jeans and the broken buttons, indications of a struggle there. Now, the bloodstain imprints on the envelope. Now, I know it's not Mr. Bodziak's area, but, you know, you have to consider all the evidence. And Dr. Lee I think gave us all a pretty sound education on bloodstain interpretation, enough to basically figure out and understand which bloodstains that certain deposits are made first and other deposits are made over them. And I think that that's, you know, pretty significant in terms of assessing this.

Now, the first point that I think this goes to is, you recall Mr. Bodziak's testimony that there could only be one set of footprints leaving the scene. When you analyze it, he concedes that that was based on the assumption that there was a pool of blood that all assailants would have to walk through. And I understand that he was not following all of Dr. Lee's testimony, only--I guess only 95 percent that dealt with footprints, but not the full 95 percent as I originally thought he was saying. But the point is--like you forgot about Dr. Lakshmanan. Dr. Lakshmanan offered a scenario in broad respects that Dr. Baden said could well be the case. And there seems to be an operating premise here, and that is that Nicole Brown Simpson was subdued. She could have been hit on the head. It wouldn't necessarily knock her out as Dr. Baden indicated, but might have incapacitated her or knocked her out. And then there's a struggle with Mr. Goldman and then or close to the final act, Miss Nicole Brown Simpson is leaning over the stairwell, is inflicted with the last wound to her neck and then the huge blood pool. But if you're not necessarily--and that is the assumption underlying Agent Bodziak's testimony, that if there were to be another set of footprints, it would have to be dark from the big pool of blood. It's not even--it's not consistent with what Dr. Lakshmanan said. It could have been one or two other people left that scene, somebody, without leaving tracks. They could have come out the way the police did, which wouldn't leave imprints, or there could have been partial imprints with small amounts of blood on the shoes that were not discovered because, frankly, they were not looking, as you can tell, very hard or very aggressively for anything other than focusing in on those Bruno Magli shoes. And I realize Agent Bodziak thinks very well of the photography of the criminalists at the LAPD, but taking good photographs of one's Bruno Magli shoes does not mean that was combined with--does not mean they were looking for other imprints as his book recommends that people do and do aggressively. Now, the one really interesting part of this envelope has to do with its handling. Do you recall Dr. Lee pointed out on the far right-hand corner that this is a mirror image stain, meaning that it had to be a wet deposit and then somebody folded the envelope? So the blood is wet and the envelope is folded. And then we see--could we have the next--this is what number? I'm sorry. 1348. As he focused in is what appears to be consistent with a light transfer of a finger. Next. Next, please. No. No. After. Then if you recall, there was the other print consistent with a finger. See the bottom one there? The top one is the light one. Then the bottom one, see how that's--as Dr. Lee pointed out, that could be a finger that was completely covered in blood making contact with the envelope. Now, this is a very interesting fact if you think about it because Miss Clark gave the hypothesis to you in her closing argument that Mr. Goldman was taken by surprise, dropped the envelope to the ground. So her theory is not that he kept that envelope in his hand as the struggle was continuing or that he would make the blood imprints on the envelope with his fingers. But somebody who's interested in that envelope, somebody appears to have opened up that envelope and created a bloody smear on the one lens we have remaining. Somebody made the mirror image fold on that envelope. Somebody was looking in it for some reason who had been in a struggle and left a bloody imprint of fingers. It's interesting, isn't it? And it is consistent with--well, it is inconsistent certainly with the Prosecution theory of Mr. Simpson committing these crimes and consistent with others.

Now, let's discuss the imprints. And the hour is getting late and there's lots to cover here, but let me just briefly go through that imprint evidence on a piece of paper, on the envelope and on the jeans and what Dr. Lee found on the walkway. And let's just piece it through simple step by step. You go back, you look at the imprints on the jeans. And Agent Bodziak did not say that he had any expertise in imprints on fabric and agent Deedrick said this was the first time he had ever done anything like this before. But I submit to you what Dr. Lee said about the imprints on the jean is simply this. And I think if you look at those parallel line imprints, you'll see they can be consistent with kicking from the shoe. When they're bunched up, all right--there was some imprints Dr. Lee said is accordion effect, just the bunching of the jeans, but it's three-dimensional. You bunch up the jeans, an imprint occurs on it, and that's why some of those lines are not complete or completely parallel to that three-inch heel print in particular that we went over with Agent Bodziak. It could be consistent with that kind of an imprint, but I really think it's inconsistent with. And agent Deedrick sort of gave it away, that he had never done this kind of analysis before. This is parallel lines from Mr. Goldman's shirt because they were talking about a swipe. And you also know what a swipe is. A swipe leaves that smear. You can't swipe and leave those kinds of patterns like that on the jeans. It doesn't make any sense that there's this flailing and hitting of this fabric and it's going to create those kinds of imprints. It's more consistent with a flat, hard surface hitting the three-dimensional folded-up area. That's the jeans. Now, with respect to the piece of paper and envelope, we can have a debate about whether or not based on this evidence, you know, there's imprints before there's a lot of blood on the scene, the early imprints. There's no border, but that's not necessarily consistent with there not being a shoeprint. Parallel line imprints, Agent Bodziak didn't look very hard for these kinds of parallel line imprints. Put that aside. Put that aside. Let's go with what they say. Agent Deedrick said, "Well, maybe that's from Mr. Goldman's jeans." And then he conceded the more reasonable interpretation would be that Mr. Goldman fell once on the envelope area that's his jean imprint and then again or maybe once at the same time on the piece of paper out on the walkway.

Well, that's not exactly consistent with the Prosecution's theory about how these murders occurred, is it? So I don't think that gives them any real help here. And as to those shoeprints on the walkway that Dr. Lee discovered on June 25th, one is definitely a shoeprint, no question about it. The other one, Agent Bodziak says, consistent with footwear. Well, you know, they haven't eliminated the police or the photographer. It's just an example of what you could do. He got to the crime scene for 20 minutes and did the best he could under those circumstances. It is illustrative. It is not really explained. But you don't even need that when you consider the full scope of the evidence, that two people could have done this crime on these facts as a fair inference. A lot of evidence to support that proposition.

All right. Mr. Scheck, would this be a good time?

Sure.

All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our midafternoon break at this time. Remember all my admonitions. We'll be in recess for about 15 minutes. All right. Thank you.