Mr. Scheck is making his summation to the jury at this time. And Mr. Scheck, you may continue.

Thank you very much. I realize these have been long days and I really appreciate the patience and the way that you followed. I was inaccurate in a statement I made to you and I want to correct it immediately. That had to do with the hairs found on the Rockingham glove. Detective Fuhrman, in checking the transcript at 32493, was in fact eliminated as the donor of that Caucasian hair and that was an inaccuracy on my part. And I have tried very hard to key things to areas of the transcript, and obviously Miss Clark I'm sure will bring any inaccuracies to your attention, if there are any, and try very hard to do that, and you should have the testimony reread. I shouldn't misread things like I just did. Another thing I forgot to mention about the Rockingham gloves, however, both gloves, and that is they found a limb hair. This Caucasian hair is not accounted for to anybody, but there is a limb hair that was found inside the glove. Now, if Mr. Simpson had had these gloves for four years, as the Prosecution contends, then there should have been more limb hairs. One thing that you saw, and when you saw his hands, and that is, is that he has a lot of hair on this part of his fingers, (Indicating), and if these gloves had been worn for four years you would expect to find a lot more of these limb hairs inside the gloves, but you don't find that. So that is another point to consider that I left out. One quick point here on--do you remember Miss Clark talked about a blood drop that landed on Mr. Goldman's boot, no. 78, that on RFLP testing turned out to be a mixture of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. And Detective Lange had offered a theory to you that this mixture could have occurred because one knife had committed both of these acts and there was a combination or a mixture on the knife and the blood drop fell and hit Mr. Goldman's boot there. Now, the first point to be made about that is the photograph you were shown was Mr. Goldman's boot being lifted up at the time that his body was taken over into the walkway and the Coroners were taking pictures of him. If you look back at the photographs and you see the way his shoe was configured, it would be extremely unlikely that one drop of blood could hit, because the shoe is at an angle. You couldn't have a drop that would fall in exactly that place in exactly that way, or it is extremely unlikely. But the other thing about this so-called mixture, mostly Nicole Brown Simpson and less of Ronald Goldman on the RFLP probes, is Dr. Lee addressed this, if you recall, when he pointed out the bag in which the boots were taken. Do you remember that? This was the wet transfer of blood coming through the bag here, (Indicating), when these boots are taken off and it is dragged into an area where there is blood from both victims and then the wet blood is put into the bag. Any kind of a typing that you are going to get, if there is a drop on that area, from a mixture, from the DNA test, is suspect when you are handling the in evidence this fashion in terms of getting a mixture. So that is a point for your consideration, I think. Now, what is left in this analysis is the Bronco, the Rockingham gloves, some short final remarks and you will be hearing from Mr. Cochran. The first point I would like to make, when we talk about the bloodstain patterns in the Bronco, has to do with something that Miss Clark said, first of all, about the blood drops in the foyer in Mr. Simpson's Rockingham residence. If you will recall, in her closing argument she said, and I don't know how she could say this in terms of the record, that the blood drops that were found in the foyer, you recall there were three that were recovered by LAPD, and then when Dr. Lee went back there he found another three smaller cast-off type drops. And she said, well, those drops couldn't be made by a cut on the side of the finger, comparatively superficial cut on the side of the finger; it would have to be made with a major cut or that fishhook type cut because that is their theory, right, that there is this fishhook type cut on the knuckle that nobody sees, nobody sees, no one on the way to Chicago. But Dr. Lee testified about this at page 434022 of the transcript. "Question:"--and he is talking about the blood drop pattern in the foyer. "And so if one had a superficial cut on the side of a finger and shook it in the fashion I'm doing and then"--

"MR. SCHECK: Let the record reflect I'm shaking my hand down. "Does that create the cast off pattern? "Yes, and that--would that be consistent with what you found, sir? "Yes. "And could the pattern that you found here be consistent with the superficial cut on the side of the finger? That is talking about all the drops? "Answer: It was consistent with a small volume of blood. "Is the pattern that you see here consistent with a major cut?

"No." So you have Miss Clark's speculation and then you have directly contradictory testimony by Dr. Lee, and there is no testimony in the record that supports her contention, it is mere speculation on her part. She is not a bloodstain expert. And I submit to you, you have to take the sworn uncontradicted testimony. Now, we know from what was said to Dr. Baden that in the course of getting things together on leaving, Mr. Simpson sustained a cut going into the Bronco, retrieving materials on his way out packing, and that it is the position of the Defense, that the bloodstains that you see and--well, briefly, why don't we take out that board and I will come back to it. This is the Prosecution's bloodstain pattern and the Bronco board, if you will recall it. Now, there are bloodstain patterns in the handle, instrument panel, console, of course, and then these are other items, that is, the footprint area and on top of the windowsill, okay? The windowsill is somewhere around here, (Indicating), that are consistent, everybody agrees, with a cut to the left hand of somebody getting into the car sitting down looking for something, consistent with our theory, consistent arguably with their theory. But then when you start looking at the rest of the bloodstain patterns, you have to start asking which interpretation is reasonable?

Now, the first point that has to be made--take this down for a second--is that of course initial deposits would be made by Mr. Simpson that evening and then somebody else was in that Bronco. Now, we know someone else was in that Bronco, and that has been, I submit to you, demonstrated by the evidence. Let's take a look at this picture. Mr. Cochran has already reviewed with you the testimony of Mark Fuhrman at the preliminary hearing, and you heard it on videotape, where he said he saw the--found blood in the Bronco, a bit of a Freudian slip, but I submit to you one of the most significant moments has to do with the testimony of Dennis Fung and the blood--bloodstain patterns on the doorsill of the Bronco. You recall that Detective Fuhrman testified at the preliminary hearing at this trial that he observed four brush mark bloodstain patterns on the doorsill of the Bronco that he could observe when the door was closed. When Mr. Fung came in, he circled these pictures, and if you will recall his testimony, the bottom circle closest to the door, that is only one stain. He said that that stain could be observed when the door was closed, but the other three stains that are represented by those other two circles could only be seen when the door was opened. Could only be seen when the door was open. From their own witnesses, evidence, he was in the Bronco and it only makes sense that he would go in that Bronco. And how much credibility do you really put in this man's testimony? But here is evidence that he was in there. Do you know what other evidence there is? There is one of the most interesting facts, and it is hard scientific evidence that supports our position with respect to the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco, the steering wheel. You recall that the typing on the steering wheel was 1.1, 1.2, a genotype consistent with O.J. Simpson, and 4. Who is the contributor of the 4 allele? That was an issue, and much was made of it, on the--in the case, was it not? Lots of cross-examination, lots of highlighting of that 4 allele in the steering wheel. And the Prosecution well knew that it was the contention of the Defense that Mr. Fuhrman and/or other officers had been in the Bronco. Doesn't take much to get a blood sample or you just take a swab and the testimony is you run it through somebody's mouth, you can do a quick DQ-Alpha test. What is Mark Fuhrman's genotype? We know that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung, just like you do eliminations, they--their genotypes were taken so we would know what they were. They are not consistent with the 4. None of them has the 4. They are eliminated. Why wasn't Mark Fuhrman eliminated? Why didn't they take exemplars from the police on this? Why? But I think that a fair inference consistent with innocence, which you are under oath obliged to take. You must consider that Mr. Fuhrman was in the Bronco and the evidence is that a picture, 4:30, around 4:30 in the evening, he is pointing at that glove at Bundy, walking through a pool of blood. Now comes into that Bronco, the vicinity of that Bronco, the area of 5:00 in the morning, right, initially, then go out and does his circuitous little trip where he finds the glove and is alone for fifteen minutes around 5:15. Now, there is very interesting testimony from Dennis Fung at page 21438 of the transcript about the ground and he is talking here about Fuhrman and he is talking about an arriving--excuse me--Vannatter, he is talking about arriving--arriving initially at the Rockingham location and he talks about how he was shown a red stain on the driver's door of the vehicle and a blood trail and: "Question: Okay. Did you notice anything about the temperature at that time or the weather? "Answer: It was fairly cool. What about the lawns? Did you notice anything that looked like it could have been dew on the lawns? "Answer: I did notice there was some, that the grass was wet. "Question: All right." So Fung tells us that the grass is wet, but we know that there is no dew. We introduced into evidence under 1280 the weather, and when it was introduced--and you can take this back into the jury room. You can examine the areas that are highlighted in purple. The only thing to--that doesn't really make much of a difference to be tricky about this. Professor MacDonell explained all of this, that when you look at the time listing over here, it is standard time, so anytime you see a time you have to add an hour, but when you look at the temperature and the dew point, you are going to see that the temperature was always many degrees above the dew point, so in other words, when you look through this you will see there is no dew, but the grass was wet. And you were at that location and you noticed the sprinkler heads and the sprinkler system and right in that area, that grass area where the Bronco was parked, there was six sprinkler heads. The grass, a fair inference, was watered regularly at that location. The grass was wet. That is the fact. Now, if you have, as Agent Bodziak indicated, blood that is caked on the inside of your shoe, even if loafers like Mr. Fuhrman in the inside heel area in your shoe, and then you walk through a wet area and then you step onto the carpet, you are going to get the same kind of pattern that was testified to for the Prosecution side in terms of the fibers going into the shoes and getting out blood that would be consistent with the genotype of Nicole Brown Simpson that is found on the carpet of the Bronco. Then we have the issue of the bloodstain pattern on the console. Now, let me be precise, because when Mr. Cochran was showing you about the seven/tenths of a drop of blood, I just want to make sure that I saw some--even the Prosecutors with a quizzical look--but that happened, I think you will recall, at the very end of the trial, and that was the testimony of Gary Sims. You will recall that he came back, he was testifying about the RFLP tests and the combining of all the stains, and I asked him a series of questions about combining all the stains, that is, the collection on June 14th from the console of 30 and 31, then the August 26th sample, 303, 304, 305. And we talked about the amount of DNA that you would get, you know, with one drop containing 1000 nanograms of high molecular-weight DNA, and then when he looked at the amount of DNA when you combined all the samples, he said that wasn't over a hundred, and: "Question: So that is one/tenth of one drop of blood?" That is what it is. A hundred nanograms. One/tenth of one drop of blood. He said--qualified he said: "Answer: Well, you have to remember with a drop of blood, for example, if you were testing liquid blood, that is not the same as extracting DNA out of a stain's worth of one drop of blood, so there is--you are not quite talking apples--you are somewhat talking apples and oranges there, but in terms of the ballpark you are talking about, you know, maybe getting three/quarters of that DNA out, so you can figure it from that."

Then I asked him a question trying to make it English: "All right. "So what you are basically saying to us is maybe if you are just dealing with a pristine drop of blood you wouldn't get a thousand nanograms you would get 750? "Something like that. "Is that what you just said in English. "Answer: Yes, that is what I said. "Okay. "If we were to--and I mean no disrespect for that, just summarizing it. "And so if you've got about a hundred nanograms of DNA and 750 nanograms in a drop of blood, can you give me that fraction quickly? "That would be, what, about a seventh? "Answer: Something like that." Okay. So in other words, make it very, very simple-hand science, when you combine the amount of DNA and you give them all favorable inferences, Gary Sims, their own witness, says, when you look at the smears of blood on the console, it is seven/tenths of a drop. And how could that be you are saying? Let's say it is a drop or two. How could that be? Well, that is because as Dr. Lee explained, that when you have a blood drop and you smear it over a non-absorbent surface, it smears, so it looks--small amount of blood can make a big smear. And of course Mr. Goldman's contribution to that seven/tenths of a drop of blood is at the most thirty, forty percent. That is very, very, very little. And so then you have to ask yourself does this make any sense? How could so little--even if we assume, you know, how could so little be there? How could so little be there? You know, Miss Clark was trying to say, well, this is how the blood got there. We know the Rockingham glove had a lot of blood, mostly from Mr. Goldman, some from Nicole Brown Simpson, and that was somehow placed on the side of the console, so that is why we get the little amount of Goldman's DNA that is on the console. That is their theory. Well, that is consistent with Mr. Fuhrman placing the glove in there. It is consistent with even Mr. Fuhrman having handled the glove and getting blood on his sleeve and just searching around the area for one of the other police officers and just getting a small smear of it with his sleeve on the console. That is consistent with this evidence. And you know what isn't consistent with this evidence? Think about it. What are they really saying? If Mr. Simpson had committed these murders and he grabbed the glove, as they are saying, with his open left hand, all right, and placed it on the side, well, then in getting into the car why aren't there mixtures on the window, right, on the window, on all those other drops? Everything else, all those other bloodstains. There is no trace of--of blood from either of the victims. There is no mixtures. Wouldn't there be other blood on the hand? And of course their theory before you, this is extraordinary, is that he is wearing these clothes that we've just been through the evidence of struggle. If there is blood on pants, it is going to be on the seat. If there is blood from the struggle with Goldman, it should be there. We know there is no hair. There is no trace. There is no fibers from clothing. There is no berries, there is nothing in that Bronco that would be consistent with somebody that had committed a violent double homicide that had been in a life and death struggle with Mr. Goldman. It doesn't make one bit of sense if you look at the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco. You have to have a reasonable doubt about that. And haven't we shown you by credible, fair and reasonable evidence that this Detective Fuhrman would have gone in that car? And by his own testimony and exposed lies from the Prosecution's own witnesses, there is evidence he was there. Those--those stains on the doorsill give you the lie, don't they? He was in that car and probably more than one of them was in that car. Now, with respect to the credibility of the evidence, very briefly, and I know you are--you followed this, we have to make a distinction. You know, in our opening statement Miss Clark actually said to you that all she was going to talk about in her opening statement with respect to the Bronco were the stains that were collected on June 14th. She didn't even indicate they were going to offer you anything from--after August 26th, because they know how terribly this was handled and that no jury could really accept the integrity of the evidence after this car was abandoned. But could we bring up the board, please? On 13--I think it is 1351; the DNA board with the--

Very briefly, you will recall this, and we made a distinction here. We have to look at the samples that were collected on June 14th and the samples that were collected on August 26th, as Dr. Gerdes suggested to you. If you look at the June 14th DNA evidence, okay, with sample 30 and 31, nothing in 30. 31 they are calling this faint 1.3 allele, where the 1.3 is showing up in the controls. And you will remember the whole business about development length and the notion of controls failing. This is it. From June 14th this is it with respect to DNA from Mr. Goldman and the Bronco. That is it. And as Dr. Gerdes indicated to you, that is not credible scientific evidence. Of course they are offering you evidence that was collected on August 26th after this vehicle was literally abandoned, after the no special care hold had been taken off it, after there was a theft.

Now, Mr. Meraz, he wasn't the world's most credible witness on the issue of the theft, but I really think that is besides the point. No. 1, he is stealing, he is inside that car. What is going on? He didn't see blood. But you don't have to accept Meraz. What about Detective Mulldorfer who is investigating this? She doesn't see blood. And then there is Mr. Blasini. He doesn't see blood on the console. And we know that there is all kind of people allowed into this vehicle, and probably more disturbing than anything else is Detective Mulldorfer indicated the rules are violated and there is no record kept of any authorized police personnel, of any police personnel going in and out of there. They could just go in and out and no records were kept and nobody would know period. And all of a sudden what we have on August 26th, when the car is finally brought in, and Miss Clark said it was--she must have misspoke when she tried to imply that the inspection of the Bronco was at the request of the Defense. Those are not the facts. The facts are that they brought it in, they allowed two Defense people to observe and then Michele Kestler looks in the vehicle and there is a photographer that was brought down from life magazine at the behest of the police commissioner to witness this grand examination of the Bronco, and low and behold, they find as much blood on the console on August 26th as there was on June 14th. And then when they do the DNA testing patterns, they find out only Mr.--traces of Mr. Goldman's blood, but Nicole Brown Simpson's blood in those same areas. That is awfully odd. So the integrity of the evidence again is in question here in terms of what you can accept beyond a reasonable doubt, but even if you are willing to look aside from that, and I don't really think that one can in fairness, I think that the Defense version of how the blood got there and the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco is far more plausible than the Prosecution's version. It just doesn't fit. There would be mixtures on all those stains, according to their own theory. There should be more blood in the Bronco, given what occurred in this case. The bloodstain patterns don't make sense, do they? They really don't. Nor does the hair and fiber in that Bronco. Now, let's talk about the glove. The first point to be made about the glove is an integrity issue, and that is that you will recall that when Mr. Yamauchi opened up the reference tube in the morning and spilled out the blood, the first thing he did after that was this examination of the Rockingham glove, (Indicating). And as you recall, he was putting his initials in, he was doing all these pheno testing, these manipulations, all in the wrist area of the glove and manipulating it. There is so little DNA in these few areas here from the D1S80 tested, minuscule nanogram amounts, very, very small, consistent with a small sample handling transfer from Mr. Yamauchi, and this alone I think can explain the small amount of DNA on the glove. But of course under the other scenarios, the competing scenarios of the Defense and Prosecution, if the Rockingham glove was up against the side of the console, that certainly would of course explain a small transfer of Mr. Simpson's blood into the heel area of the glove. But you know what doesn't make sense? What doesn't make sense, what doesn't make sense is their theory. First of all, the tight glove is thrown off from the left hand in the course of the struggle, but they are saying that with a cut--a bleeding cut, the fish hook on the knuckle which nobody sees on the way to Chicago, and blood on this hand, (Indicating), the gloves are taken off. Can they really suggest to you the gloves are taken off at the wrist? I'm from back east, Brooklyn, you know. I wear a lot of gloves. You may not have as much experience, but think about it. You don't take gloves off like this, (Indicating); you take them off like that, (Indicating). And you know what? That is exactly what the criminalists were thinking.

That is what Gary Sims was thinking. Even Mr. Yamauchi was thinking that because most of the initial DNA testing all was done looking for blood on the fingers, top fingers of the glove, because that is all that makes sense. And there was nothing there and that has got to give you, I would submit, a reasonable doubt. So what I've tried to do in my remarks is review with you essential pieces, circumstantial evidence of the Prosecution's case. And we don't have to do that. We don't have the burden of proof in this case. And each essential piece, I think it is fair to say, there is a reasonable doubt and some, some of these are so profoundly disturbing in terms of the manufacturing of evidence in this case, that I'm sure you really can't abide it, not in this country, not in this democracy can we allow dishonest manufactured evidence to lie at the heart of a case like this. It cannot be. You cannot trust. I mean, you cannot go back and say, well, maybe they planted evidence on the glove. Maybe on the back gate. Oh, there is blood missing. Big deal. How can that be a big deal? That is--many, many reasonable doubts imbedded in all of that, but you know, there is a fourth C, contaminated, compromised and corrupted, but there is a fourth c that goes along with how these things happened that relates to this testimony, and the fourth c has to do with cover-up, and I'm not even talking about the statements of the police officers and the cover-up of Mr. Fuhrman that Mr. Cochran has discussed with you so eloquently in the last two days. Let's just talk a little bit about the criminalists and what you can view in terms of that evidence and how that affects on their credibility, because if you lie in small things, and some of these are not so small things, you lie in big things, and if you are trying to turn the other way and cover up real problems, real problems, serious problems, you can't abide it. Now, one I alluded to early, and I just think it goes to the heart of the hair and fiber evidence and so much in this case. And your common sense tells you they moved Mr. Goldman's body, they were traipsing around that crime scene, and we know the envelope was moved and the glove was moved and somebody put it back. And remember Mr. Fung, they actually have a form, if the scene was altered, you know, describe how, and Mr. Fung says it is not my job. We don't ask. Detective Lange, do you know? I don't know. Did anybody ask Jacobo or Ratcliffe, the Coroners? Did anybody come in and do an investigation? Isn't it important to know who is moving around this evidence that they are going to come in and make a big deal about hair and fiber and other things? Don't we have to know that? Isn't that just fair dealing with you? And how--I mean, they are covering this up. They are covering up how miserably this was handled and how the integrity of the evidence was compromised. It is as plain as day. It is an insult to your intelligence to say otherwise. Why--they have a responsibility to come in here and do that, and we looked at videos where I submit to you there is a glove on the blanket that somebody put back and then there was the testimony--you know, Detective Lange said--and if this isn't covering up I don't know what else. Well, why did you move the bodies? Why did you wait so long to bring the criminalists in? Why did you move the bodies before you collected the evidence? Because that is lunacy. And the answer was this is what you call a closed-in crime scene and in a closed-in crime scene where the evidence is close to the bodies, the first thing you do is move the bodies. That was a make-up. It was nonsense. As all the other criminalists whose came here and testified, even Mr. Fung couldn't abide that, because it is--it is covering for mistakes. Now, another one is just the whole way it went. Mr. Fung, when he testified in the grand jury and initially at the preliminary hearing, he forgot Andrea Mazzola was there with him because she was a trainee, and she played a big role in this case in handling the evidence and they wanted to forget it ever happened. And you know that is the way it was and you know when I asked him, well, was there any concern in the lab about this before you went to testify in the grand jury or the preliminary hearing? No, it is just this habit I have of saying "I" when I mean "We." It is a habit of testifying. But you know, when Miss Kestler came here she was actually asked by Mr. Neufeld was there any discussion before Mr. Fung testified in the grand jury about what went on in this case and then said, well, there was some concern that Miss Mazzola was listed on the reports as the officer in charge. And I think that tells you all you need to know. Of course they were concerned about that because they realized that the whole scene had been miserably botched and there was serious problems here with the integrity of this evidence. Then of course there was the hand-off of the envelope, and just as a quality of testimony, I mean, Mr. Fung said, oh, I wouldn't take that envelope, pick up that envelope with my bare hands, and then we showed it to him on videotape where he is picking up the envelope with his bare hands and then he goes, well, that couldn't have happened because the Coroner wasn't there. And I have the timing right and we show the videotape of Miss Jacoby walking by where he was still there. There is something wrong with the quality of testimony like this. There is something wrong when Miss Mazzola conveniently begins to close her eyes because the problem of carrying the blood vial out, sitting on the couch. There is problems with the trash bag. There is an extra problem with Miss Mazzola suddenly forgetting that her initials are on the bindles when the only credible testimony is that they were there and something is wrong, so when something is wrong, people's memories get collective and testimony comes in in funny ways. Umm, Dr. Goldman, (Sic), the Coroner, never showed up. Mr. Martz, destroyed his underlying digital data and didn't save much of the EAP. Mr. Martz stopped looking in terms of testing. Mr. Rubin stopped looking pretty early. We have an anticipated exclusion on the fingernails that they are desperately trying to change, and then of course there is Miss Kestler, can't even remember the substance of the meetings that were had early in the case about security of the samples. And then that was remarkable. When Miss Kestler--when we were talking about looking for blood on the sock and it said "Blood search not obvious" and then remember that testimony? That wasn't a blood search. It says "Blood search" right here. Well, that wasn't a blood search. I mean, some of it was remarkable. And then of course there is the Thano Peratis tape and the missing blood. There is a lot of it. I'm sure you remember more than I have just listed. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I thank you very much for your patience. I've tried to reason through this evidence, drawing the fair inferences as best we could looking at the integrity of the evidence, and I just think there is very little question here, is there? So much of the essential facts in this case are just shot through with reasonable doubt. There is something wrong. There is something terribly wrong about this evidence. Somebody manufactured evidence in this case. There is hissing blood. There is EDTA. There is questions, serious deeply troubling questions. You must distrust it. You have to distrust it. You cannot render a verdict in this case of beyond a reasonable doubt on this kind of evidence, because if you do, no one is safe, no one. The constitution means nothing. This cannot, will not, shall not happen in this country with you good people. It just won't. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Scheck.