All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have now been rejoined by all our jury members. And Mr. Cochran, you may make your concluding remarks.

CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN:

Thank you, your Honor, Judge Ito, again to my colleagues. Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

It seems like we did this yesterday, but I won't be nearly as long this time. I'm back, as I promised you I would come back, to try and wrap up the Defense discussion of the evidence with you. You just heard what I believe was a remarkable discussion by Mr. Barry Scheck, an excellent lawyer. He may be from Brooklyn, but he has become a Californian as far as we are concerned, and he is a very valued member of our team of Defense lawyers for Mr. O.J. Simpson. And you see why. This is indeed a talented lawyer. And so he shared with you a number of thing, which I will not be redundant about and go over, you have them clear in mind. And if I were not to say anything else, there are many reasonable doubts in this case, and O.J. Simpson is entitled to an acquittal based on what we have told you. This is my last chance, of course, to speak to you, and I want to take this time to tell you again that the Prosecution, because they bear the burden of proving this case beyond a reasonable doubt, will have the opportunity to speak to you last. We may not be here too late tonight because I'm not going to be much longer and I think that more than likely I think we can probably guarantee you, this case is going to get you to sometime tomorrow afternoon, so you can kind of sit back and relax. It has been a long, long, long road to get to this point. It has been kind of like a relay race, hasn't it been, in many respects, in this journey toward justice? The Prosecution was first running with it. We then took the baton and we started running with it. We have run almost up to the jury box and soon we are going to pass the baton to you. This is how our system works. This is what makes it so great. We pass the baton to you and we will be glad. We can then sit back and watch you at work. You have watched us for a year, two or three days. Now we get to watch you. It will be symbolically watching you because we won't see you back in that room, but you know we are going to be counting on you giving both sides the benefit of your individual opinion. Now it is your time to perform. You know how you could think about us and those days when you wanted to criticize us? We are not going to criticize you, though. We are going to watch you work, and watching you work is what makes this country so great. Because it is twelve citizens good and true coming together from this community from disparate backgrounds, experience not required, citizenship, the only requirement to do justice, to do right, to right some wrongs, to straighten this out. That is what we are asking you to do, to follow the law, to determine the facts and come to a well-reasoned decision. That is what is going to happen tomorrow afternoon for you. Now, it may take one day or a hundred days, but you've been committed. I know that you will stay the course, keep your eye on the prize and do the right thing. Now, when I sit down this time I won't get another chance to argue to you or discuss the inferences, because it has to stop sometime, but Miss Clark gets to talk to you later tonight or tomorrow. And I want you again to use your common sense and remember if she raises some point, I may not be able to get up and respond, Mr. Scheck or I. If it is something that is not purely rebuttal, you may see more objections this time because we got to keep it in line, but if it is a point that we can't respond to, you substitute your wisdom and common sense as to any point. I think you know by this time we can answer anything that they would say, so I'm sure you will give her the same attention you have given us today, and I wish them good luck. In fact, let me say this: In this case we have been advocates, we have fought hard, I hope, but it is not personal. What is personal is this case. What is personal is our zeal and our desire that our client be acquitted. It is not personal against these Prosecutors. In this part of our discussion I want to share a couple things with you and clear up a couple of things, if I might. Remember I was examining Detective Lange, and it was interesting that we saw Detective Lange here today. That is interesting, isn't it? Detective Lange was here. He is the only one who can really come any more. We discussed the roles of these people. He is the only one who is going to show his face here that we can count on, but Lange says that--early on that I asked him questions about traveling around the world to investigate this case to get an idea of what resources were they putting on this case. You remember right at the very outset the reason that robbery/homicide was put on the case was because downtown they supposedly had better resources. There is some doubt about that, but they did that and they put resources, including everybody in the LAPD, they have the D.A.'s office and their investigators, they have had the FBI. They have been all over the world. You know they have been everywhere looking for Bruno Magli shoes. They've been to Italy, they've been to many of the states in the United States. And I asked them about those things to give you a scope of what they were trying to do, and you know, it is awesome, the power of the state, and at one point I worked as Assistant District Attorney, so I know about the power of the state. There was no priority to being on this side. I used to be on this side. You can be on both sides. It perhaps gives you a little different of balance and perspective. But they have a lot of power. They can do a lot of things. They have a lot of resources and they have used them in this case. So don't feel sorry for them. They have used every resource they had. If they didn't call people, there was a reason for it. It wasn't they didn't have the resources. These are excellent lawyers. They know the facts. If they didn't disprove something, if they couldn't disprove Henry Lee, if they didn't call anybody for John Gerdes, it is because they couldn't find anybody. Earlier I talked to you about Detective Fuhrman on this particular point. I wanted to make sure so that we could be as accurate as possible. This question was asked by Bailey. "There is a problem that has been brought to your attention, isn't there, Detective Fuhrman? "Answer: No. "Question: When discussing this event in the preliminary hearing and talking about the glove, your tongue slipped and you said `them,' didn't you? "Answer: Yes." In case there was any question about what we had said earlier. Mr. Scheck has covered the brush mark on the door, but what I would like for you to do is look back at your notes, because Fuhrman said that regarding these brush marks, he said he saw these marks on that door while the door of the Bronco was closed, remember? The reason why this has become so important was he was trying to say he hadn't gotten inside. Then we called Larry Ragle who said you couldn't see the ones at the top unless the door was opened. And then Fuhrman also had said that he told Fung about these brush marks. If you look at Fung's testimony, I think you will find that Fung never says that he heard that from Fuhrman. And so you know, with regard to Fuhrman, I could have gone on and on and on about lies, but that would be counterproductive after a while because you know who he is now. There is one other point I wanted to share with you about Fuhrman before we take our leave of him, is that there was a question--some questions, and counsel, at 18906, about opportunity for Detective Fuhrman and here was a series of quick questions: "When you arrived at the scene this night were you wearing a coat, a jacket of some sort?

"When I first arrived at the scene, yes. "Can you describe it? "Answer: A blue blazer. "All right. And you were wearing the trousers and shirt that we see you in with your weapon in picture pointing at the left-handed glove? "Yes, tan slacks. "Okay. "Now, at some point did you walk back to your vehicle and take off your blazer and hang it to lay in the vehicle somewhere? "Yes, sir. "Okay.

"Can you tell the court and jury about what time of day that happened, bearing in mind that you arrived at about 2:10, that is A.M.? "It would be after I was relieved from the case." Now, he is relieved a short time after he gets there. He is relieved about three o'clock, isn't he, before three o'clock? "All right. That would be close to three o'clock? "Yes, sir. "Question: And that is when you walked back to the vehicle and left the jacket and stood waiting for your relief? "Yes, sir." Now, I don't believe hardly anything he says except that it is true that in this photograph taken at 4:30 or before sunrise, the one you saw where he is pointing at the glove, he doesn't have a jacket on. So he had a jacket, went to that car by himself. There is many things in that car. This man had ample opportunity to get up to that scene.

You know, as I told you, it so stretches the credulity to believe that so neatly placed were this knit hat and this glove, were there two gloves at some point when he says I saw them. Why would you see them? There weren't two gloves. And you know it is so unusual because everything else is spread all out. This was a vicious fight. There is a beeper over here and there is keys over there, but these items are right there, right where he could point at them. It is too, too pat. So you can ask yourself those questions when you go back into that jury room. Now, in this case I discussed with you Miss Juanita Moore, a lady that I called to the stand, and I think I misspoke myself. I think I mentioned to you--I think I may have said she said that Mr. Simpson did not have dandruff, and if I did say that, I got that wrong. She said Mr. Simpson would get dandruff I think in the off season, in the string and summer when he was here, as opposed to when he was in New York. And I wanted to make sure. In looking at the transcript over the lunch hour I noted Miss Clark seemed to be amazed when Mr. Scheck said that Kelly Mulldorfer said that she didn't see blood on that Bronco, so to save her some time I'm going to read you the transcript. Kelly Mulldorfer at 38268, lines 26 through line 9, I think on 38269. "Question: And when you looked at the console do you remember seeing any blood there? "Answer: No, I don't have any specific recollection." That is the lady, the investigator who was looking at this. And so now we come to some jury instructions which I think have sine real relevance as we conclude this case, hopefully. We have already talked about a witness willfully false. We talked an awful lot and you know now a lot about circumstantial evidence, and I dare say you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. We want to talk further about--and you know what happens where the proved circumstances are equally consistent, one of which points to innocence and the other which points to guilt. Where they are both reasonable, you must adopt that which points to innocence. You understand that. You understand about circumstantial evidence. So enough about this. And we have displayed this and we have talked about how this works and how it inures to the benefit of the Defendant because there is this burden of proof. But there is another instruction which I want to talk to you about now and this is one that--where the Prosecutors keep wanting to change things around and ask what we proved and what we didn't do. This is what the law is: "The Prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information and that the Defendant was a perpetrator of any such crimes." There is no doubt about it among any of us, is it. "The Defendant is not required to prove him or herself innocent or to prove that another person committed the crime charged." So now if that is what the law is and the judge gave you that, why did Mr. Darden ask the question, who did this? Who committed this crime? Why would he ask you that when the judge just said the Defendant doesn't have to show anything, when we know in this case in a rush to judgment they didn't look at anybody else. That is a question he should be asking these detectives, not us. We are the ones who had to depend on experts who wanted to help out and they wouldn't accept this. How can he ask us that question? How can he ask us that question in good faith? The answer is you go ask your detectives. That is the answer. Now, you ask another question. He said, well, where was O.J. Simpson? And he says, well, you know, how does he account for his whereabouts after ten o'clock? Well, let me just talk a minute about that. He asked that question. Let me answer it for you and for him. Some of you in your former life probably lived alone. If you lived alone, if something happened between ten o'clock and six o'clock in the morning, it is real difficult, if you live alone, to prove where you were if nobody lives there with you. Isn't that true? Is that common sense? Mr. Simpson lived alone. We have done more than that. We can I think establish where he was. He was at home. That Bronco was outside. He was packing and getting ready and rushing around at the last minute and coming outside to that Bronco, getting his phone, getting the paraphernalia for that phone. That is what he was doing. He was packing, he was getting the golf bags and golf bag out of his car that was seated out there. He was getting golf shoes and whatever goes with golf if you are a golfer. That is what he is doing, getting the little knapsack out that has golf balls in it and bring another bag down, all of which were ready when Park and Kato were out there and he comes down with the other bag carrying it. That is what he was doing, Mr. Darden. That is where he was. It is your speculation he is on the side of his house running into an air conditioner. That didn't happen. That is unreasonable. Nobody here believes it. It is not going to help save their case. They are speculating again, speculating, speculating, and it is not going to work. And so that brings me to this other instruction. It is called alibi. You remember during voir dire I asked you about this. I said that you won't place a bad connotation on the term "Alibi," because that is what the law calls it, alibi. And it says as follows: "That evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the Defendant was not present at the time and place of the commission of the alleged crime for which he is here on trial. If after a consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, you must find him not guilty." Can I repeat that last part for you? "If after a consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was present at the time the crime was committed." It doesn't say you might find him not guilty, you might think about it. It says: "You must find him not guilty." And so you know when you talk about this whole concept of reasonable doubt, and we will talk a little more about that, it is how you feel inside about this evidence. It is how you feel inside about these messengers and their message. It is when you have that queasy feeling, you can't trust this evidence. Barry Scheck described it, well, as a cancer. He talked about one cockroach. You don't need to see any more because you know if you see there is a lot of them around. All you need is one and that is going to make you go the other way.

And in this case you don't have to get past the socks, but then you get to the glove and the Bronco and you get to all of it, none of which you can trust. And then how do you do it? Do you get back there and say, well, I don't trust them on this, I don't think I can trust them on that, when every essential link in the chain is broken? And so your job won't be quite as tough as you may have thought. Reasonable doubt in this case. The Prosecution has not offered one coherent theory to explain how these deaths occurred. I won't talk about Thano Peratis and the desperation that brought about, but let me talk to you about this whole concept of what took place in this case. One of the things that was intriguing to me, and I'm sure you've thought about it and I know that your collective minds are far better than mine and Mr. Scheck's, but you know, we think about things that will be helpful to you. Now, one of the things that is always troubling me about the Prosecution's case is--you probably thought about this--Kato, the dog, was purchased by O.J. Simpson after the other dog died. Remember Arnelle told you about how they had to bury the dog and it was a real tough time for the kids and all. O.J. Simpson had that dog Kato along with Chachi, the other dog, over at Rockingham, and he let his son have the dog because they named the dog after Kato who is now living with O.J. Simpson. That dog knows O.J. Simpson. It is his dog. He bought the dog. They didn't know this as they were speculating. It is his dog. If O.J. Simpson had been the one there that night, that dog would have followed him out the back gate. He wouldn't be going out the front. Those paw prints wouldn't be going out that way and down the sidewalk. That is common sense. They said use your common sense. Does that make senses to you? The other thing is the one thing that you could count on in this case is these two people, even when they weren't getting along, loved their children and their children loved them. Whether it was pediatric aids affairs, whether it was recitals, whether it was sunshine preschool affairs, just look at the month of may, the things that you heard that O.J. Simpson went to always on the weekend because he was traveling. There wasn't no fuse. He was out of town working. He was the breadwinner. So whether it was the pediatric aids or something for his children's school, 400 people over at the Rockingham estate, he was always there for the kids. If it meant coming back from Chicago or from wherever he was in New York on Friday to go back to Chicago on Sunday to go back for an engagement, he came home. He came home because his little girl was having a concert. That is the kind of dad he is. And somebody has to stand up for him. People don't want you to stand up for him. People can't stand the truth, but they are going to hear truth in here. There is one place you can't take away somebody's voice, and that is in the courtroom. If you want to tell the truth, for sixteen months this man sat over here and heard people talk about him day in and day out, judged him and prejudged him against the American way. What right, how dare them do that? And he has one day or two days to have somebody stand up for him. People are crying and moaning. It is outrageous in America. It is intolerable, if you will. And so this is a good and decent man who loves his family, who loves his kids. None of us are perfect, but he is a man who went a long, long way. Raised primarily by his mother. You know what he did with his life. He had a good life, a wonderful life. He has done well. He is not going to give all that up, try and kill somebody with a knife. He is not going to give that up. And you know what, as you think about this case, can you imagine that a man who loves his children so much is going to go over, kill his ex-wife, kill their mother and leave her so that the children could come downstairs and find her? That defies credulity. None of you believe he would do that. It is contrary to everything that you can believe. And that you've heard about this man and what he has done and what he has done with his life. So forgive me if I speak out for O.J. Simpson, if I'm so presumptuous as to believe the contusion means that you are presumed to be innocent until you make the decision. Nobody outside here has a vote. You have that vote, thank heaven. These narrow-minded people, thank heaven they don't have a vote. You will have the final say. And so this concept then of reasonable doubt. What then does it mean? We've heard about it and we've talked about it.

We have a chart, and I'm going to ask Mr. Douglas to put it over there, and let's talk about this whole idea of burden of proof and reasonable doubt and what is reasonable doubt. You remember during voir dire I talked to you about this concept of reasonable doubt. And before we go to that chart, I mean: "It is that state of the case after the entire comparison and consideration of the evidence, leaves the minds of the jury in that condition where they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge." That is what reasonable doubt is. And let's go over it one more time, because this is the cornerstone of every criminal case. What it really is is a doubt based upon reason. In this case we have given you myriad reasons. There are many, many, many, many, many reasonable doubts, it is not just one, all of which lead you to one verdict in this case and one verdict only of not guilty.

But let's go over it one last time together. "A Defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places upon the People the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." You've heard a lot about that. That is what people need to learn and be reminded of in this country. Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: "It is not a mere possible doubt and we know that because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case where after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge." That is reasonable doubt. It is not written just for O.J. Simpson. It is for you, it is for you, it is for you. It is for all of us who are citizens. It is given in every criminal case. You have to give it. That is the burden. You don't change it once the trial starts. That is the burden. Let's see how it works. In this whole idea of a burden of proof let's start down at the bottom and look at the burden that is placed upon the state, and they should have a burden like this when you are talking about taking somebody's freedom for the rest of their life or whatever. There are a number of things that you might want to think, but in a case--sometimes in cases you actually can prove the person charged not guilty, and in this case, in my 32 and a half years, this may be as close as any case where somebody has been proven not guilty. Because if you look at these facts, you looked at what we've shared with you over the course of the last two days, this man has been proven not guilty, but that is at the very bottom of the rung. Somebody among you say, well, you know, I have some suspicions. I think it is highly unlikely, but I have some suspicions. But somebody else may say, well, it is less than likely, but you know, I don't know, I mean, they didn't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. And somebody else might say, well, you know, he is probably not guilty based upon this evidence. Somebody else will say it is unlikely he is guilty. No way in the world is he ever going to go over and kill the mother of his children under these circumstances. The timeline shatters their case. Somebody says I don't trust the police. Fuhrman was central. I don't recall trust Vannatter. It is the messengers and their message. It just doesn't fit. Something is wrong. There is a cancer here. Possibly not guilty, maybe not. And Mr. Scheck said, you know, maybe not is not good enough when you are talking about somebody's freedom for the rest of theirs lives. Somebody else may say perhaps, gee, I don't know. I suspect that he might be. Maybe he is possibly guilty of something. Maybe he is probably guilty. Maybe guilt is likely. Maybe guilt may be highly likely. I don't think any of you are going to find that in this case because I think we have shown that he is proven he is not guilty. But all of those levels, from proven not guilty to the guilt highly likely, it is our interpretation of what you have to do before you get all the way up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so that you won't have that queasy feeling about this case, where you can believe to an abiding conviction of the truth of these charges. Can you have that? I think not on this evidence. Not on this evidence. Not on this case. They have failed. You know, we asked you a question, did you have the courage, did you have the intestinal fortitude to walk back into this courtroom if they failed to prove Mr. Simpson guilty? Did you have the courage to walk back in here and say we find him not guilty? And you said you could do that. You knew that was part of your job. You said you could do that. I'm going to told you to that, because that is what makes the system great, your courage, your willingness to stand up for what is right. And so in this scenario, thinking about reasonable doubt even more, the Prosecution had a puzzle, and it was interesting how they did this puzzle, technology is wonderful and you saw they kept under this puzzle putting on pieces and that sort of thing. And so we thought about that. I thought about this puzzle, thought about what it meant in this particular case. I got a call from a very, very wise, wise, wise lady who reminded me that if you ever have gone to the store and bought a puzzle, when you buy a puzzle, on the outside of the box of the puzzle there is a picture, so you know what the puzzle looks like when it is finished. Well, in this case the Prosecution took a photograph or picture of O.J. Simpson first, then they took the pieces apart. If they really wanted to talk about reasonable doubt, you don't jump to conclusions at the beginning. You don't rush to judgment and then be concerned about an obsession to win. What you do is you take the pieces and put them together and then you come to the conclusion. They have got it all backward. It is like what they did with the 4th amendment. It is like us, where is this witness? What did you prove? Solve this crime for us. They have got it all backward, don't you see. And so that little example, a jigsaw puzzle, was clever, but really it trivializes man's fight for his freedom who has always said that he was innocent from day one, so I wanted to just summarize our case with a graphic, thanks to Mr. Bob Blasier, of this evidence, and why there is reasonable doubt as to each of these items. Please note the monitor. All right. Let's look at--first we know in the upper left-hand corner, there is missing blood. They can't explain it and they won't. Down in flames going out with a home video where it was actually embarrassing this morning. You want a little levity during the tough time in your deliberations, play the Thano Peratis video. In fact, it is so bizarre that if you listen to it again you will hear Hank Goldberg is laughing self. He starts laughing when the words are mouthed by Peratis. He goes like that and Goldberg starts laughing at his next question. How embarrassing it is. This blood is missing and you will have the syringe. And so Mr. Goldberg, and what does that mean, that missing blood? That means reasonable doubt. Then we have the sock, my personal favorite, and when I talked to you about the socks yesterday, I may not have told you that in addition to the socks not being in the video at 4:13 on June 13th and how they placed them there later and how they were collected at 4:35 or between 4:30 and 4:40, Willie Ford came in here and testified to you he didn't see the socks. I forgot to tell you that yesterday. He testified they weren't there either. So thank heaven there is one person who wasn't part of that cover-up, and although they got to him and he says, oh, yes, ma'am, the socks may have been covered, but he still works over there, so we will forgive him for that, but you didn't know what we knew about Lange and Mazzola and the time they were collected in their log, but the time, another whole thing got them, and those straps on the bed further. So what have we shown you about the socks? Reasonable doubt. That moves to the back gate. What about that back gate with the EDTA and more DNA than you could ever imagine and it is picked up and collected three weeks afterwards when people have been all over the place. And you saw the photograph. Look at that photograph. That photograph doesn't show any blood. It shows some little tiny spot, totally inconsistent. They are trapped again by the video. This case will go down as the video case because we have shown you for your own eyes why they lose this case, where there is reasonable doubt. So the back gate, reasonable doubt. And then we started out with the timeline, because we knew at the outset the timeline with the witnesses that they failed and refused to call to establish a reasonable doubt. It shatters the Prosecution case. If you start there, you will find these witnesses credible. O.J. Simpson couldn't have committed these crimes. There is reasonable doubt. He is not guilty. The timeline. We went from there to the EAP B, and you will remember that, and Mr. Scheck has talked about it. I won't be redundant. A double-banded B. That is somebody else. They can't explain it. They never tried to explain it except to talk about something that is not in the literature. It didn't work and there is reasonable doubt about who that person was. And so with regard to--and let's see. I have lost track of my chart there. Demeanor. Before we get to EAP B, under demeanor, O.J. Simpson's demeanor, all those witnesses who didn't know each other, who you heard and who they talked to, you saw them all. You think that he was acting for those people?

You remember one of the most interesting things was Mr. Darden said that when the Scott Kennedy video at the June 12th recital where a man just happens to stop by and takes a video, Simpson doesn't even know he is being videoed. This guy doesn't know Simpson. Just taking a video. Just came to us out of the blue. They had the audacity to tell you he was on camera. He didn't know anything about being on camera. Somebody is taking a video of you, how do you know that? But we have that video and they had nothing else to say. Whenever--notice how they had nothing else to say to you, they don't say anything. That is an example of that. That is an example of O.J. Simpson's demeanor and that was our answer to this so-called fuse. We had proof for you. You saw him on that date and we took you through step-by-step through that day. We have already covered the EAP B, the Bundy blood drops, that Mr. Scheck did such a great job on and you know about those drops and you know the numbers as well as we do. I won't go over the numbers any more. I think there is reasonable doubt based on those. And of course you know the Bronco. How can you trust the Bronco? Chain of custody. How can you trust that? There is nothing you can trust about the Bronco and how they handled it. Then the gloves. The gloves didn't fit. The gloves didn't fit. The gloves didn't fit. Reasonable doubt. And then the why? Motive is not an element to the crime of murder, but absence of motive may tend to establish innocence. That is why Mr. Darden went to such a long and exhaustive study. And I have shared with you the fact that there is no motive in this case, but I just want to briefly tell you this about their theory at the end. If you believe what the Prosecutors want you to believe, you would have to believe that O.J. Simpson, who has a limo driver coming I guess around 10:30, 10:40, after he goes and gets a hamburger at McDonald's, after having been worried about change because he had hundred dollar bills, that he has already been packing because clothes are being brought down and he is taking his golf clubs, and that makes sense, it was a pre-planned trip. He is just off the road and going back on the road, that he is perhaps the most recognizable person in Brentwood in that area where he has lived we know for 17 years and that he drives a white Bronco, that he decides to put on a knit cap. You saw that exhibition yesterday of him or you or I in a knit cap. He decides he will put that on. He changes out of his tennis shoes, his Reebok tennis shoes and his sweat socks, and puts on some dress socks and puts on some Bruno Magli shoes. And let me just stop right there for a minute. Put a pin in that, the Bruno Magli shoes. And you heard all about Bruno Magli shoes and Bruno Magli shoes and we searched all around the world and we went to Bloomingdales, and what we did we find there is nobody who ever sold O.J. Simpson any Bruno Magli shoes. They searched. They tried. They never sold him any shoes, so they are back talking about Bruno Magli shoes. I mean, there must be every other house in Brentwood. I guess if somebody wanted to afford some Bruno Maglis shoes, I guess they could. That is their case. There is no evidence that O.J. Simpson had any Bruno Magli shoes ever. In fact, when Lange is looking for the clothes and O.J. Simpson says this is what he wore, here are the tennis shoes, he took only tennis shoes that night. There are--is no evidence that O.J. Simpson ever owned any Bruno Magli shoes, and please remember that. So he gets--puts these Bruno Magli shoes on and he is trying to disguise himself. Of course he puts on a pair of gloves that don't fit and he gets in his car and he decides what he will do is he will drive over to the alleyway behind Bundy where his wife lives in this big Bronco. Now, while he is going to do that, he has been over a number of times, and you know, they have already told you about Pablo Fenjves and these people who went back there. Remember when you went on that jury view. There are homes and windows and things that face down on that alley on both sides from I guess Gretna Green side and from the Bundy side people are looking down in that alley. It is well-lit. You saw the photograph yesterday of what Mark Storfer would have seen. He pulls into this alleyway in this Bronco, in this disguise, dressed the way they want to have him dressed. He is coming to kill his wife. Now, somehow he tried to kill his wife or whatever. He doesn't kill her in the back back there where the car is. He goes and lures her to the front gate. Doesn't make any sense, does it? He goes to the front gate to lure her to that front gate. He gets into a fight with somebody he doesn't even know. This fight goes on for five or fifteen minutes. The fight is so fierce that a hat and a glove are torn off. That is how fierce this fight had to be. The keys, the beeper, you saw how tough it is for any kind of an altercation, for gloves to come off, for a hat to come off.

There is kicking, there is all kind of fighting in this small, small area. But that is what they want you to believe and so we find the keys and the beeper and the gloves all--of course we find specifically the cap, the gloves neatly packaged under the item there, and then he leaves this one glove behind and then just walks slowly out to the alleyway. Now, the dog that we've heard so much about who he bought, who was his dog, doesn't go with him; he goes the other way, out the front to go down the other way, Kato, the dog, under what they would have you believe. And he has got these bloody clothes on and everything and now he goes back out there where his car has been sitting ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, right out there in the alleyway. Anybody could look, anybody coming home. People are driving up and down the street. Gets back in his car and then presumably he races back home where the limousine driver who was there doesn't hear him come up, doesn't see him, doesn't do any of those things. And we know from the time they see O.J. Simpson, within five minutes he is coming downstairs packed, luggage is already down there looking neat as a pin heading for the airport.

Now, he was expecting this man after he came back from the hamburger. This is what their case is. This is what they want you to believe. And just for good measure, it is not enough. That is not enough. Under their scenario, once he gets home, after he is rushing, he has got enough time and he has got all these bloody clothes and he runs down the side of his house where he has lived for 17 years and runs into the air conditioner and says, whoops--no marks of course on his body--but while he is back there he drops a bloody glove to match the other glove found over at Bundy. And just for good measure so they will be sure and find it, he knocks on the wall. He doesn't run into the wall, he knocks on the wall. He says, (Indicating), he gives a signal and then he decides to come in the house. But nobody sees him do any of that. That is what they have you believe. That is the Prosecution's case. We have been here one year, ladies and gentlemen, and two days, to hear this is what they have told you. It just doesn't fit. It doesn't fit; you must acquit. Something is wrong with the Prosecution's case, and your common sense is never going to let you fall for it. So the other side, of course, we submit, in answering the questions that O.J. Simpson was at home getting ready for his trip. He had no problem with his ex-wife. He had gone to this concert. She had gotten tickets for him. There is no argument. Nobody has come in here and said they had any argument that day. There is no fight. They talked earlier, made arrangements for the tickets. He went to the concert. You saw him at the concert. You traced his steps that day and what he did and then he went on to Chicago and came back immediately and everything he did was consistent with innocence. This case is a tragedy for everybody, for certainly the victims and their families, for the Simpson's family, and they are victims, too, because they lost the ex daughter-in-law, for the Defendant. He has been in custody since June of 1994 for a crime that he didn't commit. Someone has taken these children's mother. I certainly hope that your decision doesn't take their father and that justice is finally achieved in this case. One final word about Allan Park. We talked a lot about Allan Park. He is somebody that Miss Clark, of course, found credible, but even credible people don't get everything right.

Remember the golf bag? He thought it was a blue golf bag and we know it is black with an insignia on it. We know that there was a lot of questions asked about whether he saw a car parked at the curb and I read you the portion when I questioned him where he said he hadn't really been looking. He was not very clear with regard to that. But like all witnesses, you hold him up to the same standard and look at them. And so now I promise you we are coming to the end. If after hearing all of this evidence you have a reasonable doubt, it is clear that O.J. Simpson is entitled to an acquittal. And whether it is O.J. or no J, the result would have to be the same. His status doesn't count. It is the evidence that counts and what has been proven to you under these circumstances. But he is a good and decent man who you have seen and observed everyday during session since September 26, 1994. Now, as it comes time for me to conclude my remarks, I may never have an opportunity again to speak to you, certainly not in this setting, maybe when the case is over. As you have been told many, many times, these are very heavy burdens placed upon the People, and for good reason, to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. As such it is Miss Clark's duty to answer for you as best she can any legitimate questions arising from the evidence which we believe casts doubt upon Mr. Simpson's guilt. There may be 1000 such questions in a case like this which could be put to her, but we intend no such exercise. I do think, after careful deliberation, that it might be fair to suggest fifteen questions, just fifteen questions which literally hang in the air in this courtroom at this moment. And as the time approaches for you to decide this case, for us to hand the baton to you. I offer these questions now as a most important challenge to the Prosecution, the Prosecution which claims that it has met its burden in this case. If that burden has in fact been met, you will be given logical, sensible, credible, satisfying answers to each of these fifteen questions. If the questions are overwhelming and unanswerable, they will be ignored or you will be told that the Prosecution has no obligation to answer questions. If you are given anything less than a complete sensible and satisfactory response, satisfying you beyond a reasonable doubt to these fifteen questions, you will quickly realize that the case really is transparent and you will think about the scenario that I just went through for you and that--the term smoke and mirrors that you heard about doesn't apply to the Defense. We proved real hard things for you, things that you can see, things you could take back in that jury room. And accordingly, you would have to find Mr. Simpson not guilty. When I'm concluded, for Miss Clark's convenience, should she decide to deal with these very troublesome questions, I'm going to leave her a written list of these questions here when I conclude. Let me go over these fifteen questions with you just briefly.

1. Why, there on the monitor, did the blood show up on the sock almost two months after a careful search for evidence? And why, as demonstrated by Dr. Lee and Professor MacDonell was the blood applied when there was no foot in it? Do you think that is a fair question in this case? Let's see if she can answer that question.

Question no. 2. Why was Mark Fuhrman, a detective who had been pushed off the case, a person who went by himself to the Bronco over the fence to interrogate Kato to discover the glove and the thump, thump, thump area?

No. 3. Why was the glove still moist when Fuhrman found it if Mr. Simpson had dropped it seven hours earlier? As Agent Bodziak told you, as herb MacDonell has told you, blood dries very rapidly.

4. If Mark Fuhrman, who speaks so openly about his intense genocidal racism to a relative stranger such as Kathleen Bell, how many of his co-workers, the other detectives in this case, were also aware that he lied when he denied using the "N" word yet failed to come forward? Part of Barry Scheck's fourth C of continuing cover-up.

5. Why did the Prosecution not call a single police officer to rebut police photographer Rokahr's testimony that Detective Fuhrman was pointing at the glove, before, before Fuhrman went to Rockingham? That is around 4:30 in the morning.

6. If the glove had been dropped on the walkway at Rockingham ten minutes after the murder, why is there no blood or fiber on that south walkway or on the leaves the glove was resting on? Why is there no blood in the 150 feet of narrow walkway or on the stucco wall abutting it? And you ever been back there.

No. 7. For what purpose was Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood in his pocket for three hours and a distance of 25 miles instead of booking it down the hall at Parker Center?

No. 8. Why did Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg, in a desperate effort to cover up for the missing 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood, secretly go out to the home of police nurse Thano Peratis without notice to the Defense and get him to contradict his previous sworn testimony at both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing? Peratis was never sworn. We were never given notice.

9. Why, if according to Miss Clark he walked into his own house wearing the murder clothes and shoes, there is not any soil or so much as a smear or drop of blood associated with the victims on the floor, the white carpeting, the doorknobs, the light switches and his bedding?

10. If Mr. Simpson had just killed Mr. Goldman in a bloody battle involving more than two dozen knife wounds where Mr. Goldman remains standing and struggling for several minutes, how come there is less than seven/tenths of one drop of blood consistent with Mr. Goldman found in the Bronco?

No. 11. Why, following a bitter struggle allegedly with Mr. Goldman, were there no bruises or marks on O.J. Simpson's body? And you will have those photographs back in the jury room.

No. 12. Why do bloodstains with the most DNA not show up until weeks after the murder, those on the socks, those on the back gate, those on--those are the two major areas.

No. 13. Why did Mark Fuhrman lie to us? Why did Phil Vannatter lie to us?

And finally 15. Given Professor MacDonell's testimony that the gloves would not have shrunk no matter how much blood was smeared on them, and given that they never shrank from June 21st, 1994, until now, despite having been repeatedly frozen and thawed, how come the gloves just don't fit?

I'm going to leave those questions for Miss Clark and we'll see what she chooses to do with and about them. That will be her choice. But I think you have a right to demand answers if you are going to do your job in this case. It seems to me you will need to have answers to those questions. Now, there are many, many, many more, but as with everything in this case, there comes a time when you can only do so much. We took fifteen as representatives, but I can tell you we had more than fifty questions, but fifteen will be enough, don't you think? I think so. In this case, when we started out a long time ago, we talked a lot about truth. And I always like, in a circular fashion, that you kind of end up where you started out. The truth is a wonderful commodity in this society. Some people can't stand the truth. But you know what? That notwithstanding, we still have to deal with truth in this society. Carlisle said that no lie can live forever. We have seen a number of big lies in this case, in this so-called rush to judgment. We have seen lie after lie, so much so that at least two of the major witnesses, Vannatter and Lange--Vannatter and--strike that--and Fuhrman, their testimony by you may be totally disregarded, further dismantling the People's case. You have that right, you know, in this search for truth. In times like these we often turn to the bible for some answers to try to figure out when you've got situations like this and you want to get an answer and you want to try to understand. I happen to really like the book of proverbs and in proverbs it talks a lot about false witnesses. It says that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that speaketh lies shall not escape. That meant a lot to me in this case because there was Mark Fuhrman acting like a choirboy, making you believe he was the best witness that walked in here, generally applauded for his wonderful performance. It turns out he was the biggest liar in this courtroom during this process, for the bible had already told us the answer, that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that speaketh lies shall not escape. In that same book it tells us that a faithful witness will not lie but a false witness will utter lies. Finally in proverbs it says that he that speaketh the truth showeth the forthrightfulness but a false witness shows deceit. So when we are talking about truth, we are talking about truth and lies and conspiracies and cover-ups, I always think about one of my favorite poems, which I think is so very appropriate for this case. You know when things are at the darkest there is always light the next day. In your life, in all of our lives, you have the capacity to transform Mr. O.J. Simpson's dark yesterday into bright tomorrow. You have that capacity. You have that power in your hand. And James Russell Lowell said it best about wrong and evil. He said that truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the thrown, yet that scaffold sways the future and beyond the dim unknown standeth God within the shadows, keeping watch above his own. You walk with that everyday, you carry that with you and things will come to you and you will be able to reveal people who come to you in uniforms and high positions who lie and are corrupt. That is what happened in this case and so the truth is now out. It is now up to you. We are going to pass this baton to you soon. You will do the right thing. You have made a commitment for justice. You will do the right thing. I will some day go on to other cases, no doubt as will Miss Clark and Mr. Darden. Judge Ito will try another case some day, I hope, but this is O.J. Simpson's one day in court. By your decision you control his very life your hands. Treat it carefully. Treat it fairly. Be fair. Don't be part of this continuing cover-up. Do the right thing remembering that if it doesn't fit, you must acquit, that if these messengers have lied to you, you can't trust their message, that this has been a search for truth. That no matter how bad it looks, if truth is out there on a scaffold and wrong is in here on the throne, when that scaffold sways the future and beyond the dim unknown standeth the same God for all people keeping watch above his own. He watches all of us and he will watch you in your decision. Thank you for your attention. God bless you.