All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, as I indicated to you earlier, argument is a very important part of the case. It is the opportunity of the lawyers to actually bring everything together in a logical and coherent way. And I indicated to you that the lawyers may argue the evidence that is in the record and draw from that evidence reasonable inferences for you to consider. Those are the guidelines. I needed to discuss a few matters out of your presence with the lawyers. We are ready to proceed. Miss Clark.

Thank you, your Honor. Once again, so as I was saying, if there is evidence of a conspiracy, it would be my obligation to dismiss, pure and simple, and I can go on to the next case.

Your Honor, we object again.

Overruled.

But there isn't, and in this case--

Object to that, your Honor.

Overruled.

I'm going to finish what I have to say to you and I'm going to do it as quickly as I can. Okay. What we have here is logic and evidence and common sense, which when you weave them all together you can see what the truth is. You can see what is really happening here. I'm going to start with a very simple example and that is the arguments that were made to you about the notification of the--to the Coroner. You might remember that counsel made a big deal about the fact that it wasn't the--the Coroner wasn't called until late, and Mr. Cochran has repeatedly referred to the rush to judgment. Now, let me address that with you for a second, the rush to judgment. The argument has been made that when they went to Rockingham, what they really wanted to do was make an arrest, right? Rush to judgment. They had it in mind that they were going to go there and arrest him and he was a suspect. And there was a reference made to a remark made by Mr. Vannatter in January or February of this year that seemed to contradict what he was telling you about his state of mind. Now, I don't know about you folks, but what I do when I have a doubt, when I wonder about what somebody really means, whether I can believe them, I look what they do, look what they do, that we were all taught as kids, actions speak louder than words. Yes, they do. Yes, they do. People can say things, we all know they can, but let's see what they do. Now, what did they do? Okay. Let's look back at the evidence that is not contested, the evidence that is--that stands unrefuted. They were out at Bundy. Commander Bushey told the initial detectives get on out there, go and make notification at Rockingham. You know that would be a problem for somebody who is famous, because if the media find out, it is all over the place, that is a very painful thing, and Commander Bushey sure doesn't want it to happen on his watch that that would happen in this case, so he told them, go out there. That is what he told you. Did they? No. They weren't sure if they were going to keep the case. I'm weaving the testimony for you together without reading from the transcript. You have it, though. I'm not going to bore you. But Detective Phillips did say we weren't sure if we were going to keep the case, if we had the resources. That was a real big problem with this case, because they only had four or six detectives in homicide over in West L.A. so they thought that it might be taken over by robbery/homicide division downtown that has many, many detectives and more resources, before they act, before they moved to make notification, which is an important thing to do in a homicide case. Your first contact with next of kin is to go and make the notification, make that contact, establish that rapport. And there might be some information that you can get from the next of kin or the person, you know, that would be very helpful to solving the case. The person could be a witness. Okay. Now, especially in this case where they have children in common, he might know who she is dating or not, because you know, they are divorced, but they still have to have contact. He might know something. It is an important first contact for them to make, so whoever is the handling detective is the one that is supposed to go. This is the testimony you've already heard. I'm not telling you anything knew. So they waited. They waited until they found out if robbery/homicide was going to take the case, and sure enough, they did. That is what happened. Vannatter and Lange came out there, and I guess they showed up around 4:00, 4:30, I think it was. All right. So they were standing out there waiting for quite a long time. Now, when Vannatter and Lange got there they--or in between I think when it was finally assigned to robbery/homicide, Commander Bushey spoke to them again and said go to Rockingham. You know, how many times do I have to say this? Go and do it. So then finally they still didn't go and do it. They still didn't run out there, okay? I can't remember, I think he said it was around the time--he couldn't be specific about the time, but he said he knew that Vannatter was there, that robbery/homicide had taken over the case. Now, Vannatter didn't get there I think until 4:00 or so. The record will refresh your memory. I can't remember exactly. I'm not trying to tell you for sure, but it was that time.

Even then they didn't go immediately. It wasn't--I think about five o'clock when they finally went to Rockingham, finally went there. Now, think about this. There were a lot of questions asked about why couldn't you have sent a rookie to go and make notification. Okay. Now, you know that doesn't make sense. If notification is an important thing, first of all, it has to be handled delicately, sensitively by people who have done this before, many times before, homicide detectives. It is one of the saddest parts of their job to have to make these notifications everyday, but they know how and they know how to deal with it. Bless you. So they are going to go and do it themselves. It is an important contact. That is their job. That is their duty, okay? So they can't send a rookie out to do it, but what should they do? Think about this now. If it is their intent to go out to Rockingham, make an arrest, because he is a suspect, there are certain things they should have done. No. 1 thing is you take back-up. You don't go by yourself. You take back-up. You take a couple of squad cars, you make notification downtown, hey, we are going to arrest and this is an important suspect, and you know, this could be a media event. You make plans. You make arrangements. They did nothing.

Objection, your Honor.

Zip.

Misleading.

They went out there and they took just the four detectives in their two cars they went over to Rockingham. That is all they did. What else should they have done ask yourself?

Misleading, your Honor.

Excuse me, counsel. Overruled. They may argue reasonable inference from the evidence that is in the record.

If it is misleading?

Counsel, have a seat.

I will, your Honor, but it is misleading.

Your common sense will tell you I'm not misleading you. This makes sense. I'm talking logic. I'm talking logic based on what the witnesses have told you. You know it when you hear it. Now, what else should they have done if they are going to go make an arrest that is going to take sometime? Really wrapped up. Do questioning. They could take downtown the things that you know happened when someone gets arrested. So if they know they are going to take a long time, they have a crime scene that has to be processed, they have two dead people lying out there and all that evidence around, what would they do? They would go to somebody who is going to stay at the crime scene and they would say call the Coroner, we are going to be gone a while. Call the criminalist, we are going to be gone a while. We need you to get this evidence collected and we won't be here because we are going to make an arrest. Did they do any of that? No. Now, what the evidence has shown is--and what they have testified to and what their actions tell you is true, they expected to come right back. Two of them would stay with Mr. Simpson, taking care of him, taking him to the station to get his children, making the arrangements, and two would go back to Bundy and handle the crime scene, and their actions totally support that. If they expected to be gone a long time, they wouldn't all four go or they would tell someone else take care of business for us, we are going to be gone. They didn't do that. What their actions tell you is we are coming right back. It doesn't really matter if somebody isn't taking care of business and calling the Coroner and calling the criminalist. Logic. Logic. Look at their actions. Look at their actions. You don't trust the word. Look at what they do. That is what they did. All right. Now, an argument was made to you about standing the constitution on its head, and that is because I said, look, why don't they call these witnesses? There are witnesses they should logically call. I'm talking about logic, I'm talking about reason, I'm talking about what do you expect, what would you like to hear? These are questions you are entitled to have answered. These are questions that you should consider. These are fair and reasonable questions and these are questions that do not stand the constitution on its head. I told you when I first argued to you in the beginning of all these long arguments, that they would be telling you many, many times, the Defense, we don't have to prove anything. If you heard it once, you heard it fifty times. They did. That is what they said, and that is right; they don't. But when they do, but when they try to, then you have to evaluate their evidence the same as ours. There is no difference. The jury instructions govern all the witnesses.

And so you look what is the quality of evidence that you have been given by the Defense? What witnesses have they called? What logical witnesses that you would expect to be called weren't called? That all tells you something. It is legitimate for you to consider it, you must consider it, because as I showed you in the jury instruction beyond a reasonable doubt, you must consider all of the evidence. That means everything that was done and not done. And here is an example. Thano Peratis. Remember, that was the nurse. He drew the blood. That was their witness. Now, he was their witness because he was the cornerstone of their case. Very important to make you believe that there is missing blood. But then--now I think Defense counsel made some reference to that, the notion that we--Hank Goldberg secretly went out and interviewed him. What secret? You know, if you have a question about this, ask the Judge. No attorney for either side is required to give notification to another side, oh, I'm going to go interview my witness. That makes sense, doesn't it? They don't notify us and we don't notify them. We talk to them, we give them evidence of it. We give them a statement, here, we talked to this guy. Here is the statement. That is what we do. Hank Goldberg went and talked to him. Mr. Peratis said, no, I didn't measure, no, I didn't look, and I realize I was wrong. I was trying to be very precise. Okay. Now, here is the syringe. You are going to have this back here. You can look at it. And what he said was I turn it over, I had it turned over and I couldn't see the number. And you will see when you look at the numbers and all these little lines as are sitting there like this, you are this going to be able to measure precisely how much you have got in there, but if you have it turned over, you are really not going to know. Okay. But beyond all of that, it kind of makes sense, if no one tells you must take this much blood, you are not going to look to take that much blood. You are going to take enough. You take enough for sampling, for testing, and that is what they did. Now, Thano Peratis is not truly a real important part of our case because we proved to you in many different ways the integrity of the evidence. I'm going to get into the blood evidence and why it is proven to have integrity in just a little bit. Let me start with hair and fiber, though. Jonathan, do we have this? Thank you. All right. Now, there were a number of misstatements made to you yesterday by Mr. Scheck concerning the hair and fiber evidence. I'm going to go into just a couple of them. And one thing that Mr. Scheck said was that Mr. Deedrick and Dr. Lee agreed that hair and fiber association was weak association. Well, here is what Dr. Lee testified to, page 43168. Question posed Dr. Lee. "Do you agree with the following statement: While it is difficult to make absolute individualizations ins these areas, the trace analyst can make identifications with a high degree of certainty and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence based on experience and analytical results? "Answer: I would say eighty to ninety percent that statement correct. They forgot one thing. Depends on sample. Not all the sample you can reach that degree of certainty. Some of the sample, yes, you can." In other words, it is a very good. What he said, "Can establish partial individuality with confidence." In other words, it is a very strong method of association. Now, I'm going to show you, show you the pictures, and you will see why they make that strong statement about it.

You may remember, we showed you this during the trial. This is People's 480. Remember this? It says "Known head hairs" on the top row and then the "Hairs from the knit cap" at the bottom row, and you look at them and you compare and you see. Your eyes tell you. You don't need to look at x-rays. You don't need to look at autorads. These were the hairs in the knit cap found at the feet of Ron Goldman. This is testimony that was unrefuted. No Defense expert came in to tell you this wasn't so. And People's 481. Again, the "Defendant's known hairs," "Hairs taken from the knit cap," "Hair from Ron Goldman's shirt." You can see this.

Mr. Scheck also told you that the blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt, on the Rockingham glove and on the Defendant's socks, were very common. That is what he argued to you yesterday. That is not what the testimony said. Let me read to you what Doug Deedrick told you about this, page 35093. "Question: Now, you saw a lot of fibers in this case, correct? "Answer: A lot, yes. "Question: Was there something unusual about these particular blue black cotton fibers that drew your attention or made you pay particular attention to them? "Answer: Yes. Well, cotton fibers themselves, they are common. There is a lot of cotton fibers out there. What gives cotton fibers significance is that when you add color to them in a specific way, some you see more, maybe less likely than others. These particular--these are actually it is a real dark blue. It looks black, but in some areas the dye was not absorbed the same and this may be where the yarns are attached to the fabric. The same thing appeared also on the fibers that were recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt, the bluish area also present here. It was recovered from the Defendant's socks. The bluish area here is starting to show. Some of these areas can better be shown using instrumental techniques with color because the eyeball sees this as a shade of blue, this as a shade of blue and so forth." And then he goes into all of the methods that he used to examine these blue black cotton fibers to determine that they were--they did in fact share the same microscopic characteristics. And I was going to read it all to you, but it is just too long. There is a lot of tests that he used and it had to do with the color and it had to do with the dye and it had to do with the appearance. And if you need to have it read back, please do, but you also have a picture. And if you don't want to read it, you can just see it, People's 487.

Mr. Fairtlough, would you just show that briefly to counsel.

All right. Thank you.

Did you see it, your Honor? And you can look at these fibers. Look from the Rockingham glove, Ron Goldman's shirt, the Defendant's socks. These are things you can see. Now, there was also some discussion about the Defendant having dandruff, if you recall. And it was told to you that the Defendant always had dandruff in the off season. That is not what the testimony showed. Here is what the testimony actually showed about that, page 37441. "Question: And sometimes in the summer when you saw him take care of his hair he would have dandruff and sometime he would not? "Answer: That's correct." That was his barber. Another interesting thing that she told us is that unless you brush the hair vigorously, the dandruff does not come off. So I asked her: "If you don't, if you just brush his hair, the dandruff doesn't come off? "Answer: Right, which means if you don't brush or comb the hair and it just falls off by itself, the dandruff doesn't come off, if you don't do anything to the hair, I guess it will just stay there." Now, the hairs in the cap did not have dandruff and the Defense wants you to believe it couldn't be his hair because he has dandruff. That is not what the testimony showed. That is not what the evidence showed. The evidence showed sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't, but actually even if he did, it wouldn't come off in the knit cap because you had to brush vigorously to get it out so that it would show. So what you have in the knit cap are his hairs, the naturally shed hairs that are his because he wore the hat.

Object to the form of that.

Overruled.

Okay. You have jury instructions. I spoke to you a little bit about them before. There was one I didn't talk to you about I want to mention now because I'm going to talk a little bit about Dr. Baden and what he testified to, and that instruction is 2.--2.80? Do you have it on the bench, your Honor, 2.80?

Wait. I have it. Thank you. You have a few instructions that tell you about expert testimony and this can be really helpful to you because I think that--I think I'm not alone in getting a little bit intimidated by experts, they know, they have "Doctor" in front of their name and what do I know, but you shouldn't be. You shouldn't be. You are allowed to evaluate the opinion of a doctor, and if it doesn't make sense, you can say, "You don't make sense, I don't believe you." It doesn't matter if they have "Doctor" or "Ph.D." before or after their name. You get to evaluate it because if it is not logical, if it doesn't make sense, it doesn't matter what their title is, and that is basically what the instruction says. 2.80, you will have it back there, and it says the following: "You are not bound to accept an expert opinion as conclusive, but should give to it the weight to which you find it to be entitled. You may disregard any such opinion if you find it to be unreasonable." Okay. So what that tells you is don't be intimidated by the title. You know what makes sense, and if you find it to be unreasonable, toss it. Okay? Dr. Baden told you some things that were--that made absolutely no sense. They defied the laws of gravity. What am I talking about? I'm not going to drag all the pictures out here right now, you will have them back there if you want to verify this. One thing that he said that I just couldn't believe I was hearing is that the jugular vein cut was the one that caused the blood on Ron Goldman's pants. Now, think about this. This is jumping blood, because there isn't a big--then it should be jumping down the shirt, right? Logic tells you that if he is bleeding from the neck, it is going to drip down his shirt and then get to his pants. You look at his shirt. It is not there. The front of the shirt is not blood-soaked in front over the place where the pants are all blood soaked, so it is very obvious that where the blood came from is the stab wound in the hip, and Dr. Baden's testimony on that makes absolutely no sense. Another thing that makes no sense, that actually disregards what gravity tells you must be true. But what I think what Dr. Lakshmanan told you as well, and he is medically qualified, and that is this: He also said--and this is how he gives you this big time frame, by the way, which makes no sense all by itself, and I will talk about that in a minute. He said that there was a period of between five to fifteen minutes from the time that the neck wound was inflicted to the time that the chest wound was inflicted, and he based that on the very small amount of blood found in the chest cavity on Ron Goldman's right side, okay? In other words, what he is basically telling you is that blood pressure had so dropped as a result of this jugular wound, he bled out so much that by the time he got stabbed here, (Indicating), it had to be about ten minutes later and that is why there is so little blood in the cavity. Okay. But Ron Goldman was lying on his right side and bleeding out, so you could actually see it in the photographs. You will have back there. There was a tree stump that I think has the number "106" on it. When you have the photographs, look at this, please, because it is blood-soaked, and what they did--before they got the actual reference vials of the victim's blood from the Coroner, was they went and they took blood samples from the place where the victims were lying so they would have some idea ahead of time what the victim's blood types were. So they took a swatch from the tree stump near Ron, because obviously that was his blood. They also took a swatch from the area of blood that Miss Brown was lying in, and that was her reference sample taken from the crime scene. That is how much he was bleeding out. Dr. Baden doesn't believe in gravity, doesn't believe that that is why he had so little blood in his cavity, doesn't believe that somebody lying on their right side is going to bleed out if he is lying there for a while, and says there is so little blood there, that means he was already near death and that means the jugular wound had been bleeding for quite a long time, and that is ridiculous. I will tell you why. You don't even have to be a doctor to figure this one out. Somebody commits murder, are they going to hang around? What was he doing for ten minutes? Between the time that he inflicted the jugular cut and the time that he inflicted the chest cavity, if you believe Dr. Baden, he has got ten minutes to kill. The door is standing open. There is no evidence of ransacking, there is no evidence of disturbance. What is he doing, playing solitaire out there? That is ridiculous. What are they asking you to buy? That is why I'm saying look at the jury instruction. You may disregard any such opinion if you find it to be unreasonable. Ladies and gentlemen, that is one of the most unreasonable things I think I have ever heard any doctor say. That is ridiculous.

Miss Clark, if would you slow down just a little.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to get it over with. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Chris. While we are on expert testimony, EDTA, very, very briefly. Okay. You were--you were told during argument that a letter was sent to Agent Martz asking him to refute the allegation that the blood was planted. That is not what the letter says. The letter says.

Which exhibit is this, counsel?

I didn't bring the exhibit number, your Honor. I just have the letter.

All right. Supply that for us.

I don't have the number, your Honor.

All right. Why don't you just--all right. Proceed.

The question posed was: "We would like you to test these items for the presence/absence of EDTA in order to refute the possibility that the stain on the sock could have come from the reference sample." Now, what is the point of that? When we heard that the Defendant was going to make this outrageous allegation, I thought, well, I won't close my mind to anything. Let's find out.

Excuse me, counsel. Be careful.

Okay. So we sent the reference samples and we sent the sock and we sent the rear gate samples to Agent Martz for testing. Let's find out. And what was the result? No EDTA. No big surprise, but no EDTA. Now, he came in and he testified and he showed you these charts, and I want to show them to you one at time because it made it so clear. And perhaps you may recall he tested his own blood unpreserved, he tested the evidence on the gate and he tested the blood on the sock, and guess what? His own unpreserved blood and the gate stain and the sock stain all came out looking the same. They came out looking like this. We taped all their charts together so what you see here is the results of all those things.

What exhibit?

That is 544-e, your Honor.

Thank you.

Okay. That was Agent Martz' own blood and the evidence; that means the gate, the rear gate blood and the sock blood. That is what that looked like, so unpreserved blood, and the evidence had all those jagged peaks. Okay. Here is 544-f. This is what it looks like when we have EDTA preserved blood. All the same. That is--that stuff all comes from the test-tube with EDTA in it. Does that look anything like the jagged peaks that we just showed you? That is pretty easy. But Dr. Rieders thought he could--thought he could get you to blind your eyes and listen to his title and say, well, gee, I'm not qualified, maybe they do look alike. I mean, it is ridiculous, but he did that and he insults your intelligence with this. But what is even worse and what shows you really that this is a man whose opinion is for sale is that his initial report said I found two of the three ions on the gate and on the sock and he thought that was going to be good enough for him to say, well, could be consistent with and he could slide around with that. Unfortunately what happened, after he wrote that report, was Agent Martz then said, gosh, I wonder what it would be like if I tested my own blood without any EDTA in it? Took blood out of his arm and he went and he tested it with not EDTA, just regular ol' blood, and guess what? It looked just like the gate, it looked just like the sock.

When Dr. Rieders found that out, he said, I've got to do something because they have just proven me completely wrong for what he did. For the first time on the witness stand he said I found another ion on the sock and he tried to show you that one of those peaks matches something else. It was really reprehensible, and I know, I got a little bit excited with Dr. Rieders, but this is a man--this is a man--let's not forget where he comes from. Let's not forget what he did before. I asked him about questions about this other case, the case of poisoning you may recall, the case of oleander poisoning in which he was asked by the District Attorneys of Ventura County and this county to find out whether a man died of natural causes or had been poisoned to death. Now, that sounds pretty serious, doesn't it? That is a murder charge that can or cannot be brought based on what his test shows. And he did preliminary screening tests, he did not use state of the art, he didn't even know what state of the art was available at the time, and he came back with the answer, yes, poison is present. Poison is present. And had the D.A. and the Defense attorney not joined together to go out and find an expert who had much more sophisticated equipment who could do definitive testing, an innocent man would have gone to prison for murder because Dr. Rieders was so sloppy and so out of date and had an opinion for hire for whoever was bidding, that is what would have happened, but fortunately the D.A. said, no, we are going to go and check that again.

Your Honor, I object.

Counsel, that does go beyond the scope.

Goes beyond the evidence.

And that is why you have to view very, very carefully the experts, see if they make sense, see if you can rely on them, see if they are believable, see if they are logical, and consider the fact that they are for hire. Sure, that makes a difference. Dr. Baden, Dr. Baden who came and told that you gravity doesn't work, paid over $100,000 in this case. He is very charming, he is very affable, I enjoyed seeing him in court, but hearing him was something else. Over $100,000 he got paid in this case. There was also a reference made to you, Mr. Darden began to address it, about golf balls, you may recall, and then it was argued as well. It was argued that the Defendant had that little dark bag that he insisted on picking up and that was for carrying golf balls to the tournament in Chicago. Now, first of all, what kind of sense does that make? You take your own golf balls to a golf tournament? Don't you think they are going to give you some there? But it is worse than that, because that is not what the evidence shows. Allan Park was specifically asked about that. "Can you tell us, sir, whether you saw any golf balls in that lawn area that night? "Answer: No." Kato was asked the same question. "Did you ever see balls in relationship to a bag that was similar to the bag you saw on the driveway on June the 12th? "No, I don't think so. I don't remember seeing that. I think there were balls in the garage, kind of just balls that were there." And that was a question asked by Mr. Shapiro of Kato Kaelin. So not only doesn't it make any sense, but there is no evidence to support it at all. Now, there was something else said to you represented that Mr. Kaelin and pictures and a videotape also refute, and that is a side door.

You may recall that Defense counsel mentioned to you why would it be Mr. Simpson walking in through that front door when Allan Park was sitting out there watching him? He could have gone in from the side. Not true. And the evidence proves it is not true. First of all, Mr. Kaelin testified that the laundry room referred to by counsel was not really used, but we have better than that for you, ladies and gentlemen. We have a videotape. We have that inventory videotape that counsel brought in that shows that door, that shows on June 13th that there were things--little step ladder and stuff like that in front of the door, which gives you a clear indication that door waters not in use and that is the condition of that area on that--on the afternoon of June the 13th. Do we have the clip?

What exhibit is this? What exhibit is this, Mr. Fairtlough?

1068.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Wooden.

There we go. Laundry room. Whoops, back up. That was quick.

Okay. See the laundry room in there. See that step ladder? You saw it--see the step ladder? See the bag of laundry? It is stacked in front of the door.

Your Honor, I object. That is--

Overruled, counsel. It speaks for itself.

Thank you, your Honor.

All right. The counter is at 3:01 P.M. thank you, counsel.

Thank you. Now, do you put a step ladder, do you put a basket of laundry if front of a door that you use? Obviously not. So there was no other way in and that is why, that is why Allan Park saw the Defendant walking in the door that night. And I'm going to tell you something, ladies and gentlemen. That was the defining moment of this trial. That was the one. Because when you understand that the Defendant was out that night, when you understand that he lied to Allan Park about being asleep, when you understand that that Bronco was moved and that he was out in that Bronco that night and that 10:03 call to Paula Barbieri is because he was out there making that phone call, then you understand how the Defense falls apart, then you understand where he was when his whereabouts are unaccounted for. And Allan Park's testimony is unrefuted. Allan Park came in and told us the truth and he told it consistently, the Bronco was not there and neither was the Defendant, until 10:54. Excuse me. Thumps on the wall, 10:52. That is one more important point.

That misstates again, your Honor.

Overruled, counsel.

That is another important point and this is why phone records are a good thing and you will have the testimony. I'm not going to read to you any more. You are probably tired of hearing that. You have it in the record. I asked specifically Kato: "Did you look at a clock? Did you look at your watch when you heard that thumping noise on your wall?

"No, I didn't. "So this is an estimate? "Yes, it is an estimate." He is estimating because he is not looking at what time it is. He says: "I called Rachel around this time. About a half an hour later I heard the thumps." It is an estimate. We had to go with that until we realized that Allan Park had a phone record. He had a phone record that said when he made a call and said when the call ended. And it was at the end of that call to his boss or from his boss that he saw Kato Kaelin out in the side yard, and Kato Kaelin told you, and it is unrefuted and it is uncontested, that it was two to three minutes after the thumping that he was out on that side yard. That is what he told you. And that means that the thumping occurred at 10:52 and then Allan Park saw Kato in the side yard at 10:54, at the same time as he saw the Defendant walking in the door, 10:54. That means that two minutes after the thumping the Defendant is going into his house and that means the thumping was done by the Defendant. And they want to make fun of the fact that he ran into an air conditioner because it is his property and wouldn't he know better? Well I don't think that he hangs out on the south pathway a whole lot. That is not where Mr. Simpson would go. That is where a repairman would go, maybe a maid would go. He doesn't go down there, and anyway--

Again that is speculation, your Honor.

Overruled.

And that dark and that narrow little pathway in a hurry when you are pressed and you are frantic, you are not going to be looking to see everything that is coming. You are running, you are running, he is in a hurry and that is why that happens. And now, there was also some statement about there was nothing around that glove, but Dr. Lee, Dr. Lee said differently. Page 43200. "Question: Now, in addition to that, doctor, when you were at the Rockingham location did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of air conditioning unit near Kato Kaelin's house? "Answer: Yes, sir."

Your Honor, may we approach?

Your Honor, your Honor--

It is in the record, your Honor.

Hold on. With the court reporter, please.