All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
Thank you very much, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
I forget where I left off, so I'm just going to pick up with something else. There were some remarks made about the treatment given to some of the witnesses, and I confess that there are probably some I could have been nicer to. Mark Partridge came in to testify to the Defendant's demeanor when he came back from Chicago, and this kind of--it's a really good example of what I'm talking about. He made notes, detailed notes the next day, you might remember, of everything that the Defendant said to him and everything that he said to Mr. Simpson, and he copyrighted them. He copyrighted them. What does that mean? That means you have a proprietary interest in the material. The very next day after he speaks to him, he's going to sell these notes. He's going to make some money off of this.
He's got some proprietary interest in this. Now, what kind of a man is that? What kind of a person is that? And it's very indicative. It's very, very consistent. You heard from Ellen Arronson. She came up to testify. She was the one, she said she called in to the police to say--she initially said that she heard the dogs barking at 11:30. Then she saw the preliminary and she realized, "I'd better call back again and change the time so I can make myself a witness," you know, a groupie. And, yeah, I don't like that kind of person. That doesn't belong in a criminal trial.
Okay. That's the kind of person that will offer any testimony they can to get their 15 minutes of fame. That's not the kind of testimony you can trust. At the end of the trial or end of the People's case, we had--or maybe it was the whole trial--we had the Judge take judicial notice of something, and I'm sure you were wondering what did that relate to. And the judicial notice that he took was that the moon on the night of June the 12th was a crescent moon, 12 percent illuminated. You may recall that. That's very important for two reasons. The first and most important reason is, it tells you what the lighting conditions were like that night. It was not a full moon. It was a dark night. Witnesses--their testimony has been referred to by Mr. Darden--have confirmed that it was dark. Officer Riske made it very clear it was dark. Sukru Boztepe, who was walking with the dog, said, "I would not have looked up there. I wouldn't have seen the body if the dog had not stopped and look at the pathway." That's important. So you have that judicial notice taken. That means it's an undisputed fact. You are to accept a 12 percent crescent moon.
When I cross-examined Miss Arronson and I asked her what was the moon like, "Oh, it was a full moon." "Are you sure?" "Yes, I'm very sure." It's in the record. Have it read back. She was very sure. She was very wrong too. She also testified that she was very sure that she called the police officer to give her statement to him the first time on June the 14th. I showed her the police report. It said June the 15th. "Are you sure?" "I'm very sure." She's very sure about a lot of things, but one thing she really didn't know was when she was walking down the street. And you know how else you know she wasn't down that street when she said she was? Because Mark Storfer said he looked out his window at 10:23. I read it and I reviewed it. Now, I'm so tired I can't remember exactly. You can have it read back because I think what he said was 10:23.
Remember, you're the Judge of the facts. You're the sole Judge of the facts. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
Yes. And, you know, if you have a doubt about something I'm saying, please have it read back to you or look at your notes, okay, because I'm not trying to play fast and loose here. But it was within two minutes of when she passed Bundy that he looked out his window. If she's walking down Bundy in that light colored outfit that she said she was wearing on that night, he should have seen her when he looked north on Bundy because he said he looked out the window, looked north and he saw no one walking there, which is kind of--which is actually consistent with the other witnesses who don't say they saw anybody either. All the witnesses that were called by the Defense somehow were in the same place, none of them saw each other. Very weird. Defense has raised the issue about there being--why wasn't there dirt, why wasn't there mud at Rockingham tracked in the--tracked in the house on that light carpet. There wouldn't be--there was--
You saw the bloody shoeprints, and they faded out halfway down the Bundy walk to the point where there were no visible bloody shoeprints on that walk at the end of the walkway. Then you saw the imprint in the Bronco, so that whatever blood was left on the shoe was picked up by the soft tufts of the carpet. By the time he gets back to Rockingham, there isn't much left there. Whatever blood, whatever mud, whatever dirt he's got on his shoes, he's tracked off. This is common experience, you know. Either blood or mud, whatever you get on your shoes doesn't stay there forever. You walk, it comes off, and as you walk, more comes off. By the time he gets home, there's not a lot of excess there. Maybe there's some trace amount, but you're not going to notice that on a carpet. And so that in itself says nothing, and the testimony of their expert, Mr. MacDonell, I think even Dr. Lee does not dispute that.
Of greater importance and I think actually--yes. Dr. Lee even testified--he was asked specifically if somebody walked through dirt, walked through berries, would you necessarily see it, and his answer was you might see it and you might not. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that's what their witnesses have said. Now, there was an issue raised with respect to EAP. That's a conventional blood marker, okay. And you may recall there was testimony that Nicole Brown had an EAP type of BA. The blood under her fingernails was typed and came back with an EAP of B. We had testimony from Greg Matheson to indicate to you that that was degraded--that the BA degraded to a B. In order to confirm that it was her blood and not the blood of someone else, they did DNA testing on that blood, and the DNA confirmed that it was hers, it was her blood, and that it had degraded and it had degraded because, no. 1, the EAP marker degrades very rapidly, no. 2, her hand was in wet blood and blood in a wet state degrades quickly, more quickly than it will on a dried gate, for example, or in a dried condition. Now, there's more to that. First of all, Gary agreed--Gary Sims agreed with Greg Matheson in his conclusion that the blood under her fingernails was hers and not that of another perpetrator.
Overruled. Counsel, you need not make that objection any further. I have instructed the jury that they are the sole judges of what the facts are in this case; and if counsel chooses to argue a line of argument that is in contradiction to what these jurors find to be the fact, they do so at their own peril. The objection is made. Thank you. Miss Clark.
Thank you. Moreover, Dr. Lee, who was called by the Defense to testify, never contradicted that and he agreed that Greg Matheson was a good scientist. There was some testimony I think from Dr. Baden that you can get somehow the blood of someone under your nails without getting the skin under your nails. I don't see how that can possibly happen, but--
What is interesting is that the Defendant's EAP type is also a BA also. Now, the blood on the rear gate, the blood that came back to the RFLP testing, making the Defendant 1 in 57 billion or something, obviously, it's an identification. That's his blood. There's not even any dispute that that's his blood on the rear gate. That blood also had an EAP that was a BA degraded to a B.
She was very sure about a lot of things, but one thing she really didn't know was when she was walking down the street.
He copyrighted them. What does that mean? That means you have a proprietary interest in the material. The very next day after he speaks to him, he's going to sell these notes.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that's what their witnesses have said.
if counsel chooses to argue a line of argument that is in contradiction to what these jurors find to be the fact, they do so at their own peril.