I'm going to finish today, ladies and gentlemen, I promise. I promise. I really--it's just so important, I really want the record to be straight. I want you to know, on the rear gate, 117, there was testimony to indicate that Mr. Simpson's EAP marker was a BA. So was Nicole a BA. There was testimony in the record indicating that a BA can degrade and turn into a B because the a bands drop off. That was early testimony. That's what happens. It can degrade that way. That was the testimony. The blood under her nails that--how the DNA--
--typed back to her also had an EAP result of B, which Greg Matheson testified was indicative to him, that the EAP marker had degraded, that the a bands had dropped off. That was his testimony. With respect to the rear gate, he testified as well--that's the rear gate where the Defendant's blood is--DNA came back to him. The EAP marker that he has a BA just like hers came back degraded to a B. And here's the testimony that he gave.
He stated as follows: "And was 117 identified as being one of the rear gate stains from the Bundy location? "Answer: Yes, I believe it was. "And you got a B like pattern on that? "Answer: I call it a B, question mark, inconclusive, yes."
The page number is 25965 if you want to read it again. What that indicates to you, ladies and gentlemen, is that--there was also testimony--I should tell you there was--there is another conventional marker for serology called PGM. Maybe you remember that. And the PGM on the rear gate was also degraded. There was testimony I believe from Greg Matheson about that as well. That's important for a couple of reasons. No. 1, with respect to the blood under her nails, what it indicates is that it's her blood. It's her blood. No. 2, what it also indicates is that the blood on the rear gate was degraded. There was PGM degradation and EAP degradation, which indicates to you that it was out there for a while. It's all in the record. It's very logical and it's very consistent. I could go into greater depth on this and talk about--you know, what they're trying to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very, very sensitive, what they call exquisitely sensitive test and the PCR picked up Nicole, but not the blood--or not the blood of the real killer that was under her nails.
Well, how could that be? Conventional serology is not nearly as sensitive as PCR, not nearly. So if the EAP marker that Greg Matheson testified was breaking down under her nails, that isn't nearly as sensitive, they want to point you to that and say that's the blood of the real killer, in contradiction to the testimony of Greg Matheson and Gary Sims. And yet, we have very sensitive DNA testing that says it's hers, and they say ignore that. It doesn't make any sense. The blood under her nails is hers. That's what makes sense. That's logical. There was also testimony and there was also some points made about bindle no. 47, the infamous bindle no. 47. That's one of the Bundy blood trail drops. And in that, Dr. Lee testified I believe that there was--the bindles that were placed into--I mean, the swatches that were placed in the bindle were obviously still wet when placed in there and some of the sizes and shapes of the swatches matched the imprints of blood on the bindle and one did not and a big deal was made about this. I'm not really sure why because it's inconsistent.
Remember I told you I would point out inconsistent defenses. Their Defense seems to have been all along that the Bundy blood drops that all came back to the Defendant were contaminated, right? Well, with this testimony from Dr. Lee, it would seem they're trying to say there was some kind of planting going on because one of the little imprints in the bindle didn't match. I don't know which one they want to choose, but the truth of the matter is that Collin Yamauchi said he took one of those little swatches out for testing. So, of course, there is going to be one imprint there that doesn't match the swatches because one of them is gone. He tested it. No big mystery here. This is--it's very simple. It's very, very, very simple. And it's interesting that they really did not tell--what they don't make a big deal about, which I don't understand and was testified to, is that item no. 42, item no. 42 is Nicole's blood pool. Remember I told you they took a representative sample of the blood underneath Nicole and the blood that was right near Ron Goldman and the tree stump, okay. His was no. 41. Hers was no. 42. No. 42 then was her blood and--
--they have imprints. There was one imprint, I think there was testimony that didn't match the size of the swatch. What, they're planting Nicole's blood--you know, that would be the logical inference to be drawn--in her own blood pool? That would be ridiculous. But you see what I mean? That exposes the fact that all of these arguments about the minutia make no sense when you look at the big picture. You look at the big picture and you realize, well, there's nothing sinister here, you know. Open the doors. Open the windows. Let in the light here. Blow out that smoke, because when you look at the whole picture, you see the truth. It's very, very simple. All right. I'd like to talk to you a little bit about contamination. There was a lot of talk to you about that in this trial I know, and it really is not as complicated and it really is not as easy to do as they've been making you think, and I would like to show you what I mean by that with a few slides. I'm not going--I'm going to try not to say things like "Substrate control" and "Reagent blanks" and all that stuff. I'd like to talk about it the way I talk about other things, everything else in my life except for the science stuff. All right. Here are the reasons why you can have faith and you can rely on the validity of the results of the testing of the Bundy blood trail. No. 1, you've heard us talk about it too many times, substrate controls were clean. They should have showed contamination and they didn't, and they were tested and they came up clean. And what that gives you is quality assurance. You know you can rely on the result because you have this. The bindles were closed. That's very important. Remember if you will the testimony concerning opening of the blood vial, the Defendant's reference vial. And they were saying that when the blood vial was opened, that that somehow contaminated the bindles and the swatches that were taken from the Bundy walk, that there was some aerosol effect, that his blood was spraying all over the place. Well, the problem with that is that Collin's testimony was, when he opened the blood vial of the Defendant's reference blood, he was 10 to 15 feet away from the swatches and these swatches were in closed bindles. And not only that, but the bindles were inside envelopes that were closed.
Now, what testimony have you heard in this trial that DNA can fly from a test tube into a closed envelope through a closed bindle onto the swatches? None. In fact, there's testimony to the contrary. And that brings us to next, there was no vacuum in this test tube. This was not a vacutainer. This was a syringe, and it's already been shown to you and the testimony was--
You have the tape there. It was not a vacutainer that was used. It was a syringe. And there was testimony concerning this from Collin Yamauchi as well. And by the way, while we're at it, let me point out something else.
Mr. Scheck argued yesterday that Collin Yamauchi, when he opened up the Defendant's reference vial, he spilled blood on his gloves and spilled it on the chem-wipe. And it sounds to me like if it was spilled, I guess then it is true that there is no missing blood because it got spilled. But the truth of the matter is and the testimony was that, as Collin Yamauchi told you, when he opened it, he thought he might have gotten a little bit when--a little bit on his gloves and that he immediately changed his gloves and threw them away before he went to handle anything. So you don't have any problems with flying DNA and you don't have the kind of--you don't have the contact that you need to have in order to show contamination. And by the way, I should indicate to you that Gary Sims, whom the Defense endorses to be a very good scientist, indicated he too has had the experience of opening a reference vial and getting a little bit of it out and then you wipe it off, you clean up, it's fine. Okay. All of the swatches that were tested on the Bundy walk were consistent. They all came back to the Defendant. That's important for the following reason.
If you have contamination, what you should expect to find are results that are out of succinct, willy-nilly if you will. What should have happened is, you should have seen the Defendant's blood type coming up, for example, in the sample that was taken from the pool of blood under Nicole where it shouldn't be, you know. Remember, I told you about 41 and 42.
There was a tree stump that he was curled around and there was blood on that tree stump, and they recovered it as a representative sample from the crime scene of what his blood type would be. If this was in fact contamination and the Defendant's type was flying all over the place, why don't we find it in Ron Goldman's crime scene sample? Why don't we find it in the sample taken from the pool of blood underneath Nicole? We don't.
If you had contamination, it should be in other places, places where it doesn't belong. But you don't have that. You only have the Defendant's blood type coming up in the places where the killer dripped blood. This is the other point that was made by the Defense. And in order for you to believe that the results of the Bundy blood trail were the result of contamination, you must first believe that all of the DNA on all of the swatches completely and totally degraded. Now, when you think about the fact, as was brought out in testimony, that you can recover DNA through PCR analysis from Egyptian mummies, then how can you possibly buy this story about stains that were recovered a few hours ago completely and totally degrading every single one of them, all of these swatches for all of the drops--
--completely degrading to the point where they're able to pick up contamination? It makes no sense. It's completely illogical. It stands science on its head.
So this is a list of all of the reasons that I just told to you. For all of these reasons, bindles and envelope were closed, substrate controls were clean, swatches were tested and typed consistent with the Defendant, which otherwise you would expect to have willy-nilly, you'd have weird results happening. Every drop in the trail would have had to completely degrade in order to pick up somebody else's type, and the DNA didn't fly across the room. Now, there's--something else that you should know about this is the following. We did conventional serology, if you recall, on one of the blood drops on the Bundy walk, item no. 49. We did conventional serology. That means no DNA stuff. That's just regular what we call PGM markers. You've heard them talk about that. We did a PGM test on item 49. That came back to the Defendant. It put him within .5 percent of the population that could have deposited that blood. So even if you do not take into account the DNA, even Dr. Gerdes, their expert, conceded that conventional serology is very hardy stuff and he said no problem with contamination for PGM typing. That testimony is in 40198 to 40199 if you want to review that.
He said, in fact, that the conventional testing, when conventional serology comes back, the same as DNA testing, it's a good cross check for the validity of your results. And we have that here. We have that. Dr. Lee also told you that his lab does DNA testing. He felt that molecular biologists, like Dr. Gerdes, should not tell forensic scientists what to do or how to do it or when to do DNA testing and he thinks, he said, that forensic scientists are in the best position to know. That was Dr. Lee's opinion. He even indicated--and there's a portion of the transcript you could have read back. He was asked a series of hypothetical questions, for example, that an officer would go to a crime scene and pick up blood on his shoe and then go and give that bloody shoe to the criminalist to test for DNA and he was asked: "Dr. Lee, could you--would you get valid results if you did such testing? Wouldn't you be worried about contamination because you didn't collect carefully, you just collected by picking it up on your shoe?"
He said, no, you could get valid results doing that, even doing it that way. And, you know, we didn't do that in this case. You know, we picked it up correctly in this case. All right. So we talked about contamination. Let's talk about planting. First of all, the socks. With respect to the socks, there was testimony--and then there was argument about this sheet and you're going to have it. It's in evidence, isn't it, your Honor, the blood search sheet, work sheet? Yes, it is. Good. Good. You'll be able to see it. You'll see the whole thing, the whole controversy, all the shouting about this. And Michele Kestler testified to it late in the trial it showed that, as to the socks, there was a notation that there was to be blood search done. At the moment that they looked at them, there was none obvious. Now, what the Defense wants you to believe is that they had already done a blood search and there was none obvious. When you look at the sheets, you will see what the truth is as Michelle said. It's really very simple.
You can see that in the column where it says "Blood search," it's a scheduled item list of things to be done. A blood search was to be done. It had not yet been done. You want confirmation, check the testimony of their witness, Dr. Baden. Dr. Baden was asked about that and Dr. Baden made notes about his interview or his contact with Miss Kestler early on in the case, and here's what they had to say. They were going over Dr. Baden's notes of when he was reviewing the evidence at page 41270.
"Question: And what does that say? "Answer: No. 13, two dark socks, no analysis yet. "Question: Do you see anything written regarding no blood observed? "Answer: We didn't write that down. No. There was no blood observed or else I would have included it. "Question: Now, doctor, what does `no analysis yet' refer to? "Answer: Miss Kestler told me that no analysis had yet been done on the socks by the Los Angeles Police Department and we didn't do any further analysis on it." That was the testimony of Dr. Baden. That's what Michele Kestler told him. There was some further testimony that you might find interesting from Dr. Baden, and that's concerning how visible blood would be on those black socks under normal lighting conditions such as we are in here right now. You may recall that I asked Mr. MacDonell about that a little bit.
He said, no, you need high intensity light because those dark socks, it's very hard to see bloodstains on them. At page 41272, there was--questioning of Dr. Baden went as follows: "Question: What was the lighting like at the time of your observations? "Answer: Not very bright. It was a little better than the--better lighting than here presently, but not very bright. "Question: Not what you would describe as the kind of ideal lighting for conducting a close visual examination of something like a dark pair of socks? "Answer: Yes. That's fair.
"Question: There was no high-intensity lighting, was there? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: And high-intensity lighting, the kind of lighting that you would like to have when conducting a close visual inspection of an item like black socks, right?
"Answer: That's correct, yes." Big mystery. Now, what's even sillier about this argument, no. 1 thing, it seems that what the Defense is arguing here is that somebody went and took the socks out of the hamper and put them on the floor. The first thing I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, why? Why? Why not just come in and say we went through his hamper, we found the socks, we took them. Why not? What difference does it make? It makes it more incriminating somehow that the socks are on the floor. It doesn't matter. The question is, what's on the socks, not where the socks are. They're in the hamper, they're on the floor, same thing, no difference. If you'd rather consider them as having been in the hamper, consider it. That's not the way he left them, but, you know, what's the point of doing something like that? That's silly. That makes no sense. Now, think of this too. Why would you--it would seem that what they're basically saying, there was no blood on the socks. That's what they're saying, right? Why would you plant a blank pair of socks and then go back two months later and say, "I forgot, I'm supposed to plant blood on them. What have I been thinking? I've got to go back, put the blood there."
Does that make any sense to you at all? I mean, there's no logic to this. This is--this defies common sense. This is--you have to buy--you have to buy this. You have to buy that story or else the Defendant is guilty. That's it. And who could think like this? I mean, this is not only tortured logic, this is out the window. This is over the line. This is--talk about doesn't pass the laugh test. Only it's not really very funny. It's not funny what they're saying, but it's crazy. Now, so then they give you this stuff about the surface 3. They have these little microscopic red balls that they talk about. Now, the truth of the matter was that the testimony from Mr. MacDonell and from Dr. Lee I believe, but certainly from Mr. MacDonell was that he could not say that those little microscopic balls on surface 3 came only from surface 2. In other words--and if it didn't, if you can't say that, then you don't have any evidence of planting. What you have there is a couple of the other things that were indicated. For example, you saw the photograph of the socks. They were inside out. The toe was lying on the ankle, and we know that his blood was on the toe. With his blood lying on the--on the toe, pressing on the inside of the ankle, that would be on surface 3, you have the possibility of transfer right there. Another possibility that was pointed out was the phenol test where you could see the photographs. There's a drop there of moisture in the photograph. You touch it to the sock, you swab around for blood, and then you can get a wet transfer. But if somebody goes to plant blood--first of all, why would you plant blood on black socks that no one can see? But that's not the story. Doesn't make any sense either, but assume you do. Assume you do. Aren't you going to plant enough so it will be found and it will be typeable and they'll find it and they'll see it, in which case if you do that, you don't wind up with little microscopic balls you can't hardly see except under high magnification. You are going to wind up with something there. You are going--it's going to be bleeding through into the other side. It makes no sense. This makes no sense. And who did that? When did they do it? How did they do it? None of these things are explained to you. It's just thrown out there. Like I was telling you, because a lawyer says so doesn't make it so. Look for the evidence. Look for the proof.
Look how, look when, look who. Do you have any of that? You have none of it. Not only don't you have that, but you have no logic to go with it. There's no logic in what they're saying. It makes no sense and it didn't happen. Not only do you know that it makes no sense, but now we've proven it didn't happen. We did the EDTA test. You look at those graphs. They tell you it didn't happen. Not only have we proven our case, we've disproven theirs. How much more could you ask? The rear gate. That's another one they want you to believe blood was planted on. Now, I've already talked to you about this a little bit. They were making a lot of arguments about the blood was not degraded on the rear gate and, therefore, you should believe that because there were high amounts of DNA on it, that it had to be planted. Well, we've proven that wasn't true with the EDTA test. So you know that's not so. You have other assurances though. As I told you, there was degradation. EAP degraded to a B and the PGM degraded as well. So there's degradation on that rear gate. It was exposed.
But then I think it was really the most telling of all, Officer Riske, the first officer on the scene--it's been a long time since you've seen his face. He was very early on in this case, but he was very honest. He was very candid. Even Defense counsel agrees. And this is what he had to say about that, page 14068.
"Question: Now, when you went out towards the--out through the rear gate, were you able to see any other blood drops? "Answer: I met with my partner at the rear gate and--yes, I did. "Question: How much and how did you happen to see those?
"Answer: My partner directed my attention to them. "Question: And how did he do that? "Answer: He just told me he saw blood on the gate and on the driveway and he showed me where they were with his flashlight. "Question: Shone his light on them? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: Was he staying away from them?
"Answer: Yes." Officer Riske is describing the actions of his partner, Officer Terrazas, who saw blood on the rear gate. They were the first officers there in the early morning hours--excuse me--just shortly after midnight, June 13th, 1994. Defense counsel asks why didn't--why didn't the dog run out through the rear gate. If it was Mr. Simpson there, he would have run out behind him through the rear gate. You recall that argument yesterday? You know why? You already know the answer. The front gate was open, but the rear gate was closed because he closed the rear gate, and that's another reason why you know his blood is on that gate.
And that's why the dog didn't run out the back. The dog ran out the front because the front gate was open and the rear gate was closed. And Officer Riske told you that too. When they got there, the rear gate was closed and he was careful not to touch it. You could have that testimony read back to you. But that's why the dog didn't run out the back. But maybe that is also why the dog, after running out the front, ran around to the back. You recall the testimony of the bloody paw prints that went south on Bundy and then went west on Dorothy towards the rear alley, going out to look for his owner.
There was testimony from a number of witnesses who were present, the first of them Officer Riske, who traced those bloody paw prints down Bundy and west on Dorothy. You can have it read back. The Bronco. Now, you think that--first of all, Defense counsel wants you to believe that Mark Fuhrman went into that Bronco and that's why he was able to describe blood inside the Bronco that couldn't be seen on the outside of the Bronco. And let me just make a logical point to you. If he was in that Bronco doing all these nefarious things, why would he then go out and describe what he saw when he was in the Bronco doing these nefarious things, doing these bad things? He wouldn't admit to knowing anything about the inside of that Bronco. He wouldn't admit to making detailed observations of blood that's inside the Bronco. That's just a logical point. But there's more. The Defense would have you believe that the extra 4 allele on the PCR testing they found on the steering wheel comes from mark Fuhrman. Now, Defense counsel has made many, many requests, many of them. One of them was to get the officers' hair to eliminate from the Rockingham glove.
We got hair standards from all the officers. No problem, counsel. Let's go look. And we did, and Mark Fuhrman and all the other officers were eliminated from that Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove. A similar request could have been made for the blood of mark Fuhrman, and it was not. And had it been asked, it would have been done.
And the request would have been honored. Had they made one, it could have been done.
Now, with respect to the cell phone cut, I want to make a point on that. 172, your Honor.
Let me direct your attention to this one. You see the blood inside the well of the door handle on the driver's side? Inside?
Okay. That's an important blood spot. If you think about it, that blood is only going to get in that spot if you are sitting in the car with the door closed and you reached to open it, and in putting your hand on that handle, a bloody knuckle touches the well. That's how that blood gets there. The door closed, you're sitting in the car. That's very important because what that tells you, what that tells you is that it means that the Defendant was driving with a cut hand. His hand was already cut when he came back to Rockingham. When he opened that door, that knuckle was cut. It was cut at Bundy. That stain is very important. That stain tells you it was no razor sharp cell phone and it didn't happen when he was getting ready to leave for the airport. It happened earlier that night when he was out. That's what that tells you, that, of course, and the blood in the bathroom that shows he was bleeding earlier before he got down to see the limo driver. Now, the allegation made about the blood on the console, if I understood the argument that's been made here, it is that the Defendant was in the Bronco and he was bleeding and he dripped some of his blood on the console.
I've got a problem with that already, okay, because he was cut on the left hand, on the left hand and that's why you have his blood on the left-hand side of the car and you have the victims' blood on the console where he dropped the glove. That's why you don't have--see if I can describe this better. On the left-hand side, you have the drippings that came back to the Defendant. On the right-hand side, you have the smears, okay, and the smears came from the Rockingham glove. The Rockingham glove has the blood of the Defendant and Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. It has all three of them on there, okay. And in a moist condition, it will swipe a little bit like you see here (Indicating). Now, what they're trying to tell you is that the Defendant dripped blood on that side somehow with his cut left hand, dripped over on the console and that later, Mark Fuhrman came in and just happened to take the bloody Rockingham Bundy glove that did not have the blood of the Defendant on it, but swipe exactly where the Defendant had dripped on the console, and somehow, that's how his blood got mixed up with Ron Goldman's blood on the console.
If you wanted to sell this story in Hollywood, they wouldn't buy it because it's so incredible. It's not even funny. It's ludicrous, okay. This is ludicrous. But above and beyond that, they're also saying this. They are saying that Dennis Fung collected all of the blood on the console and it was all gone. Then someone came back later and planted blood exactly in the same place as it had been before to look exactly the same way it had looked before. This is ridiculous. Talk about makes no sense? Talk about--just unbelievable. You'll have the pictures. You need to look at the pictures. Look at the pictures yourself. You will have them back in the jury room. Compare--look at all the pictures you can get your hands on. Compare the blood patterns on this console from the photos that were taken. This one's later, September 1st, down here and this one up here was on June 14th (Indicating). Compare them. You ask yourself, you ask yourself how could this possibly happen, how could it happen that they can duplicate exactly the way the blood looks on June 14th on September 1st?
It can't happen. But you need to go back and look at it. You need to get your hands on this stuff yourselves and talk about this because this is so far beyond the pale that only your seeing yourself and holding this in your hands is believing that they're actually, actually saying this to you. Now, the problem with it really though is that you have to buy the planting theory. You have to buy the--this far out idea, this stuff because, otherwise, if you don't, he's guilty. Guilty. He's got Ron Goldman's blood in his car. What's it doing there? That's it. That's it. He's guilty. So they have to find an excuse. That's why you have these--this flailing about. You have contamination, you have planting, you have contamination and planting and/or planting, you got everything, everything to explain it all away, everything. But the theories get wilder and wilder because the proof is so devastating. There's so much of it and there's so much to explain. Here's what really happened. I mean, let's come back to reality here. The truth of the matter is that when the officers got to Rockingham--and this is the state of the record. Now, we're talking evidence and not fairy tales, okay.
The state of the evidence is this, ladies and gentlemen. The detectives got to Rockingham, the Bronco was locked. They asked Kato for the key. He couldn't find the key. They towed it in a locked condition, and on June the 14th, they--Dennis Fung had to get something to slim jim the door open to get in to collect the blood. That's the evidence. Not nearly as exciting, much more boring, but it's the truth. It's the truth. That's what happened. And so they never did, by the way, lock the car again because they didn't have the keys. That's why you had all this testimony about the car sitting there at Viertel's and people being able to open the door. They couldn't lock it because if they did, they couldn't open it again. They would have to slim jim it. This is the state of the record. That's the truth. And by the way, the blood that was collected that's shown here in the bottom photograph that has the number 26 on it on this exhibit, that blood was collected and sent directly to the Department of Justice. It didn't go through that cesspool they want to call the LAPD. It went straight up to DOJ, and it was tested and it came back with the RFLP result of Ron Goldman and the Defendant. All right. There was also briefly--somebody made reference to Detective Mulldorfer not seeing blood in the Bronco. Well, that if you had the impression she was looking for blood in the Bronco and tried to find it but failed, then you were given the wrong impression, and let me correct it very briefly.
"Question by Mr. Darden: Detective, are you telling us there was no blood on the console? "Answer: No. "Question: You weren't investigating the issue of whether or not there was blood on the console; is that correct? "Answer: That was not the focus of my investigation. "Question: The focus of your investigation was Mr. Meraz, correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: You had learned that he had stolen items from the Defendant's vehicle, correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And the items that you learned about were credit receipts; is that right? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Your investigation was focusing on theft of items of paper? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Your investigation wasn't focused on biological evidence, was it?
"Answer: No." That wasn't her job. Now, I want to come to a very important piece of evidence, and that is the bloody shoeprint on the Bronco carpet shown probably better up here on this top photograph 33. There was testimony that went to this by Mr. Bodziak. Now, how did they explain that, because that's real serious. You know, that shows--that's a very important piece of evidence. We have the Bruno Magli going down the Bundy walk in blood and then we have a bloody imprint right there (Indicating) where you'd put your foot if you were the driver. And what does that look like? That's very highly incriminating. Now, they want us to explain this one away by saying that Mark Fuhrman stepped in the blood of Nicole Brown because--actually this is all woven in, a bunch of stuff together. That photograph where you see him pointing to the evidence at Bundy, that really wasn't taken at 7:00 or 6:30 or something as was testified to. No, no, no, no, no. That was taken before he left to go to Rockingham. And the blood on his shoe dried. He was standing there--he was marching around in her pool of blood. That's what you have to believe. Then he went out on Rockingham, he stepped on the wet grass, he got it wet again, and when he got into this Bronco, which I guess he must have had a slim jim with him to break into it because it was locked, he got in and he put his foot on that carpet right where you would put it if you were driving it. But he didn't have the keys. So why would he be sitting that way? I don't know, but that's the story. That's what you're supposed to believe. Now, there's a bunch of problems with that story that make it impossible. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense and it didn't happen, and here's why. No. 1, there was testimony from Mr. Bodziak concerning the characteristics of this stain. And that means 33 where the imprint is. And what he said was that there were the "S" squiggles that were very distinctive of this Silga design of the Bruno Maglis. He said there was not distinguishable characteristics for him to make an absolute positive identification. But you can see. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that logic and common sense in your own powers of observation tell you that's the Bruno Magli shoe.
And Mr. Bodziak told you that he excluded the shoes of all of the officers including those of Mark Fuhrman from the bloody shoeprints at Bundy.
Here was the testimony of Agent Bodziak, page 32738: "Question: With respect to these two exhibits--" referring to the exhibits of the officers' shoes, and I'll show you those. "--were you able to include or exclude the officers' shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location? "Answer: I was able to exclude those officers' footprints as having made any of the distinguishable Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning." That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officers' shoes. And when we come back from the break, I'll show you.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid-afternoon recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll be in recess for 15. All right. Let me see counsel at sidebar with the court reporter, please.
Open the doors. Open the windows. Let in the light here. Blow out that smoke, because when you look at the whole picture, you see the truth.
Why would you plant a blank pair of socks and then go back two months later and say, 'I forgot, I'm supposed to plant blood on them. What have I been thinking? I've got to go back, put the blood there.' Does that make any sense to you at all?
If you wanted to sell this story in Hollywood, they wouldn't buy it because it's so incredible. It's not even funny. It's ludicrous.
You can recover DNA through PCR analysis from Egyptian mummies, then how can you possibly buy this story about stains that were recovered a few hours ago completely and totally degrading every single one of them?
He's got Ron Goldman's blood in his car. What's it doing there? That's it. That's it. He's guilty.