All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Miss Clark, you may conclude your summation.
Thank you, your Honor. I'm almost done. Let me correct one thing. With respect to the--on the steering wheel, the 4 allele, I'm informed by Mr. Harmon that we have not provided PCR results on the investigating officers. I would also remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that I think even Dr. Gerdes conceded that the 4 allele that was found on the steering wheel of the Bronco could have come from anyone driving the car. And, as you know, there was testimony concerning other people driving the car. I think it was a housekeeper, Gigi, also drives the car.
So I was going to tell you about the border and the imprint on the carpet, okay. And I want to show you this. First, let me show you mark Fuhrman's shoe, the one that was excluded that he wore that night when he was at Bundy. It was excluded as having been a Bruno Magli by Mr. Bodziak. And here's his--the bottom of his shoe.
Okay. You can see there's--I think you can see pretty well. There's no squiggle on the heel. That's the important thing. Now, what I would like--I'm going to ask for Mr. Goldberg to help me out here because he knows this better. There was an overlay made of the way the--it's a transparency with the way the Bruno Magli sole, Silga sole looks. You can overlay that on this actual carpet stain and see how it lines up. Mr. Bodziak I would caution you said that when somebody puts their foot on a carpet--again, this is common sense--you'll move it, you may twist it a little bit. So it's a little fuzzy, but you'll be able to see it. And I'm going to direct your attention--sorry about that--first of all, this line here that is the border and then the squiggles in here (Indicating). And I'm going to have Mr. Goldberg line the transparency up so you can see what we're talking about. You see the red arrows that are on here? Can you see them from where you are? They're little. Okay. Agent Bodziak was the one that marked these features to show what he thought was consistent with the Bruno Magli design.
Now, there was--now, what's key and fundamental to your belief that anyone other than the Defendant could have put this bloody shoeprint in the Bronco--and you recall that the testimony was that the typing came back to Nicole, that was her blood. What's key to your belief that it was not his shoe that put it there is the Defense contention that he in fact was down in the crime scene pointing to the evidence at Bundy and stepped in her pool of blood before he went to Rockingham because if you rely on the state of the record which states that he did not step down into that area until after he went to Rockingham, he didn't have opportunity to get her blood on his shoes. So the Defense contention is that he actually took that photograph before he went to Rockingham and that's how he got her blood on his shoes and that's how the blood got on the carpet of the Defendant's Bronco. However, the testimony elicited early in this trial is completely opposite, completely opposite, and it's the testimony of an officer whose honesty was praised by Defense counsel earlier in argument, Officer Riske. And he testified concerning that photograph as follows at page 14115:
"Question: And by the time you came around to the front, was it starting to get light? "Answer: No. It was--"Question: Still dark? "Answer: Still dark. "Question: What did you do out front? "Answer: Like I said, maintained security of the crime scene. "Question: At some point, a photographer arrived? "Question: Did you have contact with the photographer in the front of the location? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: And was it daylight by then? "Answer: I had talked to him earlier, but he hadn't taken any pictures of the front while I was there. Then he came--it was just starting to get daylight, and he came and he took a couple pictures.
"Question: Now, was this the same photographer you had contacted earlier at the rear of the location, the rear alley? "Answer: Yes, it was. "Question: When he came to the front of the location and it was lighter, did you point anything out to him? "Answer: No, I didn't. "Question: Did you see him taking pictures in that front area? "Answer: I saw Detective Fuhrman. He was showing him the glove and he took a picture of the glove. "Question: Okay. He was pointing to it? "Answer: I believe he lifted up the leaves and the plants so he could see it better and he took a picture.
"Question: And now I'm pointing to it." It's People's 55. You ready? Could we cut the feed please, your Honor? "We should mark it as People's 55." And then: "Question: Do you recognize the person in that photograph, sir? "Answer: Yes, I do. "Question: Who is that? "Answer: It's Detective Fuhrman and the victim. "Question: And what's he pointing to? "Answer: He's pointing to the glove. "Question: The glove and the cap? "Answer: The cap. "Question: The ones that you saw when you arrived shortly after midnight? "Answer: That's correct."
Page 14118: "Question: Now, what time was it that you were relieved from this crime scene? "Answer: 7:15. "Question: At 7:15? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: And in relationship to that time that you left the crime scene, when did Detective Fuhrman appear and point out things to the photographer? "Answer: I would say within 40 minutes. I'm not really sure. Within an hour. "Question: So it was shortly before you left the crime scene completely? "Correct. Right." So 40 minutes to an hour before Officer Riske left the scene--and he left at 7:15--is when that photograph was taken. He was there and he saw it happen, and that was after Mark Fuhrman came back from Rockingham. Mystery solved. And that shoeprint belongs to the Defendant.
What you see, ladies and gentlemen, is a very elaborate effort to make you disbelieve a great wealth of evidence, and what you've heard is basically a conspiracy that extends from Officer Riske to Commander Bushey. Do you realize how many people would have had to have gotten involved in a conspiracy within an hour? Can you imagine how this could happen? Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange never even knew Mark Fuhrman until they met him that night at Bundy, and yet the allegation by the Defense is that they got together that night, meeting the first time, for the very first time, and everybody's covering up and conspiring all of a sudden. Impossible. Not only that, but there are other people involved as well, people we don't even know who they are, according to the Defense, who are willing to get involved in this. You realize how many people have to be involved? I mean it boggles the mind. We don't even know who they're talking about. But that's the contortion you have to go through to believe in this conspiracy theory. That's the contortion you have to go through to step away from the very obvious truth you can see when you look straight on and clear-eyed at this evidence.
If you look at it straight on, you can see the truth. It's very clear and it's very obvious. Mr. Simpson committed these murders, ladies and gentlemen. We don't like it and it's hard, but it's true. Now, I have one more exhibit I would like to show you, and this exhibit is entitled, "Unrefuted evidence," and I think that this will bring home to you the power of the evidence in this case. And the reason that there are two men now helping is because it's a magnetic board and it weighs about a ton.
Thank you, your Honor. This is the unrefuted evidence. This is evidence which has not been contested by any contradictory evidence. That's all that's on this board. Okay.
No, your Honor. Wait. Maybe. Yes, but we are not going to get to it just yet. Shall I tell you when or you want to go ahead and tell him?
Okay. First of all, opportunity. Opportunity deals with the time. As we've already established, between 9:36 and 10:53, the Defendant's whereabouts are unaccounted for. No dispute about that. Nobody's contradicting that. Kato Kaelin saw the Defendant wearing a dark sweat suit at 9:36. No contradictory testimony about that. Charles Cale did not see the Bronco on Rockingham when he walked his dog between 9:30 and 9:45. No witness came forward to dispute that either. The Defendant tried to call Paula Barbieri on his cell phone from the Bronco at 10:02, 10:03. There's no contradictory testimony as to that fact.
Allan Park did not see the Bronco on Rockingham 10:32 or 10:30. No witness came forward to contradict his testimony.
Allan Park buzzed the intercom at Rockingham at 10:40, at 10:43 and at 10:49. There was no answer. No testimony contradicts that. A white, very light colored Bronco type vehicle observed at Bundy and Dorothy after the murders occurred. That was the testimony of Mr. Heidstra, testimony that was uncontradicted.
Kato Kaelin heard the three thumps on his wall at 10:51 or 10:52. That testimony isn't contradicted. Let me make one further point about that. An argument has been made to you, ladies and gentlemen, that somehow that those thumps were a signal. That is not what Kato said. That is not what he said, nor was he questioned as to whether or not the thumps he demonstrated for you were that fast or was it slower. He was indicating to you the force, why his wall shook.
Now, how could an earthquake sound like this (Indicating)? Okay. He said an earthquake. He said a prowler. Those were the things that he said. He did not say "Signal." It didn't sound like that to him. That's what he said, "Earthquake, prowler." Those were his words, uncontradicted. Allan Park saw the person in dark clothes, six foot, 200 pounds, walk across the driveway at 10:54 walking into the house, testimony that is uncontradicted, two minutes after the thumps heard by Kato, uncontradicted testimony. And at 10:55, when Allan Park got out of his limo to go and buzz the Defendant, the Defendant finally answered. That testimony, ladies and gentlemen, is uncontradicted. What this testimony proves is not only that the Defendant was not home, but it proves he was not sleeping and it proves that he lied about it to create the impression--to create an alibi for himself.
--you've been doing something you need to have an alibi for, unless you've been doing something that you need to hide. The shoeprints at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe. There is no contradiction for that testimony. The Defendant wears a size 12 shoe. That testimony is uncontradicted. The bloody shoe impression on the Bronco carpet is consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe. That testimony is uncontradicted. That's the one we just showed you. The left glove at Bundy and the right glove at Rockingham are Aris light gloves, size extra large, uncontradicted. Nicole Brown bought two pair of Aris light gloves at Bloomingdales in New York on December 18, 1990.
The Defendant wore black and brown Aris light gloves between December 18th, 1990 and June the 12th, 1994. Let me make one further point about that. If the gloves you saw him in in these photographs that we showed to you, ladies and gentlemen, were not the ones purchased for him by Nicole Brown, why is it we have no photographs dating before the day she purchased those two pair of gloves?
Which only shows, ladies and gentlemen, and highlights one further point for you. Where are they? If they are not the gloves you have here in court, where are they? They are here.
The killer dropped blood to the left of the shoeprints at Bundy. That's testimony that's uncontradicted. The Defendant had a fresh cut on his left hand during the week of June the 13th, 1994, uncontradicted. A blood drop on the Bundy trail was typed the same as the Defendant's. And this is the conventional serology I was telling you. This is the PGM typing that they did, not the DNA. This is uncontradicted. No one--no one contradicts the accuracy or the integrity of that. No one claims that's the product of contamination.
Blood transfers were visible in the Defendant's Bronco. Don Thompson, Officer Don Thompson, who was at Rockingham that morning said he saw blood in the Bronco. Blood drops are on the street, in the driveway, 360 Rockingham, uncontradicted. Blood drops were found in the foyer and in the master bathroom at Rockingham, testimony that's uncontradicted. It's also uncontradicted that it's his blood.
Okay. Fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on the Rockingham glove, uncontradicted. Blue black cotton fiber found on Ron Goldman's shirt, the Defendant's socks and the Rockingham glove, uncontradicted. Fiber consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on the dark knit cap at Bundy, uncontradicted. Hairs consistent with the Defendant found on the dark knit cap at Bundy, uncontradicted. Hairs consistent with the Defendant found on Ron Goldman's shirt, uncontradicted.
Motive, you know. Full circle. Spousal abuse, domestic violence against Nicole Brown. Unrefuted. You can see, ladies and gentlemen, this is just what hasn't been contested. Now, you add to that the fact of all of the evidence that they've tried to claim was contaminated or planted. I've shown you how it wasn't. Add all of that to this. It is truly overwhelming. If you would like to take notes on this, I can leave it up for a little while. It won't go back with you to the jury room because it's only for argument. All right.
Thank you, your Honor. I'd like to conclude my remarks to you today, ladies and gentlemen. I want to remind you--because we've come full circle. I've been with you such a long time. It's been so long since we actually had a chance to both talk, and I look forward to the time that we can again. I wanted to remind you back to the time of jury selection when we first asked questions of you as a group in order to select 12 of you to sit as jurors, and that was on I think November 2nd 1994 you were altogether here and we were actually able to both talk and exchange. I think it was even before the alternate jurors were selected, and we asked some of you as individuals what you would expect of us as public Prosecutors if we were assigned to prosecute a case where, heaven forbid, a loved one of yours had been murdered, a son, a sister, a father, a brother and imagine that it is you sitting in the audience where the victims' families sit today.
What would you expect of us? What would you want? Your answers were that you expected us to be fair, to be vigorous in our Prosecution of the case, to be ethical. We've done everything in our power to be all of those things, ladies and gentlemen, everything. And if you recall, we as representatives of the community expected of you and we talked about what we wanted, what we would ask of you. And if you remember, we expected you to use your common sense, to be open-minded, to be reasonable and to be fair and to have the moral courage to be just. And if you'll think back to this time of jury selection when all of you were first together, you will remember that we talked about the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. it's been so long, I wonder if you remember that, the highest court in the land. And we asked if you knew what was inscribed on the facade of the Supreme Court building up above the steps, up above the pillars. If you think back, we told you what was written above those marble pillars, "Equal justice under the law." We talked about what that meant, "Equal justice under the law."
You may recall, that means the law is to be applied equally to all persons in this country regardless of whether one is rich or poor or race or creed or color, famous or otherwise. Not even the President of the United States is above the law. You all agreed with that. We asked you if you had courage to be just to a person. Each of you, each of you said yes, some individually, some responded as a group. And we asked you, you may recall, what equal justice under the law meant to you, and you replied that is the way it should definitely be. And that's right. That is the way it should definitely be. But you see, equal justice under the law is an ideal. It's an abstract principle and it takes you to make this principle a reality. Only you can make this ideal real. I think that with all you've already gone through, you've shown yourselves to be people of remarkable integrity, strength, courage and patience, people who will face the hard questions. And this is one of them. I think it's been hard for all of us to be here and listen to all of the evidence in this case, evidence that proves Mr. Simpson is guilty because none of us wanted to believe it. We all wanted to believe that our image of him was right. And we all know that we never knew him exactly, but we kind of felt like we did, and it's really kind of hard to have to believe that the man we saw in the movies and commercials could do this. But he did. And the fact that he did doesn't mean that he wasn't a great football player. It doesn't mean he never did a good thing in his life. Nothing takes that away. That's still here. It will always be here. But so will the fact that he committed these murders. And even though it's a hard thing, still it cannot mean, it cannot mean that you let a guilty person go free, that someone who commits murder is not held accountable for it. He had strength and he had weaknesses, and it's his weakness that brought us here today and it's his weakness that's why we're here and Ron and Nicole are not. And Defense would say no motive, no motive. It's one of the oldest motives ever known, ladies and gentlemen; anger, fear of abandonment, jealousy, loss of control of Nicole and of himself. Usually I feel like I'm the only one left to speak for the victims. But in this case, Ron and Nicole are speaking to you. They're speaking to you and they're telling you who murdered them. Nicole started before she even died. Remember back in 1989, she cried to Detective Edwards, "He's going to kill me. He's going to kill me." The children were there. 1990, she made a safe deposit box, put photographs of her beaten face and her haunted look in a safe deposit box along with a will. She was only 30 years old. How many 30 years old you know do that, a will, a safe deposit box? It's like writing in the event of my death. She knew. "He's going to kill me." 1993, the 911 tape, the children were there. He was screaming. She was crying and she was frightened. I think the thing that perhaps was so chilling about her voice is that sound of resignation. There was a resignation to it, inevitability. She knew she was going to die. And Ron, he speaks to you and struggling so valiantly. He forced his murderer to leave the evidence behind that you might not ordinarily have found. And they both are telling you who did it with their hair, their clothes, their bodies, their blood. They tell you he did it. He did it. Mr. Simpson, Orenthal Simpson, he did it. They told you in the only way they can. Will you hear them or will you ignore their plea for justice, or as Nicole said to Detective Edwards, "You never do anything about him." Will you?
I want to play something for you, ladies and gentlemen, that puts it altogether. Let me explain what this is. Thank you. This is a compilation of the 1989 tape, 911 call, the 1993 911 call, photographs from the 1989 beating and the photographs from her safe deposit box and the photographs from Rockingham and Bundy.
I don't have to say anything else. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the People of the State of California, because we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, far beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed these murders, we ask you to find the Defendant guilty of murder in the first degree of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown. Thank you very much.
All right. Thank you, counsel. Let me see counsel at the sidebar with the court reporter, please.
Mr. Simpson committed these murders, ladies and gentlemen. We don't like it and it's hard, but it's true.
Do you realize how many people would have had to have gotten involved in a conspiracy within an hour? Can you imagine how this could happen? Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange never even knew Mark Fuhrman until they met him that night at Bundy.
Nicole started before she even died. Remember back in 1989, she cried to Detective Edwards, 'He's going to kill me. He's going to kill me.' The children were there.
Will you hear them or will you ignore their plea for justice, or as Nicole said to Detective Edwards, 'You never do anything about him.' Will you?
They tell you he did it. He did it. Mr. Simpson, Orenthal Simpson, he did it.