All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
All right. At this time the Defense has concluded their summation and the Prosecution now has the opportunity to offer their rebuttal to the Defense summation. And Miss Clark, the Prosecution may proceed.
Well, we have come full circle again it seems. Here you are and here I am. And as Judge Ito just indicated, this is my last opportunity to speak with you, that is, until after you render your verdict. If at that time you are kind enough to spare a few moments and allow me to thank you personally at that time, not only for your verdict, but for your service as well. You've got a tough job, a very tough job. I don't envy you in that regard. But let me tell you something. I have had a tough job, too. The law is a tough thing to enforce in this town. Not everybody, not everybody wants to live up to the law or follow the law. Not everybody thinks that the law applies to them. I have been a Prosecutor for almost fifteen years, and if there is one rule that I have lived by, if there is one rule that means a lot to me, it is this one: No one is above the law; not the police, not the rich, no one. And I hope you agree with that.
I hope you agree with that rule. I hope you consider that--that motto. O.J. Simpson isn't above the law. You've heard a lot of argument over the past couple of days and I know you listened to all of the attorneys in this case intently and I did when I could and I listened yesterday and I had been anticipating yesterday's arguments from the Defense. I knew that those arguments would be passionate, I knew they would be loud and I knew they would be forceful, and I knew that they would be provocative, and I wasn't disappointed. But also I knew that they wouldn't talk much about the evidence. Mr. Scheck did, but that is okay. And I knew they would want to deliver a message to you, and that is, when I spoke to you the other day I said to you, hey, you can't send a message to Fuhrman, you can't send a message to the LAPD, you can't eradicate racism within the LAPD or within the L.A. community or within the nation as a whole by delivering a verdict of not guilty in a case like this where it is clear and you know it is clear, you feel it, you know it in your heart. You know it as you have sat here day after day listening to this testimony, you know it. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows he killed--
The evidence is there. You just have to find your way through the smoke. You just have to find your way through the smoke. You heard from Scheck yesterday. You heard him talk about our science. They have to attack our science because all the science points to O.J. Simpson, to this Defendant. It all points to him as the killer. They have to attack that science. Not only does common sense dictate that he is guilty, but we have proven him guilty to a scientific certainty. We have proven him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They hoisted that chart up on the--on the thing there yesterday with reasonable doubt. You remember that chart? It had reasonable doubt at the top and below that it had highly unlikely and all this other stuff. They put it on this thing and then they hoisted it all the way up to the ceiling. That isn't reasonable doubt. That is not what I'm required to prove to you. Mr. Cochran said to you, well, reasonable doubt is doubt with a reason. That is not reasonable doubt. When you look back at that instruction, when you look back at the reasonable doubt instruction, you will see when it comes to human affairs, there is always some degree of doubt no matter how small. The sun could explode tomorrow, it could explode today, but I doubt that that will happen. I really have no reason to believe that is true. I have no reason to believe that the sun will explode today or tomorrow. When you read the reasonable doubt instruction, apply it to--read it and apply it to your everyday situation, your everyday circumstances. What does it take? What does it take you as a human being after hearing all the evidence and after hearing the law that the judge gives you, what does it take for you to feel comfortable in your conclusion that he killed these people? They said that you have to be able to wake up the next day and feel as if the day before, the day that you rendered your verdict, that you did the right thing, that you rendered a verdict that you can live with. Let me ask you this: If you were to acquit him, what explanation would you give the day after that acquittal if someone said why did you acquit him? Would you say racism? Would you say it is because there is racism in the LAPD? That is what they want you to say. That is what they want you to think. You heard all of that--all the speaking and the fiery rhetoric and the quotes from proverbs and the like. You heard all of that yesterday, all of that fiery rhetoric. Well, let me tell you what Marcia Clark and I are. Let me tell you who we are. We are the voices, the voices of calm and reason in all of this. You just need to calm down, take that common sense God gave you, go back in the jury room. Don't let these people get you all riled up and all fired up because Fuhrman is a racist. Racism blinds you. Those epithets, they blind you. You never heard me use that epithet in this courtroom, did you? I'm not going to put on that kind of show for you know who, for people to watch. That is not where we are coming from. We want you to focus on the evidence. I'm eternally grateful that Mr. Fuhrman was exposed to be what he is, because I think we should know who those people are. I have said it once, I have said it before, we ought to put a big stamp tattooed on their forehead "Racist" so that when we see them we know who they are so that there is no speculation so that we don't have to guess. But what they want you to do and what they have done in this case is they have interjected this racism and now they want you to become impassioned, to be upset, and then they want you to make quantum leaps in logic and in judgment. They want to you say Fuhrman is a racist, he planted the glove. You can't get from point a to point B if you just sit down and use your common sense. If you are logical, if you are reasonable, you can't do that. It is true that Fuhrman is a racist. And it is also true that he killed these two people, and we proved that he killed the two people.
This is my time to talk. Yesterday somebody said that you can't quiet a man's voice in a court of law. This is my time to talk and I want to talk to you. I heard the words they spoke yesterday about the constitution. I read the constitution. I'm a lawyer, I am a student of the constitution. I know what it means and what it doesn't mean. I know what it is. And Gil Scott Darron said that the constitution was just a notebook piece of paper. You remember that? And that is probably true. But what makes it more than that is the fact that there are decent, honest and courageous people behind it. You can write the law, but if you are not willing to enforce the law, then what is it? What is it worth? You can write the law. You can pass the law, but if people aren't willing to follow the law, then what good is it? I also looked back at the constitution last night, I sent my clerk to go get it for me, and I looked through the constitution, and you know what I saw? I saw some stuff in the constitution about Ron and about Nicole and the constitution said that Ron and Nicole had the right to liberty. It said that they had the right to life. It said that they had a right to the pursuit of happiness. It said that Nicole didn't have to stay with him if she didn't want to stay with him. That is what the constitution said. And I looked further and I looked in the constitution to see if it said anything about O.J. Simpson. You know what it said? It said he doesn't have the right to take those lives. He did not have the right to do what he did. They talk about courage. Courage is what Marcia Clark and I do everyday.
It is time to stand up. The constitution says that a man has no right to kill and then get away with it just because one of the investigating officers is a racist. Your job as jurors in this case is to get beyond all of that. The fact that Fuhrman is a racist goes to his bias, goes to his credibility and it may go to other things the judge will tell you, and I'm not going to tell you that you should limit your use of that. You should use it in any way you are instructed to use it by the court, but you shouldn't use it for anything else. As I said the other day, the issue of Fuhrman, it may not be an issue for another day, but it certainly is not an issue, that is in terms of sending him a message is not an issue for you in this case. You can't send him a message. You can't send the LAPD a message. You want to send the LAPD a message, I'm sure they will listen to you after this case is over. I am sure that they will. I listened to the lawyers talk to you and it has been a long trial and there has been a lot of evidence in this case, a lot of testimony, and it is easy to get lost in it all. It certainly is for me. I think you watched me. I mean, there were some days when the day just seemed to run on so long. Has it been a year and three days now? But it is easy to get lost in the evidence and it is easy for lawyers to get lost in the evidence, and as Judge Ito told you before, and I think I told you the other day, nothing we say in this argument is evidence. Nothing I say to you today is evidence. Certainly nothing they said to you is evidence in this case. The evidence is what you heard from the witness stand. The evidence is the exhibits.
I listened to one of the lawyers testify in this case. I heard lawyers add things, add facts into the record, or attempt to. The facts are what you heard in testimony by people who took an oath and who sat down in that chair. If you find what they said to be true, then you find the facts. Nothing a lawyer says is a fact. They said yesterday that I'm an advocate. Well, I am an advocate, and they are advocates, too. You've taken notes throughout this trial. We watched you all take notes. Rely on those notes, rely on the court reporter's transcript. Rely on your own recollection. Don't be misled, don't be misled. Because I listened to lawyers argue yesterday, and you know what we do when we start to argue and get caught up, you get in that role soon and pretty soon you just start saying stuff. It may not necessarily be true, it may not necessarily be what is in the record, so rely on the record. Rely on the record. If you rely on the record and use your common sense, you will find your way through the smoke. And I told you there was going to be some smoke. I told you there had been some smoke. Yesterday we heard the smoke. It was fiery rhetoric, but that is what we do. We are lawyers. I was reading last night about how important it is to remain calm and we heard a lot of quotations over the last couple of days. And I remembered a story that I had read once and a lot of people quote Martin Luther King and the like and that is all fine, but you know, I'm a student, I'm a student of that. I have studied him and studied him and studied him. And I recalled that in 1961 there was an incident involving Dr. King, and it might be helpful for you to recall this, as I'm sure you do, but it was 1961 and he had written a book and he was up in Harlem and there was a book signing and he was seated there at the table. There were a line of people walking up to him and asking him to sign their books and meeting him and saying hello. And finally this one woman walked up to him and she said to him, "Are you Martin Luther King?" And he said, "Well, ma'am, yes, I am." She said, "Well, I've been looking for you" and she reached into her purse and she pulled out an envelope opener and she plunged it into his chest. And the people in the store were horrified and everyone became panicked and people began running and screaming, "Oh, my God Dr. King has been stabbed. Oh, my God, Dr. King has been stabbed," and he fell to the floor and he laid there. And one of his assistants ran over to him and saw--saw this massive thing imbedded in his chest and the assistant started to reach for it to pull it out and Dr. King calmly said, "No, don't touch it; just get me to a hospital." Well, the assistant was hysterical.
"Dr. King, let me pull it out. Let me pull it out." Dr. King was calm. He laid there with this--with this thing imbedded in his chest and he said, "No, just don't touch it. I will be all right. Just get me to the hospital." And so the assistant did as he was told, as Dr. King instructed him to do, and he took him to the hospital and they rushed him into surgery and they operated on him for five hours. And they removed what, for all intents and purposes, was a knife out of his chest and it was removed by a black doctor, a black surgeon I am proud to say. And a few days later the surgeon went to see Dr. King who was still resting and rehabilitating in the hospital and he went to see him and the doctor said to Dr. King, he said, "It is a good thing you were so calm, Dr. King. It is a good thing you were so calm about the whole thing. The point of that blade was touching your aorta. Had you moved suddenly, if you so much as sneezed, you would have died instantly. You would have drowned in your own blood." Some folks would like to get you all riled up and get you so upset that you move suddenly and so that you drown in the minutia, so that you choke on the smoke. Some people want to make you mad and angry and bitter. King once wrote that we should never succumb to the temptation of bitterness and that the one thing about bitterness is its blindness. So don't be blinded by all of this; just do your job. I know you know what your job is. I know you know what to do. And I hope you don't mind too much that I--that I keep reminding you of that job, because this is important. This case is important. This is a murder case. There are two people that are dead. I think it is safe to say at this point, after all that I've heard over the last few days, I think it is safe to say that I'm the messenger and I volunteered for that job and I don't mind being the messenger. I told you what the message was. In 1989 the message was that he is going to kill me, he is going to kill me. And Edward said, "Who is going to kill you?" "O.J." "O.J. The football player?" "Yeah, he is going to kill me." That was the message in 1989. The new message today, there is another message. The message in `89 was that he is going to kill me. The message in `95 is he killed me. That is what this has been all about. That is the message we have been trying to send you the past eight months. The message is he killed her. And there is another message. And you might not be able to hear and see it and read it through all the smoke, and through all the shouting and all the rhetoric, but there is another message. And the other message is he killed me, too. He killed me, too. Through all the smoke and over all the rhetoric you have got to be calm and not succumb to bitterness and do the right thing. I heard a lot about courage, and you are fourteen courageous people and everybody in this room knows that. No one could ever call you cowards. No one can ever accuse you people of running away because you have a tough job and you know you have a tough job and you have sat here day after day, even when you were sick, even when you were sick, you came here and you listened to us. You listened to Marcia and I and you listened to the Defense. They want you to believe that if you acquit him that that will be the courageous thing to do. I think the courageous thing to do in this case would be to look at all the evidence. I think that takes courage. I think it takes courage not to jump to a snap conclusion. I think it takes courage to recognize within ourselves that what we heard yesterday was appeal to a certain part of us and it was appeal to some of us perhaps and not all of us, but it was an appeal to a certain part of us that only some of us know about. That is what happened yesterday. I think it takes courage to recognize that. If you mistrust the police--I spent seven years prosecuting bad policemen. I understand why you mistrust the police. If you have that basic mistrust--
I understand that, and perhaps you ought to, but I think that we have to do is we have to take every case on a case by case basis and every cop on a cop by cop basis. Yesterday they took Fuhrman, this racist, and then they put Vannatter with him and pretty soon they were interchanging Vannatter and Fuhrman.
Vannatter has been a detective 27, 28 years. You didn't hear anybody come in here and say he ever used that word. And it is easy to put up a big poster and say "Vannatter's big lies." That is easy to do. They say that he made an off-the-cuff remark eight months ago. That is what some people said. You heard what he said. Do you remember everything you say? Do you know everything that you've said? Does every lawyer in this case know everything that they've said? I heard one of the lawyers say that there was a Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove and that that hair was--that there was never any attempt to match that hair to anybody and that it could be Fuhrman's. That wasn't true. That is not what is in the record. I'm not going to put up a big poster and say "Defense big lies." Sometimes people misspeak, sometimes people forget, sometimes people are wrong, sometimes they say things they don't remember saying, sometimes they say things that they do remember saying and we admit to them. We have some of all of that in this case, I suppose. Well, let's talk about some of the things we heard over the last couple of days. Let's talk about some of the evidence. As I listened to them, I got the sense almost that they had sort of designed a special thing for each and every one of you. This is high tech stuff talking to juries these days. This is 1995. There are people that know what to say to individual jurors or particular jurors. I heard someone say--pose a question. What more could an innocent man do? You remember that question? You saw the videotape, you saw Officer Thompson standing there at the driveway. You saw the Defendant arrive. You saw him get out of the car. You saw him walk up the driveway. He walked up the driveway carrying this black bag over his shoulder. You remember that? He got out of the car and walked up the driveway and then a few minutes later we see Robert Kardashian carrying a Louis Vuitton bag. The police have a search warrant to search Rockingham. Have you ever heard that they had a search warrant to search Robert Kardashian? And when you pull up to your house, do you jump out of the car and give your luggage to your lawyer? That was June 13, 1994. And what is the testimony? What have we heard in this case? On March 28, 1995, retired Judge Delbert Wong, very fine judge, acting as a special master, an extension of Judge Ito, acting at Judge Ito's direction, he went to the Defendant's house where a Louis Vuitton bag was pointed out to him. Judge Wong brought that bag to court. Where is the bag? Judge Wong told us that it was on March 28th that he retrieved that bag. When you look at the video, you will see that that bag is bulging. What is in that bag? What was in that bag? Don't you want to know what was in that bag? And I will bet that at least once since I have been up here talking, I bet there has been somebody back there shaking their head from side to side. Does that happen? This is the evidence. They talked about evidence yesterday. They talked about showing you the evidence. This is the evidence. This bag is empty. There is nothing in this bag. There is nothing in this bag. Why bring this empty bag here to court to you? That is not what you are interested in. That is not what you want to know. When I finished here the other day, I left some questions for them. Who was that man who walked into the house that night? That is what you want to do. Who was the man Allan Park saw walking into the house? And let me tell you something. Search your notes, search your memory. They never brought it up, they never mentioned it, they never mentioned that man; never. That is what you want to know. You don't want to know what is in an empty bag. I told you one of the lawyers was--well, I told you the lawyers were testifying. They were adding evidence and information into this individual that you never heard from the witness stand. Chipping golf balls. There was golf balls in that little black bag. You know, remember the bag left on the driveway, the one that Kato offered to go get that the Defendant said, "No, no, I will get it, I will get it"? This is the nice when he is supposedly suffering from acute arthritis, an attack of acute arthritis. Do you remember somebody told you that, that he suffered from acute arthritis to the point that he couldn't deal cards or something. But yet we heard somebody interject into this case that he was out chipping golf balls. I assume you do that with a golf club. I don't know if you ever hear anybody on the witness stand tell you that this man was out chipping golf balls. Did you ever hear that? On the night of June 12th? There is no evidence in this case to that effect.
And then I believe the suggestion was made that that black bag was put into the golf bag with the golf clubs. There it is. You have it in evidence. You find that little bag, the one with the golf balls, the one Allan Park described, the one Kato Kaelin described, let me know. That is what you want to know, isn't it? Don't you want to know what was in that little bag, the one he wouldn't let anybody touch, the one that disappeared? They had showed these bags to Judge Delbert Wong. Why didn't they show him that one? There was the issue of the white Reebok shoes. They were all over Detective Lange about taking those white Reebok shoes home. Why did Detective Lange pick up those white Reebok shoes in the first place? Who told him that they had any amount of relevancy, any relevancy at all to this particular case? Who directed him to those white shoes? Who said that they had on those white shoes the evening before when they were asked by the detective? You know who. No one testified to having seen this man, this Defendant, O.J. Simpson, wearing white Reebok tennis shoes that night. Kato Kaelin didn't say it. You see that picture from the recital, the one they want to show you. Do you see any white Reebok tennis shoes on this man's feet in that photograph? What is up with that? What is up with that? Why is he sending them to get white Reebok shoes? He didn't wear white Reebok shoes that night. There is no evidence of that in this case.
Smoke. Smoke, ladies and gentlemen. They are blowing smoke. And let me tell you, they made a big deal out of those white Reebok tennis shoes. They were all over Detective Lange about taking those shoes home. Remember? Remember that? They were all over him. They were trying to make him look like a fool for taking those white Reebok shoes home. Did you hear in this trial at any time that there was any forensic evidence, that there was any forensic value to those shoes? Did you hear anything about hair and blood and fiber or anything having to do with those white Reebok tennis shoes? They sent Detective Lange off on a wild goose chase and when the goose got to the witness stand they tried to roast him. They want you to throw your common sense out the window, just chuck it out the window. You can't do that.
They talk all this stuff about race and everything. We got one racist cop and on the last time, from what the evidence is--and trust me, I am not an apologist for this man--but the last time, according to the evidence, that anybody heard him use this slur was in 1988. They say since he used it in 1988 he must be a racist. Well, the last time that we know of from the stand that the Defendant beat up was in 1989. If you say it in `88 and you are a racist in `94, well, what are you if you beat her in `89? What are you in `94? But they want you to apply double standards. I will go back to Martin because I feel comfortable with Martin Luther King. Actually I have some Malcolm X, but I'm not going to drop that today. I don't want to get that deep. But Martin Luther King. For Martin Luther King justice was a critical issue in his life here on earth and it was more than a legal issue and it was more than a moral issue; it was a spiritual issue. And let me read to you what he said about justice. And they are just sitting there listening to me instead of staying with me. You got that quote? Are you still looking for that quote?
He never does that when Marcia Clark is up here talking. I think it is a very appropriate quote for this case--and if he let's that happen again--you are lucky today is the last day of the trial. Read along with me what Martin Luther King said about justice. "Justice is the same for all issues. It cannot be categorized. It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people. Justice cannot be divided. Justice is indivisible." Okay. We can't have a system of law, a system of justice or a concept of justice or a concept of law or a legal standard of burden of proof. We can't have reasonable doubt over here for everybody else and then have another reasonable doubt standard for a particular individual. That ain't justice, okay? That is not justice. That is what he is talking about. That is what he is talking about. He is talking about a double standard of justice. We can't have that.
Let me ask you to ask yourself something. Ask yourselves this when you are in the jury room. As you go through all of that evidence--and I know you are going to critique each and every piece of it. I know you are. I can tell just by looking at you that you are. You are not going to let anything slip by you. You are not going to let anything get by you. You are going to take that evidence, take it apart, and you are going to review it. Ask yourself something as you look at that evidence and assess how important or significant it is to you in this case as you ask yourself whether it incriminates the Defendant or not, as you ask yourself, as they want you to ask yourself, is it planted or not? Ask yourself, hey, if this wasn't O.J. Simpson, would I even be thinking that this might be planted? Would I even be thinking that he wasn't guilty? Am I applying a double standard? Just ask yourself that. If it was anybody else, the same fine lawyers, the same defense, how would you view the case then? Throughout this case they have sent you and us on these little wild goose chases, chasing these red herrings. And you know some people call them red herrings, some people call them deceptions. Do you have my next exhibit ready? Are you reading along with me in this thing? I just gave you. What are you guys--
Think of all the wild goose chases we went on. You remember early on in the case that one time we discussed the issue of the blood drops at Rockingham and how they got there? And there are all kinds of questions, lots of questions, lots of cross-examination directed at the officers. And as you recall, there appeared to be, on the part of the Defense, an attempt to suggest to you that those blood drops at Rockingham were planted? Remember that? Remember how much time we spent on that? Remember how much time they spent crucifying Fung up here on the witness stand about blood drops at Rockingham? Remember the implications of all of that, how they attempted to suggest that he hadn't bled that night before going to Chicago?
One person is making the objections. One person is making the objections. Who is making the objections?
Thank you. As they say, what is done in the dark will come to light. I just heard that yesterday. Remember this photograph? Here is another red herring we all went chasing after. Remember that? The police had contaminated the scene, they had traipsed through that scene, crime scene. You remember that. And they threw this photograph up there and what did you think? You thought. Oh, my God, you thought contamination. Garbage in, garbage out. Remember all that stuff? Remember that photograph? Look at the little square there on the right. See that little square there, (Indicating), where they blocked out the name of the media entity that produced that footage?
That is okay. Then what do we do? We went and we got a video. We went and we got a video. Do you have the video? Please. Back it up.
What did we find out when we went and got that video? We found out that when those officers walked up that walkway that the tape had already been taken down, that the crime scene had already been disbanded. Remember that? They tell you not to believe the messenger. And then Henry Lee comes in here and talks about, you know, possible, maybe, want to be, might be, I don't know, could be portions of imprints or footprints or whatever, and he is making these calls on photographs taken on June 25th. You see the cops walking up and down that walkway after the crime scene has been disbanded?
And they tell you not to believe the messenger. And what about the cuts? What about the cuts? Was he cut? When was he cut? They tell you not to believe our message. How many times was he cut that night or the night of June 12th? Is it a coincidence that apparently at about the same time that these people are being butchered he somehow gets cut? And when did he get cut? When did he say he got cut? When did Dr. Baden say he got cut? And when did Dr. Huisenga say he got cut? Don't you think that that little deal in Chicago with the glass--and Marcia Clark will be talking more about that. Are you going to talk more about that?
Awfully convenient. How many times can one person get cut in how many different states in one night in one morning? They called him. He knew he had to come back. They said, oh, he just came back. Where was he going to go? I find him. And they tell you not to trust the messenger. And when they showed you photographs during their argument, they showed you all these photographs of the Defendant's body, but they didn't show you that close-up photograph of his left hand. I'm not even going to ask you to put it up there. They didn't show that. Take a look at that photograph. Look at all those cuts. They are all over his hand. They are all over his left hand. That is the same hand that was left exposed during the commission of those murders because Ron Goldman pulled that glove off his hand. And they talk about, oh, well, does it look like O.J. Simpson was in a struggle for his life? It wasn't O.J. Simpson's life that was at stake. He wasn't the one about to lose his life. It was Ron. It was Ron Goldman who was in a life struggle. Look at the nicks and the cuts on him. We talk about heroes. We talk about heroes. A hero is a man that would rush into a life-threatening situation to save a woman without ever thinking about himself first. There are no heroes in this courtroom today. They called Ron Shipp a liar and they really went after him, the whole family. If you are a Prosecutor that really puts you in a difficult situation, when someone from the family comes up here to testify. We don't want to beat up on someone's family. We don't want to do that. This is family. We understand family. We understand why we have it, why they are so important to us, culturally speaking. I know mine is. My big brother would do anything for me, like yours would. But you have to assess the credibility of those folks, just like all the other folks that testified in this case. But they went after Ron Shipp and they had to go after Ron Shipp. They talk about Ron Shipp, his eyes being red and all of this stuff, you know. When you think about--when you think on the issue of whether Ron Shipp was drunk or something that night, I hope that you go back and you read Arnelle Simpson's testimony. And I will just leave it at that. And I hope that you will reflect on her testimony about Ron Shipp. But Ron Shipp, well, they tore into him early on in the trial, right, and that was the first real indication of just what this whole thing was going to be. And they tore into Ron Shipp. And let me offer to you a reasonable explanation for Ron Shipp's eyes being red the night of June 13th. Could it be because he knew that his friend Nicole was dead and that he knew his other friend had killed her?
They talk about this man's demeanor after the murders. What did Ron Shipp say about his demeanor? He says they went up into that bedroom, and they did--
And what did the Defendant say? To be honest, I had been having dreams of killing her, and chuckled. They say that some people are afraid to hear the truth. I'm just the messenger. He chuckled. Ron Shipp had been a friend of this man for many, many years, to the Defendant. He was his personal policeman. He did all kind of things for him, all kind of things for him. We saw Ron Shipp in those photographs with the Defendant at his forty birthday party. He come over and used the Jacuzzi and the pool. Looked like Kato had to ask permission to use the Jacuzzi. Ron apparently just came over and used it. Ron Shipp told you that he would not have the blood of Nicole on his hands. And it is up to you to decide how credible he is or what significance you want to attach to his testimony, if at all, and it is up to you. But you watched him on the stand and you tell me didn't he look genuine? Didn't he look like he was hurting? In 1989 he went and talked to the Defendant about the beating he inflicted on Nicole. And I heard lawyers yesterday talk briefly about domestic violence and just slough it off, just slough it off to the side like it didn't mean anything. That is because they can't touch it and they can't deal with it. And they said that I could call Lenore Walker. There is a code section in the evidence code that says I can't call Lenore Walker. They know that. But oh, if they had. Ron Shipp was feeling guilty. Yesterday someone threw out this notion that the murderer was after Ron Goldman's envelope. When you get the evidence back there and the photographs, take a look at the envelope. It is for the most part sealed still. That is the way they found it, sealed closed for the most part. Nobody was after that envelope. If someone was there to commit a theft, well, you saw that condo. You saw how nice it was. Is there any indication, any evidence at all that anybody went into the condo to steal anything when they easily could have? This case has nothing to do with theft and robbery. This case only has to do with revenge and jealousy and control and rage. And I was referred to as Dr. Darden yesterday. Well, you know what? I don't know a whole lot about everything, but there is some things that I do know a whole lot about.
You don't need a Ph.D. to see what is going on here. Your life experience I think will help you understand what is going on here, just what you know, just what you read in the papers, just what you learned in school and just what you heard from your friends and your girlfriends. Someone suggested that that pathway, this pathway of death, this walkway of death where these two people lay wasn't pitch black that night, that it would have been easy to see two bodies laying there. That ain't true. That is not the evidence in this case. Mr. Karpf testified. He lived next door. He testified that the lighting wasn't great at that location. And Steven Schwab testified that that side of the street is dark. And you can find that testimony at page 13813 and 13086. Just reflect on the type of street lights they got out, those orange things. Everything is dark out there. I don't know why they have those things.
If you don't want to rely on that, rely on Officer Riske's testimony and rely on Sukru Boztepe's testimony. He followed the dog, the dog--Kato, the dog; not Kato the human, but Kato the dog led Sukru to the bodies, and when the dog led Sukru up to the path to the bodies, even Sukru Boztepe had trouble seeing the bodies, and he walked right up there. He testified at page 13940 that he didn't even notice the bodies at first. And then he went and got a police officer, Robert Riske. And at page 14013, you remember his testimony, he testified that the lighting was very poor. "It actually took us a few seconds to find the bodies it was so dark." Robert Riske, Officer Riske testified. Keep in mind this is somebody who has been told there are a couple of dead bodies right up there. He is looking for bodies, unlike some other people that weren't looking for bodies, like Ellen Aaronson and Mandel and the other people out on a date strolling up and down the street. This is a policeman on duty. He is told there are two dead people up this walkway, and as he walks up the walkway he doesn't even see bodies initially. "It actually took us a few seconds to find the body so it was--we didn't see the bodies at all until we were directed by the witnesses." That is what Officer Riske said. And even then had to use a flashlight. And they say to you, don't believe the messenger. You are the ultimate trier of fact in this case. It is up to you to decide what is true and what isn't true, what is fact, what is not fact, what is material and what is irrelevant, and what is helpful to you in resolving this case and what isn't. It is all up to you. And we don't have a problem with that. I don't mind you having this case. Especially since we kept you in custody eight months now, I guess we kind of owe it to you. But when you resolve this case I just hope that you resolve it based on the evidence and not on the rhetoric of myself or others. They want you to believe that because there are no socks shown in that video--remember the Willie Ford video? I'm not going to even show it to you because I want to hurry up and get off this thing, and I have about eight more pages and I want to finish this morning.
Closer. But just keep in mind, keep in mind the testimony you heard about those socks. They keep saying socks, socks, socks, and they keep talking about transfers, wet transfer stains on the inside no. 3 surface, inside the sock. Now, if you wear socks, you don't take your shoe off and then grab at the end of your toe and pull your sock off. They talk about planting blood and all this stuff. That is nonsense. When you pull off a sock, you stick your thumb or your finger into the sock, don't you, into the sock and you pull your sock down from the inside. You pull your sock down to your foot. Stains 1 and 2, he got that out there killing people. Stain 3 perhaps--
Stain no. 3. He could have got the blood off his head, underneath the fingernail. He could have taken the sock off, laid it down and then the sock touched the--
You decide. You look at the pictures of the socks. How else do you lay a sock down? I mean, the sides are touching. They are all touching in there. This is no big deal. This is all smoke. Common sense tells you that. Common sense dictates that. And when they say the socks aren't there, the socks aren't there; the socks are there. You heard Mazzola. You heard Fung testify. You heard Willie Ford testify. The reason those socks aren't in the video is because it was his job to go in there and videotape that room after Dennis Fung finished collecting the evidence. And they want to tell you about straps and stuff. And you know, you didn't really get that because that just vhroom, that was something they just threw in to throw right passed you.
They want to talk about the timer in the video. What did Willie Ford tell you about the time? He didn't even care about the time in the video. He never even check the time in the video. He never adjusted the timer in the video because it had nothing to do with his purpose in being there. And his purpose--
And his purpose was in videotaping that particular room. It was for civil liability purposes. He didn't want to contaminate the evidence, contaminate the room, so he had to wait until after Fung had collected the evidence from the room. That is Willie ford's testimony. You heard that brother testify. He looked like a co-conspirator to you? And they say don't trust the messenger.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will stand in recess for fifteen minutes.
Everybody knows he killed--
The message in '89 was that he is going to kill me. The message in '95 is he killed me. That is what this has been all about.
It is true that Fuhrman is a racist. And it is also true that he killed these two people, and we proved that he killed the two people.
Justice is indivisible. It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people.
Some folks would like to get you all riled up and get you so upset that you move suddenly and so that you drown in the minutia, so that you choke on the smoke.