Yes, Your Honor. I would like to be heard on a motion to dismiss.

I'll hear you at this time.

Thank you. Would you like me to go to the podium or stand here?

I think the podium is probably better.

Your Honor, I would ask the court to consider the jury instruction that would be given in a case like this regarding circumstantial evidence, and that is if the evidence presented relies solely on circumstantial evidence, there can be no conviction unless the circumstances point to guilt and are not reconcilable with any other reasonable theory. If, on the other hand, the circumstances may point to guilt or may point to innocence, the jury or finder of fact must adopt that theory which points to innocence and reject that which points to guilt. Now clearly this is not a trial, and clearly this burden is not the same. But the legal principal remains. This is a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. And it is clear from the presentation of the people and through our cross-examination that the circumstances can point both towards a suspicion of guilt and also towards a theory of innocence. The key piece of evidence that the people are relying on is the serology of a 99 percent chance that four blood drops found at the Bundy crime scene were of the same type and chemical composition as that of Mr. O.J. Simpson.

Objection. That's a misstatement of the evidence.

This is argument, Ms. Clark. You can be heard in response.

The converse of that is this: if you take the Coliseum on any given Sunday, 40,000, 80,000 people will have that same blood type. Number two, there was testimony elicited from the People's witness that Mr. Simpson has joint custody of these children with his ex-wife, the decedent, Nicole. That being the case, it is reasonable to assume that he would visit the children or pick them up at her condominium on a regular basis. Since the criminalist cannot fix the age of the blood spots, there is an equally reasonable theory that those blood spots, if in fact they belonged to Mr. Simpson, were placed there at some other time than at the time of death. And in fact, the criminalist testified that by viewing the photographs, the blood appeared to be of different ages. However, he blamed that on poor photography. But on cross-examination, he admitted that proper crime scene photography requires using the same type of equipment with the same lighting conditions from the same angle. Point number two that the prosecution relies on: There is a matching glove found in the debris behind the Simpson residence that matches a glove found at the crime scene. Another conclusion -- well, let's go by the testimony. I asked deputy Vannatter, "how did that glove get there?" He said, "someone brought it there." Let's look at the other circumstantial evidence involved. If in fact the killer lived at the Simpson residence, the court would have to believe the following: That in a window period of less than an hour, the killer was able to leave the crime scene that has been described with a victim with two arteries in the neck cut, two jugular veins cut, and massive blood from both victims. A clear inference would be that the murderer was indeed covered with blood. The murderer would then have to do the following: Abandon the bloody clothing, because they have not been found or presented; abandon the murder weapon, because that has not been found or discovered; abandon bloody shoes, because they have not been found or discovered; and then go back to his house and leave a bloody glove in his backyard. That just doesn't stand up to logic. We have no evidence whatsoever in this record that whoever committed this horrendous act acted with premeditation and deliberation, as is charged in the complaint filed by the District Attorney. This is a case that the police admit is still under investigation, where other suspects are being sought, where the medical examiner admits that two weapons could have been used, a clear inference that there may be more than one killer. I don't want to go through each and every area of impeachment with the witnesses, but I think it is very, very clear that everybody who has participated in this investigation has not done so in a professional manner. From the time the Los Angeles Police Department arrived on the crime scene, it was nearly ten hours later until they started the scientific investigation and even took the temperature of the body. There was testimony that the Fire Department obviously was there and left and didn't do anything, yet the coroner's records clearly indicate that the Fire Department chief was the person who pronounced the bodies dead. I doubt if he did that from a distance. This is a case that everybody has jumped to an immediate and unrealistic conclusion as to the state of this evidence. This is a case that is not ready yet to come to court. This is a case where the chief serologist said, "we use serology as much to eliminate as to implicate," and yet we have no D.N.A. testing back. This is a case that is needless and groundless and does not warrant any further consideration at this point in time. The court, on viewing all of the evidence that has been presented from the witness stand, should have little difficulty in deciding that this certainly is not a case of any premeditated murder by anyone, for there is totally no evidence on that issue whatsoever; and number two, that there is not and cannot be at this point in time a strong suspicion that Mr. Simpson is guilty of anything. Therefore, Your Honor, it is incumbent upon you to exercise your duties under the law and dismiss this case.

Ms. Clark.

Thank you, Your Honor. In order to find in this case, Your Honor, that there is no strong suspicion to believe the defendant has committed the crimes that he is charged with, you would have to ignore all of the evidence. And the evidence is consistent and very powerful, even at this early stage of the case, that -- to indicate that the defendant has indeed committed every crime that he is charged with. As I'm sure this court is aware, there need be no finding with respect to the degree of the murders charged at this time. I will address the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to prove premeditation, however, if the court desires, but I will leave that for now unless and until the court asks me to address that issue, because I do think the evidence is clearly sufficient to show that these crimes were premeditated murders. With respect to the issue of circumstantial evidence, as usual, as is typical, counsel picks one part away and says, "that's not enough," and takes another part away and says, "that's not enough." And of course, if you pick apart any case, any one bit singly may not be enough to prove the entire case, nor should it be, because circumstantial evidence being one of the stronger ways to prove guilt requires a number of pieces of evidence to amount to proof that the defendant committed the crimes charged. This case is no exception. Rather than relying on the testimony of an eye witness who may be mistaken, who may be under stress, seeing a defendant flee from a scene, perhaps with poor lighting, never having seen that person before, and glimpsing them for a split second, that's direct evidence. But as the court knows, a fingerprint is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence in that way is very, very reliable and is much stronger because it does rely on many factors for its proof rather than one single one. This is a physical evidence case, and a physical evidence case and the inferences to be drawn therefrom are powerful. First of all, the killer in this case was clearly injured during the commission of these murders. He left a trail of blood leading away from the victims to the rear of the residence and out to the alley. A trail of blood was found from the defendant's Ford Bronco leading up the driveway to his front door. And I would remind the court that the distance between the two locations is a mere two miles, approximately. Certainly, not enough time for whatever injury was sustained at the time of the attack to have healed sufficiently so that he would not bleed, unless he was holding something in his hands that would stop the blood. Now the fact that we failed to find the bloody shoes that clearly were worn from the scene -- although we did find a bloody glove -- is hardly illogical at all. The reason we found the bloody glove was simply accident, the defendant's misfortune. It was clearly his intent at the time the thumps were heard by Kato, he was back there trying to hide things or looking for a place to secrete them and dropped the glove inadvertently. If he knew he dropped the glove, obviously we would never have found that either. But that was not the case. He did drop the glove, not intentionally but by accident. Secondly, the bloody glove that was found at the crime scene is left-handed. That's a very important fact. The bloody shoe prints leaving that crime scene with blood drops alongside them were to the left of those shoe prints. That shows us that the killer was injured somewhere on his left side. The blood on the driver's door handle of the Ford Bronco would logically be opened with the left hand, and it's no coincidence that we just happen to find the blood spot on the driver's door handle. And now I know that the testimony to this time, Your Honor, has indicated that it was positive as an indication of blood, but not tested to be human or animal. But the last time I checked, dogs don't drive cars, and at least not Ford Broncos, and I think we can draw a reasonable inference that it was a human who left the blood on the door handle of the car. And those reasonable inferences are precisely what the court is required to draw from all of the evidence, the reasonable inferences. Now on the day that the defendant returned from Chicago, Detective Vannatter makes the observation that after having seen the left-handed bloody glove left at the crime scene that clearly came off during the struggle, which is what allowed him to get the cut that left the blood drops to the left of the footprints and found the blood -- left the blood drops on the driver's handle door, he sees the defendant with a bandage around his middle left finger. And then he takes him down to Parker Center where he sees, again, that he has -- and we've shown the picture to the court -- a swollen finger on the left hand with a cut that was dressed and treated at Parker Center. No coincidence. Third. The right-handed mate to that glove is found on the defendant's property at, I think it was mere hours after the crimes were committed, in a dark narrow area, obviously where there was some clandestine activity designed to hide evidence, during which time it was inadvertently dropped. And that discovery was made after Kato Kaelin indicated he heard the three thumps against the wall. Someone fell against that wall, and that someone was the defendant, and in that process lost the right-handed glove. And a presumptive test on that glove for blood came up positive. Fourth. The defendant clearly lied to the limousine driver, Allan Park. When Allan Park drove down to the Rockingham gate at about 10:40, the Ford Bronco was not there. Between 10:40 and 10:55, he rang the intercom repeatedly and he received no answer. It was only when 15 minutes later, after Park had just seen a Black person six feet, 200 pounds, walk quickly up the drive and into the front door, that the intercom was finally answered by the defendant. Before that person six feet, 200 pounds, entered the house -- through a front door that Kato said was kept locked -- all downstairs lights were off. Immediately after that person entered the house, all the lights went on. And 30 seconds later, the defendant answered the intercom, where previously he had failed to do so. Now it must be obvious to everyone at this point that the person seen entering the house by Allan Park was the defendant. But he lied to the limousine driver, and it's a very significant lie, because why would he need to do that? Why not just say, "I was out getting some last minute things, I had to go shopping, I had to go to the store, I had to go get something from the 7-Eleven." He could have said anything. But it's very significant that he chose to lie to the limo driver at all, and the lie he chose to tell. What lie did he tell? He said, "oh, I overslept. I just got out of the shower." We know that's not true. He was seen just going into the house 30 seconds before. The only reason to tell such a lie is that the defendant is trying to set up an alibi for the time when he knows that the murders occurred. A very significant, significant piece of evidence. Fifth. The blood drop on the trail leading away from the victims at 875 south Bundy. Testing revealed that only 43 percent of the population could have given -- could have been the source of that blood drop.

.43. Thank you, Your Honor, .43. Now what's interesting is on cross-examination, counsel attempted to elicit the possibility that that stain might reflect that two people left that blood drop on the trail. If that's true, we do know this: at least one of them had all of the markers that can be attributed to the defendant, who is within .43 percent of the population that could have left that blood drop. And of the 43 percent of the population that could have been the source -- the .43 percent that could have been the source of that blood drop, how many had a bloody glove found on their property mere hours after the murders occurred, a bloody glove that matched the bloody glove found at the crime scene, at the feet of one of the victims? That must considerably narrow down that figure, and so it's not just 99.57 percent of the population that is excluded, but virtually everyone but the defendant when all of the evidence is taken into account, Your Honor. And in light of all of the evidence that we have presented, the people have more than established and carried their burden with respect to this preliminary hearing, and I submit that the defendant should be held to answer for all of the charges as charged in the complaint. Thank you.