CLOSING ARGUMENTS (PARTIAL)
PEOPLE v. SIMPSON
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
9:04 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103
HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD
IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO,
MR. BLASIER, MR. NEUFELD, MR. SCHECK.
THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH.
*****
LET
THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR
JURY PANEL.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU
FOR THE LATE START, BUT WE HAD SOME MATTERS TO GET OUT OF THE WAY BEFORE
WE ACTUALLY STARTED THE ARGUMENT WITH THE ATTORNEYS; HOWEVER, WE ARE NOW
READY TO COMMENCE.*****
MISS
CLARK, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, ARE THE PROSECUTION PREPARED TO PROCEED
WITH THEIR OPENING ARGUMENT?
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR, WE
ARE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU
MAY PROCEED.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
BY MS. CLARK:
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
MS. CLARK: FINALLY. I FEEL
LIKE IT IS HAS BEEN FOREVER SINCE I TALKED TO YOU. IT KIND OF HAS.
IT IS VERY WEIRD BEING IN THE COURTROOM SITTING NEXT TO YOU EVERYDAY NOT
GETTING A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU. IT IS VERY UNNATURAL.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, AS MANY YEARS AS I'VE
BEEN DOING THIS, AT THIS MOMENT IN THE TRIAL I ALWAYS FEEL THE SAME.
I FEEL LIKE I WANT TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU SAY, "AND WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK
ABOUT?"
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK.
JUROR 165 NEEDS A PEN.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO YOU AND TELL YOU, "WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?" BECAUSE THAT WAY I DON'T HAVE TO
TALK ABOUT STUFF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR, STUFF THAT YOU DON'T WANT EXPLAINED,
STUFF THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN, AND I CAN'T, AND I ALWAYS HAVE A
SENSE OF FRUSTRATION.
SO I'M SORRY IF I SAY THINGS THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO HEAR OR I EXPLAIN THINGS
THAT ARE ALREADY CLEAR TO YOU. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME BECAUSE I AM NOT
A MIND READER AND I DON'T KNOW.
FIRST I WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU AND I WANT TO THANK YOU
FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH SO MUCH.
YOU HAVE MADE A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR CHILDREN
ENOUGH, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR FAMILY ENOUGH, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR LOVED
ONES ENOUGH, AND ALL OF THIS IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE AND THE SERVICE OF
JUSTICE.
YOUR DEDICATION AND YOUR SELFLESSNESS ARE TRULY BEYOND THE PALE.
NO ONE CAN SAY THAT ANY JURY HAS SACRIFICED MORE FOR THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE
THAN YOU HAVE, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW SINCERELY FROM MY HEART I APPRECIATE
IT.
I SPEAK ON BEHALF, I KNOW, OF THE -- OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS WAS A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE. YOUR SELFLESSNESS AND YOUR DEVOTION
WILL LONG BE REMEMBERED BY MANY, AND THANK YOU.
I THINK NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW GREAT THEIR SACRIFICE HAS BEEN, HOW TERRIBLE
THE PRESSURE HAS BEEN, HOW AWFUL IT MUST BE FOR YOU TO HAVE YOUR LIVES
KIND OF OUT OF CONTROL THIS WAY AT THE MERCY OF US TAKING LONGER THAN WE
SHOULD HAVE AND YOU HAVING TO PUT YOUR LIVES ASIDE FOR LONGER THAN
YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD TO.
I'M SORRY FOR THAT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
THERE IS ONLY ONE BRIGHT SIDE. TWO BRIGHT SIDES. ONE, IT IS
ALMOST OVER.
NO. 2, YOU HAVE THE ASSURANCE OF KNOWING THAT NO STONE HAS BEEN LEFT UNTURNED.
THE DEFENDANT HAS EXPLORED EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY OF THE CASE. WE
HAVE EXHAUSTIVELY TRIED TO GIVE YOU EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT COULD
POSSIBLY BE RELEVANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER.
AND IN DOING SO IN THE EXHAUSTIVE EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
ALL OF THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE AND THE EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION AND
WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE, ONE THING IS CLEAR:
THIS DEFENDANT HAS RECEIVED THE ULTIMATE IN A FAIR TRIAL.
AND AT LEAST YOU KNOW THAT. YOU HAVE THAT ASSURANCE.
NOW, IN THE COURSE OF PRESENTING ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL, JUST
LIKE EVERY TRIAL, SOME EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU THAT REALLY IS
NOT RELEVANT TO ANSWER THE CORE QUESTION OF WHO MURDERED RON GOLDMAN AND
NICOLE BROWN.
AND IT IS UP TO YOU, THE JURY, TO WEED OUT THE DISTRACTIONS, WEED OUT THE
SIDE SHOWS AND DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE IS IT THAT REALLY HELPS ME
ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
AND IT IS KIND OF LIKE THE ARTIST, THE SCULPTOR. SOMEBODY WENT TO
HIM AND SAID HOW DO YOU MAKE AN ANGEL? WELL, I TAKE A PIECE OF MARBLE
AND I REMOVE EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT AN ANGEL. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE
TO DO. IT IS NOT EASY. IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT FOCUS AND
A LOT OF DETERMINATION ON YOUR PART.
BECAUSE THE SIDE SHOWS MAY BE VERY INTERESTING, THEY PRESENT VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUES, VERY SERIOUS ISSUES, BUT ISSUES THAT REALLY DO NOT RELATE TO WHO
COMMITTED THESE MURDERS.
AND THEY SHOULD BE DEALT WITH OUTSIDE THIS COURTROOM, BECAUSE HERE NOW
IN THIS COURTROOM WE ARE HERE TO DECIDE WHO MURDERED RONALD GOLDMAN AND
NICOLE BROWN.
NOW, YOU AS JURORS SIT AS JUDGES OF THE EVIDENCE. YOU ARE CALLED
THE TRIER OF FACT. AND AS SUCH YOUR JOB IS TO BE NEUTRAL AND TO BE
IMPARTIAL AS YOU EXAMINE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED.
AND IN THIS REGARD YOU ARE GUIDED, JUST LIKE ANY JUDGE, BY THE LAW.
AND THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE READ TO YOU ON FRIDAY IS THE LAW THAT
YOU WILL APPLY TO THE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION
THAT IS POSED HERE, WHO MURDERED RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN.
THE INSTRUCTIONS DISCUSS A WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS. THEY TALK ABOUT
GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, BOTH EXPERT
AND LAY WITNESSES, AND THEY TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO
PROVE TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT, BUT THEY GO BEYOND THAT AND THEY
ALSO TELL YOU THE FRAME OF MIND THAT YOU SHOULD ADOPT WHEN YOU LOOK AT
ALL THE EVIDENCE.
AND ONE OF THE FIRST INSTRUCTIONS THAT WAS READ TO YOU BY THE JUDGE ON
FRIDAY, IF YOU WILL RECALL, CONCERNED YOUR DUTIES AS A JURY AND IT STATED
IN PART:
"YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PITY FOR A DEFENDANT OR BY PREJUDICE AGAINST
HIM, YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED
FOR THIS OFFENSE, CHARGED WITH A CRIME OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL."
OF COURSE THAT MAKES SENSE. IT IS LOGICAL. AND THAT MEANS THAT
WE HAVE TO PRESENT PROOF TO YOU. WE JUST DON'T COME IN AND SAY IT
IS SO. I HAVE TO PROVE IT TO YOU WITH EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT, SO THAT MAKES SENSE.
NOW, THE INSTRUCTION GOES ON TO READ:
"YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MERE SENTIMENT, CONJECTURE, SYMPATHY, PASSION,
PREJUDICE, PUBLIC OPINION OR PUBLIC FEELING.
BOTH THE PEOPLE AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT YOU WILL
CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, APPLY THE LAW AND
REACH A JUST VERDICT REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES."
IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL YOU HAVE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY OF A VERY EMOTIONAL
NATURE. I EXPECT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT YOU ARE GOING
TO BE HEARING VERY IMPASSIONED SPEECHES,
FIREY SPEECHES THAT MAY STIR UP FEELINGS OF ANGER OR PITY.
ALTHOUGH YOUR FEELINGS MAY BE AROUSED, AS MAY BE NATURAL AND UNDERSTANDABLE
FOR ALL OF US, AS THE INSTRUCTION TELLS YOU AS THE TRIER OF FACT, YOU,
THE JUDGES, ARE TO REMAIN NEUTRAL AND IMPARTIAL AND NOT BE INFLUENCED BY
SUCH PASSION OR SENTIMENT, NO MATTER HOW SORELY TEMPTED YOU MAY BE TO DO
SO.
AND THIS APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES, BOTH SIDES.
ALTHOUGH THE BRUTAL AND CALLOUS WAY IN WHICH RON AND NICOLE WERE MURDERED
MAY UNDERSTANDABLY MAKE YOU FEEL SORRY, PITY, EVEN ANGER, IT WOULD BE WRONG
TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY JUST BECAUSE YOU FELT SORRY FOR THEM.
ON THE OTHER HAND, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE IF YOU
WERE TO FEEL ANGRY AND DISGUSTED WITH MARK FUHRMAN, AS WE ALL ARE, STILL
IT WOULD BE WRONG TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY -- NOT GUILTY JUST BECAUSE
OF THAT ANGER AND DISGUST.
SO AS YOU LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, PLEASE REMEMBER WHEN YOU
WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND YOU CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, REMEMBER
THAT APPEAL TO PASSION AND EMOTION IS AN INVITATION TO IGNORE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
AS A JUROR.
TO BE FAIR WE MUST EXAMINE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN A CALM AND A RATIONAL
AND A LOGICAL WAY.
LET ME COME BACK TO MARK FUHRMAN FOR A MINUTE.
JUST SO IT IS CLEAR. DID HE LIE WHEN HE TESTIFIED HERE IN THIS COURTROOM
SAYING THAT HE DID NOT USE RACIAL EPITHETS IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?
YES.
IS HE A RACIST?
YES.
IS HE THE WORSE LAPD HAS TO OFFER?
YES.
DO WE WISH THAT THIS PERSON WAS NEVER HIRED BY LAPD?
YES.
SHOULD LAPD HAVE EVER HIRED HIM?
NO.
SHOULD SUCH A PERSON BE A POLICE OFFICER?
NO.
IN FACT, DO WE WISH THERE WERE NO SUCH PERSON ON THE PLANET?
YES.
BUT THE FACT THAT MARK FUHRMAN IS A RACIST AND LIED ABOUT IT ON THE WITNESS
STAND DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVEN'T PROVEN THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT.
AND IT WOULD BE A TRAGEDY IF WITH SUCH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, AS WE HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU, YOU FOUND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY
IN SPITE OF ALL THAT, BECAUSE OF THE RACIST ATTITUDES OF ONE POLICE OFFICER.
IT IS YOUR DUTY AND IT WOULD BE YOUR CHALLENGE TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE QUESTION
YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ANSWER, AND THE ONLY QUESTION THAT YOU WERE BROUGHT
HERE TO ANSWER, DID THE DEFENDANT COMMIT THESE MURDERS?
IN SEEKING THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION YOU LOOK TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED TO YOU BY BOTH SIDES NOW, BY BOTH THE PEOPLE AND BY THE DEFENSE,
AND YOU DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE REALLY ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS THROWN OUT MANY, MANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THEY
HAVE THROWN OUT QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER LAPD HAS SOME BAD POLICE OFFICERS,
DOES THE SCIENTIFIC DIVISION HAVE SOME SLOPPY CRIMINALISTS, DID THE CORONER'S
OFFICE HAVE SOME SLOPPY CORONERS?
AND THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS IS SURE, YES, THEY DO.
THAT IS NOT NEWS TO YOU. I'M SURE IT WASN'T A BIG SURPRISE TO YOU.
BUT THOSE ARE NOT -- THEY ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES. YOU KNOW, WE
SHOULD LOOK INTO THE QUALITY CONTROL, THINGS SHOULD BE DONE BETTER, THINGS
COULD ALWAYS BE DONE BETTER IN EVERY CASE AT EVERY TIME. THERE IS NO QUESTION
ABOUT THAT.
WE ARE NOT HERE TO VOTE ON THAT TODAY.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU THAT RELATES
TO WHO KILLED RON AND NICOLE, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? DOES THAT
CONVINCE YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE QUALIFIED OR HOW MUCH BETTER THEY COULD HAVE DONE
THEIR JOB, STILL AND ALL, DID THEY PRESENT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO YOU, DID
THE EVIDENCE COME TO YOU IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND CONVINCING FORCE TO
CONVINCE YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT?
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN MET OUR BURDEN
IN THIS CASE.
NOW, THE DEFENSE HAS THROWN OUT A LOT OF POSSIBILITIES TO YOU, THE MEREST
OF POSSIBILITIES, AND A LOT OF THEM WERE JUST THERE TO SCARE YOU.
YOU HEARD DR. GERDES TALK ABOUT IT COULD BE THIS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT.
I SEE THE VALIDATION STUDIES, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE REMINDS ME OF A DOCTOR,
WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO IN FOR AN OPERATION, THEY GIVE YOU ALL THIS LIST OF
THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO YOU, COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO YOU.
NEVERTHELESS, THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU THAT WARNING, RIGHT? THEY
GOT TO TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU CANNOT GIVE AN INFORMED CONSENT
AND SAY, YES, KNOWING THE RISK, I'M GOING TO GO AND DO THIS.
NOW, IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED THAT ALL THESE HORRIBLE THINGS WERE GOING TO
HAPPEN, NO ONE WOULD HAVE AN OPERATION. YOU WOULDN'T TAKE THE RISK.
BUT YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE GOT TO TELL ME EVERYTHING NO MATTER HOW REMOTE
THE POSSIBILITY, AND INDEED YOU GO AND HAVE THE OPERATION AND YOU ARE FINE
AND NONE OF THAT STUFF HAPPENS.
WELL, IN THIS CASE IT IS ACTUALLY THEY HAVE RAISED ALL THE POSSIBILITIES
OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN IN AN EFFORT TO SCARE YOU AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE,
BUT WE HAVE DONE BETTER THAN YOU COULD EVER DO IN AN OPERATION, BECAUSE
WE HAVE PROVEN TO YOU THAT NOTHING IN THIS CASE DID HAPPEN.
WE HAVE PROVEN TO YOU THAT IT WAS NOT CONTAMINATED. WE HAVE EVEN
PROVEN TO YOU THAT IT WAS NOT PLANTED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND DEMONSTRATE HOW WE HAVE PROVEN
THAT TO YOU.
SO WHY WERE THESE ISSUES RAISED? WHY WERE THESE QUESTIONS RAISED?
WELL, THEY ARE ALL QUESTIONS AND ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AS A DISTRACTION.
THEY WERE ROADS RAISED, ROADS CREATED BY THE DEFENDANT TO LEAD YOU AWAY
FROM THE CORE TRUTH AND THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE SEARCHING FOR THE ANSWER
TO, WHICH IS WHO MURDERED RON AND NICOLE?
BUT THESE ROADS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THESE ARE FALSE ROADS. THEY
ARE FALSE ROADS BECAUSE THEY LEAD TO A DEAD-END.
THE FALSE ROADS WERE PAVED WITH INFLAMMATORY DISTRACTIONS.
BUT EVEN AFTER ALL THEIR TIRELESS EFFORTS, THE EVIDENCE STANDS STRONG AND
POWERFUL TO PROVE TO YOU THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I THINK THAT BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE WILL AGREE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I APPROACH
FOR A MOMENT?
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS
CLARK.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
PROCEED.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
REASONABLE DOUBT.
OKAY. THIS IS AN INSTRUCTION THAT WE WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT, THEY
ARE GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT. THIS IS A REAL IMPORTANT INSTRUCTION.
IT IS AT THE REAL HEART OF A CASE, EVERY CASE, EVERY CRIMINAL CASE.
BECAUSE IT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE. WE DON'T
GUESS ANYBODY GUILTY. WE PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH
IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THIS CASE.
NOW, TO TELL YOU ABOUT REASONABLE DOUBT, IT IS KIND OF A FUNNY DEFINITION
BECAUSE IT TALKS TO YOU ABOUT REASONABLE DOUBT IN VERY NEGATIVE TERMS.
IT SAYS:
"THAT STATE OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH, AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON, YOU CANNOT
SAY THAT YOU HAVE AN ABIDING CONVICTION."
IT IS VERY WEIRDLY WORDED AND IT IS GOING TO TAKE YOU A WHILE TO GO
THROUGH THIS, SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT PIECES AT A TIME TO TRY AND
GIVE YOU A LITTLE HAND HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, LET ME POINT OUT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TALKS ABOUT THE
FACT THAT IT IS OUR BURDEN OF PROOF. I THINK THAT ONE IS FINE.
THAT IS PRETTY EASY.
NOW, IT TALKS ABOUT HOW REASONABLE DOUBT IS DEFINED. THIS IS REAL
IMPORTANT.
"IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT," OKAY, "BECAUSE EVERYTHING RELATING TO
HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT."
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT IS A DOUBT FOUNDED IN REASON.
I'M GOING TO AMPLIFY MORE ON THAT WITH EXAMPLES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
ACTUAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, BUT BEAR THAT IN MIND, A POSSIBLE DOUBT.
I HAVE A POSSIBLE DOUBT THAT THE SUN WILL COME UP TOMORROW. DO I
HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT IT? NO. I HAVE NO DOUBT FOUNDED
IN REASON THAT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, JUST FOR A VERY BASIC EXAMPLE,
SO THINK ABOUT THAT, TOO.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT POSSIBLE DOUBT IS. IT IS REASONABLE
DOUBT.
NOW, THE OTHER PART OF IT:
"IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHICH AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON, THE ENTIRE
COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE."
NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS YOU CONSIDER THE DEFENSE
CASE AND YOU CONSIDER THE PROSECUTION CASE. YOU CONSIDER ALL OF IT.
YOU WILL PROBABLY HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE, MULTIPLE TIMES, "WE DON'T HAVE
TO PROVE ANYTHING."
THAT IS RIGHT. THEY DON'T.
IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE WHEN THE PEOPLE COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATION, THE
DEFENSE CAN SAY NO WITNESSES, WE REST, BECAUSE THEY CAN SIT AND MAKE THE
STATE PROVE THEIR CASE WITHOUT EVER CALLING A WITNESS.
THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT WHEN THEY DO, WHEN THEY DO, THEN YOU MUST CONSIDER THE QUALITY AND
THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED.
THAT GOES INTO THE MIX. THAT IS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION.
WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE DID THEY PRESENT TO DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING TO YOU?
TO PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU?
IF THEY TRY TO PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU, THEIR WITNESSES, THEIR EVIDENCE
GETS EVALUATED BY THE SAME RULES OURS DO. THE SAME JURY INSTRUCTION
APPLIES.
YOU WILL SEE A JURY INSTRUCTION IN YOUR PACKET BACK THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT
HOW TO EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, BOTH EXPERT AND LAY WITNESSES.
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION MADE IN THAT JURY INSTRUCTION FOR DEFENSE WITNESSES
OR FOR PEOPLE'S WITNESSES. IT IS ALL THE SAME.
YOU DETERMINE THEIR CREDIBILITY AND THE RELATIVE CONVINCING FORCE OF THE
PROOF IN -- BY THE SAME RULES, OKAY?
SO THAT IS THE FIRST THING TO REMEMBER. WHEN YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING, YOU
LOOK AT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
WHAT HAVE THEY SHOWN YOU? WHAT HAVE WE SHOWN YOU? WE HAVE THE
BURDEN OF PROOF.
BUT YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE SHOWN YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO CONSIDER WHAT
WAS PROVEN TO YOU.
WE HAVE PIECES OF BOARDS AND EXHIBITS EVERYWHERE IN THIS COURTROOM.
ALL RIGHT.
NOW, ALL I'M TELLING YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS IT IS A REASONABLE DOUBT
AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE DOUBT AND WE WILL COME BACK TO IT AGAIN.
BUT AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL OF OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEN YOU OPEN UP THE WINDOWS
AND LET THE COOL AIR BLOW OUT THE SMOKESCREEN THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY
THE DEFENSE WITH THE COOL WIND OF REASON, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE DEFENDANT
HAS BEEN PROVEN GUILTY EASILY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY:
THE EVIDENCE HAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT WHEN DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN SAID
HE DID NOT USE RACIAL EPITHETS IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, HE LIED, BUT
IT IS ALSO CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WITH THE TIMING,
OKAY? I THINK THAT IS THE EASIEST PLACE TO START, THE TIMING ON JUNE
THE 12TH.
[CLARK REVIEWS EVIDENCE REGARDING TIMING AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MURDER
ACCORDING TO PROSECUTION]
SO
NOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CONDUCT, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OPPORTUNITY AND TIMING.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT IN THE DETAIL YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD IT, HEAVEN
FORBID, BUT ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN WITH THE OPPORTUNITY EVIDENCE,
WITH THE CONDUCT EVIDENCE, WE ALREADY HAVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW YOU THAT THE
DEFENDANT DID COMMIT THESE MURDERS, WITHOUT EVEN REALLY GETTING INTO THE
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, AND ONCE YOU SEE THE VAST ARRAY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE,
YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS VIRTUALLY AN OCEAN OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT
THIS DEFENDANT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS.
WHAT ALL OF THIS DOES, ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE, IT LINKS THE DEFENDANT TO
THE VICTIMS AND THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY.
NOW, THE DEFENSE HAS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TRY AND SHOW THAT THEY COULD
DISCREDIT THIS EVIDENCE AND THE LENGTHS THAT THEY HAVE INCLUDED HAVE BEEN
SOME OF THE MOST BIZARRE AND FARFETCHED NOTIONS I THINK I HAVE EVER HEARD.
THEY HINT THAT THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED. THEY HAVE TRIED TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION
THAT MULTIPLE OTHER BLOODSTAINS WERE CONTAMINATED AND THAT SOMEHOW ALL
THE CONTAMINATION ONLY OCCURRED WHERE IT WOULD CONSISTENTLY PROVE THE DEFENDANT
WAS GUILTY.
SO NOW THE LITTLE AMPLICONS, THOSE LITTLE DNA, THEY ARE CO-CONSPIRATORS,
TOO, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE GOT TO RUSH TO ONLY THE PLACES WHERE YOU
CAN ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO THE MURDERER.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, JUST THINK ABOUT THAT ONE POINT LOGICALLY, OKAY?
OBVIOUSLY IT IS COMMON SENSE, IF CONTAMINATION IS GOING ON YOU ARE GOING
TO SEE IT GOING ON ALL OVER THE PLACE.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS TRUE WITH THIS AEROSOL
EFFECT, FLYING DNA ALL OVER THE PLACE, THEN MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD TYPE OUGHT
TO BE SHOWING UP IN OTHER CASES SOMEWHERE. YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE OUT
OR DOWN IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT IN A RAPE CASE MR. SIMPSON'S TYPE SHOULD
BE SHOWING UP BECAUSE IT IS EVERYWHERE.
OR EVEN LET'S CONFINE TO IT THIS CASE. TALK ABOUT THAT. THAT HOW
COME IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HIS BLOOD IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, DNA
IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, WHY DIDN'T WE FIND HIS BLOOD TYPE SHOWING
UP WHERE OBVIOUSLY IT SHOULDN'T BE?
WHAT I MEAN IS THIS:
THEY TOOK SAMPLES FROM THE POOL OF BLOOD BY NICOLE'S BODY. THEY TOOK
SAMPLES OF BLOOD THAT WAS NEAR RON GOLDMAN'S BODY. OBVIOUSLY THE
BLOOD CAME FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE LYING THERE.
AND THEN OF COURSE YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THE BLOOD DROPS LEADING AWAY FROM
THE CRIME SCENE THAT HAD TO BE LEFT BY THE KILLER. THERE IS NO QUESTION
ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS LEFT BY THE KILLER BECAUSE THEY ARE NEXT TO
THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS.
SO YOU KNOW, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAMPLES OF BLOOD THEY TOOK FROM HER POOL
OF BLOOD DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD TYPE IF THE DEFENDANT'S
BLOOD TYPE DNA IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE?
IF IT IS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE, THEN IT OUGHT TO BE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
WHY ISN'T IT IN THE POOL OF BLOOD SAMPLE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM NICOLE BROWN?
WHY ISN'T IT IN THE POOL OF THE BLOOD SAMPLE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM NEAR RON
GOLDMAN'S BODY?
LOGIC, COMMON SENSE, IT OUGHT TO BE. THE DNA, THOSE AMPLICONS, THESE
LITTLE THINGS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO. THEY DON'T -- THEY ARE
NOT GUIDED. CONTAMINATION IS A RANDOM THING. THE HAPPENS WILLY-NILLY.
AND WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS THEY ARE TRYING TO GET YOU TO BELIEVE THAT ONLY
THE KILLER'S BLOOD WAS CONTAMINATED AND IT WAS CONSISTENTLY CONTAMINATED
WITH ONLY THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD TYPING.
DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU?
WHAT YOU OUGHT TO HAVE, IF YOU HAVE CONTAMINATION, IF YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM
HERE, IS THAT SOME OF THE BLOOD DROPS COME BACK TO THE DEFENDANT AND SOME
DON'T; THEY COME BACK TO THE REAL KILLER. THAT IS WHAT YOU OUGHT
TO GET, BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE THIS CONSISTENT.
IF YOU HAD ONE BLOOD DROP IN THIS CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU KNOW,
YOU MIGHT BE CONCERNED WITH ALL OF THESE POSSIBILITIES THEY HAVE RAISED,
BUT YOU HAVE SO MANY, YOU HAVE SO MANY. YOU'VE GOT FIVE BLOOD DROPS LEADING
AWAY FROM THE BODIES THE VICTIM OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND YOU'VE GOT THE
BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.
AND YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE OTHER PART OF THEIR -- OF THEIR SCENARIO THAT
MAKES NO SENSE, NO SENSE. YOU HAVE ALL THESE POLICE OFFICERS THAT
WERE THERE ON JUNE THE 13TH, OFFICER RISKE SAYING HIS PARTNER, YOUNG ROOKIE
NAMES OFFICER TERRAZAS, SHINED HIS LIGHT ON THE REAR GATE TO SHOW HIM THE
BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE. YOU HAVE OFFICER RISKE SEEING THE BLOOD ON
THE REAR GATE. YOU HAVE OFFICER ROSSI SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR
GATE. YOU HAVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE,
ALL OF IT EARLY ON.
DENNIS FUNG, WHOM YOU CAN SEE IS NOT THE MODEL OF EFFICIENCY, FORGOT TO
COLLECT IT, AND FROM THIS WE GET A THEORY THAT THEY SEEM TO IMPLY THAT
THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED. WHY DO THEY SAY THAT?
NOW, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO HEAR MR. COCHRAN ACTUALLY STAND UP IN FRONT
OF YOU AND TELL YOU HE BELIEVES THE BLOOD WAS PLANTED. I WANT TO
HEAR THAT.
BECAUSE THAT IS INCREDIBLE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, THINK WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN TO SHOW
YOU HOW THAT BLOOD WAS PLANTED, TO SHOW YOU WHEN THAT BLOOD WAS PLANTED,
TO SHOW YOU WHO PLANTED THAT BLOOD?
NOW, THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH THIS STORY ABOUT CONTAMINATION
AND PLANTING, AND I WANT TO HEAR IF THEY REALLY, REALLY DO THAT, SAY THAT
TO YOU, IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET AROUND THE RESULT.
******
NOW,
THE BLOOD ON THE SOCKS, NICOLE'S BLOOD ON THE SOCKS. AGAIN RFLP MATCH,
VERY POWERFUL. SHOWED FROM CELLMARK THAT WAS A FIVE-PROBE MATCH AND
I BELIEVE FOUND TO BE ONE IN 6.8 BILLION PEOPLE. AGAIN, MORE THAN
-- THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. IDENTIFICATION. AND 11-PROBE
MATCH BY DOJ SHOWED THAT IT WAS ONE IN 7.7 BILLION PEOPLE. AGAIN,
HER BLOOD AND ONLY HERS ON THIS PLANET COULD BE ON THAT SOCK.
NOW, HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT? IT WASN'T WRONG AND THEY COULDN'T
FIND AN EXPERT WHO WOULD SAY IT WAS CONTAMINATED BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH
DNA. THAT IS THE BLOOD. THAT TYPE IS THE TYPE. IT IS
HER BLOOD.
HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT? AND IF YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS TRUE, IF
YOU KNOW IT IS HER BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS THAT THEY FIND ON THE MORNING OF
JUNE THE 13TH, THAT ALONE WITH THE REAR GATE STAIN CONVICTS HIM.
YOU CAN'T BELIEVE OTHERWISE.
YOU HAVE SO MUCH PROOF NOW HOW DO THEY GET AROUND THAT? THEY HAVE
TO FIND A THEORY TO GET AROUND THAT. AND WHAT DO THEY DO? THIS
IS WHAT THEY COME UP WITH.
SO IF IT IS LOW VOLUME DNA, IT IS CONTAMINATED. IF IT IS HIGH VOLUME
DNA, IT IS PLANTED, AND IT IS ALSO VERY CONVENIENT AND RIDICULOUS.
NOW, THEIR EXPERTS HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
THEIR EXPERTS COULD HAVE COME IN AND SHOWN YOU HOW THE EVIDENCE GOT CONTAMINATED.
GOT CONTAMINATED, NOT POSSIBLY -- REMEMBER, I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT MERE
POSSIBILITY.
NO, DID, DID GET CONTAMINATED, AND THEY COULD HAVE COME HERE AND TOLD YOU
AND POINTED OUT THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWED WHY ONLY THE BLOOD DROPS LEFT
BY THE MURDERER GOT CONTAMINATED AND SHOWN YOU WHY THEY CONSISTENTLY ONLY
GOT CONTAMINATED IN A WAY THAT SHOWED THE DEFENDANT'S DNA TYPE, NOT THAT
THEY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE.
YES, POSSIBLY WE ARE ALL SITTING ON MARS RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, AND I'M FROM
VENUS AND I'M TALKING. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT DID HAPPEN. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE GOT.
THEY COULD HAVE SHOWN YOU PROOF THAT THE BUNDY BLOOD DROPS WERE CONTAMINATED,
NOT THE MERE POSSIBILITY. NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT GIVES
YOU A REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT THAT HAPPENED, AND THAT THEY NEVER COULD
DO.
AND THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT IF IT WERE TRUE, BUT THEY DIDN'T.
AND NOT ONE EXPERT THEY BROUGHT IN ON THE DNA DID EVEN ONE TEST ON THE
BLOOD EVIDENCE, THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE THAT PROVES TO YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT
COMMITTED THESE MURDERS; NOT ONE, WITH ALL THOSE EXPERTS YOU SAW.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THAT IT ISN'T TRUE.
THE BLOOD ON THE BUNDY TRAIL COMES BACK TO THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT IS
HIS BLOOD. THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE COMES BACK TO THE DEFENDANT
BECAUSE IT IS BLOOD HE LEFT THERE ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS.
SO THEY TOOK YOU THROUGH ALL THIS TORTURED AND TWISTED ROAD ONE MOMENT
SAYING THAT THE POLICE ARE ALL A BUNCH OF BUMBLING IDIOTS. THE NEXT
MOMENT THEY ARE CLEVER CONSPIRATORS.
***********
NOW
THAT I'VE REVIEWED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
WHEN I SAY A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE GIVES YOU MUCH MORE ASSURANCE
OF THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT. AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THIS.
IN A DIRECT EVIDENCE CASE, YOU MAY HAVE ONE EYEWITNESS TO TELL YOU, "I
SAW IT." THAT MEANS YOU HAVE ONE THING TO RELY ON.
BUT IN A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE, YOU HAVE MANY
THINGS TO RELY ON. YOU HAVE THE BLOOD AT BUNDY. YOU HAVE THE
BLOOD OF NICOLE ON HIS SOCKS. YOU HAVE HIS BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE
AT BUNDY. YOU HAVE RONALD GOLDMAN'S BLOOD IN HIS CAR. YOU HAVE
HIS HAIR ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT. YOU HAVE THE FIBER FROM HIS CLOTHING
ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHIRT, ON HIS SOCKS, ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE. YOU
HAVE THE BRONCO CARPET FIBER ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE. YOU HAVE THE
BRONCO CARPET FIBER ON THE KNIT SKI CAP.
THE WEALTH OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS SIMPLY OVERWHELMING. IF WE
ONLY HAD THE BUNDY BLOOD TRAIL THAT MATCHED THE DEFENDANT, IT WOULD BE
ENOUGH PROOF TO FIND HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IF WE ONLY HAD
NICOLE BROWN'S BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO PROVE HIM GUILTY
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IF WE ONLY HAD RON GOLDMAN'S BLOOD IN
HIS BRONCO, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO PROVE HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT.
BUT WE HAVE ALL THAT AND MUCH MORE. AND NOW, LET ME SUMMARIZE FOR
YOU WHAT WE HAVE PROVEN.
ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. WE'VE PROVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO KILL.
WE'VE GIVEN THE TIME WINDOW IN WHICH HE WAS ABLE TO KILL BECAUSE HIS WHEREABOUTS
WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE TIME THAT WE KNOW THE MURDERS WERE OCCURRING.
WE HAVE THE HAND INJURIES THAT WERE SUFFERED ON THE NIGHT OF HIS WIFE'S
MURDER TO THE LEFT HAND, AS WE KNOW THE KILLER WAS INJURED ON HIS LEFT
HAND. WE HAVE THE POST-HOMICIDAL CONDUCT THAT I TOLD YOU ABOUT, LYING
TO ALLAN PARK, MAKING ALLAN PARK WAIT OUTSIDE, NOT LETTING KATO PICK UP
THAT LITTLE DARK BAG, HIS REACTION TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WHEN HE MADE NOTIFICATION,
WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAID TO HIM, "NICOLE HAS BEEN KILLED." INSTEAD
OF ASKING ABOUT A CAR ACCIDENT, THE DEFENDANT ASKED NO QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE THE MANNER OF KILLINGS, KILLINGS THAT INDICATE THAT IT WAS A RAGE
KILLING, THAT IT WAS A FURY KILLING, THAT IT WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL HIT,
THE MANNER OF KILLING THAT INDICATES ONE PERSON COMMITTED THESE MURDERS,
ONE PERSON WITH THE SAME STYLE OF KILLING.
WE HAVE THE KNIT CAP AT BUNDY. WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE ON RON GOLDMAN'S
SHIRT OF THE BLUE BLACK COTTON FIBERS, THE DEFENDANT'S HAIR. WE HAVE
THE BRUNO MAGLI SHOEPRINT, SIZE 12, ALL OF THEM SIZE 12, HIS SIZE SHOE,
ALL OF THEM CONSISTENT GOING DOWN THE BUNDY WALK.
WE HAVE THE BUNDY BLOOD TRAIL, HIS BLOOD TO THE LEFT OF THE BLOODY
SHOEPRINTS. WE HAVE THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, HIS AND RON GOLDMAN'S.
WE HAVE THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD TRAIL UP THE DRIVEWAY, IN HIS BATHROOM, IN
THE FOYER.
WE HAVE THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ON IT, RON GOLDMAN'S
FIBERS FROM HIS SHIRT, RON GOLDMAN'S HAIR, NICOLE'S HAIR, THE DEFENDANT'S
BLOOD, RON GOLDMAN'S BLOOD, NICOLE'S BLOOD AND THE BRONCO FIBER AND THE
BLUE BLACK COTTON FIBERS. WE HAVE THE SOCKS AND WE HAVE THE BLUE
BLACK COTTON FIBERS ON THE SOCKS AND WE HAVE NICOLE BROWN'S BLOOD ON THE
SOCKS.
THERE HE IS. I HAVEN'T EVEN SPOKEN -- YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD YET
ABOUT THE MOTIVE. YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD THE WHY OF IT, THE WHY HE
DID IT. AND YOU KNOW HE DID IT.
NOW, THESE MURDERS DID NOT OCCUR IN A VACUUM, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE
THAT YOU'VE HEARD IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE. THEY OCCURRED IN
THE CONTEXT OF A STORMY RELATIONSHIP, A RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS SCARRED BY
VIOLENCE AND ABUSE. AND THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE COMPLETES THE PICTURE OF
THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AS IT EXPLAINS THE MOTIVE FOR THESE MURDERS AND SHOWS
YOU WHAT LED THIS DEFENDANT TO BE SITTING HERE IN THIS COURTROOM TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MISS CLARK.
MR. DARDEN, ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED?
MR. DARDEN: WELL, THERE'S NO BETTER
TIME THAN RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I?
THE COURT: I JUST WANTED TO KNOW
IF YOU WANTED SOME EXHIBITS BROUGHT UP. BUT IF YOU'RE READY TO GO
--
MR. DARDEN: I'M READY TO GO.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.
PROCEED.
(OPENING ARGUMENT BY MR. DARDEN)
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD EVENING.
MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, THEY ASKED
ME TO DO THE SUMMATION MARCIA CLARK JUST DID FOR YOU, BUT I TOLD THEM,
NO, IT'S TOO LONG. I'M NOT THE KIND OF PERSON WHO LIKES TO TALK THAT
LONG AND MARCIA ISN'T EITHER, BUT SHE HAD TO.
AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU PROBABLY GATHERED FROM HEARING
HER TODAY IS THAT THIS CASE REALLY IS A SIMPLE CASE IN THIS ESSENCE. WHEN
YOU GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, THIS CASE REALLY IS A SIMPLE CASE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS USE THE TOOLS GOD GAVE YOU, THE TOOLS HE GAVE YOU
TO USE OR UTILIZE WHENEVER YOU'RE CONFRONTED WITH A PROBLEM OR AN ISSUE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. AND THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE
YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A COMPLEX SERIES OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND LAW
AND SCIENCE AND ALL OF THAT. NOT REALLY. NOT REALLY.
YOU HAVE TO QUESTION OR WONDER HOW IT IS A LAWYER CAN SUMMARIZE A CASE
IN EIGHT HOURS WHEN PRESENTING THE CASE TOOK EIGHT MONTHS. IT'S A
SIMPLE CASE, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF SMOKE, A LOT OF SMOKE SCREENS, A
LOT OF DIVERSIONS, A LOT OF DETRACTIONS, A LOT OF DISTRACTIONS, AND IN
SOME RESPECT, THERE'S BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO GET YOU TO LOSE FOCUS OF
WHAT THE REAL ISSUES ARE IN THIS CASE. AND THAT TAKES TIME.
IF I COULD GIVE YOU ANY ADVICE AS JURORS, ANY ADVICE AT ALL, I WOULD SAY
TO YOU, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. WHEN YOU GET ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE
AND GO INTO THE JURY ROOM AND AFTER YOU PICK A FOREPERSON, TAKE THAT COMMON
SENSE THAT GOD GAVE YOU, TAKE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION GAVE YOU
AND THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE, GO INTO THAT JURY ROOM, SIT DOWN, SPREAD IT OUT.
AND USING THAT COMMON SENSE, ASK YOURSELF A QUESTION; WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE
SHOW. WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW?
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE SIMPLEST TERMS, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE
IS THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, BLOOD TRAIL FROM BUNDY, BLOOD IN HIS BATHROOM,
BLOOD ON HIS SOCKS. SIMPLE EVIDENCE.
YOU CAN LOOK AT A CHART AND SEE WHAT THE DNA RESULTS ARE. IT REALLY,
REALLY WON'T BE THAT DIFFICULT AND WHEN YOU USE YOUR COMMON SENSE AND GET
DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, PUT ASIDE ALL OF THE DISTRACTIONS AND ALL OF THE
SMOKE THAT'S BEEN BLOWN THROUGHOUT THIS COURTROOM AND IN YOUR DIRECTION.
NOW, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, I WASN'T HERE DURING JURY SELECTION. SO I DIDN'T
GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU AND INTRODUCE MYSELF TO YOU DURING VOIR DIRE,
AND SO YOU WERE SORT OF GIVEN THE DARDEN SHOCK TREATMENT I GUESS.
YOU SAW ME LITERALLY THE FIRST DAY YOU CAME INTO THE COURTROOM THE
FIRST DAY WE BEGAN TAKING EVIDENCE LITERALLY, AND I GOT INVOLVED IN THE
CASE AND WE DIDN'T GET TO TALK A LOT.
WELL, LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU IN THE LIMITED TIME THAT I HAVE. YOU
ARE AN AMAZING GROUP OF PEOPLE. YOU'VE BEEN SEQUESTERED NOW LONGER
THAN ANY JURY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I THINK JUDGE ITO ALLUDED
TO THAT BEFORE.
YOU SPENT MONTHS IN SEQUESTRATION. I GUESS YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO WATCH
YOUR 50 TELEVISION PROGRAMS OR FOOTBALL. MAYBE YOU MISSED THE NBA
SEASON. I DON'T KNOW.
BUT AS YOU SAT THERE IN SEQUESTRATION, THE REST OF US, THESE PEOPLE, WE
ALL GOT ON WITH OUR LIVES. WE WENT HOME EVERY NIGHT, SAW OUR FAMILY
AND OUR FRIENDS. WE CONTINUED THE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE
HAD, AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DO THAT FOR EIGHT MONTHS.
AND ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT IS THAT YOU ARE AN AMAZING GROUP OF PEOPLE,
AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE PAID A VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT
PRICE. YOU HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE. YOU HAVE MADE
A COMMITMENT TO SEE TO IT THAT THIS CASE IS RESOLVED FAIRLY AND CORRECTLY
AND YOU MADE A COMMITMENT TO SEE TO IT THAT THE LAW IS FOLLOWED, THAT THE
POLICE FOLLOWED PROCEDURE AND THE LAW AND THAT THERE IS NO CONVICTION IN
THIS CASE UNLESS THE EVIDENCE IS PROVEN TO YOU, UNLESS HIS GUILT
IS PROVEN TO YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. THAT'S
WHAT THE COMMUNITY SHOULD DO.
A TRIAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, AND SOMETIMES THE TRUTH
IS UNCOVERED OR REVEALED AT THE END OF A LONG ROAD, AT THE END OF A LONG
JOURNEY. AND THIS HAS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY.
WELL, LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU; THAT TODAY -- TONIGHT, THE WHOLE WORLD IS
WATCHING US TONIGHT OR WATCHING ME, AND THEY HAVE LISTENED TO THE EVIDENCE
AND THEY HAVE WATCHED THE WITNESSES TESTIFY HERE ON TELEVISION AND THEY
WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING
TO DO.
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE I SUPPOSE WHO THINK THAT JUSTICE IN THIS CASE WOULD
BE JUST TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AND SAY HE'S NOT GUILTY. SOME PEOPLE
THINK THAT JUSTICE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE JUST TO JUMP TO SOME CONCLUSION,
SOME SILLY CONCLUSION, SOME CONCLUSION NOT BASED ON THE LAW AND FORGET
ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.
SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IS A CELEBRITY,
THAT PERHAPS HE IS SOMEONE ABOVE THE LAW, THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SPECIAL
RULES FOR HIM OR THAT SOMEHOW HE SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY
OTHER DEFENDANT. BUT THAT'S NOT JUSTICE.
AND THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT THINK BECAUSE FUHRMAN IS A RACIST, THAT
WE OUGHT TO CHUCK THE LAW OUT OF THE WINDOW, THROW IT OUT OF THE WINDOW,
PERHAPS IT SHOULDN'T BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE.
WELL, THAT'S WRONG AND THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE, BECAUSE WE DON'T IGNORE
THE LAW JUST BECAUSE OF THE STATUS OF A DEFENDANT, BECAUSE OF WHO HE IS
OR BECAUSE OF WHO HE KNOWS. THAT ISN'T JUSTICE.
YOU'RE HERE TO ENSURE JUSTICE, I'M HERE TO ENSURE JUSTICE AND WE ALL KNOW
THE RULES. AND THE RULES SAY AND THE LAW SAYS THAT HE SHOULD NOT
KILL, THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE, AND THE LAW SAYS
THAT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE AND IF YOU BELIEVE
THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT YOU SHOULD
FIND HIM GUILTY.
YOU HEARD MARCIA CLARK AND YOU'VE HEARD THE EVIDENCE AND YOU'VE SEEN THE
EVIDENCE, AND YOU'RE REASONABLE PEOPLE. AND, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW.
I MEAN, IF WE'RE HONEST WITH OURSELVES, WE KNOW, IF WE ARE. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE
WHAT WE KNOW. BUT WE KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH THAT WE KNOW IS
THAT HE KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. DARDEN: NOW, THIS MAN, THIS
DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, WE BELIEVE THAT, GIVEN THE STATE AND THE QUALITY
OF THE EVIDENCE, IS GUILTY.
AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH VOTING GUILTY IN THIS CASE GIVEN THE STATE
OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE. A VOTE OF GUILT
IN THIS CASE ISN'T A VOTE FOR ANY INDEPENDENT GROUP IN PARTICULAR OR ANY
INDEPENDENT GROUP AT ALL. IT ISN'T A VOTE FOR THE PROSECUTION, FOR
MARCIA AND I. IT CERTAINLY ISN'T A VOTE FOR THE LAPD, AND IT'S NOT
A VOTE AGAINST ANYONE. IT'S NOT A VOTE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.
IT'S NOT A VOTE FOR THE VICTIMS OR THE VICTIMS' FAMILY.
WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT JURY ROOM OPEN-MINDED AND FAIRLY AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY
CONSIDER THIS EVIDENCE AND THEN CAST A BALLOT, A VOTE FOR GUILT OR INNOCENCE
BASED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THIS CASE AND ONLY ON THE
LAW GIVEN TO YOU BY JUDGE ITO, WHEN YOU CAST A VOTE ON THAT BASIS, THEN
YOU'RE VOTING FOR JUSTICE, YOU'RE VOTING FOR FAIRNESS, YOU'RE DOING THE
RIGHT THING UNDER THE LAW. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU
TO DO.
******
YOU
HEARD FROM THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE AND THEY PRESENTED TESTIMONY ABOUT
SLURS, EPITHETS AS THEY CALL THEM, A BUNCH OF NASTY, HATEFUL, LOW-DOWN
LANGUAGE USED BY MARK FUHRMAN. AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO CALL HIM
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IF I CAN HELP IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T DESERVE THAT TITLE.
HE DOESN'T WARRANT THAT KIND OF RESPECT, NOT FROM ME.
BUT THIS ISN'T THE CASE OF MARK FUHRMAN. THIS IS THE CASE OF O.J. SIMPSON.
AND LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU, IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO. AND I DON'T
MEAN TO OFFEND YOU OR DEMEAN YOU, AND I HOPE THAT YOU DON'T FEEL THAT I
AM. BUT THIS IS THE CASE OF O.J. SIMPSON, NOT MARK FUHRMAN.
THE CASE OF MARK FUHRMAN, IF THERE'S TO BE A CASE, THAT'S A CASE FOR ANOTHER
FORUM, NOT NECESSARILY A CASE FOR ANOTHER DAY, BECAUSE TODAY MAY BE THE
DAY. BUT IT IS A CASE FOR ANOTHER FORUM, ANOTHER JURY PERHAPS.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT THIS DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON, AND THE "M" WORD, MURDER;
NOT ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN AND THE "N" WORD. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACT OF HIS MISSTATEMENTS OR LIES
OR UNTRUTHS, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO TERM IT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER
THAT. THAT'S THE LAW. YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING FUHRMAN
SAID ON THE WITNESS STAND BECAUSE THAT'S EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
AND I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER IT. I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE.
SO DON'T THINK THAT I'M SAYING, HEY, JUST OVERLOOK IT, JUST OVERLOOK WHAT
HE SAID, JUST OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT HE LIED ABOUT HAVING USED THAT SLUR
IN THE PAST 10 YEARS.
BUT I AM ASKING YOU TO PUT IT IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. YOU DECIDE
WHAT IT'S WORTH. YOU DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS. IF IT HELPS YOU
IN ASSESSING HIS CREDIBILITY -- AND IT SHOULD, OR HIS LACK OF CREDIBILITY,
I DON'T KNOW -- THEN YOU USE IT.
BUT PLEASE JUST REMEMBER, FUHRMAN ISN'T THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE AND
HIS USE OF THAT WORD IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE. AND YOU
HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT
AS A LAWYER FOR THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT APPARENTLY WAS
A VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT EVENT FOR THE DEFENSE.
*****
[DARDEN DISCUSSES EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE BY O.J. AGAINST NICOLE]
THEY
WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE CONSPIRED AGAINST O.J. SIMPSON.
NICOLE SAYS THEY HAD BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND NEVER DID ANYTHING
TO HIM. I DON'T KNOW.
WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT TAKE? IF
THEY'D BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE THAT NIGHT, THEN THAT NIGHT WAS
THE NINTH TIME. NO ONE HAD EVER DONE ANYTHING TO HIM BEFORE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS.
BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK? DO YOU THINK IT'S TIME TO THINK THAT PERHAPS
THIS TIME, WE OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING? EIGHT IS ENOUGH. IF EIGHT
ISN'T ENOUGH, NINE -- NINE IS CERTAINLY ENOUGH.
NICOLE SAID IT WITH HER OWN MOUTH BACK THEN, "HE IS GOING TO KILL ME, HE
IS GOING TO KILL ME." AND SURE ENOUGH, HE HAS, LONG AFTER SHE
MAKES THESE SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS TO OFFICER EDWARDS, AFTER SHE COMPLAINS
THEY HAVE BEEN OUT THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND THEY'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING
TO HIM, THIS MAN, THE DEFENDANT, SEE.
AND WE'RE SEEING THE DEFENDANT AT HOME AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW. WE'RE
SEEING THE PRIVATE SIDE OF HIM, THE PRIVATE SIDE I TOLD YOU I'D SHOW YOU.
HE COMES OUT OF HIS HOUSE AND HE'S WEARING A BATHROBE 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE
MORNING. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. AND HE SPEAKS TO OFFICER EDWARDS.
NOW, WHEN HE SPEAKS TO OFFICER EDWARDS, DOES HE ASK HIM, "HOW'S MY
WIFE"? NO. DOES HE SAY, "I HOPE I DIDN'T HURT HER TOO BADLY"?
NO.
WHAT DOES HE SAY? WHAT DOES HE DO? HE HUMILIATES HER.
REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID. HE SAID, "I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN MY BED
ANYMORE. I GOT TWO OTHER WOMEN. I DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN
MY BED ANYMORE."
THAT WAS HIS RESPONSE. AND THIS WAS NICOLE, HIS WIFE. SHE HAD
BEEN HIS WIFE FOUR YEARS.
YOU RECALL OFFICER EDWARDS' TESTIMONY, THAT THIS DEFENDANT, HE WAS ANGRY,
HE WAS MAD, HE WAS FIT TO BE TIED. AND HE WAS YELLING AT OFFICER
EDWARDS.
AND THE DEFENDANT WAS ON ONE SIDE OF THE GATE. HE WAS ON THE ROCKINGHAM
SIDE ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. OFFICER EDWARDS WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE GATE. AND THERE THEY ARE SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER ON THE OPPOSITE
SIDE OF THE GATE, AND THE DEFENDANT IS YELLING THESE THINGS TO OFFICER
EDWARDS ABOUT HIS WIFE, SAYING THESE KINDS OF THINGS ABOUT HIS WIFE TO
OFFICER EDWARDS WHO IS A STRANGER.
AND OFFICER EDWARDS SAID TO THE DEFENDANT, "YOUR WIFE HAS BEEN BATTERED.
SHE IS INJURED. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ARREST YOU."
WELL, THAT JUST SET THE DEFENDANT OFF AGAIN, JUST SET HIM OFF.
LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. THE FUSE IS BURNING. THE FUSE
IS BURNING, FOLKS. THE FUSE IS BURNING. AND AT SOME POINT,
THIS FUSE IS GOING TO RUN OUT AND IT IS GOING TO PLAY OUT. IT IS
GOING TO GET SO SHORT AND SO CLOSE TO THE BOMB THAT AT SOME POINT, THIS
BOMB IS GOING TO EXPLODE.
AND WHAT DOES THE DEFENDANT SAY WHEN OFFICER EDWARDS SAYS TO HIM, "I'M
GOING TO HAVE TO ARREST YOU, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE YOU TO JAIL"? WHAT
DOES THE DEFENDANT SAY?
HE SAYS THE SAME THING NICOLE SAID IN A SENSE. HE SAYS TO OFFICER
EDWARDS -- THIS IS WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID. YOU RECALL THIS TESTIMONY.
OFFICER EDWARDS HEARD THE DEFENDANT SAY, "YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE EIGHT TIMES
BEFORE, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS?"
NOW, LET'S JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT. IF NOTHING ELSE, WE
NOW HAVE THE CONFIRMATION THAT WE NEED. THAT IS THE CONFIRMATION
OF THE FACT THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE.
BUT WHAT IS THIS PART ABOUT, "AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS"?
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? "NOW, YOU ARE GOING
TO ARREST ME FOR THIS, BUT YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE."
AND I DON'T KNOW. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT THAT MEANS. YOU CAN INTERPRET WHAT HE
SAYS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST TAKE IT LITERALLY. YOU DECIDE
WHAT THAT MEANS. IT COULD MEAN A COUPLE THINGS.
AND AFTER HE SAID THAT AND AFTER HE COMPLAINED TO OFFICER EDWARDS ABOUT
THE FACT HE WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED FOR BEATING HIS WIFE, HE SAYS TO OFFICER
EDWARDS, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER. IT IS A FAMILY MATTER AND NOTHING
MORE."
WELL, WIFE BEATING IS NOT JUST A FAMILY MATTER, IS IT? I MEAN, IS
THIS SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO TAKE SERIOUSLY?
THAT'S ONE THING ABOUT SPOUSAL ABUSE. YOU KNOW, IT HAPPENS AND IT ALWAYS
HAPPENS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY; NOBODY KNOWS
WHAT GOES ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
AND WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WENT ON BEHIND THE GATES OF THIS MAN'S
ESTATE AT ROCKINGHAM, BUT WE DO KNOW THIS; THAT WHATEVER IT WAS, WHATEVER
WENT ON THERE HAD GONE ON EIGHT TIMES PRIOR TO THIS TIME, RIGHT?
WE KNOW THAT.
BUT HE SAYS IT'S A FAMILY MATTER. HE MINIMIZES WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THIS WOMAN. HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHAT HE DID
TO HER.
WELL, OFFICER EDWARDS GIVES HIM THE STAR TREATMENT. HE TELLS
HIM, "HEY, I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU TO JAIL. GO BACK IN THE HOUSE AND
GET DRESSED."
OFFICER EDWARDS DID NOT INSIST ON ARRESTING HIM RIGHT THEN AND THERE.
HE LET HIM GO IN THE HOUSE ALONE TO GET DRESSED. APPARENTLY THAT'S
WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID, BECAUSE A FEW MINUTES LATER, HE CAME BACK OUT YELLING
AND COMPLAINING AND MOANING, COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING ARRESTED, SAYING MORE
DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT HIS WIFE IN FRONT OF THIS STRANGER.
WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, OFFICER EDWARDS HAD SENT FOR A SECOND CAR, SECOND
POLICE VEHICLE, A TRANSPORT VEHICLE BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT NICOLE
TO THE STATION IN ONE CAR AND THEY WERE GOING TO ARREST THIS MAN AND TAKE
HIM TO THE STATION IN ANOTHER CAR. AND AS THAT SECOND POLICE CAR
ARRIVED AND AS OFFICER EDWARDS TURNED HIS ATTENTION TOWARD THAT SECOND
POLICE CAR, THAT MEANT THAT HE TURNED HIS ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT.
AND WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT DO?
REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY, REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED? I KNOW IT'S BEEN
A LONG TIME. WHAT DID HE DO? JUMPED IN THE CAR AND HE RAN.
REMEMBER THAT? HE WENT OUT THE OTHER GATE IN THE BENTLEY. HE RAN.
HE DROVE AWAY. HE GOT AWAY. HE DIDN'T GET ARRESTED. HE
AVOIDED RESPONSIBILITY THAT DAY FOR HAVING DONE WHAT HE DID TO NICOLE.
"RESPONSIBILITY" IS AN IMPORTANT WORD, ONE OF THE WORDS WE TEACH
OUR -- I KNOW I TEACH MY KIDS ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY. YOU KNOW, YOU
HAVE TO TELL THEM -- YOU HAVE TO LET YOUR KIDS KNOW, HEY, YOU DO AN ACT,
YOU'VE GOT TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, OKAY. YOU'VE GOT TO ACCEPT THE
CONSEQUENCES.
WELL, HE DIDN'T ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES THAT DAY. HE DIDN'T ACCEPT
RESPONSIBILITY. HE JUMPED IN THAT BENTLEY, HE DROVE AWAY, HE SNUCK
OFF. HE AVOIDED RESPONSIBILITY. HE GOT AWAY FROM THE POLICE.
THEY TRIED TO CATCH HIM. THEY COULDN'T. WELL, WE CAUGHT HIM THIS
TIME.
WELL, AFTER THE DEFENDANT GOT AWAY, EDWARDS ASKED NICOLE TO GO DOWN TO
PARKER CENTER, TO COME FROM ROCKINGHAM ALL THE WAY DOWNTOWN TO PARKER CENTER
SO HE COULD HAVE SOME PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF HER INJURIES, BUT
SHE REFUSED. REMEMBER WHAT SHE SAID? SHE SAID, "NO. I
JUST WANT MY CHILDREN. I WANT TO STAY HERE WITH MY CHILDREN.
I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE MY CHILDREN."
AND SHE WAS BEATEN AND SHE WAS BRUISED AND SHE WAS HURT. SHE STILL
WANTED TO STAY WITH HER KIDS. SHE WANTED TO BE WITH HER KIDS.
AND EDWARDS SAID, "WELL, WILL YOU DO THIS FOR US? WILL YOU JUST GO
DOWN TO WEST L.A. STATION AND LET US PHOTOGRAPH YOUR INJURIES? IT
ONLY TAKES A FEW MINUTES."
IT SEEMS AS IF SHE WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HER KIDS THAN SHE WAS
DOING ANYTHING TO THE DEFENDANT. SHE DIDN'T -- SHE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
DOCUMENTING HER OWN INJURIES AT THAT TIME. SHE JUST WANTED TO BE
WITH HER KIDS.
BUT EDWARDS TOOK HER TO WEST L.A. STATION AND HE TOOK SOME POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS
OF HER. REMEMBER THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS? BACK IN FEBRUARY I THINK IT WAS,
I THINK I MARKED THOSE PEOPLE'S 4 AND 5.
I WANT YOU TO GO BACK FOR A MOMENT WITH ME EIGHT MONTHS AGO. TAKE
A LOOK AT THESE INJURIES. KEEP IN MIND, THESE ARE POLAROIDS AND THEY'RE
EIGHT YEARS OLD. LOOK AT THESE INJURIES. JUST LOOK AT WHAT
YOU CAN SEE, WHICH ISN'T MUCH AT THIS POINT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: SEE THE SMALL CUT
TO THE RIGHT SIDE FROM WHERE WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER UPPER LIP?
LOOK AT THE SWOLLEN LEFT CHEEK. LOOK AT THE SCAR, THE SCRATCH, THE
BRUISE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER FOREHEAD. YOU SEE THAT?
YOU'VE SEEN OTHER PICTURES OF HER. YOU SAW A PICTURE OF HER WHEN
SHE WAS ALIVE AND SMILING. REMEMBER THAT PICTURE? I HAVE TO FIND
IT FOR YOU TOMORROW.
LOOK AT THAT PICTURE, THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW. WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE ONE OF HER SMILING, YOU LOOK AT THOSE TWO PICTURES, YOU THINK
IT HELPS YOU DISCERN JUST HOW BADLY BRUISED SHE WAS.
AT SOME POINT, HE TOOK HER BACK HOME TO BE WITH HER KIDS. THE DEFENDANT,
WELL, THEY DIDN'T CATCH HIM THAT NIGHT. AND THE NEXT DAY, NICOLE
SPOKE TO RON SHIPP AND THE NEXT DAY AS WELL, THE DEFENDANT SPOKE TO DETECTIVE
FARRELL.
REMEMBER DETECTIVE FARRELL, THE DETECTIVE INVESTIGATING THIS CASE?
HE CALLED DETECTIVE FARRELL ON THE PHONE AND APOLOGIZED FOR THE INCIDENT
AND EXPRESSED TO DETECTIVE FARRELL HIS DISMAY AT THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES.
YOU REMEMBER THAT. HE CALLED FARRELL AND TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T REALIZE
SHE HAD BEEN INJURED THAT MUCH.
YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THE FULL EXTENT OF HER INJURIES AT THE TIME? I
DON'T KNOW. YOU TELL ME. THAT'S A POLAROID. THIS IS PEOPLE'S
29. SHE DOESN'T QUITE LOOK LIKE THAT IN ANY OTHER PHOTOGRAPH YOU'VE
SEEN IN THIS CASE, DOES SHE?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: THE FUSE WAS BURNING,
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. HE HAD INJURED HER, HE HAD HARMED HER AND HE
HAD BEATEN HER, AND HE DID NOT FULLY REALIZE THE EXTENT OF HIS OWN ANGER,
THE EXTENT OF HIS OWN RAGE AT THAT POINT. HE HAD HURT HER IN WAYS
THAT HE APPARENTLY HIMSELF DIDN'T FULLY, FULLY COMPREHEND AT THE
TIME.
AND LATER ON, HE WROTE HER SOME LETTERS. HE WAS TRYING TO GET BACK ON HER
GOOD SIDE.
NOW, YOU MAY SEE THESE AS LETTERS OF APOLOGY. WE SAY THESE ARE LETTERS
OF MANIPULATION. WHAT IS HE REALLY ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? YOU'LL
HAVE THE ORIGINAL LETTERS IN THE JURY ROOM.
IN THE BEGINNING, HE EXPRESSES TO HER HOW SORRY HE IS. ACTUALLY,
I DON'T KNOW. DOES HE SAY HE'S SORRY? DOES HE SAY HE WAS WRONG?
HE SAYS HE WAS WRONG FOR HURTING HER AND THAT THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT
HE DID, AND THEN HE GOES ON TO WRITE SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT HERE.
HE'S THINKING AND TRYING TO REALIZE HOW HE GOT SO CRAZY. HE HAD SUCH
EMOTIONAL FEELINGS TOWARDS HER THAT WAS HIGH AS ANY HE EVER FELT, AND IT
MUST BE BECAUSE OF THOSE FEELINGS THAT HE REACTED SO EMOTIONALLY.
WITH ALL OF THAT EMOTION RUNNING IN HIM, HE SAYS HE DIDN'T REACT TOO WELL.
IT'S JUST AS I SAID A MOMENT BEFORE. HE DOESN'T FULLY REALIZE OR
HE DIDN'T IN 1989 JUST HOW CRAZY HE GOT, HE COULD GET, HOW EMOTIONAL HE
COULD GET, HOW PASSIONATE HE COULD GET.
NOW, WHAT SET THIS WHOLE THING OFF? WHAT HAPPENED IN 1989 THAT CAUSED
HIM TO GET TO THE POINT THAT HE BEAT THIS WOMAN UP?
WELL, RON SHIPP TESTIFIED ABOUT HIS CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE.
NOW, IF YOU REFLECT BACK FOR A MOMENT ON THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT TO EDWARDS,
THAT HE HAD TWO WOMEN, RIGHT, WHAT DOES SHIPP TELL YOU ABOUT HIS CONVERSATION
WITH NICOLE?
SHE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE OTHER TWO WOMEN. SHE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH
HIM. SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE WITH HIM. THAT'S WHAT LED TO THIS
WHOLE THING IN 1989, HIS PASSION, HIS EMOTION. AND WHEN THAT PASSION
AND THAT EMOTION GETS OUT OF CONTROL -- AND HE WAS OUT OF CONTROL IN 1989
-- AND WHEN THAT FUSE STARTS BURNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND IT STARTS
GETTING SHORTER AND SHORTER, SETS HIM OFF.
HE WAS SET OFF THAT DAY IN 1989. LOOK AT THIS LETTER. YOU'LL
HAVE THIS LETTER IN THE JURY ROOM, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT HE CAN'T ALWAYS
CONTROL THE PASSION AND ANGER AND EMOTION HIMSELF. SOMETHING ABOUT
THIS WOMAN, THIS WOMAN, SHE DOES SOMETHING TO THIS MAN THAT CAUSES HIM
TO LOSE CONTROL.
AND HE LOST CONTROL. HE LOST CONTROL OF HER BECAUSE IN 1992, SHE
MOVED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, IN JANUARY OF 1992 AS I RECALL. AND THE NEXT
MONTH, I THINK IT'S FEBRUARY -- I DON'T KNOW.
MAYBE I SHOULD PULL OUT THAT TIME LINE BOARD, JOHN, BECAUSE IN 1992, IN
FEBRUARY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE. WELL, YOU KNOW
WHEN A WOMAN MOVES OUT OF THE HOUSE AND FILES FOR DIVORCE, I HAVE LEARNED
IT MEANS SHE DOESN'T WANT YOU ANYMORE. IT MEANS THAT THERE'S SOMETHING
WRONG IN THE RELATIONSHIP AND IT MEANS I THINK THAT PERHAPS IF YOU
ARE THE OTHER PARTY TO THAT MARRIAGE, THAT PERHAPS YOU SHOULD BE SEEKING
--
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. DARDEN: -- COMPANIONSHIP ELSEWHERE.
NOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN THIS CASE. SHE LEFT. SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE,
AND HE COULDN'T TAKE IT.
YOU HEARD FROM KATHRYN BOWE AND HER HUSBAND, MR. COLBY. REMEMBER
MR. COLBY? THEY LIVED AT THE CORNER ON GRETNA GREEN.
IN 1992, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS APRIL 28TH AROUND 11:00 P.M. THAT NIGHT --
IT'S HERE ON THE CHART -- THEY LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW AND THEY SAW A FIGURE,
A MAN, A MAN IN THE DARK. IN THE DARKNESS, THEY SAW A MAN, AND THE
MAN WAS OUT ON THE SIDEWALK AND HE WAS LOOKING AROUND AND HE WAS PACING
A LITTLE BIT UP AND DOWN THE SIDEWALK. HE WAS PACING, WALKING UP
AND DOWN ON THE SIDEWALK.
KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN PEOPLE PACE. I DO IT A LOT. BUT I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THIS PERSON WAS DOING PACING OUT THERE ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT THEY
THOUGHT THIS WAS UNUSUAL AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. WAS IT A SUNDAY NIGHT?
I THINK IT WAS A SUNDAY NIGHT.
AND THEY WATCHED THIS PERSON AND THEY WATCHED THIS PERSON, THIS MAN
-- BY THE WAY, THIS MAN WAS ABOUT SIX FEET, SIX FOOT TWO, 200 POUNDS, AFRICAN
AMERICAN. THEY WATCHED THIS MAN IN THE DARK IN THE NIGHT PACING UP
AND DOWN THE SIDEWALK, AND THEN THEY SAW THAT MAN WALK DOWN THE SIDEWALK,
UP THE DRIVEWAY AND PEER THROUGH THE WINDOW OF NICOLE BROWN'S HOUSE ON
GRETNA GREEN. REMEMBER THAT TESTIMONY?
HE DIDN'T HANDLE THAT DIVORCE -- THE FILING OF THAT DIVORCE TOO WELL NOW,
DID HE?
NOW, THEY MAY SAY, OH, WELL, HE -- YOU KNOW, HE LOOKED THROUGH A WINDOW.
BIG DEAL.
THIS IS MORE THAN JUST LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW. THIS IS STALKING.
WHEN PEOPLE COME UP TO YOUR WINDOW AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND THEY PEEK
THROUGH IT AND THEY LOOK THROUGH IT AND THEY WATCH YOU, THERE'S SOMETHING
WRONG HERE. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE. THIS IS OBSESSIVE
CONDUCT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THIS IS OBSESSIVE CONDUCT. THIS IS
STALKING.
AND THE COLBY'S SAW THIS MAN, THEY SAW HIM DO THAT, THEY SAW HIM WALK BACK
ON THE SIDEWALK, AND THEY BECAME SO CONCERNED ABOUT HIM THAT THEY TELEPHONED
THE POLICE. THEY CALLED THE POLICE. AND AFTER THEY CALLED THE
POLICE, THEY CONTINUED TO WATCH THROUGH THIS WINDOW TO WATCH THIS MAN.
THEY COULDN'T TELL WHO THE MAN WAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BUT AFTER A FEW
MOMENTS, THEY COULD.
WHO WAS THAT MAN? HIM. IT WAS THE DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON,
STALKING NICOLE. IT'S ALREADY APRIL, APRIL OF 1992.
LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. BY APRIL OF 1992, THIS WOMAN KNEW SHE
WAS GOING TO DIE. SHE TOLD EDWARDS THAT HE WAS GOING TO KILL HER.
SHE TOLD HIM THAT BACK IN 1989, AND APPARENTLY SHE BELIEVED THAT.
YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM A D.A. INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE, MY INVESTIGATOR
FROM MY OFFICE, MIKE STEVENS, AND MR. STEVENS TESTIFIED THAT IN DECEMBER
OF 1994 AND WITH THE PERMISSION OF A JUDGE, HE SAID THAT HE WENT TO A BANK
AND HE DRILLED A HOLE IN A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX. YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?
AND IT WAS IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX THAT HE FOUND A LETTER THAT WE SHOWED
YOU A MOMENT AGO.
REMEMBER THAT, THE LETTER WHERE THE DEFENDANT SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW
HE GOT SO CRAZY? THEY FOUND THAT LETTER AND THEY FOUND TWO OTHER LETTERS
FROM THE DEFENDANT, FROM O.J. SIMPSON, TO NICOLE, ATTEMPTING TO GET BACK
WITH HER, ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE HER TO TAKE HIM BACK, ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE
HER THAT THINGS WOULD BE BETTER THE NEXT TIME.
THEY FOUND THOSE LETTERS IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX AND THEY FOUND SOMETHING
ELSE. THEY FOUND A WILL. THEY FOUND A WILL, THIS WOMAN'S WILL.
IT HAD BEEN EXECUTED DURING 1990, WHICH MEANS SHE MUST HAVE BEEN ABOUT
30 YEARS OLD. YOU KNOW MANY PEOPLE AT THE AGE OF 30 WHO EXECUTE WILLS?
BUT THEY FIND HER WILL, HIS LETTERS AND SOMETHING ELSE.
DO YOU HAVE THAT?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: THERE WAS SOME PHOTOGRAPHS,
SOME PHOTOGRAPHS FROM BACK IN 1989, BECAUSE AFTER HE BEAT HER IN 1989,
SHE CALLED HER SISTER, DENISE, AND DENISE CAME OVER AND SHE SHOWED DENISE
THE INJURIES THIS MAN INFLICTED ON HER AND SHE ASKED DENISE TO TAKE PICTURES
OF THOSE INJURIES, AND SHE PUT THOSE PICTURES IN THAT SAFE DEPOSIT BOX
ALONG WITH HER WILL, ALONG WITH HER LETTERS.
OKAY. SHE PUT THOSE THINGS THERE FOR A REASON. I MEAN, THEY'RE
JUST LETTERS AND THEY'RE JUST PICTURES. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE
A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, YOU'D THINK THAT THE THINGS YOU PUT IN THAT BOX ARE
THE THINGS THAT YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO INTERPRET THAT CONDUCT. YOU CAN
INTERPRET IT ANY WAY YOU WANT. BUT LET ME SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU
SHOULD INTERPRET IT THIS WAY. SHE IS LEAVING YOU A ROAD MAP TO LET
YOU KNOW WHO IT IS WHO WILL EVENTUALLY KILL HER. SHE KNEW IN 1989.
SHE KNEW IT AND SHE WANTS YOU TO KNOW IT. SHE KNEW WHO WAS GOING
TO DO IT TO HER, BUT SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN. BUT WHENEVER THAT EVENT
ACTUALLY CAME, SHE WANTED YOU TO KNOW WHO DID IT.
THINK ABOUT THAT. JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. A WILL, PHOTOGRAPHS
OF HER BEING BEATEN. OKAY. YOU TELL ME.
*******
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
9:15 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103
HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
CLOSING ARGUMENT (RESUMED)
BY MR. DARDEN:
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
MR. DARDEN: I HOPE EVERYBODY --
I'M SORRY.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH, WOULD YOU JUST BRIEFLY SHOW THAT TO COUNSEL, IF YOU CAN.
I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A GOOD SLEEP LAST NIGHT. IT WAS A LONG DAY YESTERDAY,
AND I THANK YOU.
LET ME THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR HEARING ME AGAIN THIS MORNING. I
DON'T EXPECT TO TAKE UP THE ENTIRE MORNING.
IN FACT, WITH ANY LUCK, I WON'T TAKE UP MORE THAN HALF OF IT, BUT WE WILL
HAVE TO SEE.
WELL, YOU WILL RECALL WHERE WE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY. I WAS TELLING
YOU ABOUT THIS DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP, THIS MAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE
BROWN, AND I TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS A SIMMERING RELATIONSHIP. YOU KNOW,
IT WAS -- IT WAS A SLOW BURN. IT WAS A SLOW BURN.
AND I DESCRIBED FOR YOU AND DISCUSSED WITH YOU SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT
YOU HEARD IN THIS CASE, TESTIMONY YOU HEARD FROM WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR
RELATIONSHIP, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE 1985 INCIDENT INVOLVING THE BASEBALL
BAT AND THE MERCEDES BENZ.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE -- THE 1989 INCIDENT AND THE FACT THAT THE POLICE HAD
BEEN THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE. BOTH THE DEFENDANT HERE AND
NICOLE BROWN BOTH -- BOTH ADMITTED THAT, SO I GUESS IT IS TRUE, RIGHT?
WE TALKED ABOUT THE INCIDENT AT THE RED ONION WHEN THE DEFENDANT GRABBED
NICOLE BY THE CROUCH IN FRONT OF A BAR FULL OF STRANGERS AND HUMILIATED
HER. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WE TALKED ABOUT HIS ADMISSION TO SHIPP ABOUT HIS JEALOUSY AFTER THE 1985
INCIDENT.
WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD FROM DENISE BROWN. YOU
REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY FROM DENISE BROWN WHEN SHE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF
THE -- THE REALLY, REALLY NASTY THINGS HE WOULD SAY TO NICOLE?
AS YOU MAY RECALL, DENISE, DENISE BROWN, NICOLE'S SISTER, TESTIFIED THAT
DURING THE TIME THAT SHE WAS PREGNANT THE DEFENDANT WOULD CALL HER NAMES.
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY? HE WOULD CALLER A FAT PIG AND HE WOULD
CALL HER A FAT PIG IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SHOULD -- YOU SHOULD EXTRACT FROM THAT. I MEAN,
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING?
I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD SUGGEST, HOWEVER, THAT THAT IS SOME INDICATION
OF HOW HE REALLY FELT ABOUT HER.
YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU GET IN A RELATIONSHIP, PEOPLE GET IN A RELATIONSHIP,
AND YOU HAVE ONE -- ONE HALF OF THE RELATIONSHIP WHO IS DOMINANT
AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER HALF WHO IS SOMEWHAT PASSIVE, AND THE DOMINANT HALF
DOMINATES THE OTHER HALF AND WHAT -- WHAT EFFECT DO YOU SPOUSE THIS WOULD
HAVE ON NICOLE, THAT IS, BEING CALLED A FAT PIG BY HER HUSBAND WHILE SHE
IS PREGNANT? WHAT AFFECT WOULD THAT HAVE ON HERSELF ESTEEM.
BECAUSE YOU ARE PROBABLY WONDERING, WELL, HEY, IF HE DID ALL OF THESE THINGS
TO HER, IF HE SAID ALL OF THESE THINGS TO HER, WHY DID SHE STAY?
WELL, THERE IS OLD SONG AND THE WORDS USED TO GO THAT -- OH, I THINK IT
WAS THE DRAMATICS, I CAN'T REALLY RECALL, BUT THERE WAS A COUPLE OF LINES
IN THE SONG WHERE THEY SAID THE STRONG GIVE UP AND MOVE ON AND THE WEAK
GIVE UP AND STAY.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU BADGER A PERSON LONG ENOUGH, IF YOU BEAT THEM DOWN LONG
ENOUGH, IF YOU WEAR THEM DOWN LONG ENOUGH, PRETTY SOON YOU STRIP THEM OF
THEIR DIGNITY THEIR SELF ESTEEM, AND THEY ARE WEAK AND THEY ARE SUBMISSIVE
AND THEY CAN'T GO; THEY CAN'T STAY.
YOU KNOW HOW THAT IS. EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW THAT IS. WE'VE ALL
BEEN IN BAD RELATIONSHIPS BEFORE. YOU HAVE FRIEND, YOU SEE THEM IN
THESE BAD RELATIONSHIPS. WHY? WHY DO THEY SAY? WHY DO
THEY STAY?
USUALLY THEY FEEL THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. THEY DON'T KNOW THAT
THEY HAVE A CHOICE. THEY FORGOT THAT THEY HAD A CHOICE. AND
IN THEIR MINDS THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
SHE IS A FAT PIG.
BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY AND WE TALKED ABOUT JUSTICE AND WE TALKED
ABOUT WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS ABOUT AND I POINTED THE DEFENDANT
OUT TO YOU AND I TOLD YOU HE KILLED HER AND YOU'VE HEARD THE EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE.
HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN. O.J. SIMPSON IS A MURDERER. THAT IS
WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES. THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES.
THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
*******
AND I --
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT TRANSPIRE AFTER MAY 22ND, 1994, YOU
GET THE SENSE, DON'T YOU, THAT HE FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE? IT IS OVER.
IT IS OVER. SHE CAN'T BE BOUGHT. YOU CAN GIVE ME THIS EXPENSIVE
GIFT IF YOU WANT TO, THAT IS FINE, BUT I'M NOT STAYING IN THIS RELATIONSHIP,
TAKE IT BACK, AND SHE GAVE IT BACK TO HIM.
AND THE DEFENSE WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK THAT -- THAT THIS WAS A -- BUT
THERE IS NO DIG DEAL TO THIS BREAK-UP, THAT NICOLE BROWN WAS UPSET, THAT
HE WASN'T UPSET ABOUT IT, BUT WAS HE?
CHRISTIAN REICHARDT TESTIFIED FROM THE WITNESS STAND FOR THE DEFENSE AND
HE TOLD YOU THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN DEPRESSED DURING THE WEEKS LEADING
UP TO THE MURDER ALSO. HE HAD BEEN DEPRESSED BECAUSE OF HIS FAILING
RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE. HE WAS DEPRESSED BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T MAKE
UP HER MIND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE WANTED TO STAY IN THE RELATIONSHIP.
YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY? HE WAS DEPRESSED ABOUT THAT. BUT
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PERHAPS HIS DEPRESSION TURNED TO ANGER.
DO YOU HAVE THE IRS LETTER?
IN THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED -- AND WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED
BETWEEN THEM IN THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED, BUT WE KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT
THERE WAS A LETTER THAT HE WROTE TO HER. WE ASSUME THAT HE WROTE
IT BECAUSE HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THE BACK.
AND THIS LETTER HAS BEEN MARKED AS EVIDENCE AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH WILL GET
THE EXHIBIT NUMBER. THE ACTUAL LETTER HAS BEEN MARKED AS EVIDENCE,
AND THE LETTER IS DATED JUNE 6TH, AND IT IS SIGNED O.J., O.J. SIMPSON,
AND IN THE LETTER -- NOW REMEMBER THIS IS -- THERE ARE NO HARD FEELINGS
HERE IF YOU BELIEVE THE DEFENSE CASE.
AND THIS LETTER BEGINS:
"ON THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCES
I'M COMPELLED TO PUT YOU ON WRITTEN NOTICE THAT DO YOU NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION
TO USE MY ADDRESS AT ROCKINGHAM AS YOUR RESIDENCE OR MAILING ADDRESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INFORMATION AND TAX RETURNS FILED
WITH ANY TAXING ENTITY."
WELL WHAT IS THIS? WHAT DOES THIS LETTER MEAN? HOW IS THIS
LETTER HELPFUL TO YOU? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE BREAK UP WITH SOMEONE
AND THEN SEND THEM A LETTER A FEW DAYS LATER OR TWO WEEKS LATER IN LEGALESE?
AND WHAT ARE THE CHANGES IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE IS REFERRING TO?
THE CHANGE IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES IS THAT SHE HAS DECIDED THAT SHE DOES
NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH HIM ANY MORE AND NOW HE IS OUT TO HURT HER, HE IS
GOING TO HURT HER.
THIS LETTER IS PEOPLE'S 25, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. DARDEN: DID NICOLE
HAVE SOME KIND OF TAX PROBLEM? LOOKS LIKE IT. IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH
HE SAYS:
"I CANNOT TAKE PART IN ANY COURSE OF ACTION BY YOU THAT MIGHT BE MISLEADING
TO THE IRS OR THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD."
WHAT IS HE SUGGESTING TO HER? HOW SHOULD SHE RECEIVE THIS LETTER?
AND LOOK AT THE CARBON COPY.
MR. COCHRAN ASKED SOMEONE ON THE WITNESS STAND IF THEY KNEW THAT MARVIN
GOODFRIEND WAS HIS ACCOUNTANT, AS I RECALL. WE'VE HEARD THAT LEROY
TAFT IS HIS LAWYER. A CARBON COPY TO HIS LAWYER AND HIS ACCOUNTANT.
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN AMENABLE BREAK-UP?
NO HARD FEELINGS? THIS IS CONTROL. THIS IS A SUBTLE THREAT.
AND IF
YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, FINE. THE DEFENSE DISAGREES WITH ME, THAT IS
FINE AS WELL.
BUT LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. WHEN THE DEFENSE BEGAN THE DEFENSE
CASE -- WELL, NOT THE DEFENSE CASE, BUT WHEN MR. COCHRAN DID HIS OPENING
STATEMENT, HE TOLD YOU ABOUT A WITNESS HE INTENDED TO CALL, AND THIS WITNESS
SEEMED TO BE A PRETTY IMPORTANT WITNESS AND WOULD SEEM TO BE, GIVEN THE
EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE HEARD IN THIS CASE.
HE TOLD YOU ABOUT A WOMAN NAMED DR. LENORE WALKER AND HE SAID TO
YOU AT PAGE 11783 THAT:
"THERE IS AN EXPERT IN THE U.S. WHOSE NAME IS DR. LENORE WALKER AND THAT
SHE IS BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE NO. 1 EXPERT IN AMERICA ON THE FIELD OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE."
*****
SO
WHERE IS DR. WALKER TO COME HERE TO TESTIFY, TO TAKE -- TO TAKE THE WITNESS
STAND, TO SIT IN THE BLUE CHAIR AND TELL YOU THAT NONE OF THIS IS IMPORTANT,
THAT EVERYTHING I'VE TOLD YOU FOR THE LAST THREE HOURS IS INSIGNIFICANT
AND UNIMPORTANT? WHERE IS SHE TO TELL YOU THAT HE DOES NOT SUFFER
FROM SOME ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER?
SHE AIN'T HERE.
AND HAD SHE COME HERE AND EXPRESSED AN OPINION THAT THIS WAS UNIMPORTANT,
WE WOULD HAVE CROSS-EXAMINED HER, BUT THEY CAN'T TOUCH THIS. THEY
CAN'T TOUCH THIS.
*********
AND
SO I THINK WE HAVE COME FULL CIRCLE AT THIS POINT. WE HAVE SHOWN
YOU THAT HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO KILL. WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE
HAD THE MOTIVE, THAT HE HAD A MOTIVE TO KILL. WE HAVE SHOWN YOU IN
THIS TRIAL THAT HE WAS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF KILLING. WE HAVE SHOWN
YOU THAT HE HAD A REASON TO KILL. WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT HE WOULD
HAVE KILLED, COULD HAVE KILLED AND DID KILL THESE TWO PEOPLE.
HE IS A MURDERER. HE WAS ALSO ONE HELL OF A GREAT FOOTBALL PLAYER,
BUT HE IS STILL A MURDERER.
AND SO WE HAVE COME FULL CIRCLE.
[DARDEN ATTEMPTS TO REBUT DEFENSE CASE]
THERE WAS A LOT
OF MINUTIA IN THIS CASE AND YOU KNOW IT WAS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT
DOWN. THE DEFENSE GOT LOST IN MINUTIA IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE
YOU AND TO RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT.
WELL, LET ME EXPLAIN JUSTICE TO YOU THIS WAY AND THEN I WILL SIT DOWN AND
I WILL BE QUIET.
THE PEOPLE PUT ON THEIR CASE, THE DEFENSE PUT ON THEIR CASE, AND I ASSERT
THAT THE DEFENSE CASE IS A BUNCH OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS, ALL ABOUT DISTRACTING
YOU FROM THE REAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
SO IMAGINE THE SMOKE AND IMAGINE A BURNING HOUSE. IMAGINE THAT YOU
ARE STANDING IN FRONT OF A BURNING HOUSE, AND FROM INSIDE THAT BURNING
HOUSE YOU CAN HEAR THE WAIL OF A BABY, A BABY'S CRY, A BABY IN FEAR, A
BABY ABOUT TO LOSE ITS LIFE. AND YOU CAN HEAR THAT BABY SCREAMING.
YOU CAN HEAR THAT WAIL.
NOW, THAT BABY, THAT BABY IS JUSTICE. THIS IS BABY JUSTICE. USUALLY
JUSTICE IS A STRONG WOMAN, BUT IN THIS CASE JUSTICE IS JUST A BABY.
AND YOU HEAR THAT BABY AND YOU HEAR THAT WAIL AND YOU SEE THE SMOKE, YOU
SEE THE DEFENSE.
THERE IS ALL THIS SMOKE IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOU FEEL A SENSE -- YOU HAVE
A SENSE OF JUSTICE AND YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES AND YOU
HAVE A STRONG COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE AND TO THE LAW AND YOU WANT TO DO THE
RIGHT THING WHILE JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO PERISH, JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO BE LOST,
BABY JUSTICE IS ABOUT TO BE LOST.
AND SO YOU START TO WADE THROUGH THAT SMOKE TRYING TO GET TO THAT BABY.
YOU HAVE GOT TO SAVE THAT BABY, YOU HAVE TO SAVE BABY JUSTICE, AND
YOU HAPPEN TO RUN INTO SMOKE, FIND YOUR WAY THROUGH THE SMOKE, AND IF YOU
HAPPEN TO RUN INTO A COUPLE OF DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ALONG THE WAY, JUST ASK
THEM TO POLITELY STEP ASIDE AND LET YOU FIND YOUR WAY THROUGH THE SMOKE,
BECAUSE THE SMOKE ISN'T OVER, OKAY? THE SMOKE IS GOOD TO GET HEAVIER
BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT TO TALK TO YOU.
LET'S USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. WADE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE. GET
DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
AND PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING.
IT HAS BEEN A HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND WE WILL WAIT FOR YOUR VERDICT.
(CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. COCHRAN)
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE ITO, MY COLLEAGUES
ON THE DEFENSE, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE PROSECUTION, THE GOLDMAN FAMILY, THE
BROWN FAMILY AND TO THE SIMPSON FAMILY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
MR. COCHRAN: THE DEFENDANT, MR.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, IS NOW AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THE CASE,
IF YOU WILL, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS TO TRY AND DISCUSS THE REASONABLE INFERENCES WHICH
I FEEL CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS EVIDENCE.
AT THE OUTSET, LET ME JOIN WITH THE OTHERS IN THANKING YOU FOR THE SERVICE
THAT YOU'VE RENDERED. YOU ARE TRULY A MARVELOUS JURY, THE LONGEST
SERVING JURY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, PERHAPS THE MOST PATIENT AND HEALTHY
JURY WE'VE EVER SEEN. I HOPE THAT YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR GOOD HEALTH
CONTINUES.
WE MET APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY AGO ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 1994.
I GUESS WE'VE BEEN TOGETHER LONGER THAN SOME RELATIONSHIPS AS IT WERE.
BUT WE'VE HAD A UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP IN THIS MATTER IN THAT YOU'VE BEEN
THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS. WE HAVE BEEN ADVOCATES ON BOTH SIDES.
THE JUDGE HAS BEEN THE JUDGE OF THE LAW. WE ALL UNDERSTAND
OUR VARIOUS ROLES IN THIS ENDEAVOR THAT I'M GOING TO CALL A JOURNEY TOWARD
JUSTICE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON
AS I SEE TO ADDRESS YOU.
THE FINAL TEST OF YOUR SERVICE AS JURORS WILL NOT LIE IN THE FACT THAT
YOU'VE STAYED HERE MORE THAN A YEAR, BUT WILL LIE IN THE QUALITY OF THE
VERDICT THAT YOU RENDER AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT VERDICT SPEAKS JUSTICE
AS WE MOVE TOWARDS JUSTICE.
NOW, YOU'LL RECALL DURING A PROCESS CALLED VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION, EACH
OF YOU WERE THOROUGHLY QUESTIONED BY THE LAWYERS. YOU PROBABLY THOUGHT,
GEE, I WISH THEY'D LEAVE ME ALONE. BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD I'M SURE THAT
THIS IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS. OUR CLIENT, MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
IS ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE, AND SO WE HAD TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL, BOTH
SIDES, IN TRYING TO GET PEOPLE WHO COULD BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES.
YOU'LL RECALL THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT YOU KEEP AN OPEN MIND, WHICH I HOPE
YOU STILL HAVE EVEN TO THIS DAY, THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE SWAYED BY SYMPATHY
FOR OR PASSION AGAINST EITHER SIDE IN THIS CASE, THAT YOU WOULD GIVE BOTH
SIDES OF THIS LAWSUIT THE BENEFIT OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL OPINION.
NO ONE, NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE FACTS ARE. THAT'S GOING TO BE
YOUR JOB TO DETERMINE. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AGE OR EXPERIENCE.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE JOBS WHERE YOU KIND
OF LEARN ON THE JOB, AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT
AND THAT'S WHY VOIR DIRE WAS SO VERY IMPORTANT AS WE ASKED YOU ALL OF THOSE
QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU WERE SEQUESTERED, BEFORE YOU WERE ACTUALLY PICKED.
NOW, EACH OF YOU FILLED OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS
HONESTLY I'M SURE. YOU KNOW, SISTER ROSE SAID A LONG TIME AGO, "HE
WHO VIOLATES HIS OATH PROFANES THE DIVINITY OF FAITH HIMSELF." AND,
OF COURSE, BOTH SIDES OF THIS LAWSUIT HAVE FAITH THAT YOU'LL LIVE UP TO
YOUR PROMISES AND I'M SURE YOU'LL DO THAT.
YOU KNOW, ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID THAT JURY SERVICE IS THE HIGHEST ACT OF
CITIZENSHIP. SO IF IT'S ANY CONSOLATION TO YOU, YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED
IN THAT VERY HIGHEST ACT OF CITIZENSHIP. AND SO AGAIN, WE APPLAUD
YOU AND WE THANK YOU AS WE MOVE TOWARD JUSTICE.
ONE OTHER ENTITY OR GROUP OF LADIES OR TWO LADIES THAT I SHOULD THANK ARE
OUR MARVELOUS COURT REPORTERS. THEY HAVE BEEN PATIENT WITH US. THEY'VE
BEEN HERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THEM IN
THEIR SERVICE AND I ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE THEM BECAUSE SOMETIMES I SPEAK
RATHER RAPIDLY AND THEY HAVE A TOUGH TIME KEEPING UP WITH ME. SO
I TRUST THAT TODAY, IF I START TO SPEAK TOO FAST IN NY ZEAL, MISS MOXHAM
AND CHRIS WILL BRING THAT TO MY ATTENTION. I'M SURE THEY WILL.
NOW, IN THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS WHERE WE'RE DISCUSSING THE REASONABLE
INFERENCES OF THE EVIDENCE, I ASK YOU TO REMEMBER THAT WE'RE ALL ADVOCATES.
WE'RE ALL OFFICERS OF THIS COURT.
I WILL RECALL THE EVIDENCE AND SPEAK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE. SHOULD I
MISSTATE THAT EVIDENCE, PLEASE DON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST MR. SIMPSON.
I WILL NEVER INTENTIONALLY TO THAT. IN FACT, I THINK YOU'LL FIND
THAT DURING MY PRESENTATION, UNLIKE MY LEARNED COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER
SIDE, I'M GOING TO READ YOU TESTIMONY OF WHAT THE WITNESSES ACTUALLY SAID
SO THERE WILL BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT CERTAIN
KEY THINGS.
BUT REMEMBER THAT WE ARE ALL ADVOCATES. AND I THINK IT WAS MISS CLARK WHO
SAID SAYING IT SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. I THINK THAT APPLIES VERY MUCH
TO THEIR ARGUMENT. ULTIMATELY, IT'S WHAT YOU DETERMINE TO BE THE
FACTS IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT, AND ALL OF US CAN LIVE WITH THAT.
YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO DO JUSTICE. YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO ENSURE THAT
THIS GREAT SYSTEM OF OURS WORKS.
LISTEN FOR A MOMENT, WILL YOU, PLEASE. ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE IN HISTORY
IS THE GREAT FREDERICK DOUGLAS. HE SAID SHORTLY AFTER THE SLAVES
WERE FREED, QUOTE, "IN A COMPOSITE NATION LIKE OURS AS BEFORE THE LAW,
THERE SHOULD BE NO RICH, NO POOR, NO HIGH, NO LOW, NO WHITE, NO BLACK,
BUT COMMON COUNTRY, COMMON CITIZENSHIP, EQUAL RIGHTS AND A COMMON
DESTINY."
THIS MARVELOUS STATEMENT WAS MADE MORE THAN 100 YEARS AGO. IT'S AN
IDEAL WORTH STRIVING FOR AND ONE THAT WE STILL STRIVE FOR. WE HAVEN'T
REACHED THIS GOAL YET, BUT CERTAINLY IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS, WE'RE
TRYING. WITH A JURY SUCH AS THIS, WE HOPE WE CAN DO THAT IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE.
NOW, IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE AWARE THAT WE REPRESENT MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON.
THE PROSECUTION NEVER CALLS HIM MR. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON. THEY
CALL HIM DEFENDANT.
I WANT TO TELL YOU RIGHT AT THE OUTSET THAT ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, LIKE
ALL DEFENDANTS, IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. HE'S ENTITLED TO THE
SAME DIGNITY AND RESPECT AS ALL THE REST OF US. AS HE SITS OVER THERE
NOW, HE'S CLOAKED IN A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
YOU WILL DETERMINE THE FACTS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE'S SET FREE TO WALK OUT
THOSE DOORS OR WHETHER HE SPENDS THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON. BUT HE'S
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON. HE'S NOT JUST THE DEFENDANT, AND WE ON THE
DEFENSE ARE PROUD, CONSIDER IT A PRIVILEGE TO HAVE BEEN PART OF REPRESENTING
HIM IN THIS EXERCISE AND THIS JOURNEY TOWARDS JUSTICE, MAKE NO MISTAKE
ABOUT IT.
FINALLY, I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE LENGTH THAT THIS JOURNEY HAS TAKEN.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE SEEKING JUSTICE, THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS. IF
YOU WERE TO TRADE PLACES WITH EITHER SIDE, YOU'D WANT SOMEONE TO FIGHT
HARD FOR YOU AND VIGOROUSLY, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS A PERSON WHO MAINTAINED
THEIR INNOCENCE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
SOME OF YOU IN VOIR DIRE TALKED ABOUT THAT. YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED
IN OTHER CASES WHERE YOU FELT THE LAWYERS DIDN'T STAND UP. WELL,
I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT IN THIS CASE, ON BOTH SIDES, YOU FELT THE LAWYERS
DID THEIR BEST TO REPRESENT THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS. AND WE WILL
CONTINUE I'M SURE TO DO THAT SO THAT ALTHOUGH I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTH
OF THE TRIAL, I HOPE AND I TRUST THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT IN A JOURNEY
TOWARDS JUSTICE, THERE IS NO SHORTCUT.
FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ASKED YOU AT THE VERY
BEGINNING TO DON'T COMPROMISE. THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR THE TIMID OR
THE WEAK OF HEART. THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR THE NAIVE. THIS IS
A CASE FOR COURAGEOUS CITIZENS WHO BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
AND WHILE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THINK WITH ME FOR A MOMENT
HOW MANY TIMES YOU HEARD MY LEARNED ADVERSARY SAY THE DEFENSE DIDN'T PROVE,
THE DEFENSE DIDN'T DO THIS, DEFENSE DIDN'T DO THAT.
REMEMBER BACK IN VOIR DIRE? WHAT DID THE JUDGE TELL US? JUDGE
ITO SAID THE DEFENSE COULD SIT HERE AND DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. ONE
OF YOU IS FROM MISSOURI, AND HE REMINDED YOU -- WHO'S FROM MISSOURI HERE
-- SAYING TO THE PROSECUTION, YOU SHOW US.
NOW, WE DIDN'T DO THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS YOU SEE -- YOU
HEARD FROM THE JURY INSTRUCTION. AND AT THE END, I WILL SHOW YOU
SOME OTHERS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.
THIS IS THE PROSECUTION'S BURDEN, AND WE CAN'T LET THEM TURN THE CONSTITUTION
ON ITS HEAD. WE CAN'T LET THEM GET AWAY FROM THEIR BURDEN.
IT'S MY JOB -- ONE OF MY JOBS IS TO REMIND YOU OF THAT AND TO REMIND THEM
OF THAT. BUT THAT'S THEIR BURDEN. THEY MUST PROVE MR. SIMPSON
GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND TO A MORAL CERTAINTY, AND WE WILL
TALK ABOUT WHAT A REASONABLE DOUBT MEANS.
AND SO NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ANALYZE THE FACTS OF THE CASE,
I AGREE WITH ONE THING THAT MR. DARDEN SAID. TO THIS TASK, I ASK
YOU TO BRING YOUR COMMON SENSE. COLLECTIVELY, THE 14 OF YOU HAVE
MORE THAN 500 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. I KNOW YOU'RE ALL YOUNG, BUT ADD
THAT BY 14 -- YOU WON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST ME I DON'T THINK -- 500 YEARS
OF EXPERIENCE. YOU DIDN'T LEAVE YOUR COMMON SENSE OUT IN THAT
HALLWAY WHEN YOU CAME IN HERE. WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO APPLY IT
TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.
I'D LIKE TO COMMENT AND TO COMPLIMENT MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN ON WHAT
I THOUGHT WERE FINE ARGUMENTS YESTERDAY. I DON'T AGREE WITH MUCH
OF WHAT THEY SAID, BUT I LISTENED INTENTLY, AS I HOPE YOU'LL DO WITH ME.
AND TOGETHER, HOPEFULLY THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING TO BE HELPFUL TO YOU
IN TRYING TO ARRIVE AT A DECISION IN THIS CASE WHERE YOU DON'T COMPROMISE,
WHERE YOU DON'T DO VIOLENCE TO YOUR CONSCIOUS, BUT YOU DO THE RIGHT THING.
AND YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING.
LET ME ASK EACH OF YOU A QUESTION. HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN
FALSELY ACCUSED OF SOMETHING? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED?
EVER HAD TO SIT THERE AND TAKE IT AND WATCH THE PROCEEDINGS AND WAIT AND
WAIT AND WAIT, ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT YOU DIDN'T DO IT?
ALL YOU COULD DO DURING SUCH A PROCESS IS TO REALLY MAINTAIN YOUR DIGNITY;
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? KNOWING THAT YOU WERE INNOCENT, BUT MAINTAINING YOUR
DIGNITY AND REMEMBERING ALWAYS THAT ALL YOU'RE LEFT WITH AFTER A CRISIS
IS YOUR CONDUCT DURING. SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE ARE PROUD
TO REPRESENT THIS MAN WHO'S MAINTAINED HIS INNOCENCE AND WHO HAS CONDUCTED
HIMSELF WITH DIGNITY THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS.
NOW, LAST NIGHT, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES, TWO
WORDS CAME TO MIND. AND I WANT TO -- I ASKED MY WIFE THIS MORNING TO GET
THE DICTIONARY OUT AND LOOK UP TWO WORDS. THE TWO WORDS WERE "SPECULATIVE"
AND "CYNICAL." LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THOSE WORDS THAT SHE GOT FOR
ME.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED HER -- I
WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS CASE -- TO GO TO WEBSTER'S. AND I WANT YOU
TO TELL ME WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SPECULATE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE CYNICAL,
AS I THOUGHT ABOUT MY COLLEAGUES' ARGUMENTS AND THEIR APPROACH TO THIS
CASE AND THEIR VIEW OF THIS CASE.
"CYNICAL" IS DESCRIBED AS CONTEMPTUOUSLY DISTRUSTFUL OF HUMAN NATURE AND
MOTIVES, GLOOMY DISTRUSTFUL VIEW OF LIFE. AND TO SPECULATE -- TO
SPECULATE, TO ENGAGE IN CONJECTURE AND TO SURMISE OR -- IS TO TAKE TO BE
THE TRUTH ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
I MENTION THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS TO YOU BECAUSE I FELT THAT MUCH OF WHAT
WE HEARD YESTERDAY AND AGAIN THIS MORNING WAS MERE SPECULATION.
UNDERSTAND THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN; THAT NONE OF US IN THIS COURTROOM
WERE OUT AT 875 BUNDY ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 AFTER 10:30 OR 10:45 IN THE
EVENING, SO THAT EVERYTHING WE SAY TO YOU IS OUR BEST EFFORT TO PIECE TOGETHER
WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS CASE.
WHEN PEOPLE THEORIZE ABOUT THINGS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT
SHORT FUSES, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT'S JUST THAT. IT'S SPECULATION.
PEOPLE SEE THINGS THAT ARE TOTALLY CYNICAL. MAYBE THAT'S THEIR VIEW
OF THE WORLD. NOT EVERYBODY SHARES THAT VIEW.
NOW, IN THIS CASE -- AND THIS IS A HOMICIDE CASE AND A VERY, VERY, VERY
SERIOUS CASE. AND OF COURSE, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT IS A SAD FACT THAT IN AMERICAN SOCIETY, A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE
MURDERED EACH YEAR. VIOLENCE UNFORTUNATELY HAS BECOME A WAY OF LIFE
IN AMERICA. AND SO WHEN THIS SORT OF TRAGEDY DOES IN FACT HAPPEN,
IT BECOMES THE BUSINESS OF THE POLICE TO STEP UP AND STEP IN AND TO TAKE
CHARGE OF THE MATTER.
A GOOD EFFICIENT, COMPETENT, NONCORRUPT POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL CAREFULLY
SET ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF INVESTIGATING HOMICIDES. THEY WON'T RUSH
TO JUDGMENT. THEY WON'T BE BOUND BY AN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ALL COSTS.
THEY WILL SET ABOUT TRYING TO APPREHEND THE KILLER OR KILLERS AND TRYING
TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT FROM SUSPICION.
IN THIS CASE, THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES HAD AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DEMAND EXACTLY
JUST THAT IN THIS CASE. BUT IT WAS CLEAR UNFORTUNATELY THAT IN THIS
CASE, THERE WAS ANOTHER AGENDA. FROM THE VERY FIRST ORDERS ISSUED
BY THE LAPD SO-CALLED BRASS, THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH THEIR OWN IMAGES,
THE PUBLICITY THAT MIGHT BE GENERATED FROM THIS CASE THAN THEY WERE IN
DOING PROFESSIONAL POLICE WORK. THAT'S WHY THIS CASE HAS BECOME SUCH
A HALLMARK AND THAT'S WHY MR. SIMPSON IS THE ONE ON TRIAL.
BUT YOUR VERDICT IN THIS CASE WILL GO FAR BEYOND THE WALLS OF DEPARTMENT
103 BECAUSE YOUR VERDICT TALKS ABOUT JUSTICE IN AMERICA AND IT TALKS ABOUT
THE POLICE AND WHETHER THEY'RE ABOVE THE LAW AND IT LOOKS AT THE POLICE
PERHAPS AS THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LOOKED AT VERY RECENTLY. REMEMBER,
I TOLD YOU THIS IS NOT FOR THE NAIVE, THE FAINT OF HEART OR THE TIMID.
SO IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROFESSIONAL POLICE WORK
TOOK A BACKSEAT RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING. UNTRAINED OFFICERS TRAMPLED
-- REMEMBER, I USED THE WORD IN OPENING STATEMENT -- THEY TRAIPSED THROUGH
THE EVIDENCE.
AND IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT AT
THE BEGINNING, BUT LATER ON IN THIS TRIAL, WE HEARD MR. GOLDBERG, TALKING
TO WITNESSES, USE MY WORDS, "TRAIPSING" THROUGH THE WITNESS SCENE, THAT
SCENE THERE AT BUNDY. HE USED OUR WORDS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD.
WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. WE WERE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT
THROUGH THE VIDEOS.
THEY DELAYED UNCONSCIONABLY ROUTINE PROCEDURES IN NOTIFYING THE CORONERS.
THEY DIDN'T CALL THE CRIMINALIST OUT ON TIME AND YES, THEY ALLOWED THIS
INVESTIGATION TO BE INFECTED BY A DISHONEST AND CORRUPT DETECTIVE.
THEY DID THAT IN THIS CASE. AND THEY MAY TRY TO BACK AWAY FROM IT
ALL THEY WANT, BUT THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE, TO THIS
CASE AND THE RESOLUTION OF MY CLIENT'S INNOCENCE.
BECAUSE OF THEIR BUNGLING, THEY IGNORED THE OBVIOUS CLUES. THEY DIDN'T
PICK UP PAPER AT THE SCENE WITH PRINTS ON IT. BECAUSE OF THEIR VANITY,
THEY VERY SOON PRETENDED TO SOLVE THIS CRIME AND WE THINK IMPLICATED AN
INNOCENT MAN, AND THEY NEVER, THEY NEVER EVER LOOKED FOR ANYONE ELSE.
WE THINK IF THEY HAD DONE THEIR JOB AS WE HAVE DONE, MR. SIMPSON WOULD
HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED EARLY ON.
AND SO THIS CASE IS NOT -- LET ME SAY IT AT THE OUTSET -- IS NOT ABOUT
ATTACKING THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE'RE NOT ANTI-POLICE
IN MAKING THESE STATEMENTS. YOU'RE NOT ANTI-POLICE. WE ALL NEED THE
POLICE. I JUST SAID WE HAVE SO MUCH CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, WE NEED
THE POLICE.
BUT WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT WE MUST DEMAND, WHAT ALL OF US SHOULD HAVE ARE
HONEST, EFFECTIVE, NONBIASED POLICE OFFICERS. WHO COULD DEMAND LESS?
ANY OF YOU SAY THAT'S NOT WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE?
AND SO LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED HERE THIS AFTERNOON.
THE DEFENSE HAS ONE OPPORTUNITY BASICALLY TO ADDRESS YOU. THIS IS
AFTER THE PROSECUTORS ARE FINISHED. I WILL ADDRESS YOU FIRST, AND
AFTER I'M CONCLUDED -- AND I WILL TALK GENERALLY ABOUT THE LAY WITNESSES
AND OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND WHAT YOU'VE HEARD. I WILL TRY NOT
TO BORE YOU. I'LL STRIVE TO BE HONEST IN MY DISCUSSIONS, TO BE RELEVANT,
TO BE CONCISE OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT HERE.
WHEN I'M FINISHED, MR. BARRY SCHECK WILL COME BEFORE YOU AND ADDRESS SOME
OF THE FORENSIC ISSUES. AND THEN FINALLY, AFTER MR. SCHECK FINISHES,
I'LL COME BACK AND CONCLUDE SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS REGARDING WHAT YOU'VE
HEARD OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO DAYS AT ANY RATE.
NOW, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION BEARS THE BURDEN IN THIS
CASE AND IN ALL CASES, MISS CLARK WILL ARGUE LAST TO SEEK TO REBUT THAT
WHICH WE BRING UP. PRESUMABLY, SHE WON'T BE BACK UP HERE TALKING
ABOUT ALL KINDS OF NEW THINGS, BUT SEEK TO REBUT THAT WHICH IS BEING ARGUED.
AND LET ME TELL YOU UP FRONT, IF SHE BRINGS UP ANYTHING, WE MAY BE PRECLUDED
FROM STANDING UP SAYING, "WAIT A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR. HERE'S THE ANSWER
TO THAT." BUT YOU CAN THEN SUBSTITUTE YOUR COMMON SENSE, YOUR JUDGMENT
IN THAT PLACE, AND THAT'S REQUIRED IN THIS JOURNEY TOWARD JUSTICE.
NOW, AT THE OUTSET, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS TIME LINE FOR THE DEFENSE.
I SAID EARLIER THAT MR. DARDEN DID A GOOD JOB IN HIS ARGUMENT, BUT ONE
THING HE TENDED TO TRIP OVER AND STUMBLE OVER WAS WHEN HE STARTED TO TALK
ABOUT OUR CASE. HE DOESN'T KNOW OUR CASE LIKE WE KNOW OUR CASE.
IT WAS INTERESTING, WASN'T IT, BECAUSE FIRST HE STOOD UP AND STARTED TALKING
ABOUT THE TIME LINE BEING AT 10:15. THEN HE SAID, WELL, THEY DIDN'T
PROVE ANYTHING, BUT, "GOLLY, WELL, IT MAY HAVE BEEN AS LATE AS 10:30."
THAT'S INTERESTING, ISN'T IT? NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE.
YOU LOOK BACK AND SEE WHAT MISS CLARK PROMISED YOU A YEAR AGO. 10:15.
10:15 WAS ALL THEY TALKED ABOUT, AND THEY WERE GOING TO USE, BECAUSE OF
THE INCOMPETENCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION, THE WAIL OF A DOG. SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'VE BEEN RELEGATED TO IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THIS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT
INVESTIGATION.
BUT HAVING SAID THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING IN THIS CASE,
WE DID IN FACT. SO MR. DARDEN CAN TALK ALL HE WANTED TO ABOUT HIS
THEORIES ABOUT MOTIVE. THEY'RE JUST THAT, HIS SPECULATIVE THEORIES
ABOUT MOTIVE. BUT WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THE END, HE WASN'T TALKING
ABOUT MOTIVE, WAS HE? HE WAS TRYING TO TALK ABOUT OUR TIME LINE.
WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY HE WOULD.
BECAUSE THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE CALLED MANY WITNESSES WHO CORROBORATED
EACH OTHER AND WHO SHATTERED THE PROSECUTION'S TIME LINE. NOW, THESE
ARE WITNESSES TO A PERSON WHO WERE KNOWN BY THE PROSECUTION, BUT DISCARDED
BY THE PROSECUTION. WHY? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FIT THEIR TORTURED,
NARROW WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY.
SO WHEN YOU INVISUALIZE FOR ME THAT JIG-SAW PUZZLE WHERE THEY WANT TO REDUCE
THIS CASE DOWN TO A JIG-SAW PUZZLE, THE PART THAT DEALS WITH OPPORTUNITY
IS THE TIME LINE. AND WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH THAT BECAUSE
IN A SEARCH FOR TRUTH, LET'S LOOK FOR THE TRUTH. NOT SOME CONTORTED,
TWISTED TRUTH, BUT THE REAL TRUTH, THE FACTS THAT YOU HEARD DURING THE
COURSE OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
WE THINK AFTER YOU LOOK AT THIS TIME LINE FOR THE DEFENSE, YOU WILL AGREE
WITH OUR EARLIER ANALYSIS. THIS IS A CASE ABOUT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT,
A CASE WHERE THERE'S BEEN OBSESSION TO WIN AT ALL COSTS, AND IN THE
WORDS OF DR. HENRY LEE, SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE PROSECUTION'S CASE.
LET'S START OFF WITH FRANCESKA HARMON. FRANCESKA HARMON IS A LADY WHO LEFT
THE DINNER PARTY ON DOROTHY AT ABOUT 10:20 P.M. SHE DROVE WEST ON
DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND TURNED NORTH ON BUNDY. SO SHE WOULD BE HEADING
NORTH TOWARD 875. SHE SAW NOTHING, HEARD NOTHING, NO BARKING DOGS,
LADY KNOWN, OF COURSE, TO BOTH SIDES.
AND SO YOU SEE THIS GRAPHIC REGARDING FRANCESKA HARMON. AND I THINK
TO FAMILIARIZE YOU WITH THAT, I THINK AT 10:20, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT'S
THE APPROXIMATE TIME THAT SHE WOULD PASS BY OR NEAR NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S
HOME THERE. YOU SEE IT WITH THE "X" MARKED THERE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPHIC.
THAT'S MISS HARMON.
WE FOLLOWED FRANCESKA HARMON WITH ELLEN AARONSON AND DAN MANDEL, REMEMBER,
THE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN ON THEIR FIRST DATE. THEY HAD GONE TO
MEZZALUNA. AND THEY WERE INTERESTING YOUNG PEOPLE. I THINK YOU WOULD
FIND THEM CREDIBLE.
BY THE WAY, YOU HOLD ALL WITNESSES UP TO THE SAME STANDARD. NO SIDE
HAS A PRIORITY ON THE TRUTH.
THESE ARE WITNESSES KNOWN TO BOTH SIDES. WE'RE THE ONES, HOWEVER, WHO ELECTED
TO CALL THEM AND BRING THEM HERE FOR YOU.
YOU KNOW, HOW THEY WALKED HOME FROM THIS FIRST DATE AT MEZZALUNA, WALKING
DIRECTLY BY THE WALKWAY AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, AND THEY SAID THEY PASSED BY
THERE. REMEMBER, THEY WERE CLEAR, THEY PASSED BY THERE AT 10:25.
AND YOU'LL SEE THE LITTLE KIND OF PURPLE LINES SHOWS YOU THE ROUTE THEY
TOOK.
SO THEY PASSED RIGHT IN FRONT OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HOME AT 10:25.
AND YOU REMEMBER, THEY CONTINUED ON. SO THEY WERE OVER ON DARLINGTON
STREET BY 10:29. SHE SAID THAT IT TOOK THEM ABOUT FOUR MINUTES FROM
THE TIME THEY PASSED 875 SOUTH BUNDY TO GET HOME THAT EVENING. THIS
WAS THEIR FIRST DATE AND I GUESS, AS I RECALL, THIS WAS ALSO THEIR LAST
DATE. THEY SAW NO BLOOD, THEY SAW NO BARKING DOGS.
I SUBMIT TO YOU, IF THE BODIES HAD BEEN THERE, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN.
NOW, WHY DO I SAY THAT? I SAY THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTACT PRINT
IN EVIDENCE -- AND I'M GOING TO ASK MR. HARRIS, IF HE CAN, TO SHOW US THIS
CONTACT PRINT. THIS IS AN ITEM YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE BACK IN THE
JURY ROOM.
THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY MR. ROKAHR AT NIGHT AND IT WILL LET YOU SEE,
WHEN MR. HARRIS GETS IT INTO FOCUS, THAT SCENE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT, WHAT
YOU COULD SEE WITH REGARD TO THIS BODY.
YOUR HONOR, YOU MAY WANT TO CUT THE FEED ON PART OF THIS.
33, HOWARD.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. COCHRAN: NOW -- AND THIS EXHIBIT
IS WHAT NUMBER, MR. -- DO YOU HAVE IT? I BELIEVE IT MAY BE 86.
I'LL GET IT FOR YOU AS SOON AS HE TAKES IT OFF, YOUR HONOR.
NOW, THIS EXHIBIT -- AND WE'LL TRY TO GIVE THEM TO YOUR HONOR WHEN WE FIRST
GET THEM UP THERE.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: THIS EXHIBIT NO.
86 WAS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE GOT LATE IN THE TRIAL FROM MR. ROKAHR, THE
PHOTOGRAPHER, WHO WAS CALLED BY US. YOU SEE THAT DOCUMENT OVER THERE?
THAT'S A CONTACT SHEET.
REMEMBER, WE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS IN SEQUENCE, AND THIS
FIRST ROLL WERE TAKEN AT NIGHT. THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT ROLE FOR YOU AS THIS CASE PROGRESSES. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH
AT NIGHT OF WHAT YOU COULD SEE FROM ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THERE WERE LIGHTS IN AND AROUND THERE. AND SO WHEN MR. DARDEN
STANDS UP HERE AS AN ADVOCATE AND TELLS YOU IT WAS PITCH BLACK AND YOU
COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING, THIS IS THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE
SUN CAME UP. THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN AT NIGHT. IT'S NOT PITCH
BLACK.
WE KNOW ALSO THAT, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE, BLOOD HAD FLOWED DOWN THAT
WALKWAY. THERE WERE BLOODY PAW PRINTS THAT WENT SOUTHBOUND ON BUNDY
THERE. SO YOU SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH. YOU SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
NOW, YOU CAN BE AN ADVOCATE. WE'RE ALL SWORN TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
WE TALKED ABOUT HIS OATH. YOUR OATH IS ALSO TO TELL THE TRUTH.
IT'S NOT PITCH BLACK. WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE. AND I AM GOING
TO TRY TO DO THAT THROUGHOUT WHERE THEY HAVE MISLED YOU AND HAVE SAID THINGS
NOT CORRECT. I'M GOING TO TRY AND STRAIGHTEN IT OUT FOR YOU.
MR. HARRIS, WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE COURT NOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.
MR. HARRIS: 1369.
MR. COCHRAN: NO. 1369. AND
THAT'S ROKAHR.
&n