YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON -- "ABSOLUTELY 100% GUILTY" (PART 2 OF 2)

VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON -- "ABSOLUTELY 100% GUILTY" (PART 2 OF 2) — Transcript

by David Von Pein's Channel #3 · 29,596 words · 4,713 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:14for those of you who read my book
0:16outraged the five reasons OJ Simpson got
0:18away with murder or saw the analysis
0:20portion of this program you're aware of
0:23the reasons I believe a double murderer
0:24went free chief among them was the
0:26incredible mind boggling and competence
0:29of the prosecution they failed to
0:31introduce a great amount of
0:32incriminating evidence they inadequately
0:34explained evidence they did present they
0:36were poorly prepared throughout the
0:38trial they lacked fire and passion and
0:40their addresses to the jury and as if
0:42all that weren't enough in their final
0:44summation they virtually conceded by
0:46default the central core of the
0:47defense's case that OJ Simpson had been
0:50framed by the LAPD in my earlier
0:53analysis I pointed out in many areas
0:55what was or was not done which should
0:57have been done and in some instances how
0:59I might have addressed the jury on
1:01certain issues in a moment I'll tie much
1:03of that together and present to you as
1:05one of the jurors some of the highlights
1:07of a final summation I might have
1:08delivered had I been the prosecutor an
1:10attorney first of all though let me
1:12define some terms which the media
1:14frequently confuses the opening
1:17statement is that which is given by both
1:19the prosecution and the defense at the
1:21beginning of the trial before the
1:23presentation of the evidence this is not
1:25to be confused with the opening argument
1:27which occurs at the end of the evidence
1:29the prosecution gives the first argument
1:32to the jury their opening argument which
1:34is followed by the defense's one and
1:36only argument then the prosecution
1:38because they have the burden of proof
1:40it's one last chance to address the jury
1:42in a closing argument or rebuttal to the
1:45defense's argument all these arguments
1:48are generally referred to as final
1:50summation the conventional wisdom is
1:52that a summation should be succinct
1:54focusing only on the main points in the
1:57case not only can't a lawyer keep a
1:59jury's attention for more than an hour
2:01so it is said but discussing the smaller
2:04points only clutters and dilutes the
2:06thrust of the main arguments I may be
2:08wrong but my personal opinion is that
2:10this couldn't possibly be a more serious
2:12mistake in many cases perhaps a fatal
2:15one juries unaccountably often based
2:18their verdict on or heavily influenced
2:20by the most tangential seemingly
2:23insignificant points I also don't agree
2:26that is difficult to hold a jury's
2:27attention for more than an hour or so in
2:29fact it's not difficult to keep their
2:31attention for one two or even three days
2:33if the lawyer can deliver a powerful
2:36exciting summation that is sprinkled
2:39with example metaphor and humor and
2:41particularly when he makes it obvious to
2:44them that he has a lot of important
2:45observations to make about the case and
2:48they can only fulfill the oath they took
2:50to reach a proper verdict if they listen
2:52to him closely that is if he convinces
2:55them that they need him since I want the
2:58jury to be able to refer to my arguments
3:00back in the jury room I always urge them
3:02to take notes during my summation citing
3:05an old Chinese proverb I've always
3:07subscribed to that the palest ink is
3:09better than the best memory the producer
3:12of this program asked me to deliver on
3:14camera what my summation would have been
3:16in the Simpson trial if I had been the
3:18prosecutor the same thing was asked of
3:20me by the editor of my book outreach
3:22that I write out in the book what my
3:24summation would have been I told them
3:27both as I now tell you the viewer that
3:29this is not realistic if I had been the
3:31prosecutor in this case I would have
3:33easily put three to four hundred hours
3:36into the preparation of my summation and
3:37it would probably have taken two and a
3:40half to three court days to deliver for
3:42instance my opening argument would have
3:45not only included a recitation of every
3:47piece of incriminating evidence against
3:48the defendant from top to bottom but an
3:51analysis of all the testimony and
3:54evidence in the case including that from
3:56the defense obviously because of time
3:58constraints that will not be done here
4:00there will only be selective references
4:02to testimony and evidence in my opening
4:04and closing arguments also missing will
4:07be sections of my summation such as one
4:09in my opening argument where I always
4:11preempt the defense by briefly
4:13summarizing for the jury what I just
4:15about know the defense attorneys will
4:17argue to them in a real trial I also of
4:20course would have made use of some of
4:21the many exhibits introduced as evidence
4:23and would have utilized the easel on the
4:25blackboard I should add that a luxury I
4:28do not have here which I would have had
4:30if I had tried the case are the months
4:33and months to write and prepare the
4:35summation as well as go over it to the
4:37point where I wouldn't have to rely on
4:39my notes as much what I would like to do
4:41now is present a shortened opening and
4:43closing argument to you where you are a
4:45member of the Simpson jury my summation
4:48will touch on those areas most critical
4:50to the case for the prosecution and not
4:52surprisingly the same areas most
4:54neglected by the actual prosecutors in
4:56the trial for those of you who might
4:59wonder why you won't be hearing from the
5:00defense let me remind you that this is
5:02not a situation similar to where I faced
5:05off with Gerry Spence in front of a jury
5:06in London for the 21 hour television
5:09docudrama on trial Lee Harvey Oswald
5:12because of Oswald's death there was no
5:15trial and we tried to fulfill a what-if
5:17situation with the actual witnesses in
5:20the case a real judge and jury no script
5:23or actors and a defense attorneys Spence
5:26representing Oswald here however there
5:29was a trial and we have already heard
5:31from the defense we know what Simpson's
5:34defense attorneys had to say we know
5:36what their arguments were the summation
5:38I'm about to make includes arguments
5:40that I think should have been made by
5:42the prosecution to counter these defense
5:44arguments the summation I'll be making
5:47will include in some cases references to
5:49evidence not offered by the prosecution
5:51during the trial which I would have
5:53offered such as Simpsons tape-recorded
5:55interview with detectives Lang in
5:57manator the suicide note the slow speed
5:59chase and evidence seized thereafter etc
6:02it will also include references to
6:04witnesses I would have called whom the
6:06prosecutors in the Simpson trial elected
6:08not to call such as Faye Resnick as well
6:11some testimony the prosecutors did not
6:13elicit from witnesses whom they did call
6:15I will not be referring to evidence that
6:17was not available to the prosecutors at
6:20the time of the criminal trial such as
6:22the highly incriminating photos of
6:23Simpson wearing the precise type of
6:25Bruno Molly shoes we know the killer
6:28wore and which Simpson said he had never
6:30owned or worn those photos surfaced
6:33after the criminal trial and were used a
6:35very good advantage by lead plaintiffs
6:37lawyer Daniel Petrocelli in the civil
6:39trial the argument you're about to hear
6:42then will be a proposed argument in the
6:44criminal trial of OJ Simpson a trial
6:47which varied significantly from the
6:49subsequent civil trial
6:51as we've discussed the criminal trial
6:53had a predominantly black jury and the
6:56racial composition of the jury I'll now
6:58be arguing in front of will be the same
7:00the jury in the civil trial on the other
7:02hand was predominantly white with only
7:05one black on it the burden of proof the
7:07prosecutors had to meet in the criminal
7:09trial was beyond a reasonable doubt much
7:12higher than the burden of proof the
7:13plaintiffs had to meet in the civil
7:15trial which was merely a preponderance
7:17of the evidence also judge Fujisaki the
7:20civil judge virtually eliminated the
7:23main defense theory at the criminal
7:25trial that of a police frame-up by not
7:27allowing the defense to play the race
7:29card
7:29mark Fuhrman for instance didn't even
7:31testify at the civil trial the summation
7:35you're about to hear will be very heavy
7:36on anti conspiracy arguments since the
7:39defense built almost all of its case
7:41around the police frame-up theory in
7:43listening to it some of you may at some
7:46point say enough but you must realize
7:50that the jury in the criminal trial of
7:52OJ Simpson actually bought this defense
7:54argument also my state of mind would
7:57have been the realization that if just
7:59one of the 12 jurors before me bought
8:01the police conspiracy argument it's a
8:03hung jury and the prosecution would have
8:05had to try the case all over again and
8:07as to that potential one or more jurors
8:10I could never know which one of my anti
8:13conspiracy arguments might resonate with
8:16them eight of them may not have but the
8:18ninth might have the emphasis and all my
8:21arguments to the jury anti conspiracies
8:24well as others will beyond logic logic
8:27is something that only a bad person has
8:28no interest in hearing and my mindset
8:31facing this jury would have been that I
8:33had no reason to believe I was talking
8:35to 12 bad human beings my objective
8:38throughout the summation would be to
8:40convince the jury it had no choice but
8:43to return with a verdict of guilty after
8:46making a few introductory remarks to the
8:48jury at the start of my opening argument
8:49I'd probably make the following
8:52rhetorical statement right at the
8:53beginning to psychologically jar the
8:56jury back to reality
9:02I'd like to make an observation ladies
9:04and gentlemen about a matter that could
9:07be on your minds either consciously or
9:09subconsciously you've been sitting here
9:11now in this courtroom for over nine
9:13months listening to a great number of
9:16issues being vigorously contested by
9:18each side the prosecution and the
9:19defense you've heard close to 200
9:22witnesses give thousands of pages of
9:24testimony
9:25because of this it could be natural for
9:28you as laypeople to save yourself you
9:30know there must be a real issue as to
9:33guilt here because if there isn't why
9:35have we been here in this courtroom for
9:37over nine months why have we been here
9:40for over nine months if there's no real
9:42issue as to guilt
9:44well ladies and gentlemen the jury we've
9:47been here for over nine months not
9:48because there's any real issue as to
9:49guilt
9:50based on the evidence that came from
9:53this witness stand mr. Simpson's guilt
9:55couldn't possibly could not possibly be
9:57any clearer I mean when your blood is
10:00found at the murder scene your fresh
10:02blood at that that's really the end of
10:05the ballgame there's nothing more to say
10:09we've been here for over nine months
10:11simply because mr. Simpson pled not
10:14guilty and came up with a desperate
10:16defense and in America no matter how
10:19guilty are like if there's a hundred
10:21eyewitnesses to saw you commit the crime
10:22our system of justice and I wouldn't
10:26change this for anything I'm not
10:28quarreling with this our system of
10:30justice allows you to plead not guilty
10:33offer a defense and have a trial and
10:36that's the only reason why we've been
10:38here in this courtroom for over nine
10:41months there is no other reason and what
10:44has that defense of mr. Simpson been in
10:47this case by these defense attorneys I
10:51think you and I have seen that there
10:54hasn't been any depth no depth to which
10:58these defense attorneys haven't been
10:59willing to sink
11:00to enable this man to walk out of this
11:03courtroom so we can start playing golf
11:05every day
11:06for instance fraudulently injecting race
11:09into this case when there's no racial
11:11issue involved in this this is simply a
11:14case of a man who happened to be black
11:17murdering his former wife and a young
11:19man who happened to be in her presence
11:21at the wrong time
11:24in a related vein and this is the heart
11:27of their case
11:29these defense attorneys without any
11:31evidence at all to support this
11:33outrageous allegation have falsely
11:36accused innocent police officers of
11:38framing this man of two murders
11:41black and white police officers
11:43particularly during the early years of
11:45their careers risk their lives almost
11:47every day not even knowing when they
11:50give a ticket to a speeding motorist
11:52what there's gonna be some zany or some
11:54escaping criminal that's gonna blow
11:57their brains out they're sued they're
11:59called pigs and then after detectives
12:03like Lange and Vannatter have put in
12:05twenty five long and hard gritty years
12:07serving the public and they're about to
12:10retire and spend a couple years with
12:12their families enjoy a couple years
12:15criminal defense lawyers like Johnnie
12:18Cochran Barry Scheck and F lee Bailey
12:21come along and in front of millions of
12:25people
12:26falsely accused them of the most
12:28despicable act imaginable framing an
12:31innocent man
12:32for two murders
12:35that's really nice isn't it the question
12:38I have for these defense attorneys have
12:41they no sense of decency have they no
12:43shame
12:45what else has a defense done in this
12:47case well we've all seen their technique
12:49their modus operandi if you will
12:51treating every question that they asked
12:53as being the equivalent of proof
12:54splitting hairs with all the evidence
12:56and then proceeding to split the split
12:59hairs
13:01focusing in on one penny-ante mistake
13:04discrepancy or inconsistency and then
13:08trying to either blow it completely out
13:09of proportion
13:11or tell you folks that it's evidence of
13:13a conspiracy to frame this man but if
13:16you put virtually any criminal case
13:18under a high-powered microscope you're
13:20gonna find a couple discrepancies here
13:22and there
13:23inconsistencies slip-ups uh Nance
13:26questions incompetence
13:28however when you look at all these
13:30things in the context of the entire case
13:32they don't add up to a hill of beans
13:35these things happen because of the
13:37nature of life you folks know from your
13:39own personal experiences in life
13:41things don't proceed with mathematical
13:45precision in an apple-pie order and the
13:48law takes cognizance of that fact
13:50that's why the prosecution only has the
13:53burden of proving this man's guilt
13:54beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond all
13:57doubt which of course in this case we
13:59actually have done I mean people are
14:02human they make mistakes
14:04that's why they put erasers on pencils
14:09in this trial right here we've seen one
14:13innocent mistake after another just a
14:15few examples my co prosecutor Rockne
14:18Harmon very competent guy
14:22asking one of our witnesses his name is
14:24Gary Sims he says question mr. Matheson
14:27are you a part of some conspiracy to
14:30frame the defendant in this case answer
14:31my name is Sims not Matheson and no I'm
14:34not
14:36Johnnie Cochran wasn't any better with
14:39names during this case in his opening
14:41statement he referred to Ronald Fishman
14:44a
14:45friend of mr. Simpson's twice and his
14:48opening statement is Ronald Goldman
14:52also Cochran and his opening statement
14:54told you that dr. Kary Mullis who he
14:57said was going to be a defense witness
14:59but he never ended up calling him to the
15:01stand he said he had won the Nobel Peace
15:04Prize
15:04but dr. Mallis had never won the Nobel
15:07Peace Prize
15:09F lee Bailey and questioning LAPD
15:12sergeant David Rossi referring to the
15:14California Health and Safety Code as the
15:16California Penal Code
15:18Faneuil paratus we know removed the
15:21blood from mr. Simpson's left arm the
15:23day after the murders June 13th 1994
15:26then he takes that vial of blood and he
15:28puts it in an envelope
15:29whose date on its label says May the
15:3310th
15:351994 more than a month earlier
15:39this is life and we all know this I was
15:42told to just last week there was an
15:44article in the paper
15:45talking about the space flights from
15:48Cape Canaveral Florida the whole history
15:50of those space flights
15:52and among the many gaffes and blunders
15:54that they mentioned including those that
15:57caused the Challenger disaster of course
15:59in 1986 because the result in the death
16:02of six American astronauts on the Apollo
16:058 flight that circumnavigated the moon
16:08when Colonel Frank Borman the commander
16:12that flight was sending transmissions
16:14back to Cape Canaveral he referred to
16:16the Apollo 8 flight as the Gemini 8
16:19flight a flight he had participated in
16:22three years earlier now just consider
16:25the monumental preparation the colonel
16:27Borman must have put into that flight
16:29and he's sending messages back from
16:32Gemini 8
16:35can't you just hear the likes of mr.
16:38Cochrane and
16:39mr. Scheck if they had been in the
16:41control center down at Cape Canaveral
16:44colonel Borman sent messages thereafter
16:47we can't believe that man this his
16:49credibility has been totally destroyed
16:51and these photos he's sending them the
16:53of the moon how do we know they're not
16:55fake
16:58as I suggested earlier it's not possible
17:01to call a great number of witnesses to
17:03the stand testifying to a great number
17:05of events without there being some
17:08discrepancies and unanswered questions
17:11here and there
17:12but of course the defense theory during
17:15this trial is that the prosecution
17:18doesn't call robots and computers to the
17:21witness stand we only call human beings
17:23somehow or other that means that mr.
17:27Simpson did not stab Nicole Brown
17:30Simpson and Ronald Goldman to death on
17:33the evening of June 12th 1994 but if
17:36they want to play a game like that
17:37ladies and gentlemen the jury let them
17:39play it by themselves a
17:41classic example of the defense has taken
17:45a small unanswered question and blowing
17:47it completely out of proportion
17:50arose out of the testimony of doctor and
17:53really this will be a little detailed
17:55but I think it would be worth our while
17:57to discuss it because I think it
17:59illustrates a very important point
18:02you recall the dr. Lee found four small
18:05blood stains on a paper bindle that
18:08enclosed seven cotton swatches that
18:11contain blood from item number 47 one of
18:15the five Bundy blood drops which has
18:17been identified by DNA tests of course
18:19is belonging to mr. Simpson
18:22Lee couldn't figure out how the blood
18:26could have leaked onto that paper bindle
18:28in view of the fact that the swatches
18:30had been left out to dry overnight
18:32before they were placed in the bindle
18:34the fact that there was no assurance at
18:37all that the blood on all of these seven
18:39cotton swatches dried completely
18:41overnight or that there was some other
18:43innocent explanation did not deter dr.
18:46Lee from saying quote there's something
18:49wrong and the defense has asked you to
18:52believe that what was wrong here is that
18:54evil LAPD conspirators
18:57crept into the LAPD crime lab in the
19:00middle of the night and
19:01planted or tampered with evidence
19:05but there was nothing wrong here apart
19:09from the possible innocent explanation
19:10that I've already given you here's the
19:12proof that whatever happened was totally
19:15innocent as
19:16we saw from the evidence on that very
19:19same day at the crime lab item number 42
19:23some of Nicole's blood taken from the
19:26pool blood around her body
19:28also leaked onto the separate paper
19:31bindle
19:32enclosing the swatches that contained
19:35the blood and no one would be crazy
19:38enough to argue what day no one would be
19:40crazy enough to argue
19:41that these evil LAPD conspirators would
19:45be creeping into the crime lab in the
19:47middle of the night and tampering or
19:49planting Nicole's blood I mean it wasn't
19:52a cold Brown Simpson was found murdered
19:55at the crime scene wasn't it I mean no
19:57one's questioning that fact no one's
19:59that crazy are they
20:03so we know that there was a totally
20:06innocent explanation for those four
20:08small bloodstains that doctor Lee
20:09testified to yet the defense
20:12has seized on this tiny tiny supposed
20:15discrepancy a very small part of their
20:18entire case as the mantra for their
20:22entire defense
20:24taking dr. Lee's something wrong
20:26testimony about this very small part of
20:29the case and treating it as if it were a
20:32description of the prosecution's entire
20:35case
20:37but you see ladies and gentlemen of the
20:39jury
20:40you make mountains out of mole hills you
20:44seize on tiny discrepancies
20:47you split hairs you look at the bits and
20:51the crumbs in the particles of a case if
20:53what if you know your client is guilty
20:56and there's nothing else for you to do
21:00you certainly don't look at the
21:02incriminating evidence in the case these
21:05defense attorneys had no more desire to
21:07look at the real evidence in this case
21:09then one would have a desire to stare
21:11into the noonday Sun and if I were they
21:14I wouldn't either because all of the
21:16evidence not some of it all of it points
21:18irresistible to this man's guilt
21:23since mr. Cochran and his colleagues
21:26have no legitimate defense to these
21:28murders
21:29they in their client mr. Simpson have
21:31also predictably predictably
21:35floundered aimlessly around
21:37throwing out for your consideration
21:41one flat-out contradictory allegation
21:45after another hoping praying that at
21:47least one of them would stick on the
21:51walls of your mind for instance mr.
21:54Cochran first suggested to you that
21:59Colombian drug lords Colombian drug
22:02lords who by the way Forbes magazine
22:04said are among the wealthiest people in
22:07the world with net worths of several
22:10billion dollars
22:11Colombian drug lords
22:14may really be the ones responsible for
22:16these and who are they after not Nicole
22:18but Faye Resnick
22:21Nicole's friend and they confused Faye
22:26Resnick with Nicole who bears absolutely
22:28no resemblance to Nicole and murdered
22:31poor Nicole Colombian drug lords among
22:35the wealthiest people in the world and
22:36they're after Faye Resnick
22:38because she owed them money on her $30 a
22:42day cocaine habit
22:47you know I should add and this is
22:49unimportant here because the whole
22:52notion of Colombian drug lords going
22:54after Faye Resnick is just insane on its
22:56face
22:57that not only did Faye Resnick testify
23:00that she didn't owe anyone a penny for
23:02her drugs
23:03but we gave the fellow
23:06who sold Faye Resnick her small daily
23:10amount of drugs immunity from
23:11prosecution
23:12he took the witness stand and told you
23:14folks
23:15that Faye Resnick always paid cash for
23:18her drugs and never owed him anything at
23:20all
23:21later in the trial mr. Cochran changed a
23:24story about who killed Ron and Nicole by
23:27suggesting that the true killer or
23:29killers
23:29were probably after Ronald Goldman not
23:33Faye Resnick now all of a sudden now
23:34it's Ron Goldman
23:36because of an envelope that mr. Goldman
23:39brought with him the contents of an
23:41envelope that he brought with him to
23:44Bundy that night another example these
23:47are examples of these flat-out
23:48contradictory allegations
23:51just giving it to vs. Colombian drug
23:55lords then people after Ronald Goldman
23:59Colombian drug lords after Faye Resnick
24:01killers after Ronald Goldman two
24:05completely contradictory allegations
24:07another example and mister cochran's
24:10opening statement to you folks you
24:14recall that he told you that mr. Simpson
24:17was practicing his golf on the front
24:20lawn of his Rockingham estate around the
24:22time of the murders but
24:24mr. Simpson told Allen Park
24:28the little driver in this case that he
24:31was sleeping around that time a further
24:34contradiction when mr. Simpson was
24:37interrogated by detectives Lange in the
24:39night or the day after the murders he
24:42said nothing about playing golf
24:47or sleeping at the time of these murders
24:50nothing about playing golf or sleeping
24:52at the time of these murders what he did
24:54say he was very very busy he said
24:56packing and getting ready for his trip
24:59to Chicago
25:00you know the flip-flops and these
25:02absolute contradictions by these people
25:05absolute contradictions throughout the
25:07entire trial remind me of a story that
25:10people tell about a civil case years ago
25:14seems that the plaintiff sued his
25:17neighbor
25:18alleging that while he was walking on
25:20the sidewalk in front of his neighbor's
25:22home the neighbor's dog had run out in
25:24the sidewalk and bitten him caused
25:26injuries
25:27the neighbor filed an answer to the
25:29complaint he set forth three contentions
25:31first contention
25:33my dog has chained to the house the
25:37chain doesn't extend out to the sidewalk
25:39so there's no possible way that my dog
25:43could have bitten the plaintiff number
25:45two my dog is an old dog it doesn't have
25:48any teeth so even if he did fight the
25:51plaintiff there's no possible way you
25:52could hurt him and number three I don't
25:54even own a dog
25:56[Music]
25:58that's the defense in this case that's
26:01the defense in this case one
26:03contradictory allegation after another
26:06they can't tell a story the same way
26:08ladies and gentlemen the jury the same
26:11way twice and that's because mr. Simpson
26:14murdered the two victims in this case
26:16and when you tell a different story that
26:18you made up
26:20you don't have the truth what really
26:23happened the actual event to serve as a
26:26basis a mental anchor as it were for
26:29what you're saying I'm sure you've all
26:31heard the expression a liar has to have
26:33an awfully good memory
26:35it's much easier to remember an actual
26:38event than some story that you made up
26:41out of whole cloth
26:44mr. Simpson because he committed these
26:46murders has no choice but to lie in
26:49these defense attorneys because they
26:51have no case
26:53have no choice but to come up with one
26:56outrageous allegation after another to
26:59defend this man
27:01now should any of you be saying to
27:03yourself gee you know
27:05these defense attorneys don't have
27:07anything to argue except smoke and
27:09mirrors of course except smoke and
27:11mirrors but they don't have anything to
27:12argue they don't have any case I almost
27:14feel sorry for them
27:16should any of you be thinking that about
27:18these defense attorneys no case nothing
27:20to argue
27:22but of course ladies and gentlemen the
27:24jury although sympathy and sorrow should
27:27not and cannot under the law cannot
27:30under the law enter into your
27:31deliberations anyway in this case if it
27:34were allowed which it is not
27:37obviously
27:38the only two people that anyone should
27:41feel sorry for in this case are Nicole
27:43Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and of
27:46course they're survivors
27:47who are going to be having nightmares
27:49for the rest of their lives over what
27:51happened to their loved ones
27:56we can't ever forget so easy during a
28:00trial with all the testimony and talking
28:02about mathematical formulas and
28:04computations so easy to forget what this
28:07trial is really all about we cannot
28:10forget what this trial is all about it's
28:12about murder murder
28:16the most serious crime in the Bible
28:19the most serious crime in the laws of
28:22man
28:26at this very moment while I'm talking to
28:29you folks two precious human beings
28:31running a core decomposing in their
28:33graves
28:34and the evidence that came from that
28:37witness stand under oath proves beyond
28:39all doubt that mr. Simpson is the one
28:41who brutally murdered them two young
28:44people in the springtime of their lives
28:47who desperately wanted to live and this
28:51man here says no you're going to die
28:55and my job here representing the people
28:58the state of California is to bring
29:00about justice in this case to make sure
29:02that this man does not walk out of this
29:04courtroom a free man
29:08the defense in this case felt that mark
29:11Fuhrman was
29:13going to be their Savior manna from
29:16heaven
29:18they felt they could paint mark Fuhrman
29:20in your eyes as the supreme racist who
29:24was the main LAPD officer who had framed
29:27their client because he was a black man
29:31but as we've seen at this trial turns
29:33out that mark Fuhrman is not that bad a
29:35guy not that bad a guy graduated number
29:39two in his class at the police academy
29:42only for citizen complaints against him
29:45in close to 20 years not an excessive
29:48unusual amount of complaints for close
29:50to 20 years
29:52apparently used to have racist
29:54tendencies no question about that
29:58but those Fuhrman tapes as you know go
30:01all the way up to 1994 in the last time
30:05mark Fuhrman used the racial slur [ __ ]
30:08on those Fuhrman tapes
30:101988 six years earlier there was an
30:15entire six-year period
30:17when Mark Fuhrman made no racist remarks
30:21on those Fuhrman tapes let's not get
30:23that six years
30:25in 1994 mark fuhrman had some black
30:29friends one of whom
30:31Dannette myers deputy district attorney
30:35here in the DA's office
30:37testified
30:39then on several occasions mark Fuhrman
30:42had her over to his home for dinner with
30:45his wife and two children
30:47we know that Fuhrman in 1994 was getting
30:51up to three days a week at 5:00 in the
30:53morning to play basketball with fellow
30:55black officers and most importantly by
30:59far most importantly by far
31:03we learned that in early 1994 just
31:07months before these murders
31:09mark Fuhrman wasn't out there framing
31:12black people he was working hard to free
31:15a black man by the name of Eric Harris
31:17who was charged with the murder of a
31:19white man Sean Stewart
31:22for a West Los Angeles killing that
31:24arose out of a drug transaction and as
31:28we know he succeeded when Fuhrman came
31:30upon evidence favorable to Harris what
31:32does he do comes down to the DA's office
31:34and gets my office to dismiss the
31:37charges against Harris
31:39you heard what Harris said from that
31:41witness stand I was a goner he said if
31:44it hadn't been for that man referring to
31:46Mark Fuhrman is
31:49that what racists do who hate black
31:52people work hard to free a black man
31:55charged with the murder of a white man
31:56it's so ridiculous it's silly to even
31:58talk about it and
32:01yet the defense attorneys are asking you
32:03to believe that among other things Mark
32:05Fuhrman planted that bloody glove from
32:07the Bundy crime scene at Rockingham in
32:11an effort to frame this man for two
32:14murders
32:16well number one even if Mark Fuhrman
32:20wanted to plant that bloody glove which
32:23as it's clear from what I just told you
32:25folks he never in a million years would
32:27have wanted to do but even if he had
32:28wanted to he couldn't have why do I say
32:31that well you know why you heard 14 LAPD
32:35officers testify from this witness and
32:37under oath that there was only one glove
32:40at the Bundy crime scene and they
32:42arrived there before mark fuhrman did at
32:442:10 in the morning they saw only one
32:46glove so there was no second glove at
32:50Bundy for Mark Fuhrman to pick up in
32:53deposit at Rockingham I'll repeat this
32:56there was no second glove at Bundy for
33:00Mark Fuhrman to pick up take over to
33:03Rockingham and plant there
33:08to buy the defense argument
33:13that there were actually two gloves at
33:16Bundy and Mark Fuhrman picked one of
33:19those gloves up and brought it to
33:21Rockingham and planted it you'd have to
33:23believe I think necessarily some
33:26conversation would have had to have
33:27taken place here between Mark Fuhrman
33:29and the 14 LAPD officers who took that
33:32witness stand and told you folks that
33:34there was only one glove at Bundy he
33:37must have had a conversation with them
33:40to this effect these may not have been
33:43the exact words but to this effect
33:44listen I don't know all you guys
33:48your uniform I've been working detective
33:51for quite a few years but here's the
33:53skinny I've got this thing about blacks
33:55particularly when there's when they're
33:57sleeping with a white woman as Simpson
33:59was and you know I'd really like to see
34:01this SOB go down so I need you guys to
34:04help me out to back me up testify on
34:07that witness stand that there was only
34:09one glove at the Bundy murder scene okay
34:12oh you want
34:14for there actually to have been two
34:17gloves at Bundy when Fuhrman arrived
34:20there
34:20wouldn't they conversation at least
34:23similar to that have had to take place
34:27but are we really to believe that not
34:29only did Mark Fuhrman lie on that
34:31witness stand but that he got 14 LAPD
34:34officers to commit perjury for him
34:40that was absolutely nothing to gain on
34:43their part they agreed to jeopardize
34:46their careers and risk going to the
34:48state prison just to help him out
34:51when several of them told you folks that
34:53prior to that night they had never even
34:55met mark fuhrman and they're gonna risk
34:58going to the state prison 14 LAPD
35:00officers I mean is there any limit to
35:04the insanity
35:05these defense attorneys would want us to
35:07believe in this case
35:09before I move on I'd like to touch on a
35:13very rich irony here the defense wants
35:16you to believe that Mark Fuhrman is this
35:18virulent ly racist white cop whom black
35:21people should hate and detest with a
35:23passion and of course they want you to
35:25believe that OJ Simpson should be a hero
35:28to Black's but for several long and
35:31gritty years Mark Fuhrman used to work
35:33South Central as we all know is almost
35:37exclusively black
35:39several of you folks right now live in
35:41South Central
35:43and you know that it has the highest
35:45violent crime rate in the city so you
35:48know much better than I that South
35:50Central can be a dangerous area of town
35:53particularly at night
35:56what was Furman's job for a barely
35:59livable wage going down there every day
36:02to protect black people to protect black
36:06people from the criminal element
36:10in other words on a day to day basis and
36:14frequently working graveyard
36:16mark Fuhrman the supposed racist black
36:20hater was willing to risk his life to
36:24protect black people not white folks
36:26because white folks don't live in South
36:29Central
36:31what was the defendant in this case mr.
36:33Simpson doing during the same period the
36:35evidence says showed that he was living
36:36and moving exclusively in the safe and
36:40protected in luxurious world of affluent
36:44whites it's kind of an interesting irony
36:46to think about mark Fuhrman is down
36:50south central protecting black people
36:54from the criminal element risk in his
36:56life
36:59of course the defense claim of a
37:02conspiracy to frame mr. Simpson has gone
37:04far beyond mark Fuhrman if we are to
37:06believe mr. Cochran mr. Scheck and mr.
37:08Bailey mr. Shapiro has not made his
37:12position clear in this case
37:16all four LAPD detectives as well as
37:20virtually every other member of the LAPD
37:22involved in investigation of this case
37:24either participated in the framing of OJ
37:27Simpson or participated in the cover-up
37:30of the frame-up
37:32let's talk about the four detectives in
37:34this case for a moment to believe this
37:36ridiculous preposterous conspiracy
37:39frame-up theory propounded by these
37:41defense attorneys in this case
37:43you'd have to believe that these two
37:45teams of LAPD detectives Langevin adder
37:48permanent Phillips
37:49different divisions of the LAPD
37:52Langevin at our downtown Robbery
37:54Homicide permanent Phillips West LA
37:56division didn't work with each other
37:58didn't even know each other didn't even
38:00know each other and they arrived at the
38:03murder scene in the middle of the night
38:04and suddenly all four of them agree
38:07that whoever killed these two poor
38:09people they didn't care they were gonna
38:11let the true killer or killers go they
38:12couldn't care less and suddenly they all
38:15decided notice sense to frame of all
38:19people Oh Jay Simpson
38:22someone who we learned that this trial
38:24was a friend of the LAPD it's a friend
38:27of the LAPD he'd go to their Christmas
38:30parties at the West LA division
38:31autographed footballs
38:33several them swam in his pool played
38:36tennis on his courts I
38:39mean even if the police were to frame a
38:42black man Oh Jay Simpson would be one of
38:45the very last black men on the face of
38:47this earth whom they would have framed
38:51here's someone they had always liked
38:53even pampered
38:55recall Nicole's anguish cried to the
38:59LAPD officers who responded to her 911
39:01call 1989
39:04you come out you talk to him but you'd
39:07never do anything to him
39:12so they wouldn't even arrest this man
39:15for wife-beating
39:16but they're willing to frame him for
39:19murder
39:21I've always had a sweet tooth for the
39:23symmetry of logic like that
39:27I'm being sarcastic of course you know
39:31they say that when you get older you're
39:32supposed to become more mellow but with
39:34me I seems to be the opposite the older
39:36I get the more sarcastic I seem to be
39:37getting
39:39but stop to think about it ladies and
39:41gentlemen here's someone that the LAPD
39:43not only likes no question about that
39:46they liked OJ Simpson but he's someone
39:50who's a multi-millionaire lives in a
39:53wealthy virtually all-white neighborhood
39:55moves and socializes exclusively in the
39:59white corporate and establishment worlds
40:01with powerful connections why would they
40:04want to mess with someone like that why
40:05would they want to mess with someone
40:06like that you
40:09jurors particularly those of you who are
40:11black know that this defendant is black
40:14in color only I mean he'd need a road
40:15map to get back to the hood
40:20yet according to these defense attorneys
40:23these LAPD detectives set out to frame
40:26him for these terribly brutal gruesome
40:28murders
40:30because he's a black man just because
40:32he's a black man and in the process not
40:36only jeopardized their careers but risk
40:38their very lives
40:41because under Section 128 of the
40:44California Penal Code you plant evidence
40:45and testify falsely in a capital case
40:48and under some circumstances you can get
40:51the death penalty yourself
40:56although this case ended up not being a
40:59capital case because my office decided
41:01not to seek the death penalty against
41:03him
41:04at the time of the alleged frame-up the
41:08night of the murders and shortly
41:09thereafter with these two terribly
41:12brutal savage murders the four
41:15detectives in this case would have had
41:17every reason to believe that whoever the
41:19killer turned out to be my office would
41:22seek the death penalty against that
41:23person
41:25and when several of these officers later
41:27testified at the preliminary hearing in
41:29this case my office had not yet decided
41:31not to seek the death penalty so if they
41:34testified falsely at that preliminary
41:36hearing they were risking their very
41:38lives
41:41Phil Vannatter
41:4426 years on the force not one citizen
41:48complaint against him in 26 years
41:51about to retire in a couple months with
41:54his wife reader to their farm in Indiana
41:55and he's gonna risk his good name in his
41:59pension and possibly his very life to
42:03frame this man Oh Jay Simpson I wouldn't
42:06believe a story like that if you shouted
42:08it into my ears for 100 years
42:13and yet that's precisely what the
42:15defense in this case wants you folks to
42:17believe and why were these officers
42:19willing to risk their lives risk going
42:21to the gas chamber to frame this man
42:23what was in it for them
42:25what was their motive well I don't know
42:27I guess they were upset with him because
42:29he was born black
42:31or maybe was because he married a white
42:33woman
42:34anyone who would believe an incredible
42:37fable like that would believe someone
42:39who told me once saw an elegant doing
42:41the Polka
42:43is there anyone in this courtroom who
42:46doesn't realize how absolutely and
42:49utterly and completely insane it is
42:52to believe that all four of these
42:54detectives or even one of them would
42:57jeopardize their careers list their very
42:59lives
43:01to frame this man for these murders how
43:05dare how dare these defense attorneys
43:08accuse these officers of framing an
43:10innocent man for murder the Follis most
43:14despicable D most reprehensible deed
43:17that any human can do to another human
43:20being short of murder I mean where did
43:24they get the guts to make a charge like
43:26that where do you buy guts like that I
43:28haven't seen any guts like that in the
43:30store front windows here in LA maybe mr.
43:32Scheck brought them with him when he
43:33came from the Bronx
43:37these defense attorneys these defense
43:40attorneys have elevated audacity to
43:43previously unimaginable Heights
43:47to show you just how preposterous the
43:50defense conspiracy theory is even if the
43:53four LAPD detectives had wanted to frame
43:55OJ Simpson which of course itself is a
43:58preposterous notion but even if they had
44:00wanted to
44:02it would have been virtually impossible
44:05and I'll tell you why
44:07the number of people who would have had
44:10to have been involved in this massive
44:12conspiracy and the complexity of what
44:14they would have had to have done is
44:15simply mind-boggling to give you just an
44:19example of the complexity the
44:21dark cotton sweat suit that kato kaelin
44:25you heard him testify he saw this this
44:28man this defendant mr. Simpson wearing
44:30less than one hour before these murders
44:33has never been produced by the defense
44:36in this case
44:37so for dark cotton fibers to end up on
44:41Ron Goldman's shirt as they did the
44:44detectives would have had to go out by a
44:46dark cotton sweat suit remove fibers
44:49from remove fibers from it check Ron
44:53Goldman's shirt out of the property
44:55division of the LAPD and then embed
44:57those fibers into Ron Goldman's shirt
45:01did likewise have to remove fibers from
45:04the carpet of mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco
45:07check the glove found on the Rockingham
45:10the state out of the property division
45:12and embed those fibers into that glove
45:17nine black hairs with the same
45:20microscopic characteristics as mr.
45:23Simpson's hair were found inside a black
45:26knit cap found near the bodies of the
45:28victims a tenth hair like this was found
45:31on Ron Goldman's shirt
45:34100 hairs were removed by court order
45:37from mr. Simpson's had for comparison
45:39purposes so without the defense
45:42attorneys noticing that any hairs were
45:43missing the detectives would have also
45:46had to take ten of those hairs from the
45:49bindle containing the hundred hairs and
45:52embed nine of them into the dark knit
45:55cap and one of them into Ron Goldman's
45:58shirt
46:00and so on and so on with a great number
46:03of other pieces of evidence in this case
46:05a person would have to have a brain
46:06smaller than the point of the finest
46:08needle to believe nonsense like that
46:13as to the number of people that it would
46:15have had to be involved in this massive
46:17conspiracy
46:18in addition to the four detectives in
46:21the 14 uniformed LAPD officers who mark
46:25fuhrman supposedly got to lie commit
46:27perjury on the stand for him
46:31these conspirators if there was a
46:33conspiracy
46:34would have necessarily necessarily also
46:38had to persuade all the civilian
46:41criminalists at the LAPD crime lab like
46:44Dennis Fung Andrea Missoula
46:46Colin Yamauchi Greg Matheson to join in
46:50the conspiracy to frame this man
46:53also they also would have had to enlist
46:56into the conspiracy all the criminalists
46:59who worked on this case at the State
47:01Department of Justice lab at Berkeley in
47:03the Cellmark lab in Maryland why do I
47:06say that
47:07because if they didn't if they didn't
47:10list all of these criminalists that
47:12those three crime labs
47:14not only with the canoe with the
47:16conspirators have had to plant all the
47:19incriminating physical evidence against
47:21this man
47:22they'd also have to be successful in
47:25eliminating all the physical evidence
47:29that may have been left behind by the
47:32true killer or killers
47:33right in just picture detectives Tom
47:38Lange Phil Vannatter
47:40Ron Phillips and Mark Furman huddled at
47:43the Bundy crime scene in the middle of
47:45the night like it's just here Phil
47:46Vannatter say
47:47listen Tom and I Tom and I will round up
47:50all the hair fiber and blood belonging
47:52to mr. Simpson that we need and plant it
47:54you guys groans around and find and
47:57destroy eliminate all the hair fiber and
48:01blood that may have been behind by the
48:03true killer killers let's all meet over
48:07coffee at McDonald's at 6:00 we'll
48:08compare notes
48:11well you know it sounds a little funny
48:14but without that conversation without
48:16that conversation or something close to
48:19it taking place
48:20the conspirators would have had to worry
48:23the conspirators would have had to worry
48:26about
48:27reports coming back from the
48:30criminalists
48:31saying that unidentified hair fiber and
48:35blood was found all over the crime scene
48:38and of course once those reports started
48:41coming back to people outside the
48:43conspiracy like myself colleagues of
48:46mine down at the DA's office it would
48:48just be a matter of time of course
48:49before the frame-up would be exposed the
48:52jig would be up and the careers and the
48:56lives of these conspirators would then
48:58be on the line
48:59if there had been a conspiracy here the
49:02only way
49:04for the conspirators to have precluded
49:06this
49:08would have been for them to enlist all
49:10of these criminalists into the
49:13conspiracy to frame this man you just
49:15picture a
49:17chemist at the Cellmark lab
49:21back in Maryland he's peering into his
49:24microscope and the phone rings at some
49:25LAPD detective from LA saying they were
49:28framing OJ Simpson and and therefore if
49:32any hair fiber and blood not belonging
49:35to mr. Simpson turns up don't put it in
49:37your reports
49:42ladies and gentlemen of the jury is all
49:44of this defense argument about a police
49:47conspiracy and a frame-up is it sanity
49:50or is it insanity is it sense or is it
49:56nonsense I think everyone in this
49:59courtroom knows the answer to that
50:00question
50:03just one very small addendum to this
50:05discussion if there was this massive
50:08conspiracy to frame this man
50:10involving a considerable number of
50:12people
50:14how come not one word about it has
50:18leaked out not one worth
50:21we all know from our own experiences and
50:24you take your own experiences back to
50:27the jury room when you deliberate you
50:29don't leave your experiences at the jury
50:31door we all know from our experiences
50:34that it's almost impossible to keep a
50:37secret
50:37people have a funny funny habit of
50:40talking
50:41to their spouses to their colleagues to
50:45their friends who in turn talk to others
50:46I'll stipulate I'll agree three people
50:50can keep a secret I'll agree with you on
50:52that but only if two are dead
50:56in this case here almost an entire year
51:01and a half has gone by
51:03yeah and yet with all these people
51:06supposedly involved in this conspiracy
51:08to frame this man not one word not one
51:12syllable
51:14has leaked out just one other indication
51:18of Hall nonsensical and ridiculous this
51:21whole Police frame-up theory is
51:25do you folks realize that we have the
51:28incredibly ridiculous situation here and
51:31by the way I have to apologize to you
51:32for using the words like ridiculous and
51:34preposterous so much to describe these
51:36defense allegations but in in my partial
51:39defense I hope you folks realize that
51:42there aren't too many adjectives for me
51:44to use to describe these outrageous
51:46allegations other than words like
51:49ridiculous preposterous absurd anyway I
51:52was saying that we have the incredibly
51:54ridiculous situation here where mr.
51:57Simpson's defense attorneys are claiming
51:59that he was framed for these two murders
52:03but not even their own client mr.
52:06Simpson
52:08agrees with them
52:11if you know you're completely innocent
52:14of a crime and all of a sudden there's a
52:16ton of evidence that turns up against
52:17you pointing towards your guilt you
52:20immediately know
52:21that you're being framed
52:25yet mr. Simpson has never told anyone or
52:29even vaguely suggested to anyone such a
52:32thing
52:34if he knew or suspected that he was
52:37being framed
52:38wouldn't he have said so and that
52:4132-minute interrogation of him by
52:43detectives Lange and Vannatter the day
52:45after the murders
52:47wouldn't he have said so in the farewell
52:50letter he wrote several days later when
52:52he learned he was going to be charged
52:53with these murders
52:55would that have been the most natural
52:58thing in the world for him to have done
53:00in that farewell letter if he thought he
53:03was being framed and during the slow
53:07speed chase when he was talking on a
53:09cellular phone
53:10with the police his mother his friends
53:15he said nothing at all about being free
53:19not one word in
53:23fact at the end of that slow speed chase
53:26when he was taken into custody but he
53:28tectors Langevin at her
53:31he said I'm sorry you guys I'm sorry he
53:34kept telling them that he was sorry for
53:36having led them on a chase is that what
53:40you say to people who you believe are
53:41framing you for a murder that you're
53:43sorry for putting them out I
53:50mean when you're being framed for
53:52murders that you did not commit
53:55don't you shout this from the highest
53:57rooftops that you're being framed
54:01yet in all these times I've told you
54:04about with all the opportunity in the
54:06world for him to say so not once did
54:09this man say one word about being framed
54:13mr. Simpson's lawyers want you to
54:15believe something then that their own
54:19client mr. Simpson does not believe
54:21there ought to be a law against things
54:23like this
54:26quite apart then from all these
54:28scientific DNA evidence that
54:31conclusively proves this man's guilt
54:33beyond all doubt other than his getting
54:36up in court right now and confessing to
54:38you folks
54:39he has already told you by his words by
54:42his actions that he is guilty guilty
54:45these two murders I mean if mr. Simpson
54:48were innocent
54:50how did these LAPD conspirators get him
54:53to act in such a guilty way
54:57how did they get him to act like the
54:59guiltiest person imaginable
55:02did they come up to him and say oh Jay
55:04we're gonna frame you but we need your
55:06help old buddy
55:09we need you to act guilty
55:12and he said to them no sweat tell me
55:15what you guys need tell me what you want
55:19if mr. Simpson were innocent
55:22how did these evil LAPD conspirators how
55:26did they get him to tell that monumental
55:30lie to the limo driver Ellen Park they
55:34just got out of the shower I overslept
55:37just got out of the shower I'll be right
55:38down when mr. Park had just seen him
55:41enter his home a couple seconds earlier
55:43how do they get him to tell that lie
55:47if mr. Simpson were innocent how did
55:50these evil LAPD conspirators get him
55:52when sergeant Phillips called them in
55:55Chicago eight hours after the murders to
55:59tell them to tell him that Nicole had
56:01been killed not murdered just killed it
56:03could have been a car accident
56:05Phillips didn't say
56:06how did they get this man not to ask
56:10Phillips how did it happen when did it
56:15happen where did it happen he asked none
56:17of those questions
56:21how did they get this man to write a
56:24suicide note
56:27if he's innocent and they're framing him
56:31and then two days later how did they get
56:34him to flee with his friend al cowlings
56:36in that Bronco
56:39with a gun a passport and a disguise
56:43again if there was a police conspiracy
56:46in this case to frame mr. Simpson and he
56:49was innocent
56:50how did they get him to act so guilty to
56:53be such an extremely cooperative fray me
56:58did mr. Simpson by any chance decide to
57:01join in the conspiracy against himself
57:05about that suicide note but
57:09mr. Simpson learned he was gonna be
57:11charged with these murders if he were
57:13innocent you'd have been outraged that
57:16he was being charged with murders that
57:19he did not commit how dare you accused
57:21me of these crimes he would have
57:23desperately wanted to prove his
57:24innocence find out who murdered the
57:26mother of his own two children instead
57:29he doesn't do any of these things no he
57:30becomes completely passive
57:33and he writes us to whom it may concern
57:36farewell letter that reads exactly like
57:37a suicide note
57:39and refers to himself as this quote lost
57:42person
57:45the letter reeks with guilt show me an
57:49innocent person on the face of this
57:50earth charged with two counts of murder
57:52who would write a note like that
57:56why did the defendant write the suicide
58:00note On June 15 1994 two days later of
58:04course he decided after all that he did
58:06want to live and he fled in the Bronco
58:09with Al cowlings but why did he write
58:11that suicide note On June 15
58:141994
58:16obviously only mr. Simpson knows why he
58:19wrote that note it's to speculate on
58:21human motivation I think you all agree
58:23is a rather unprofitable under
58:25undertaking only he knows why he wrote
58:27that note the only thing we know is that
58:31it was not the conduct of an innocent
58:32man
58:33charged with the murder of his former
58:36wife
58:37but if I have to speculate
58:40he probably had a perverse type of love
58:43for Nicole
58:48and was very very deeply depressed
58:53that he had murdered her
58:56another likely thought in his mind if I
58:59had to speculate is that he had
59:01committed these two unbelievably
59:03horrendous murders and he didn't want to
59:06face the enormous public humiliation nor
59:10did he want to pay for these murders
59:11perhaps he may have even thought in the
59:13gas chamber at San Quentin
59:15he wanted to go out his way
59:19but as it turned out my office decided
59:21not to seek the death penalty against
59:23him of course he would have had no way
59:24of knowing this at that time
59:29I've been pointing out to you that this
59:32defendants fleeing with mr. Collins and
59:35Colleen's Bronco can only be consistent
59:38with guilt not innocence
59:41but what the police found in mr.
59:43Simpson's possession at the end of that
59:45slow speed chase if possible
59:47is even more incriminating a
59:52loaded Smith & Wesson gun
59:55his passport a disguise in the form of a
59:58fake goatee and mustache
1:00:01four pairs of folded socks
1:00:04for t-shirts and two pairs of underwear
1:00:07in other words mr. Simpson was leaving
1:00:09town he's leaving town
1:00:13well if he was gonna stay here he
1:00:16certainly was gonna stay incognito
1:00:18and we all know that's the way innocent
1:00:20people act of course that's the way they
1:00:22act they either run away or they stay in
1:00:24town they put on a disguise so no one
1:00:26will recognize them
1:00:29additionally mr. cowlings at the end of
1:00:32that slow speed chase the detective
1:00:34notice notice that his pockets were
1:00:35bulging they asked him to empty out his
1:00:37pockets he removes eight thousand seven
1:00:40hundred and fifty dollars in currency
1:00:41which he proceeds to tell the detectives
1:00:44that mr. Simpson had given him inside
1:00:46the Bronco
1:00:47all of this couldn't possibly be more
1:00:50powerful evidence of guilt I mean the
1:00:53passport alone why does this guy have a
1:00:56passport on him unless he's thinking of
1:00:59escaping
1:01:00and why is he thinking of escaping
1:01:03if he's innocent
1:01:06why is this defendant mr. Simpson
1:01:09thinking of escaping if he's innocent I
1:01:17mean this man's guilt is so obvious
1:01:20folks that I'm I'm I'm almost
1:01:22embarrassed
1:01:22standing up here in front of you folks
1:01:25talking about it but he pled not guilty
1:01:26which he has a legal right to do and so
1:01:29I must do what I'm doing
1:01:32to make double and triple sure that he
1:01:35doesn't walk out of this courtroom a
1:01:37free man
1:01:39before I move on I want to mention one
1:01:42very very intriguing date in this entire
1:01:45saga in the Bronco right alongside the
1:01:51fake goatee and mustache in his
1:01:54traveling bag
1:01:56was the receipt for the purchase of
1:01:59these items from the cinema secrets
1:02:01beauty supply
1:02:034400 Riverside Drive in Burbank the date
1:02:08that these items were purchased by mr.
1:02:10Simpson is what is salt incriminating it
1:02:13was May 27
1:02:151994 just over two weeks prior to these
1:02:20murders
1:02:21and as we learn from Faye Resnick
1:02:25just a few days after Nicole gave back
1:02:29to mr. Simpson
1:02:31earrings and a bracelet he had given her
1:02:35for her birthday on May 19th telling him
1:02:38that their relationship was finally in
1:02:40terrific ibly over
1:02:43as judge Ito will instruct you the
1:02:46prosecution does not have the burden of
1:02:48proving why this defendant committed
1:02:50these murders
1:02:51motive is never an element of the corpus
1:02:54delicti that means the essential
1:02:55necessary elements of any crime the
1:02:58prosecution only has to prove that the
1:03:00defendant committed the crime not why
1:03:03but Faye Resnick we know was a confidant
1:03:06of both Nicole and mr. Simpson near the
1:03:09end in fact she lived with Nicole near
1:03:11the end
1:03:12she and other witnesses have testified
1:03:14about the Iraqi tempestuous relationship
1:03:17that mr. Simpson had with Nicole in the
1:03:20fact that Nicole had left him on
1:03:22previous occasions but then would
1:03:25reconcile with him
1:03:26but always in the past miss Resnick
1:03:29testified when the Kohl would leave mr.
1:03:32Simpson she would tell him that she
1:03:34still loved him and that she was only
1:03:36leaving because they couldn't get along
1:03:38they were just incompatible I
1:03:41think we can reasonably infer from that
1:03:44that as long as as mr. Simpson knew that
1:03:48Nicole still loved him
1:03:49she was still his
1:03:52he's still owned her
1:03:54and in his mind he was confident they
1:03:57would have another day
1:04:01but this time miss Resnick testified it
1:04:04was different Nicole she said felt free
1:04:06for the very first time since she had
1:04:08fallen in love with mr. Simpson years
1:04:10earlier she
1:04:11was finally able to sever the umbilical
1:04:14cord between herself and mr. Simpson
1:04:18because miss Resnick testified
1:04:21Nicole no longer loved him and he knew
1:04:24it
1:04:27now the defense in this case as you know
1:04:29has tried to convince you folks that mr.
1:04:32Simpson wouldn't have had any reason to
1:04:34kill Nicole because he was over her and
1:04:36it started a new life without her
1:04:39the probable reality however is
1:04:43that he was not over her and
1:04:46that he killed her because she was over
1:04:49him
1:04:53it was finally over and whether he truly
1:04:57loved her or not he may not have been
1:04:59able to take it he couldn't take the
1:05:01rejection of him in fact miss Resnick
1:05:05testified that on two occasions after
1:05:08Nicole left mr. Simpson for the last
1:05:11time
1:05:12mr. Simpson told miss Resnick that if
1:05:15Nicole dated within a certain period of
1:05:18time I'm gonna kill that [ __ ] I
1:05:22hate to resort to cliches but sometimes
1:05:26they speak essential truths in this case
1:05:29if I can't have Nicole no one else ever
1:05:31will
1:05:33and of course mr. Simpson saw to it that
1:05:36no one else would ever be with Nicole
1:05:41again we don't have to prove this
1:05:43defendants motive for killing Nicole all
1:05:45we have to prove is that he did it and
1:05:47we certainly have done that but for
1:05:49those of you on the jury who might
1:05:50wonder why he killed Nicole and at this
1:05:53particular time I would suggest you that
1:05:56Miss Resnick's testimony
1:05:57has merit
1:05:59one final point about mr. Simpson's
1:06:02purchase of the disguise
1:06:06there's an old observation you probably
1:06:08have heard that celebrities are people
1:06:10who spend an enormous amount of time and
1:06:13energy becoming well-known and famous
1:06:14and then when they do become well-known
1:06:16and famous they were dark glasses or a
1:06:19disguise so no one will recognize him
1:06:24but unfortunately for the defense in
1:06:26this case they can't use that argument
1:06:29as a reason for mr. Simpson buying that
1:06:31disguise by all accounts mr. Simpson
1:06:35loved it when people recognized him Faye
1:06:39Resnick testified she was with Nicole
1:06:41and mr. Simpson many times in public and
1:06:44she said that whenever he wasn't
1:06:47recognized quote his mood would change
1:06:51and he would become angry
1:06:54mr. Simpson himself in his own book Oh
1:06:57Jay the education of a rich rookie says
1:07:00about his celebrity quote I loved it
1:07:03when people recognized me on the street
1:07:05so why then did mr. Simpson suddenly
1:07:09find it necessary shortly before these
1:07:12murders to buy a disguise
1:07:17let's discuss now the second theory that
1:07:20these defense attorneys have asked you
1:07:22to accept namely garbage in garbage out
1:07:25if they say the blood evidence in this
1:07:28case they're referring to that blood
1:07:30evidence that was not planted by evil
1:07:32LAPD conspirators if this remaining
1:07:35evidence had become contaminated by
1:07:39bacteria exposure to the elements etc
1:07:42which they want you of course to believe
1:07:44actually happened this blood became
1:07:47garbage and when this garbage was
1:07:51submitted to the three crime labs in
1:07:53this case it could only yield a garbage
1:07:56result hence garbage in garbage out
1:08:00yes if blood is sufficiently
1:08:04contaminated it will become garbage and
1:08:07yield a garbage result but the critical
1:08:11question is the seminal question is what
1:08:13will that garbage result be
1:08:16we had testimony at this trial from dr.
1:08:19Robin cotton lab director at Cellmark
1:08:22uncontroverted by any experts from the
1:08:24defense that contamination will yield an
1:08:28inconclusive result that's what the
1:08:30garbage will result will be an
1:08:32inconclusive result it will not she said
1:08:36and she didn't have to tell us this
1:08:37common sense what tell us this
1:08:39it will not cause the blood of one
1:08:42person to be identified as a blood of
1:08:45another
1:08:46in other words it won't give you a DNA
1:08:48match I don't care how much experience
1:08:51mr. Scheck has in trying DNA cases he
1:08:56can search from now until the cows come
1:08:58home and
1:08:59unless it's at gunpoint he's not gonna
1:09:03find any DNA expert anywhere in this
1:09:05entire country who's going to take the
1:09:07witness stand and
1:09:09testify that contamination can turn one
1:09:13person's blood into another
1:09:17again I agree garbage in garbage out but
1:09:22we know there was no garbage in in this
1:09:24case because if there had been there
1:09:26would have been garbage out ie
1:09:28there would not have been
1:09:31a
1:09:32DNA match between the blood found at the
1:09:35murder scene and the blood removed from
1:09:37mr. Simpson's body the DNA test would
1:09:40have yielded an inconclusive result
1:09:43stated another way the fact that there
1:09:46was a DNA match in this case is
1:09:47conclusive proof that there was no
1:09:49contamination because if there had been
1:09:51contamination there would not have been
1:09:53a DNA match
1:09:56in reality then garbage in garbage out
1:10:00is a prosecution argument
1:10:02not a defense argument as these defense
1:10:05attorneys have boldly try to make it
1:10:08for instance in a case
1:10:11where the prosecution is convinced from
1:10:13all the evidence that it must be the
1:10:16defendants blood at the murder scene I
1:10:18can see the prosecution arguing that the
1:10:21reason they can't get a DNA match
1:10:24is because the blood became contaminated
1:10:26and the contamination prevented the DNA
1:10:30match with the defendants blood
1:10:33since garbage in garbage out is so
1:10:35obviously in clearly and unequivocally a
1:10:39prosecution argument to argue it as a
1:10:43defense theory as these defense
1:10:44attorneys have done throughout this
1:10:46entire case is so patently transparent
1:10:48that a blind man could see through it
1:10:51yet that's what these defense attorneys
1:10:54have shamelessly argued to you
1:10:55throughout this whole trial I mean if
1:10:57they'd at least blush maybe it wouldn't
1:10:59bother me so much I
1:11:02know if it's appropriate to use a term
1:11:04like this in a courtroom but I tell you
1:11:06these defense attorneys have the gonads
1:11:07of 10,000 elephants
1:11:12at the end of this trial I'm gonna ask
1:11:14them for their autographs their
1:11:16unbelievable
1:11:18garbage in garbage out being a defense
1:11:21theory a defense argument they're
1:11:23unbelievable these people it's a
1:11:26prosecution argument
1:11:31ladies and gentlemen of the jury the
1:11:34evidence of mr. Simpson's guilt is so
1:11:36obvious and so overwhelming in this case
1:11:40that you could throw 80% of it out the
1:11:43window throw it out the window
1:11:45there's still be no question of this
1:11:49man's guilt
1:11:50for instance
1:11:53we know that this defendant beat Nicole
1:11:56severely
1:11:57to the point where she feared for her
1:12:00life at his hands recall her telling
1:12:04officer Edwards he's going to kill me
1:12:06he's going to kill me he's going to kill
1:12:09me
1:12:10throw it out the window
1:12:13let's assume they got along well just
1:12:15swimmingly he never laid a hand on her
1:12:18throw it out the window we don't have
1:12:19that evidence anymore
1:12:22when he learns he's going to be charged
1:12:24with these murders as I've said if he
1:12:27were innocent he would have been blazing
1:12:28mad
1:12:29but he was being charged with murders
1:12:32that he did not commit and above all
1:12:34want to prove his innocence find out who
1:12:37murdered the mother of his two children
1:12:39so he could see that person brought to
1:12:41justice that he writes that suicide note
1:12:44that absolutely reeks with guilt throw
1:12:47it out the window we don't have it
1:12:49anymore he didn't write a suicide note
1:12:51two days after the suicide note when he
1:12:54was scheduled to turn himself in to be
1:12:56formally booked on these murder charges
1:12:58he instead flees runs away with his
1:13:01friend al cowlings
1:13:03in Colleen's Bronco his fleeing his
1:13:06running away obviously clearly shows a
1:13:09very distinct consciousness of guilt
1:13:12throw it out the window we don't have it
1:13:14he didn't run away
1:13:20after the slow speed chase they find the
1:13:23gun the passport and the disguise in his
1:13:27possession we already know what all of
1:13:29these things mean again they just
1:13:31absolutely reek with guilt throw it out
1:13:33the window we don't have it
1:13:37can't use it against them because I want
1:13:39to have it anymore
1:13:43on the night of the murders Alan Park
1:13:46the limo driver
1:13:48arrives at Rockingham 10:22 p.m.
1:13:52supposed to pick up mr. Simpson at 10:45
1:13:55p.m. for the trip to LAX
1:13:58incidentally I think we can rely on mr.
1:14:00parks times because knowing the exact
1:14:02time I think is a
1:14:05limo driver stock-in-trade as it were
1:14:08Park testified that between 1040 and
1:14:1210:50 p.m.
1:14:14goes to the gate that the Rockingham
1:14:16estate rings the buzzer no one answers
1:14:19from 1042-1050 several times he goes to
1:14:22the gate
1:14:23at 10:55 p.m. he sees a black person he
1:14:29doesn't know whether it's a man or a
1:14:30woman
1:14:30weighing about 200 pounds six feet tall
1:14:33wearing all dark clothing walking
1:14:36briskly up to the front door of the
1:14:38residence he's wearing all dark clothing
1:14:40as soon as the man enters a residence
1:14:43immediately the light in the entryway is
1:14:45turned on
1:14:47whereupon mr. Park immediately goes back
1:14:50to the gate rings the buzzer again and
1:14:52this time mr. Simpson immediately picks
1:14:54up the phone so we know it was he whom
1:14:57mr. Park had just seen into the
1:14:59residence
1:15:00what does this defendant tell mr. Park I
1:15:03overslept I just got out of the shower
1:15:06I'll be right down in a minute it
1:15:09couldn't be more obvious what this
1:15:10defendant was trying to do he was trying
1:15:12to set up an alibi for himself what are
1:15:15the reason under the moon would he have
1:15:16had to tell this blatant lie to ellen
1:15:19park if he hadn't just committed these
1:15:22two murders
1:15:24throw all that evidence off the window
1:15:26we don't have it anymore we can't use it
1:15:28against him
1:15:30doesn't exist
1:15:35in fact throw the bloody glove
1:15:38found on this defendants estate with his
1:15:42bronze and Nicole's blood on it the
1:15:46glove that matches the glove found at
1:15:47the murder scene throw it out the window
1:15:49we don't have it anymore can't use it
1:15:51against him
1:15:53in fact throw out all the DNA evidence
1:15:57that conclusively proves that it was
1:16:00this defendants blood at the murder
1:16:02scene his fresh blood at the murder
1:16:04scene
1:16:05throw this conclusive evidence of guilt
1:16:08out the window we don't have it anymore
1:16:11his blood was not found at the murder
1:16:12scene
1:16:16let's also throw out the DNA evidence
1:16:19that Ron's in the Cole's blood was found
1:16:22inside
1:16:24mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco within hours
1:16:27of these murders and Nicole's blood was
1:16:31found on his socks on the floor of his
1:16:33bedroom throw it out the window
1:16:37throw all of this evidence out the
1:16:40window we've been talking about none of
1:16:42it exists anymore and even if we throw
1:16:46all that evidence out the window there's
1:16:47still no question that this man
1:16:50committed these murders
1:16:52why do I say that
1:16:54because this defendant from his own lips
1:16:57in effect told us he told us that he
1:17:02committed these murders
1:17:03how did he tell us let's take a step by
1:17:06step
1:17:08you heard a statement to the police on
1:17:10the day after the murders we played it
1:17:12for you folks here in this courtroom as
1:17:15you know the detectives told mr. Simpson
1:17:17that they found blood in his car and in
1:17:20his home and on his driveway
1:17:23and when they asked him why that was so
1:17:25this is the interview and all they had
1:17:27with him the day after the murders when
1:17:29they asked him why that was soll he said
1:17:31he had cut himself the previous night
1:17:33the night of the murders and he said
1:17:37that if they had found blood quote it's
1:17:40what I dripped running around trying to
1:17:43leave I'll repeat that
1:17:45mr. Simpson told the police it's what I
1:17:48dripped running around trying to leave
1:17:51referring to this getting ready between
1:17:5310:00 and 11:00 p.m.
1:17:55for his trip to LAX and his flight to
1:17:58Chicago and of course we know from the
1:18:01testimony of several witnesses that the
1:18:03two murders in this case took place
1:18:05somewhere between
1:18:0710:15 and 10:40 p.m. that night
1:18:11so mr. Simpson admits them that around
1:18:15the very same time of these murders
1:18:17which was 16 hours or so before
1:18:22the LAPD removed any blood from his arm
1:18:25and would have had any opportunity to
1:18:27sprinkle or plant it he admits that he's
1:18:32dripping blood in his car and home and
1:18:35on his driveway
1:18:37so even if we bought please try to
1:18:40follow me here even if we bought
1:18:42accepted the absurd and the groundless
1:18:46defense allegation in this case that the
1:18:49police tried to frame this man by
1:18:51planting blood from his reference vial
1:18:53in various incriminating places like his
1:18:56car in his home it still couldn't be
1:18:59more obvious that he's guilty because
1:19:02whatever blood that they would have
1:19:05planted had to be in addition to blood
1:19:09of mr. Simpson's that was already in his
1:19:13car in home and on his driveway on the
1:19:16night of these murders let me repeat
1:19:18this to you since there's no way that I
1:19:21can emphasize its importance to you too
1:19:23much
1:19:24whatever blood the police may have
1:19:27planted in this case which it didn't
1:19:29happen it's ridiculous to even talk
1:19:30about it it's crazy to even talk about
1:19:32it it didn't happen but even assuming
1:19:34that they did plant blood that blood
1:19:38would have had to be in addition to
1:19:41blood of mr. Simpson's which he admits
1:19:45was already in his car in home and on
1:19:48his driveway on the night of these
1:19:51murders
1:19:55we know that because the defendant from
1:19:58his own lips told us soul he told us so
1:20:01you heard the tape we played it for you
1:20:03here in this courtroom and
1:20:06as we heard on the tape when the
1:20:08detectives asked him how he cut himself
1:20:10that night these are his exact words not
1:20:13a paraphrase his exact words I
1:20:17don't know
1:20:21can you imagine that folks I don't know
1:20:25now let's just stop to think about this
1:20:27for a moment we're not talking about a
1:20:28little knick or scratch here we're
1:20:30talking about a deep cut to the knuckle
1:20:32of his left middle finger was heavily
1:20:34bandaged at the time they were talking
1:20:35to him and he says he has absolutely no
1:20:38idea
1:20:38how he got that cut
1:20:41that ridiculous statement all by itself
1:20:44shows an unmistakable consciousness of
1:20:47guilt
1:20:49but there's an even more powerful reason
1:20:52why this defendants own statement shows
1:20:54that it was he who on the evening of
1:20:56June the 12th 1994 murdered the two
1:20:59victims in this case
1:21:01what is the likelihood I asked you what
1:21:05is the probability
1:21:06what is the probability that around the
1:21:09very same time
1:21:11that Ron and Nicole were brutally
1:21:13murdered
1:21:14that this defendant would innocently cut
1:21:18himself very badly on his left middle
1:21:20finger I
1:21:21would think that the statistical
1:21:24improbability against such a thing
1:21:26happening would be astronomical I mean
1:21:28aren't we talking about DNA numbers here
1:21:29we're not a ten million one out of a
1:21:31hundred million I
1:21:36want you folks to think back not the one
1:21:39you were children but your adult life
1:21:41it hasn't been too often has it that
1:21:44you've cut yourself badly if at all last
1:21:48time I remember cutting myself was about
1:21:51three decades ago thirty years ago was
1:21:53in the garage working with a small
1:21:55electric saw and I cut myself my wrists
1:21:58but it's not common is it it's not
1:22:01common that adults cut themselves badly
1:22:04it's kind of rare isn't it
1:22:07here
1:22:09here in this case
1:22:12mr. Simpson just didn't cut himself
1:22:15badly within the same decade that his
1:22:19former wife was brutally murdered
1:22:23not just within the same year that she
1:22:27was murdered
1:22:31not just within the same month or even
1:22:34within the same week that she was
1:22:36murdered in fact not just on the same
1:22:40day that she was murdered no these
1:22:43defense attorneys want you folks to
1:22:45believe that around the very same time
1:22:47within the same hour that she was
1:22:49murdered
1:22:50he cut himself very badly and to top it
1:22:53off he says he has absolutely no idea
1:22:55how he got cut
1:23:02is there one reasonable person in this
1:23:05courtroom who would believe a ridiculous
1:23:08cockamamie preposterous story like that
1:23:11anyone who is so naive that they'd
1:23:13believe a story like that would believe
1:23:15someone who told me once saw a man jump
1:23:16away from his own shadow
1:23:22you know even if we make the totally
1:23:26unwarranted extremely extravagant
1:23:29assumption that
1:23:30his innocently cutting himself around
1:23:33the very same time of these murders was
1:23:35not totally and completely far-fetched
1:23:36which we of course know it is
1:23:39when you cut yourself
1:23:42unless you're in a frantic frenzied
1:23:44state as mr. Simpson obviously was in
1:23:46you stopped the bleeding with your hand
1:23:49of your handkerchief and you put on a
1:23:51bandage right you don't bleed all over
1:23:53the place do you
1:23:57so I repeat
1:24:00even if there were no other evidence in
1:24:03this case this defendant in so many
1:24:06words and from his own lips
1:24:09admitted committing these two murders
1:24:11within the same hour of these murders by
1:24:15his own admission he's dripping blood
1:24:18and his car and home and on his driveway
1:24:22and he says he has no idea how he got
1:24:24cut
1:24:27before I go on I should briefly
1:24:29recapitulate for you what I'm talking
1:24:31about when I say this defendant was
1:24:33bleeding all over his car home and
1:24:34driveway even excluding the inevitable
1:24:36blood drops that were not discovered and
1:24:38the blood of mr. Simpson's found on the
1:24:41Rockingham glove as well as the fact
1:24:44that criminalists do not pick up they
1:24:45don't take samples from every blood drop
1:24:47and stain that they say only taking what
1:24:49they call representative samples
1:24:53Dennis Fung testified the criminalist
1:24:56that he collected 30 samples of blood 30
1:25:00samples of blood from mr. Simpson's
1:25:03Bronco the interior of the Bronco and on
1:25:06the outside of the Bronco most of which
1:25:08he said were the defendants some of
1:25:10which belonged to the two victims also
1:25:12he testified there was one drop of mr.
1:25:15Simpson's blood on the street right
1:25:17behind the Bronco where was parked on
1:25:19Rockingham one drop on the driveway just
1:25:22inside the Rockingham gate
1:25:24three more drops of mr. Simpson's blood
1:25:27on the driveway leading to the front
1:25:29door of the residence fund said that he
1:25:31didn't pick up three other drops that
1:25:32were there
1:25:33there were five drops of mr. Simpson's
1:25:35blood on the floor of the FOIA inside
1:25:37his residence and one drop on the
1:25:40bathroom floor he also had blood of his
1:25:42on his socks in his bedroom
1:25:45you folks might ask yourself that if you
1:25:48were to leave this courtroom right now
1:25:50and check your car and home could any of
1:25:53you find even one drop of your blood or
1:25:57anyone else's blood even one drop in
1:26:00your car or home and fresh blood at that
1:26:02remember they all APD Kremlin said this
1:26:05was all fresh blood
1:26:07ladies and gentlemen the jury jurors are
1:26:10not expected to possess supernatural
1:26:11powers all that can be expected of you
1:26:14folks as a reasonable men and women is
1:26:17that you conscientiously evaluate all
1:26:19the evidence in this case
1:26:21apply your logic and your common sense
1:26:24and your reasoning powers as well as the
1:26:26law given to you by judge Ito to that
1:26:29evidence and thereby reach a just and a
1:26:31fair ver and when you do that in this
1:26:34case you can only come to one conclusion
1:26:36and one conclusion only that this man
1:26:39here is guilty that he committed these
1:26:41murders there's absolutely no reasonable
1:26:45rational explanation for what happened
1:26:46in this case other than this man's guilt
1:26:49none at all
1:26:54before I yield the lectern to defense
1:26:56counsel for their closing arguments I'd
1:26:58like you to reconcile for us mr. Cochran
1:27:00three completely contradictory
1:27:03statements which I've already alluded to
1:27:05in this opening argument of mine your
1:27:09opening statement you told the jury mr.
1:27:12Simpson was practicing his golf in front
1:27:15lawn of his estate at the time of these
1:27:16murders but as you know mr. Simpson
1:27:20told the limo driver that he was
1:27:22sleeping around that time it's a
1:27:25contradiction the further contradiction
1:27:27is that when the LAPD detectives
1:27:31interviewed your client and the day
1:27:33after these murders
1:27:34they asked him everything he had done
1:27:36that night he said nothing at all about
1:27:38sleeping or playing golf all he said is
1:27:41that he was racing around very very busy
1:27:43packing and getting ready for that trip
1:27:45to Chicago I want you to reconcile these
1:27:49three completely contradictory
1:27:51statements and I want you to do so by
1:27:53confining yourself to the evidence and
1:27:56testimony that came from this witness
1:27:57stand under oath
1:28:00when I later address you folks of course
1:28:02respond to what mr. Cochran said for
1:28:06comment on the fact that he refused to
1:28:08answer this question for you thank you
1:28:11very much ladies and gentlemen
1:28:16let me reiterate how important the
1:28:19closing or rebuttal portion of final
1:28:21summation is for the prosecution it's
1:28:23the climax of the case where the
1:28:25prosecutor has his last and best
1:28:27opportunity to convince the jury of the
1:28:29rightness of his cause a big error that
1:28:32both Clark and Darton made in their
1:28:34rebuttal arguments and one that the
1:28:36overwhelming majority of prosecutors
1:28:38make is that they confined their closing
1:28:41argument almost exclusively to merely
1:28:43answering or rebutting the defense
1:28:45arguments but if you that your argument
1:28:48is almost necessarily defensive in
1:28:50nature and can actually end up becoming
1:28:52a negative a liability while it is true
1:28:55that in rebuttal the prosecutor can only
1:28:57respond to arguments made by the defense
1:28:59in their summation neither Clark nor
1:29:01Darden apparently know that rebuttal
1:29:03does not have to be a restrictive
1:29:05summation at all after the prosecutor
1:29:08has responded to and rebutted all the
1:29:10defense allegations he has the
1:29:12opportunity to argue his entire case in
1:29:14a condensed manner of course all over
1:29:16again thereby ending his case on a
1:29:19powerful affirmative note all he has to
1:29:22do is quote the defense attorneys
1:29:24inevitable assertion that the
1:29:26prosecution did not prove the defendants
1:29:28guilt beyond a reasonable doubt this
1:29:30legally gives the prosecutor in
1:29:32rebutting this contention the right to
1:29:34cite all the evidence of guilt again
1:29:36that does show the prosecution met its
1:29:38burden of proof however in doing this
1:29:41the prosecutor should draw new or
1:29:43expanded inferences of guilt this is
1:29:46what I would have done in this case by
1:29:48the way at one point I'm going to be
1:29:50asking Johnnie Cochran to stand up and
1:29:52respond to a question of mine it will
1:29:55only be one of many I would have asked
1:29:56in a real trial of course since mr.
1:29:59Cochran is not participating in this
1:30:01video his response if any will not take
1:30:03place join me now for the closing
1:30:06argument the prosecution's rebuttal
1:30:17good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of
1:30:19the jury you know as I was listening to
1:30:22mr. Cochran and mr. Scheck addressing
1:30:24you folks I
1:30:26thought to myself that just like me they
1:30:30went to law school
1:30:32so I happen to know that although they
1:30:34learned the law in law school they
1:30:35didn't learn how to be magicians
1:30:38but even if they had not even a Houdini
1:30:42can pull a rabbit out of the Hat when
1:30:44there is no rabbit in the Hat
1:30:47based on the evidence that came from
1:30:49this witness stand at this trial their
1:30:52client is as guilty as sin and there's
1:30:54nothing they can do about it I have yet
1:30:57to meet the man
1:31:00that can convince twelve reasonable men
1:31:03and women as you folks are that black is
1:31:05white and white is black I
1:31:10wonder if any of you folks the red
1:31:12victor hugo's account of the octopus
1:31:16he tells us of how it doesn't have any
1:31:19beak to defend itself like a bird no
1:31:21claws like lion no teeth like an
1:31:23alligator but it does have what could be
1:31:25called an ink bag and to protect itself
1:31:29when it is attacked it lets not a dark
1:31:33fluid from that ink bag making all of
1:31:35the surrounding water dark and murky
1:31:38enabling the octopus to escape into the
1:31:41darkness
1:31:43now I ask you folks is there any
1:31:45similarity between that description of
1:31:48the ink bag of the octopus and the
1:31:49defense in this case has the defense
1:31:51offered you any real valid legitimate
1:31:53defense to these murder charges
1:31:56or have they sought to employ the ink
1:31:58bag of the octopus and by making
1:32:00everything dark and murky around mr.
1:32:03Simpson enable him to escape into the
1:32:06darkness
1:32:08in this closing argument I intend to
1:32:10clear up the water which defense counsel
1:32:12have sought to muddy so that you folks
1:32:15can clearly see the evidence the facts
1:32:17the issues in this case so that you're
1:32:20going to be able to behold the form of
1:32:22the retreating octopus and bring this
1:32:24defendant back to face justice
1:32:29before I respond in depth to mister
1:32:31cochran's and mister scheck summation to
1:32:33you let me point out that one fact alone
1:32:36just one fact alone in this case all by
1:32:39itself
1:32:41proves this defendants guilt beyond all
1:32:44doubt
1:32:46as I said in my opening argument when
1:32:48your blood is found at the murder scene
1:32:51that's the end of the ball game there's
1:32:53nothing more to say and
1:32:56here not only was mr. Simpson's blood
1:33:00found at the murder scene but two
1:33:01victims blood was found inside his car
1:33:03at home
1:33:05under those circumstances the question
1:33:07is not whether he's guilty or not guilty
1:33:09of course he's guilty
1:33:11the question is is it humanly possible
1:33:15under those circumstances for this man
1:33:17to be innocent
1:33:19and the answer to that question is an
1:33:21unequivocal no at least not in the world
1:33:23in which we live you know I'm talking to
1:33:25you folks you can hear me there's gonna
1:33:26be a dawn tomorrow that world
1:33:28only in a fantasy world can you have
1:33:31your blood at the murder scene and still
1:33:34be innocent I
1:33:36mean to deny guilt when your blood is
1:33:39that the murder scene is the equivalent
1:33:41of a man being caught by his wife in
1:33:43flagrante delicto with another woman and
1:33:47saying to her quoting comedian Richard
1:33:50Pryor who you gonna believe me or your
1:33:53lying eyes
1:33:56it's that ridiculous it's that
1:33:58ridiculous
1:34:03mr. Cochran argued to you that whatever
1:34:06domestic violence there was in this case
1:34:08by mr. Simpson against Nicole during
1:34:11their years together was not relevant to
1:34:14these murder charges
1:34:17let me give you folks some proof that
1:34:19mr. Simpson's history of physical abuse
1:34:22against Nicole is relevant to these
1:34:24murder charges
1:34:25what if the evidence that this trial had
1:34:28showed that throughout the defendants
1:34:29marriage to Nicole and in their years
1:34:31thereafter they got along wonderfully
1:34:34that he never once touched her in an
1:34:37offensive way or even yelled at her we
1:34:40all mr. Cochran would have argued to you
1:34:42folks I can just about tell you his
1:34:43exact words
1:34:45it's ridiculous for the prosecution to
1:34:48allege that my client murdered Nicole
1:34:51all the years together they got along
1:34:53beautifully not once that he hit her
1:34:56slapper or even pusher and suddenly out
1:34:59of a clear blue sky is gonna pick up a
1:35:00sharp knife and stab her to death that's
1:35:02ridiculous for the prosecution to say
1:35:04that they know that's crazy
1:35:08surely none of you doubt that he would
1:35:10have made that precise argument to you
1:35:12if
1:35:14Nicole
1:35:16and his client had gotten along well
1:35:18during their marriage and during their
1:35:21years together since we know that mr.
1:35:25Cochran would have made that argument to
1:35:26you if there had been no physical abuse
1:35:29this is proof of the relevance of this
1:35:31evidence where there has been physical
1:35:33abuse now I'm not going to suggest to
1:35:36you folks that just because a man beats
1:35:39his wife that he's likely to go on and
1:35:41kill her statistics show that's not so
1:35:43but certainly
1:35:46someone who has beaten his wife the way
1:35:48we know mr. Simpson did to the point
1:35:51where she thought he was going to kill
1:35:52her is obviously much more likely to
1:35:55kill her
1:35:56than someone who had never once laid a
1:35:59hand on his wife
1:36:01the French philosopher Voltaire
1:36:04tells us that common sense is not that
1:36:07common but I think anyone with a head on
1:36:10their shoulders would have to agree that
1:36:11what I just told you folks is true
1:36:15although this domestic violence evidence
1:36:18we offered is not conclusive evidence of
1:36:20guilt and it's not offered as being
1:36:22conclusive evidence of guilt it's just
1:36:24one more piece of evidence which
1:36:26together with all of the other evidence
1:36:27in this case adds up to a clear and
1:36:30inescapable mosaic of guilt in fact no
1:36:35evidence in this case points towards
1:36:37this man's innocence everything points
1:36:39towards is guilt
1:36:41remarkably there's not a sliver in iota
1:36:44a particle of evidence nothing at all
1:36:48that points towards his innocence
1:36:52mr. Cochran and his argument to you told
1:36:54you that the prosecution's case against
1:36:56mr. Simpson was only one of
1:36:58circumstantial evidence that has no
1:37:00eyewitnesses no eyewitnesses
1:37:03and he added that we didn't even have
1:37:05the murder weapon in this case
1:37:07but ladies and gentlemen of the jury far
1:37:09more often than not in a murder case the
1:37:12murder weapon is never found yet
1:37:13routinely in those cases convictions are
1:37:16secured as far as I witness is our
1:37:19concern common sense is going to tell
1:37:20you that there's rarely going to be
1:37:22eyewitnesses to a premeditated murder
1:37:25someone who premeditates a murder
1:37:27doesn't go down to Pershing Square here
1:37:29in LA and get on a orange crate with a
1:37:31megaphone announces intentions to the
1:37:33world
1:37:35and a premeditated murder as opposed to
1:37:38one committed on the spur of the moment
1:37:39the killer obviously takes steps to help
1:37:42ensure that no one sees him commit the
1:37:45murders that's why that's why most
1:37:47premeditated murders like this one are
1:37:49committed in the darkness of night
1:37:52if as mr. Cochran suggested to you folks
1:37:57the prosecution had to have eyewitnesses
1:38:00in a murder weapon to get a conviction
1:38:03in effect we'd be telling prospective
1:38:05killers
1:38:06make sure no one watches you make sure
1:38:10no one is watching number one and number
1:38:11two dispose of the murder weapon and
1:38:13you're home free
1:38:16but it's not quite that easy ladies and
1:38:19gentlemen of the jury and when you folks
1:38:21come back into this courtroom you're
1:38:22going to be telling this defendant by
1:38:24your verdict that's not quite that easy
1:38:30in
1:38:32response to the implication of the
1:38:34defense in this case that's
1:38:36circumstantial evidence as opposed to
1:38:37direct evidence is weak I want to make a
1:38:39few observations yes this is a case of
1:38:42circumstantial evidence but
1:38:44judge Ito will give you the following
1:38:46instruction quote both direct evidence
1:38:48and circumstantial evidence are
1:38:50acceptable as a means of proof neither
1:38:52is entitled to any greater weight than
1:38:54the other
1:38:55actually eyewitness testimony is usually
1:38:59considered to be the only type of direct
1:39:01evidence
1:39:03eyewitness testimony can be great no
1:39:05question about that
1:39:08but it is notoriously problematic for
1:39:11instance all the cases of mistaken
1:39:13identity
1:39:14also how long did the witness get a good
1:39:17look at the perpetrator was it just a
1:39:20second or two and was it a direct
1:39:22frontal view or merely a side oblique
1:39:25view how far away was the witness from
1:39:28the perpetrator were there any
1:39:29obstructions to his vision
1:39:32was the lighting good or bad does it
1:39:35witness have good vision as you can see
1:39:37there's all types of problems with
1:39:38direct evidence
1:39:41contrary to popular belief usually the
1:39:44very strongest evidence in a criminal
1:39:46trial physical scientific evidence like
1:39:48we have in this case it's circumstantial
1:39:50evidence examples fingerprints and blood
1:39:54hair semen and bullet match ups there's
1:39:56many other types of circumstantial
1:39:57evidence
1:39:58flight false statements even a
1:40:02confession someone says I did it believe
1:40:05it or not is usually considered to be
1:40:07circumstantial evidence
1:40:10perhaps the power and strength of
1:40:13circumstantial evidence can be explained
1:40:15to you folks by pointing out that it is
1:40:18like a rope and each fact is a strand of
1:40:22that rope and as the prosecution in this
1:40:25case piled one fact upon another
1:40:28against this defendant we added strands
1:40:31and we had a strength to that rope
1:40:34if one strand breaks and I'm not
1:40:37conceding for a moment that any strand
1:40:38is broken in this case because it hasn't
1:40:40but if one strand does break the Rope
1:40:43isn't broken the strength of the rope is
1:40:46barely diminished why because there are
1:40:48so many other strands of almost steel
1:40:50like strength that the rope is still
1:40:54more than strong enough to bind this
1:40:57defendant mr. Simpson to justice that's
1:41:00what circumstantial evidence is all
1:41:02about
1:41:04as far as the circumstantial evidence
1:41:06instruction judge Ito will give you
1:41:08which both mr. Scheck and mr. Cochran
1:41:12told you supports a not guilty verdict
1:41:14in this case
1:41:15that you cannot convict this defendant
1:41:17quote
1:41:19unless the proved circumstances are not
1:41:21only consistent with the theory of guilt
1:41:23but cannot be reconciled with any other
1:41:26rational conclusion unquote
1:41:29would another
1:41:31rational conclusion be that the
1:41:34Himalayan mountain of evidence against
1:41:35the defendant in this case
1:41:37points towards his innocence would that
1:41:40be another rational conclusion I
1:41:43mean arguing that the evidence in this
1:41:46case the defendants blood being found at
1:41:48the murder scene the victim's blood
1:41:49inside his car and home the suicide note
1:41:51running away with the gun the passport
1:41:54in the disguise etc arguing that all of
1:41:56this evidence doesn't prove guilt beyond
1:41:57a reasonable doubt is bad enough but to
1:42:01take it to the next level and argue that
1:42:04another rational interpretation of all
1:42:07of this extremely incriminated evidence
1:42:09like the defendants blood being found at
1:42:11the murder scene is that it points to
1:42:13mr. Simpson's innocence is simply silly
1:42:17beyond belief I
1:42:20mean if your blood being found at the
1:42:22murder scene and running away with a gun
1:42:25a passport in a disguise can just as
1:42:28easily be reconciled with a conclusion
1:42:31of innocence as that of guilt then we're
1:42:35just turning logic completely on its
1:42:36head and we're living in a you know and
1:42:38apparently a topsy-turvy world like the
1:42:41one that Alice saw on the other side of
1:42:44the looking glass a
1:42:46world where for instance an angry
1:42:49persons that was if you don't shut up
1:42:50I'm gonna hit your fists with my nose
1:42:54the reality is that that's
1:42:57circumstantial evidence instruction
1:42:59which the defense is relying on is
1:43:01actually a pro prosecution instruction
1:43:04in this case
1:43:05because all of the evidence in this case
1:43:08points towards mr. Simpson's guilt none
1:43:11of them can be reconciled with a
1:43:13conclusion of innocence
1:43:17the defense attorneys in this case
1:43:19ladies and gentlemen the jury in their
1:43:21effort to convince you that you should
1:43:24let mr. Simpson walk out of this
1:43:26courtroom a free man have even gone
1:43:27beyond making one outrageous factual
1:43:31allegation another such as that the LAPD
1:43:34frame mr. Simpson remarkably in their
1:43:37closing argument to you they actually
1:43:39try to deceive you folks right in front
1:43:42of judge Ito as to what the law of this
1:43:44case is
1:43:46both mr. Cochran and mr. Scheck
1:43:49particularly mr. Scheck tried to
1:43:52convince you folks that the
1:43:54prosecution's alleged failure to prove
1:43:57every single point in this case every
1:43:59contested fact not only negates all that
1:44:02has been proven but constitutes a
1:44:05reasonable doubt that entitles their
1:44:07client to a not guilty verdict recall
1:44:10for instance mr. Scheck telling you that
1:44:11the LAPD crime lab was a quote cesspool
1:44:14of contamination and therefore this this
1:44:17gives rise he said to a reasonable doubt
1:44:20in this case he also told you that since
1:44:23the blood of mr. Simpson wasn't found on
1:44:26the top of the fingers of the glove
1:44:29found at Rockingham where he says the
1:44:31blood should have been found if mr.
1:44:33Simpson had worn that glove quote that
1:44:36has to give you a reasonable doubt
1:44:39he even went so far as to tell you that
1:44:42the prosecution had to prove a negative
1:44:44he said we had to quote prove beyond a
1:44:48reasonable doubt that the blood evidence
1:44:50wasn't tampered with unquote but ladies
1:44:53and gentlemen the jury that's just not
1:44:55simply the law
1:44:57since mr. Cochran and mr. Scheck and
1:45:00their summations didn't even dispute the
1:45:02fact how could they that whoever killed
1:45:04Ron and Nicole did so with malice
1:45:07aforethought that is a specific intent
1:45:09to kill and that that intent was a
1:45:12deliberate and premeditated one
1:45:14there's only one thing and one thing
1:45:17only that the prosecution has to prove
1:45:19in this case mr. Simpson's guilt that he
1:45:22is the one who committed these murders
1:45:25if we've done that as we in questionably
1:45:29have you folks could have a doubt about
1:45:31a thousand other things in this case and
1:45:33you would still under the law be
1:45:36duty-bound to come back into this
1:45:37courtroom with a verdict of guilty if
1:45:41you need further proof that mr. Scheck
1:45:43was 100% wrong and what he told you
1:45:45listen carefully to what judge Ito tells
1:45:48you when he gives you this instruction
1:45:50these will be his exact words to you
1:45:52quote the prosecution has the burden of
1:45:56proving the defendant guilty beyond a
1:45:58reasonable doubt unquote that's what our
1:46:01only burden is to prove this defendant
1:46:03guilty beyond a reasonable doubt he
1:46:05certainly won't say anything about our
1:46:07having to prove beyond a reasonable
1:46:08doubt that the LAPD crime lab was not a
1:46:12cesspool of contamination or
1:46:15having to prove any other contested fact
1:46:18in this case
1:46:20obviously if the prosecution had the
1:46:22burden of proving beyond a reasonable
1:46:23doubt the truth or falsity as the case
1:46:26may be of every single point in every
1:46:29contestant fact in a case we'd never get
1:46:31a conviction I
1:46:34personally find it rather mind-boggling
1:46:36that these two defense attorneys right
1:46:38in front of judge Ito would deliberately
1:46:41attempt to mislead you folks and what
1:46:43the law of this case is on a legal
1:46:46matter that not just goes to the heart
1:46:48of this case but to the heart of every
1:46:50criminal case that's ever been tried in
1:46:52this country I'm referring of course to
1:46:55the doctrine of reasonable doubt
1:46:59before I attempt to define it for you I
1:47:01want to discuss one word in that
1:47:03doctrine that's misleading
1:47:06to laypeople the word beyond in the term
1:47:09beyond a reasonable doubt as lay people
1:47:12it could be understandable for some of
1:47:15you folks to think that to prove guilt
1:47:16beyond a reasonable doubt requires as
1:47:19some defense attorneys suggest when they
1:47:21say beyond a reasonable doubt that
1:47:25the prosecution has to go beyond the
1:47:28horizon to the ends of the earth to
1:47:30prove guilt
1:47:32but actually in the term beyond a
1:47:34reasonable doubt the
1:47:36word beyond is a needless appendage that
1:47:40isn't even used in its conventional
1:47:42primary sense of further more than if it
1:47:46were we'd have to prove that there was
1:47:49more than a reasonable doubt of guilt
1:47:51well obviously we have to prove just the
1:47:53opposite that there is less than a
1:47:55reasonable doubt of guilt
1:47:57instead beyond is used here in its
1:48:00secondary sense of to the exclusion of
1:48:04so when I use the term beyond a
1:48:06reasonable doubt hereafter in my
1:48:08summation you should take that to mean
1:48:10that I'm really saying to the exclusion
1:48:13of all reasonable doubt
1:48:16the prosecution in this case then has
1:48:19the burden of proving mr. Simpson's
1:48:20guilt to the exclusion of all reasonable
1:48:23doubt with this in mind
1:48:25we can completely eliminate the
1:48:28misleading in confusing word beyond from
1:48:32the term beyond a reasonable doubt and
1:48:34come up with this if you do not have a
1:48:37reasonable doubt of mr. Simpson's guilt
1:48:39convict if you do have a reasonable
1:48:42doubt equipped we have eliminated the
1:48:45word beyond from the term beyond a
1:48:47reasonable doubt and we still have a
1:48:48very accurate statement of the doctrine
1:48:52a reasonable doubt what is a reasonable
1:48:54doubt as judge Ito will tell you it's
1:48:58not a mere possible doubt
1:49:00what is it then it's a sound sensible
1:49:04logical doubt based on the evidence that
1:49:07came from that witness stand and I'm
1:49:09confident you folks agree with me that
1:49:11there is no sound sense of the logical
1:49:14doubt of this man's guilt in fact
1:49:16there's no doubt at all
1:49:19mr. Cochran and his summation refer to
1:49:22detectives Vannatter and Fuhrman as they
1:49:24quote twins of deception
1:49:26remember that he called detectives
1:49:29Fuhrman and vanatter the twins of
1:49:32deception and
1:49:34he argued that the book of Luke in the
1:49:37Bible says that if a man tells a lie
1:49:40you can't believe anything else he says
1:49:45let's take detective Fuhrman for
1:49:48instance whether or not he used that
1:49:51racial slur years ago years prior to
1:49:54these murders obviously has no
1:49:55connection at all to the facts of this
1:49:57case
1:49:59so his lie
1:50:02it's just a personal matter that is
1:50:04unrelated to the facts of this case but
1:50:08mr. Simpson
1:50:09mr. Cochran's own client on the night of
1:50:12these murders
1:50:14tells an enormous blatant lie - Ellen
1:50:18Park the limo driver but I overslept
1:50:22just got out of the shower and I'll be
1:50:24right down
1:50:25when mr. Park had just seen him enter
1:50:27his home a couple seconds earlier Allah
1:50:29he would have had no reason to tell if
1:50:32he hadn't just committed these murders
1:50:35and mr. Cochran has the guts to argue
1:50:38the Book of Luke to you folks
1:50:45the contention of mr. Cochran that the
1:50:47SoCs of mr. Simpson's found at the foot
1:50:49of his bed were planted
1:50:52is groundless and I'm very confident
1:50:54that I can demonstrate to you why
1:50:57yes
1:51:00LAPD photographer Willie Ford
1:51:03did testify that when he videotaped mr.
1:51:07Simpson's bedroom on the day after the
1:51:09murders June 13th 1994 the timer on his
1:51:13video machine said 4:13 p.m.
1:51:17yet Dennis Fung told you folks that he
1:51:20picked those socks up at 4:30 p.m. and
1:51:23from this mr. Cochran Argus to you that
1:51:27those socks must have been planted in
1:51:30that bedroom after Willie Ford
1:51:32videotaped the room and
1:51:34left the room but it's clear that either
1:51:37mr. Fung was wrong about the time which
1:51:39couldn't possibly be more common for
1:51:41human beings
1:51:43or the timer a mr. Ford's video machine
1:51:47which he acknowledged had not been
1:51:49checked and reset for over two years was
1:51:52off I say that because although there's
1:51:56this discrepancy between Fords and
1:51:59Fung's testimony one thing Fung and Ford
1:52:02did agree on mr. Cochran conveniently
1:52:05neglected to mention it to you both Ford
1:52:09and Fung testified that fun had told
1:52:12Ford not to videotape that room until
1:52:15after he Fung had collected all of the
1:52:18evidence from the room which certainly
1:52:19would have included the Sox and
1:52:22Ford testify that he followed
1:52:25funds instructions
1:52:28so although we can't know for sure what
1:52:31time ford videotaped the room
1:52:34we do know that it was after Fung
1:52:37removed the socks from that bedroom
1:52:41and this is why of course Ford never saw
1:52:45the socks there at
1:52:474:13 p.m. or whatever time it was when
1:52:50he videotaped that room the socks
1:52:51weren't there anymore Fung had already
1:52:53picked them up
1:52:56the conclusive proof that the socks
1:52:58weren't planted by evil LAPD
1:53:00conspirators after Ford videotaped the
1:53:02room is the testimony of LAPD sergeant
1:53:05Adalberto looper
1:53:08one of mister cochran's own witnesses I
1:53:10mean isn't this man familiar with the
1:53:12testimony of witnesses he himself calls
1:53:14to the witness stand
1:53:16looper who is black
1:53:19testified that he saw the socks at the
1:53:22foot of mr. Simpson's bed at 12:30 p.m.
1:53:25that day long before
1:53:29Ford videotaped the room
1:53:34proving that they were there before he
1:53:36videotaped the room that they were not
1:53:37put there after he videotaped the room
1:53:42mr. Cochran also argued as you know that
1:53:45when the defense experts doctors Baden
1:53:47and Wolff saw the socks along with all
1:53:50the other evidence in this case On June
1:53:5222nd nine days later they never saw any
1:53:56blood on the socks and from that mr.
1:53:58Cochran has argued that the LAPD
1:54:01conspirators must have planted blood on
1:54:03those socks at some later time sometime
1:54:06after June 22nd 1994
1:54:10but the obvious reason that doctors
1:54:13Baden and wolf did not see the blood on
1:54:15those socks I think I'll be able to
1:54:17demonstrate it to you is that these were
1:54:19very dark socks even the LAPD
1:54:24didn't see the blood on those socks
1:54:26didn't discover the blood on the socks
1:54:27until much later August the 4th
1:54:30when the socks were subjected to their
1:54:33first chemical examination so even the
1:54:36LAPD did discover it until long after
1:54:38June 22nd and it's understandable why
1:54:42doctors broaden and wolf did not see the
1:54:45blood and the socks on June 22nd in fact
1:54:49as you recall another defense expert dr.
1:54:51Herbert McDonald this is a defense
1:54:55witness now admitted on
1:54:56cross-examination
1:54:58that it would take quote good high
1:55:00intensity illumination unquote
1:55:03to see the blood on the socks and he
1:55:06added as you know that even the pretty
1:55:08good lighting he said in this courtroom
1:55:10even under this lighting he said it
1:55:12would be difficult
1:55:13to see the blood on those socks because
1:55:17they were so dark
1:55:19but you know this whole allegation of
1:55:21the LAPD planting the socks of mr.
1:55:23Simpson's bedroom is ridiculous on its
1:55:25face and it illustrates that when you
1:55:27make phony allegations like this you end
1:55:29up eventually
1:55:30sounding foolish
1:55:33in one breath mr. Cochran says the LAPD
1:55:38conspirators planted the socks at the
1:55:40foot of mr. Simpson's bed on June 13
1:55:431994 in one breath
1:55:46but then he goes on to tell you that
1:55:49there was no blood on the socks
1:55:51when doctors body and wolf examined the
1:55:55socks nine days later
1:55:57but if we buy mister cochran's version
1:56:00of events
1:56:01why would the police have planted the
1:56:04socks there and mr. Simpson's bedroom
1:56:07without any blood on them in the first
1:56:10place
1:56:14does mr. Cochran really expect us to
1:56:17believe that
1:56:19these evil LAPD conspirators were
1:56:22brilliant enough brilliant enough to
1:56:26pull off this incredibly involve complex
1:56:29conspiracy this Freema without a hitch
1:56:33but so remarkably feeble-minded and clot
1:56:37ish
1:56:38and when they planted the socks at the
1:56:41foot of mr. Simpson's bed they forgot to
1:56:43put the blood on them forgot to put the
1:56:46blood on them
1:56:48and then a month or so later they said
1:56:51hey we forgot to put the blood on the
1:56:52socks
1:56:53and then got the socks out of the
1:56:56property division of the LAPD
1:56:58rounded up some blood of mr. Simpson's
1:57:01and Nicole's and at that time
1:57:05put the blood on the socks is there any
1:57:08limit are there any boundaries to the
1:57:11silliness of the defense in this case
1:57:13can their silliness
1:57:15even be seen
1:57:17from Mount Palomar can the frontiers of
1:57:21their silliness even be seen from Mount
1:57:23Palomar I don't know
1:57:26or maybe this is the answer maybe this
1:57:28is the answer mr. Cochran might have a
1:57:31point after all
1:57:33he didn't argue this to you but maybe
1:57:36the answer is that when these evil LAPD
1:57:40conspirators planted those socks at the
1:57:42foot of mr. Simpson's bed they weren't
1:57:43trying to frame them with the socks
1:57:45they just wanted people to think that
1:57:47mr. Simpson wasn't neat you know but he
1:57:50wasn't tidy
1:57:51but he didn't bother to put his used
1:57:54socks away somewhere in a hamper they
1:57:55were trying to frame him
1:57:56did he want it to look neat and
1:58:00later a month or two later for the first
1:58:03time
1:58:04they decided to put some blood on those
1:58:08socks
1:58:09again it's almost embarrassing for me to
1:58:12have to respond to defense arguments
1:58:14like this
1:58:16with respect to detective Vannatter not
1:58:19immediately booking the vial of mr.
1:58:21Simpson's blood when he got it on the
1:58:22afternoon following the murders and
1:58:24instead bringing it back to Rockingham
1:58:26and turning it over to the criminalist
1:58:28Dennis Phung
1:58:31obviously with 20/20 vision that was not
1:58:34a very wise thing for him to do why
1:58:36would he do it then I think the answer
1:58:37is obvious
1:58:38how could Van adder in his wildest
1:58:42dreams his wildest dreams ever imagine
1:58:45that there were actually lawyers like
1:58:48Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck around
1:58:50who would say that the reason he brought
1:58:52that vileblood back to Rockingham was to
1:58:54take blood out of it in sprinkle and
1:58:57planet in an effort to frame mr. Simpson
1:59:00when you have an innocent state of mind
1:59:03thoughts like that just don't enter your
1:59:05mind particularly when you've been on
1:59:07the force for 26 years and have
1:59:10investigated thousands of cases and not
1:59:13once in all those 26 years as has anyone
1:59:16ever accused you of such a vile
1:59:19despicable deed
1:59:22yes he testified Hina's partner Tom Lang
1:59:25could have booked the vial immediately
1:59:28but the reason they didn't is they
1:59:31didn't have a dr number the divisional
1:59:32record number assigned to each case
1:59:34under which all items of evidence are
1:59:35booked could they have gotten the dr
1:59:37number yes
1:59:38but he informed us that the dr number is
1:59:41nearly always gotten after all the
1:59:46evidence is collected from the crime
1:59:47scene by the criminalist pursuant to the
1:59:49search warrant
1:59:50and at the time he came into possession
1:59:53of that vial blood at 3:00 p.m. June 13
1:59:571994 Dennis Fung the criminalist was
2:00:00still at the crime scenes of Bundy and
2:00:03Rockingham collecting evidence
2:00:08since each piece of evidence is
2:00:10sequentially assigned a property item
2:00:12number Van adder said that the problem
2:00:15he would have had in getting a dr number
2:00:17in booking that vial of blood under that
2:00:20dr number
2:00:22it would have been item number 1
2:00:24if he had booked it under that dr number
2:00:27the problem is that he didn't know what
2:00:29item numbers Fung had already assigned
2:00:31two pieces of evidence that he had
2:00:34collected at Bundy and Rockingham as
2:00:37funk testified quote if Van adder had
2:00:40booked the vial of blood as item number
2:00:41one it would have messed up all my
2:00:44numbers because I had already assigned
2:00:46number one to the blood stain I found on
2:00:48the outside of the Bronco above the
2:00:50driver's door handle unquote so to avoid
2:00:53the problem an adder brings the vile
2:00:55blood back to Rockingham turns it over
2:00:57to fung for funked a book along with all
2:00:59the other evidence in both Langan
2:01:01vennett are testified by the way that
2:01:03when detectives physically turn over
2:01:05evidence to the criminalist in the case
2:01:08in their mind they consider this the
2:01:11equivalent of booking it this defense
2:01:14charged that van adder planted blood
2:01:16from mr. Simpson's reference vial at
2:01:19Rockingham like all the other defense
2:01:21allegations in this case is preposterous
2:01:23and again I'm confident I can
2:01:26demonstrate why do you
2:01:30stop to think about it for a moment you
2:01:33saw TV film footage of an adder arriving
2:01:35at Rockingham at 5:16 p.m. carrying this
2:01:38large envelope which he said contained
2:01:40the vial mr. Simpson's blood
2:01:43now if it had been van adders intent to
2:01:47bring that vile blood back to Rockingham
2:01:49to plant blood from it why wouldn't he
2:01:52have concealed that small that small
2:01:54vial of blood in his suit coat or the
2:01:58pockets of his pants why carry it there
2:02:01in a large envelope thereby advertising
2:02:03to everyone that he was bringing
2:02:05something onto the premises that
2:02:08doesn't make any sense at all you
2:02:12also saw police video showing fun at
2:02:175:20 p.m. and the for a of the Simpson
2:02:20residence holding that same envelope
2:02:23funk testified that he received the
2:02:25envelope from Van adder saw the vial
2:02:28Simpsons blood inside then wrote on the
2:02:30envelope a prosecution exhibit quote
2:02:32received from Van adder on 6 1394 at
2:02:361720 hours that is 5:20 p.m.
2:02:40so to believe the planning of blood
2:02:42argument we'd also necessarily have to
2:02:46believe that Dennis Fung the obviously
2:02:50decent sincere young man not even a
2:02:52police officer just an employee at the
2:02:53LAPD
2:02:55one of the main conspirators who framed
2:02:58OJ Simpson
2:03:01that either Fung himself
2:03:04planted all the blood
2:03:07or that after he got the vial from Van
2:03:10adder he certainly turned the vial to
2:03:12Van adder and then committed perjury
2:03:15on the witness stand here when he told
2:03:18you folks that after he got the vial
2:03:19blood he kept it in his possession until
2:03:23he booked it that's really believable
2:03:26isn't it
2:03:27in addition how could vannatter even
2:03:31fantasize how could he even dream that
2:03:34he'd be able to bring that vile blood
2:03:37back to Rockingham and plant blood from
2:03:40it when he had been to Rockingham
2:03:42earlier in the day and he knew
2:03:45that hundreds upon hundreds of reporters
2:03:48and members of the media had already
2:03:50congregated at Rockingham their cameras
2:03:54blanketing the premises picking up for
2:03:56the evening news the movements of
2:03:58everyone on the estate there were
2:03:59helicopters up above filming everything
2:04:01down below
2:04:02just a wonderful marvelous environment
2:04:05for Van Atta to go around sprinkling mr.
2:04:10Simpson's blood
2:04:12he couldn't even do it in the evening
2:04:15since a sizable contingent of the media
2:04:18remained throughout the evening and
2:04:20night that is around the clock at
2:04:22Rockingham
2:04:24and why indeed would then add or even
2:04:28feel there was any need to plant blood
2:04:31of mr. Simpson's at Rockingham when just
2:04:34a couple hours earlier mr. Simpson had
2:04:37already admitted to him and his partner
2:04:39Tom Lange that he had dripped blood all
2:04:42over his car home and driveway
2:04:45why would he think there was any need
2:04:48to plant more blood at Rockingham than
2:04:52mr. Simpson admits was already there
2:04:58need i say anymore
2:05:00the allegation but mister cochran and
2:05:04mister scheck the detective van adder
2:05:06here's a guy 26 years on the forest not
2:05:09one citizen complaint against in the 26
2:05:11years these people are accusing him of
2:05:14bringing that vile blood back to
2:05:16Rockingham taking blood out of it and
2:05:18sprinkling it around in various places
2:05:20to incriminate the defendant
2:05:24that allegation is more than outrageous
2:05:27ladies and gentlemen it's absolutely
2:05:29obscene I
2:05:31know they're not but they should be
2:05:33ashamed of themselves
2:05:38with respect to dr. Henry Lee who mr.
2:05:41Cochran and mr. Scheck touted so much to
2:05:43you in their summations how could this
2:05:46man come before you folks posing as a
2:05:48leading forensic scientist in this
2:05:50country and suggest to you the
2:05:53possibility that a shoe print made in
2:05:56concrete here's a goal which he
2:05:59personally saw and photographed could be
2:06:02the shoe print belonging to a killer
2:06:03other than the defendant in this case
2:06:06how dare this man not tell you that that
2:06:09shoe print was a permanent indentation
2:06:12in the concrete
2:06:14whose ridges and grooves you could feel
2:06:17with your fingers
2:06:18how dare he not tell you that how dare
2:06:21this man who should have been written
2:06:23out of town on a rail
2:06:25try to do this to you folks
2:06:28if we hadn't had agent Bosniak of the
2:06:31FBI go back to that walkway at Bundy and
2:06:33look at physically touch and photograph
2:06:36for you that permanent indentation in
2:06:39the concrete we would have never known
2:06:41the
2:06:42dr. Lee's testimony was 100% wrong
2:06:46pardon the pun but we have concrete
2:06:49evidence
2:06:50but there's something wrong
2:06:53terribly terribly wrong with dr. Lee to
2:06:56give you folks testimony like that I
2:06:59think I demonstrated to you how the
2:07:01defense's garbage in garbage out theory
2:07:04on contamination was itself garbage that
2:07:08it that it was totally lacking in merit
2:07:10so mr. Czechs argument to you although
2:07:13he didn't jettison completely the
2:07:15contamination argument he focused in
2:07:18much more on an equally absurd theory to
2:07:22whipped cross contamination
2:07:26under the law a jury verdict must be
2:07:30based as you folks know on the evidence
2:07:32not on conjecture that is speculation or
2:07:35possibilities but in mr. Scheck's world
2:07:39conjecture and the possibility of cross
2:07:42contamination
2:07:44even though he doesn't have a speck of
2:07:46evidence to support it is the equivalent
2:07:47of proof that it did happen
2:07:50but if Scheck doesn't have a speck
2:07:53ladies and gentlemen if Scheck doesn't
2:07:54have a speck you must reject his
2:07:58argument on cross contamination
2:08:00with respect to conjecture judge Ito
2:08:03will give you the following instruction
2:08:04you must not be influenced by conjecture
2:08:08with respect to possibilities he will
2:08:11instruct you quote a reasonable doubt is
2:08:14not a mere possible doubt because
2:08:16everything related to human affairs is
2:08:18open to some possible or imaginary doubt
2:08:22before we analyze what mr. Scheck
2:08:25perceives to be the speck of evidence
2:08:27the tantalizing possibility
2:08:30that is the crown jewel in his TR of
2:08:33nonsense about cross contamination
2:08:35let's take this issue from the top as
2:08:38you know ladies and gentlemen of the
2:08:39jury these defense attorneys have
2:08:41alleged that
2:08:43blood on the rear gate at Bundy was
2:08:47planted by these evil LAPD conspirators
2:08:50they've alleged that the glove at
2:08:53Rockingham was planted
2:08:55they alleged that blood and mr.
2:08:57Simpson's Bronco was planted
2:08:59that blood
2:09:01and mr. Simpson's socks and his bedroom
2:09:04was planted but even these defense
2:09:08attorneys and I underlined and
2:09:09italicized the word even even these
2:09:13defense attorneys
2:09:14who we've seen at this trial of elevated
2:09:17audacity to symphonic & operatic levels
2:09:21even they didn't have the guts to allege
2:09:25that the five blood drops at the murder
2:09:27scene conclusively determined by DNA
2:09:30tests to be mr. Simpson's four of which
2:09:33out of the five were immediately to the
2:09:35left of the killer's bloody shoe prints
2:09:37leaving the crime scene even they
2:09:39didn't have the guts to allege that
2:09:42those five blood drops were planted by
2:09:45the LAPD in this case
2:09:47as you recall their argument to you is
2:09:50that those five blood drops belonged not
2:09:52to mr. Simpson
2:09:55but to the true killer and because they
2:09:58had been exposed to bacteria
2:10:01the elements dirt etc they lost all
2:10:04their DNA which the experts have told
2:10:07you from the witness stand would have
2:10:09been an absolute impossibility in such a
2:10:11short period of time and later on
2:10:14when those five blood drops on cotton
2:10:17swatches were at the LAPD crime lab
2:10:19which mr. Scheck says is a cesspool of
2:10:21contamination maybe
2:10:24those five blood drops became cross
2:10:26contaminated with blood for mr.
2:10:29Simpson's reference file and that's why
2:10:31the DNA test showed that it was mr.
2:10:34Simpson's blood at the murder scene
2:10:38how specifically for mr. Scheck could
2:10:42the cross contamination have taken place
2:10:44in this case he relies on the so called
2:10:47Colin Yamaguchi incident
2:10:49as you recall Colin Yamaguchi one of the
2:10:52LAPD's criminalists testified on
2:10:54cross-examination by mr. Scheck
2:10:57that in opening up the vial mr.
2:10:59Simpson's reference blood at the crime
2:11:01lab on June 14 1994 he got a quote tiny
2:11:05dot unquote of the blood about an eighth
2:11:07of an inch in diameter on the latex
2:11:10glove of his left hand
2:11:12he said this was a common experience
2:11:14when you take the rubber cap off the
2:11:17vial
2:11:17but Yamauchi testified that he
2:11:20immediately discarded both his left and
2:11:23right latex gloves in a nearby
2:11:25receptacle and put on a new pair of
2:11:27gloves which he said is just routine
2:11:30automatic behavior for criminalists in
2:11:32this type of situation
2:11:34moreover he testified that at the time
2:11:36of this incident the cotton swatches
2:11:39containing the five blood drops were on
2:11:41top of the table ten to fifteen feet
2:11:43away and were enclosed within paper
2:11:46bundles which were themselves enclosed
2:11:48within coin envelopes
2:11:51from this totally innocuous and innocent
2:11:55incident mr. Scheck who was possessed of
2:11:58a rather fertile pregnant imagination
2:12:01argued to folks that there was a quote
2:12:04spillage of blood a spillage of blood
2:12:07this tiny dot became a spillage of blood
2:12:11adding that he had no reason to believe
2:12:13mr. Yamaguchi when Yamaguchi testified
2:12:16that he changed his gloves and mr.
2:12:19Scheck goes on to say that as a result
2:12:20of all this quote there could have been
2:12:23cross-contamination
2:12:25let's take off my jacket be okay if I
2:12:28take it off I'm not gonna take off my
2:12:30vest by the way it's kind of a security
2:12:33blanket I've been masquerading as a
2:12:35lawyer so I'm gonna got to keep your
2:12:37vest on
2:12:48note
2:12:51that there would have been anyway there
2:12:54would not have been any way for mr.
2:12:57Scheck to even know about this tiny dot
2:13:01of blood
2:13:02getting on Yamaguchi's glove if
2:13:05Yamaguchi hadn't been honest enough
2:13:07honest enough to tell mr. Scheck
2:13:11but mr. Scheck who wouldn't trust the
2:13:14Pope
2:13:15tells you folks that he has no reason to
2:13:18believe the Yamauchi is telling the
2:13:20truth when he testified on that witness
2:13:23stand that he changed his gloves
2:13:25since the only evidence in the record is
2:13:28that mr. Yamaguchi did change his gloves
2:13:31Scheck doesn't have a speck of evidence
2:13:35to support his theory of cross
2:13:37contamination
2:13:39all he can say is that cross
2:13:41contamination could have taken place
2:13:45and I say could have Schmidt have if I
2:13:49had wings maybe I could fly
2:13:55you make desperate foundationless
2:13:58arguments like this ladies and gentlemen
2:14:00of the jury
2:14:01when your client is not only dripping
2:14:04with guilt but dripping with blood
2:14:06and there's nothing else for you to
2:14:09argue
2:14:11quite apart from mr. Yamaguchi changing
2:14:15his gloves the conclusive evidence the
2:14:18positive evidence there was no
2:14:20cross-contamination in this case is that
2:14:23if there had been
2:14:25those five blood drops would have had a
2:14:28EDTA in them
2:14:29we learned at this trial that EDTA was a
2:14:32preservative an anticoagulant that's
2:14:35added to all reference blood so mr.
2:14:38Simpson's reference blood at EDTA in it
2:14:42the defense in this case alleged they
2:14:45didn't prove it all but they alleged
2:14:47that there was a residue of EDTA on the
2:14:49blood on the rear gate they alleged that
2:14:52there was a residue of EDTA on the socks
2:14:55of mr. Simpson's bedroom but they did
2:14:57not allege if you recall they did not
2:15:00allow that there was any EDTA in those
2:15:04five blood drops found at the murder
2:15:06scene and
2:15:07if there had been cross-contamination
2:15:10automatically there would have had to
2:15:13have been EDTA in those five blood drops
2:15:18since those five blood drops did not
2:15:20have EDTA in them
2:15:23this is not only conclusive proof that
2:15:26there was no cross contamination in this
2:15:28case it is also conclusive proof that
2:15:32those five blood drops had to have come
2:15:35from this man's body at the time of
2:15:38these murders most likely from the cut
2:15:41the deep cut to the knuckle of his left
2:15:44middle finger there's simply no other
2:15:46way
2:15:47that his blood could have gotten at that
2:15:50murder scene
2:15:53an additional reason why we know there
2:15:56was no cross-contamination here is that
2:15:59if there had been the DNA content on
2:16:02those five blood drops would have been a
2:16:04lot higher than they were because the
2:16:06reference blood hadn't been exposed to
2:16:08the elements
2:16:10you recall that those five blood drops
2:16:12because they had been exposed to the
2:16:14elements had degraded somewhat in the
2:16:18DNA content on four out of five of them
2:16:21wasn't sufficiently high for them to
2:16:23conduct an RFLP test they had to conduct
2:16:25a PCR test as you know only with respect
2:16:27to the fifth blood drop were they able
2:16:29to conduct an RFLP test
2:16:32since we know we don't think
2:16:36since we know that there was no
2:16:38cross-contamination in this case because
2:16:40of the absence of EDTA and the low DNA
2:16:44content on those five blood drops
2:16:49there's only one
2:16:51catch-all fallback argument for the
2:16:54defense to make in this case with
2:16:56respect to those five blood drops
2:16:59and that's their pet argument that this
2:17:02blood had been contaminated by bacteria
2:17:04dirt the elements making all the DNA
2:17:07tests conducted on them quote unreliable
2:17:10their garbage in garbage out argument
2:17:14but we that even if there had been
2:17:15contamination in this case it could not
2:17:20convert someone else's blood into mr.
2:17:23Simpson's blood I
2:17:24mean to believe this ridiculous
2:17:27contamination argument
2:17:31you'd have to believe that this blood
2:17:34found at the murder scene which has been
2:17:36identified as mr. Simpson's actually
2:17:38belong to mr. X the true killer
2:17:41and during this trial
2:17:44mr. X the true killer somewhere else
2:17:48maybe is in a motel room in Amarillo
2:17:51Topeka Boise Idaho
2:17:54watching these proceedings on television
2:17:57and
2:17:59because of contamination
2:18:01caused by dirt bacteria what have you
2:18:04out of the five and I have billion
2:18:07people on the face of this earth
2:18:10X's blood
2:18:12miraculously was transformed to
2:18:16OJ Simpson's blood
2:18:19and not just once mind you
2:18:23apparently because of contamination all
2:18:26five separate drops of mr. X's blood
2:18:29were magically transformed
2:18:33to mr. Simpson's blood about a five and
2:18:37a half billion people in the face of
2:18:38this earth
2:18:41right
2:18:44and mother Teresa
2:18:47used to play fullback for the Chicago
2:18:50Bears and
2:18:52my name is Mahatma Gandhi and
2:18:56Frenchmen don't drink wine
2:19:02is there any end any end at all to the
2:19:06insanity heaped upon us by these defense
2:19:09attorneys in this case I
2:19:11mean they're merciless sadistic
2:19:16shouldn't common decency tell them that
2:19:19they should at least provide us with
2:19:21special clothing to protect us from this
2:19:25radioactive nonsense of theirs
2:19:35even though it couldn't be more obvious
2:19:37that there was no police conspiracy to
2:19:39frame the defendant in this case folks
2:19:41both mr. Cochran and mr. Scheck in their
2:19:44summations to you clung tenaciously to
2:19:47this theory because they have nothing
2:19:50else to argue to you
2:19:52and since they are continuing to argue
2:19:55this nonsense I must continue
2:19:58to expose this conspiracy argument for
2:20:02the nonsense that it is
2:20:06with respect to you black folks on the
2:20:09jury
2:20:10mr. Cochran cleverly argued to you the
2:20:14police frame-up Theory from your
2:20:17experience of police brutality
2:20:18two completely different types of police
2:20:23misconduct
2:20:24I'm sure he was hoping that it would
2:20:27sail right over my head without my even
2:20:29feeling the breeze
2:20:30but I'm here to inform mr. Cochran that
2:20:33it did not
2:20:38you black folks know about police
2:20:40brutality even if you haven't
2:20:42experienced it personally
2:20:45you know it through your friends your
2:20:48relatives but even though I'm white I'm
2:20:50also aware I'm well aware that there's a
2:20:53small strain of law enforcement officers
2:20:57here in Los Angeles
2:20:58and in other major cities of this
2:21:00country
2:21:01who have been manhandling mistreating
2:21:04and in some instances brutalizing
2:21:06members of your community and getting by
2:21:08with it
2:21:11they are small percentage of the force
2:21:14who's seen the blue uniform of the
2:21:17majority the force who don't do those
2:21:19things so I'm aware that police
2:21:22brutality and lies by the police to
2:21:25cover it up is common not
2:21:28percentage-wise but numerically speaking
2:21:31but if I may be so presumptuous and an
2:21:34all deference do you black folks on the
2:21:36jury
2:21:38this what I just I've just been talking
2:21:40about this is the type of police
2:21:43misconduct that
2:21:44the black community has experienced
2:21:47throughout the years
2:21:48not pleased frame-ups I
2:21:52would ask you black people in the jury
2:21:54to ask yourself this question back in
2:21:56the jury room
2:21:58has it ever happened to any relative of
2:22:00yours or close friend or anyone you know
2:22:02that they were framed framed by the
2:22:06police
2:22:07for a burglary or a robbery a murder
2:22:11arson
2:22:15statistics show that this type of thing
2:22:17is virtually unheard of now I'm not
2:22:20talking about the 1930s in the deep
2:22:23south
2:22:24I'm talking about the last half-century
2:22:26right here in Los Angeles
2:22:29not just statistics but the nature of
2:22:32civil lawsuits by blacks against the
2:22:35police here in Los Angeles clearly and
2:22:38unequivocally show this
2:22:43civil lawsuits by blacks against the
2:22:46LAPD and the LA Sheriff's Department for
2:22:50police brutality
2:22:51common we read about it all the time the
2:22:53newspapers where as suits by blacks
2:22:57against the police for being framed
2:23:00virtually non-existent
2:23:08has that ever happened of course it has
2:23:11as
2:23:13it is said in the book of ecclesiastes
2:23:16the Old Testament years before the birth
2:23:18of Jesus
2:23:19there's nothing new Under the Sun
2:23:24but it's extremely rare
2:23:27and when it does happen almost
2:23:30invariably it's and simple uncomplicated
2:23:32drug cases and as I said earlier if the
2:23:36police ever were going to frame a black
2:23:38man this black man this defendant mr.
2:23:41Simpson would be one of the very last
2:23:42black men on the face of this earth and
2:23:45they would even dream
2:23:46the framing
2:23:48so mr. Cochran and I have to give him
2:23:52credit for this because it was quite
2:23:55artfully deceptive on his part
2:23:58was hoping that you black folks back in
2:24:01the jury room would buy his frame-up
2:24:03theory
2:24:04by saying to yourself this is the LAPD
2:24:07and we know we can't trust them
2:24:11well maybe as I said you can't trust a
2:24:14certain small segment of the LAPD for
2:24:16police brutality and then lying to cover
2:24:18it up but frame ups frame ups no way
2:24:22Jose no way
2:24:29again although I'm not saying it has
2:24:31never happened it's common knowledge
2:24:33that
2:24:35it very definitely is not a part of the
2:24:38normal history of the LAPD and the black
2:24:41community here in Los Angeles that is
2:24:44not an opinion
2:24:45that's a fact
2:24:50let me tie in what I've just told you
2:24:53about the police not framing blacks to
2:24:55mark Fuhrman in this case
2:24:57but first let me go back just a little
2:24:59bit
2:25:01the defense in this case at one time or
2:25:03another
2:25:04has suggested to you folks
2:25:07that just about everyone involved the
2:25:09investigation of this case was either
2:25:11involved in the conspiracy to frame mr.
2:25:13Simpson or the conspiracy to cover up
2:25:16the frame-up
2:25:18in fact with respect to the ladder mr.
2:25:21Cochran specifically told you in a
2:25:23summation that in his opinion Willie
2:25:25Ford the black police photographer was
2:25:28the only one on this case who quote
2:25:30wasn't a part of the cover-up unquote so
2:25:34the defense attorneys are not just
2:25:35accusing the four detectives in this
2:25:37case but they're colleagues from officer
2:25:40Spangler risky all the way up to
2:25:43commander bushy even the police
2:25:45criminalist Dennis Fung in fact even
2:25:48funds young assistant Andrea Missoula
2:25:51who told you folks that prior to this
2:25:54case she had never even heard of OJ
2:25:55Simpson didn't even know who he was
2:25:58she may not have known who he was but it
2:26:00certainly sounded like a good idea to
2:26:02frame him
2:26:03that's one of the reasons why she wants
2:26:06to work for the LAPD he told her about
2:26:07all the fringe benefits three weeks paid
2:26:10vacation
2:26:11free medical care get to frame all the
2:26:13people you want
2:26:15well that's all silly this is this whole
2:26:18thing is silly and I'm just trying to
2:26:19illustrate how silly it is
2:26:22the defense even claimed that Fano
2:26:24paratus the male nurse withdrew mr.
2:26:27Simpsons blood was a part of the
2:26:28conspiracy
2:26:29remember they suggested that he changed
2:26:31his testimony to account for the 1.5
2:26:34cc's of blood for mr. Simpsons reference
2:26:37vial that they claimed was missing I
2:26:39mean everyone was involved I
2:26:42can just picture Phil van adder and the
2:26:45telephone
2:26:46on the night of the murders calling his
2:26:48colleagues hey Sam we got a great
2:26:50conspiracy going on down here
2:26:52we're framing that black dude OJ Simpson
2:26:55Christ's sake Phil do you know what time
2:26:57does this 3:00 in the morning I know I
2:27:00know but how often to get an opportunity
2:27:02to nail someone like Simpson yeah I
2:27:04guess you're right old buddy let me take
2:27:06a quick shower I'll be right now well
2:27:08you better get you ran down here right
2:27:09quick cause I'm not gonna wait for you
2:27:10all night ok Phil ok
2:27:16it reminds me of the film JFK how often
2:27:19if you folks saw that film a couple
2:27:20years ago about the assassination of
2:27:22John F Kennedy
2:27:24at one time or another in that film it's
2:27:28quite a long film but at one time or
2:27:30another in that film the director Oliver
2:27:32Stone
2:27:33unbelievably
2:27:35at the CIA involved the conspiracy to
2:27:38kill the president
2:27:39the FBI
2:27:42Secret Service Russian KGB the mob
2:27:47military-industrial complex Vice
2:27:49President Lyndon Johnson
2:27:51Dallas Police Department Castro
2:27:54anti-castro Cuban exiles
2:27:56they're all involved in the conspiracy
2:27:59to kill President Kennedy I mean where
2:28:02did all these people
2:28:03gathered to form this elaborate
2:28:05conspiracy Madison Square Garden as I
2:28:09was walking out of the movie I remember
2:28:10thinking to myself that I was apparently
2:28:11one of the few people who was not
2:28:13involved in this conspiracy
2:28:16if we're to believe mr. stone no one
2:28:19wanted poor President Kennedy to live I
2:28:22mean not even bitter enemies like the
2:28:24KGB in the CIA they got together on this
2:28:26one
2:28:28couldn't get together anything else but
2:28:30they got together on this one anyway
2:28:33getting back to this case
2:28:34although everyone and his grandmother
2:28:36was apparently involved in the
2:28:40conspiracy to frame mr. Simpson
2:28:44according to the defense the main
2:28:46conspirator the head guy the Maharaja of
2:28:49this dirty rotten plot to frame this man
2:28:52is Mark Fuhrman
2:28:55the supreme racist the devil incarnate
2:28:59you
2:29:00recall that Cathleen Bell testified that
2:29:03when she meant Fuhrman somewhere between
2:29:051985 and 1986 at the Marine recruiting
2:29:08office he told her that whenever he'd
2:29:10see a black man in a car with a white
2:29:12woman he'd pulled him over and Miss
2:29:15Bella said well what if they haven't
2:29:17anything wrong and he responded that he
2:29:19would quote find something and so mr.
2:29:23Cochran argued to you quote this man
2:29:26will lie to set you up referring to
2:29:29black people that is what he is saying
2:29:31there he would do anything to set you up
2:29:33because of the hatred he has in his
2:29:35heart unquote well number one
2:29:39miss Bell didn't say that Fuhrman told
2:29:42her that he would frame the black man
2:29:45and his white woman friend for any crime
2:29:47did she know only that he would come up
2:29:50with some excuse valid or invalid to
2:29:52pull them over probably wanted to hassle
2:29:54them but again that was ten years ago
2:29:58when Fuhrman apparently had racist
2:30:02tendencies but as I pointed out in my
2:30:04opening argument Fuhrman clearly seems
2:30:07to have shed those racist tendencies in
2:30:09recent years
2:30:12the defense of course doesn't agree
2:30:16the essence of what mr. Cochran told you
2:30:18in the essence of the defense in this
2:30:20case is that Mark Fuhrman framed OJ
2:30:23Simpson because Simpson is black firm is
2:30:26a racist
2:30:27and that's what Furman does he frames
2:30:28black people
2:30:30the way to all folks wait a while let's
2:30:34stop and think about this terrible
2:30:37violent
2:30:39mark fuhrman has been a Los Angeles
2:30:41police officer for close to 20 years
2:30:44he testified that during that time he
2:30:48arrested hundreds upon hundreds of black
2:30:50people over 2000 he said
2:30:53now I think most you folks will agree
2:30:55but if there's one thing that's even
2:30:57worse than police brutality it's been
2:31:00framed for a serious crime that you did
2:31:02not commit a bloody nose a broken arm
2:31:05can heal but going to the state prison
2:31:08for five to ten years and being branded
2:31:11a felon for the rest of your life I
2:31:13think you agree there's a lot worse
2:31:16now don't you think that if this fellow
2:31:19Furman were the type would like to frame
2:31:21black people that there would've been a
2:31:23considerable number of black people
2:31:25framed by him throughout the years
2:31:27and that you would have heard from most
2:31:30early some of them during this trial I
2:31:35mean if you're a black man framed by
2:31:38Furman let's say for a burglary
2:31:41you serve five years at San Quentin and
2:31:44you get out and Furman's in the news
2:31:46don't you automatically call Johnny
2:31:48Cochran or another member of the defense
2:31:50team and say hey this guy framed me not
2:31:53just to get even with him which would be
2:31:56your primary motivation but in a big
2:31:59case like this you'd be a hero to many
2:32:02in the black community you could sell
2:32:03your story for a lot of money I
2:32:06repeat if Furman had been the framing
2:32:10cop the defense wants you to believe he
2:32:12is why wasn't there a parade of black
2:32:14people taking this witness fan at this
2:32:17trial to tell you folks that they were
2:32:19framed by Mark Fuhrman
2:32:22after close to 20 years on the force the
2:32:26only black man at the defense call to
2:32:29this witness stand to testify against
2:32:31Mark Fuhrman was Roderick Hodge
2:32:34Hadj as you recall it had a run-in with
2:32:37Fuhrman years earlier and when Fuhrman
2:32:40later arrested him on a drug charge in
2:32:411987 eight years ago Fuhrman had a
2:32:45partner at the time arrested Hajj Hajj
2:32:47said that he mistreated him and said to
2:32:50him I told you I'd get you [ __ ]
2:32:54but he didn't say anything about Fuhrman
2:32:57framing him or setting him up or
2:33:00planting evidence or falsely accusing
2:33:03them of any crime not one word not one
2:33:07word from Roderick Hodge and say
2:33:09anything about framing him
2:33:18as far as testimony at this trial coming
2:33:21from this witness stand under oath that
2:33:24any black person was ever framed by Mark
2:33:28Fuhrman or for that matter any other
2:33:30member of the LAPD involved in the
2:33:31investigation of this case as you know
2:33:35as you know this witness stand was
2:33:37silent
2:33:39silent
2:33:41as quiet as a church mouse
2:33:44as quiet as a statue as quiet as those
2:33:49pictures up there in the wall in front
2:33:50of you
2:33:51even though Mark Fuhrman arrested over
2:33:552000 black people in his career not one
2:33:59black person took this witness stand and
2:34:01told you folks that he or she was framed
2:34:04by Mark Fuhrman and
2:34:06the reason no black person so testified
2:34:09is no such black person exists it's
2:34:12nonsense it's moonshine
2:34:15to the complete contrary we learned at
2:34:19this trial that Mark Fuhrman was out
2:34:21there working hard to free a black man
2:34:23charged with the murder of a white man
2:34:24you
2:34:28folks should not only be insulted that
2:34:32these defense attorneys try to deceive
2:34:34you like this you should be angry at
2:34:35them how dare they think so little of
2:34:39your intelligence to try to sell you a
2:34:41preposterous story like that the story
2:34:44that children and sand piles wouldn't
2:34:47believe
2:34:52after my opening argument to you folks
2:34:54about how silly and preposterous the
2:34:56police frame-up theory was as you know
2:34:58mr. Cochran and his closing argument
2:35:01tried to beef up he try to beef up his
2:35:03police conspiracy theory to you he came
2:35:06up with a second reason
2:35:08for why the police would want to frame
2:35:10OJ Simpson it's an addition to the main
2:35:13argument that he's used throughout this
2:35:15whole trial that he was just racist cops
2:35:18out to frame a black man
2:35:21and this new argument he came up with
2:35:25was a real beaut
2:35:26this is what he told you you recall an
2:35:29answer to his own question
2:35:31why would all these police officers set
2:35:34up Oh Jay Simpson
2:35:35they believed he was guilty and they
2:35:39didn't want to lose another big case
2:35:41unquote unbelievable Johnnie Cochran has
2:35:44come up with a new twist
2:35:46everyone knows that the word frame means
2:35:49to set up an innocent person I Random
2:35:52House dictionary
2:35:53defines the word frame as quote
2:35:55incriminating an innocent person through
2:35:58the use of false evidence
2:36:00but according to mr. Cochran the LAPD
2:36:03thought they were framing a guilty man
2:36:05and they framed him he says because they
2:36:09didn't want to lose another big case
2:36:13but if mr. Cochran is gonna make an
2:36:16outrageous allegation like this don't
2:36:18you think he should have at least told
2:36:20you folks what other big cases the LAPD
2:36:23has been losing recently or within the
2:36:26past several years he didn't tell you
2:36:28is he talking about the Menendez case
2:36:32problem with that that wasn't an LAPD
2:36:34case that was a Beverly Hills Police
2:36:37Department case
2:36:38Beverly Hills Police Department
2:36:40incidentally as you know that case was a
2:36:43hung jury it's going to be retried so
2:36:45it's still very much alive but that was
2:36:46a Beverly Hills Police Department case
2:36:48not an LAPD case is he talking about the
2:36:51Damien Williams case that arose out of
2:36:53the Los Angeles Riots
2:36:55let mr. Cochran tell Damien Williams
2:36:58that let him tell Damien Williams at the
2:37:01LAPD lost that case
2:37:03Damien Williams was convicted of ma'am
2:37:06and is now serving a ten-year sentence
2:37:08in the state prison is he talking about
2:37:12the Rodney King case
2:37:14you mean all the officers who mr.
2:37:17Cochran claims framed mr. Simpson in
2:37:19this case were upset were upset that for
2:37:24other LAPD officers were found not
2:37:26guilty in Simi Valley that they were
2:37:27upset about that
2:37:30but if that's true mr. Cochran is
2:37:32talking out of both sides of his mouth
2:37:34because if they were upset that the four
2:37:37members of the LAPD who were charged
2:37:39with beating Rodney King were found not
2:37:41guilty
2:37:42then they are pretty good people right
2:37:46certainly not the kind who are racist
2:37:49not the kind who would frame a black man
2:37:54and if he's going all the way back to
2:37:56the McMartin child molestation case in
2:37:591990
2:38:00that wasn't the LAPD either
2:38:03that was the Manhattan Beach Police
2:38:06Department
2:38:09so I want to know what other big cases
2:38:12was mr. Cochran talking about
2:38:17even though this is my time for argument
2:38:20I'm going to give mr. Cochran the
2:38:22opportunity to stand up right now in
2:38:25this courtroom and tell you folks what
2:38:27other big cases he was referring to
2:38:30that the LAPD lost within the last
2:38:33several years that caused all these LAPD
2:38:36officers to risk going to the gas
2:38:38chamber for or state prison
2:38:41just so that the LAPD would not lose
2:38:44another big case
2:38:47mr. Cochran I'm gonna give you the
2:38:48amount of time it takes now to stand up
2:38:50and name these other cases and please
2:38:53mr. Cochran no speeches all this jury in
2:38:56judge and I and everyone in this
2:38:57courtroom want to know is the name the
2:38:59identity of these other cases mr.
2:39:02Cochran the floor is yours
2:39:15it's kind of a companion argument to his
2:39:19police frame-up theory mr. Cochran also
2:39:22told you folks that because of the
2:39:23LAPD's obsession to win this case they
2:39:26had quote rush to judgment against mr.
2:39:30Simpson ignoring any and all evidence
2:39:33that may have pointed away from mr.
2:39:36Simpson in the direction of someone else
2:39:41mr. Cochran should know that his rush
2:39:43the judgment argument is somewhat
2:39:45redundant to his main argument of a
2:39:47police frame-up
2:39:49obviously if the police for mr. Cochran
2:39:52are framing mr. Simpson they're
2:39:54certainly not going to be looking for
2:39:56evidence pointing in the direction of
2:39:58anyone else
2:39:59but let's ignore the redundant almost
2:40:02inconsistent nature of mr. Cochran's
2:40:06argument and look at for a moment his
2:40:08rush to judgment allegation as you folks
2:40:11know from your everyday experiences the
2:40:15evidence I guess in your private life
2:40:17you'd call it the
2:40:18circumstances or the situation is what
2:40:21leads you in a certain direction you
2:40:23don't go to the door to open it for
2:40:25someone unless you hear someone knocking
2:40:26at the door or you're the doorbell ring
2:40:29if you wake up in the morning and
2:40:30there's a small puddle of water in the
2:40:32kitchen floor when you call the roof man
2:40:35you don't tell it to check for a leak on
2:40:37the ceiling of the living room
2:40:40these things are so obvious that it's
2:40:43silly to even talk about them but it's
2:40:46just as obvious in a criminal
2:40:47investigation you follow the trail of
2:40:50evidence in this case the trail of blood
2:40:53then led from the murder scene to mr.
2:40:56Simpson's Ford Ford Bronco right up to
2:40:59the front door of his home and then
2:41:01inside
2:41:03all of the evidence in this case led to
2:41:06one person and one person only hojae
2:41:10Simpson there was no piece of evidence
2:41:12that led to anyone else under those
2:41:14circumstances what were the police
2:41:15supposed to do pretend that evidence
2:41:18existed pointing in a direction away
2:41:21from him towards someone else
2:41:23when detective Lange was asked during
2:41:25the trial by mr. Cochran if the LAPD had
2:41:28pursued the ability that someone else
2:41:30may been responsible for these murders
2:41:31he responded quote I had absolutely no
2:41:35other evidence that would point me in
2:41:36any other direction there was nothing to
2:41:38pursue
2:41:41mr. Cochran is going to make the charge
2:41:43he has don't you think there with all
2:41:45the police reports and all the witness
2:41:47statements that my office has provided
2:41:50him with
2:41:51as well as all the reports and all the
2:41:54statements that have undoubtedly been
2:41:56given to him by his own defense teams
2:41:58private investigators that he should
2:42:00have told you not for example ladies and
2:42:02gentlemen take this and then give you
2:42:05some fact or circumstance and then say
2:42:08why didn't the LAPD check that out
2:42:11but he couldn't refer to even one fact
2:42:14or circumstance not one that pointed in
2:42:18the direction of anyone other than his
2:42:20client being responsible for the murders
2:42:23of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald
2:42:25Goldman
2:42:26before we move on I'd like to make one
2:42:28final observation about mister cochran's
2:42:31rushed to judgment argument
2:42:35even though I don't believe it for a
2:42:36moment let's assume just for the sake of
2:42:39argument the police did rush to judgment
2:42:41in this case that the immediately
2:42:43suspected mr. Simpson has started
2:42:44looking for incriminating evidence
2:42:46against him to the exclusion of everyone
2:42:47else let's make that assumption so what
2:42:51whether they rushed the judgment or not
2:42:53they still found for instance mr.
2:42:56Simpson's blood at the murder scene
2:42:59not someone elses so what's mr.
2:43:03Cochran's point does mr. Simpson's blood
2:43:06being found at the murder scene cease
2:43:08being his blood simply because as a rush
2:43:10to judgment and find him it
2:43:14does Ron's blood and Nicole's blood and
2:43:17mr. Simpsons Bronco ceased to be their
2:43:20blood simply because there was a rush to
2:43:22judgment and finding it again what's mr.
2:43:25Cochran's point
2:43:29in mr. Cochran summation to you recall
2:43:32he said that mark Fuhrman should have
2:43:33been booted off the police force a long
2:43:35time ago and he said that you the jury
2:43:37by your verdict should stop the mark
2:43:40Fuhrman's of the world and the cover-up
2:43:42for him by others then he said quote if
2:43:45you referring to you folks if you don't
2:43:47stop it then who
2:43:50well first of all the defense never
2:43:53offered any evidence at all not one
2:43:55speck of evidence just wild speculation
2:43:57they offered no evidence that Mark
2:43:59Fuhrman planted that bloody glove at
2:44:01Rockingham nor did anything else wrong
2:44:03in this case for anyone to cover up for
2:44:06but even if we assume for the sake of
2:44:09argument that he did the only job that
2:44:12you folks have to do in this case is to
2:44:14determine from the evidence if the
2:44:16prosecution has has met its burden of
2:44:18proof of proving this man guilty beyond
2:44:20a reasonable doubt your job is not to
2:44:23try to change the police or society by
2:44:26your verdict no jury in any case
2:44:30has such a duty
2:44:32not only don't you have such a duty
2:44:35but it would be a very definite and
2:44:38serious violation of your oath if you
2:44:41were to let such a perceived duty
2:44:44influence your verdict in this case
2:44:48so rather than the wholly improper
2:44:51question by mr. Cochran if you don't
2:44:53stop it then who
2:44:55let's ask a much more proper question
2:44:58one that you as jurors should definitely
2:45:00be asking yourselves to paraphrase mr.
2:45:03Cochran if mr. Simpson didn't commit
2:45:06these murders
2:45:07than who
2:45:12we know mr. Simpson beat his wife
2:45:14severely to the point of the photos you
2:45:16folks saw poor Nicole's face heavily
2:45:19swollen black and blue to
2:45:23the point where she had to call the
2:45:25police on mr. Simpson nine times during
2:45:28their marriage
2:45:30to the point where she was in fear of
2:45:32her life at his hands once again recall
2:45:35her crying out to officer Edwards he's
2:45:37going to kill me he's going to kill me
2:45:40he is going to kill me
2:45:44people even those were getting a beating
2:45:46normally don't use words like that you
2:45:48only use words like that
2:45:50if you sense that it really it really
2:45:53might happen
2:45:55who else
2:45:57would have had any reason or motive to
2:46:00kill the two victims in this case
2:46:02we know from the evidence that both Ron
2:46:04and Nicole were apparently well-liked
2:46:07fun-loving young people in the prime of
2:46:09their life
2:46:10but you know this is somewhat of a
2:46:12superfluous discussion because even if
2:46:15Ron a Nicole each had 100 people whom
2:46:19they knew who hated them despised them
2:46:23bitter enemies who had a motive to kill
2:46:26them we know that none of them actually
2:46:28decided to do it was mr. Simpson's blood
2:46:31found at the murder scene not someone
2:46:33elses
2:46:35still addressing ourselves to the who
2:46:38else question we also know these murders
2:46:40weren't committed by a burglar or robber
2:46:42because there was absolutely no evidence
2:46:44that there was any burglary or robbery
2:46:46in this case these aren't the type of
2:46:48murders that burglars or robbers commit
2:46:50anyway and it's pretty clear the murders
2:46:53weren't done by a professional hitman
2:46:55contract killings for the most part
2:46:57there are exceptions but for the most
2:46:59part they're done with a gun
2:47:01they're quick they're not messy these
2:47:05murders ladies and gentlemen of the jury
2:47:07bear the unmistakable signature of a
2:47:11killer who was intimately involved with
2:47:15at least one of the victims
2:47:18the vicious knife thrusts were born
2:47:23part of an angry and wild passion not
2:47:27some impersonal mechanical intent to get
2:47:30some some job done for some third party
2:47:32I
2:47:37ask you once again to ask yourself this
2:47:40question back of the jury room if Jose
2:47:42Simpson the defendant in this case
2:47:44didn't kill Ron and Nicole who else
2:47:47would have had any reason or motive to
2:47:49kill these two young people and
2:47:51particularly in such a brutal savage way
2:47:56and one thing we know about the defense
2:47:59in this case they had all the money they
2:48:02had all the money they needed to defend
2:48:04this man
2:48:06one of the witnesses dr. Baden you heard
2:48:09the testimony he got paid in excess of
2:48:12$100,000 I don't know about you folks
2:48:14that's more money than I make in an
2:48:17entire year
2:48:19dr. Baden alone got an excessive
2:48:22$100,000
2:48:23so we know that money was no object in
2:48:26this defense team's representation of
2:48:29mr. Simpson a large staff of lawyers and
2:48:32assistants private investigators you
2:48:34name it they had it and they
2:48:36had to know anyone would
2:48:40that the very best defense to these
2:48:43murders is to prove or at least offer
2:48:46some evidence that someone else
2:48:48committed these murders
2:48:51and you know you just know that for the
2:48:54past year they've been scouring every
2:48:57nook and cranny in this city and
2:48:59elsewhere to see if they could put the
2:49:01Hat on someone else for these murders I
2:49:04mean they even set up an 800 number
2:49:06begging for any scrap of information
2:49:09pointing in the direction of someone
2:49:11else
2:49:13we also know the defense at the power of
2:49:16subpoena and we've seen that they
2:49:18weren't hesitant about calling witnesses
2:49:20to the stand when they were trying to
2:49:21prove a point
2:49:22yet consider this
2:49:26after all these months and all the money
2:49:30expended on this man's defense
2:49:32undoubtedly in excess of 1 million
2:49:34dollars
2:49:36they never offered one witness
2:49:41not one piece of evidence that pointed
2:49:44in the direction of any person other
2:49:47than this man being responsible for
2:49:50these murders and the reason they didn't
2:49:52is no such witness no such piece of
2:49:55evidence exists
2:49:57and ladies and gentlemen of the jury I
2:50:00know you're not going to fall for the
2:50:02argument that mr. Cochran and mr. Scheck
2:50:04made to you with respect to other
2:50:05matters in this case that the reason
2:50:07they didn't do this or that
2:50:09is that the prosecution has the burden
2:50:11of proof not the defense
2:50:14if they were really governed by that
2:50:16fact
2:50:17and it is a fact but if they were really
2:50:21governed by it during this trial
2:50:23why did they call 58 witnesses to the
2:50:26witness stand
2:50:28why did they introduce 392 exhibits why
2:50:33did they present any evidence at all
2:50:39yes the prosecution does have the burden
2:50:42of proof
2:50:44but I've never yet heard a defense
2:50:47attorney watching his client get
2:50:50convicted and going away to prison and
2:50:53saying well I know a lot of witnesses
2:50:55and a lot of evidence that clears my
2:50:57client but the prosecution has the
2:50:59burden of proof so I'm not gonna say boo
2:51:04let him go to prison what's much more
2:51:06important here's who's got the burden of
2:51:08proof
2:51:12surely you have to know
2:51:14but if the defense attorneys had any
2:51:16evidence at all
2:51:18pointing to some other person or persons
2:51:21being responsible for these murders they
2:51:23would have presented that evidence to
2:51:24you you'd know that in
2:51:27fact mr. Cochran is so desperate to have
2:51:30you believe that someone else committed
2:51:31these murders that
2:51:33as we've discussed he even suggested
2:51:36during cross-examination you didn't have
2:51:38any evidence of course to support this
2:51:39wild charge that may be Colombian drug
2:51:42lords were responsible for these murders
2:51:44can you imagine that folks
2:51:48Colombian drug lords
2:51:50you know lawyers do give links to their
2:51:53imagination when Johnny Cochran came up
2:51:56with this Colombian drug lord talk I was
2:51:58glad that there were no windows in this
2:52:00courtroom because if there had been
2:52:01Johnny would have flown right out of
2:52:02here
2:52:05as if the Colombian drug lord talk was
2:52:08not absurd and preposterous enough again
2:52:11as we've discussed later in the trial he
2:52:14decided to come up with a new and a
2:52:15completely different theory but it
2:52:17turned out to be just as an unhinged and
2:52:19irrational and absurd as the first one
2:52:23maybe he said the killer or killers were
2:52:25really after Ronald Goldman because of
2:52:28the contents of that envelope
2:52:30that Ron brought with him to Bundy but
2:52:33that argument is so ridiculous that no
2:52:35one but no one but no one could possibly
2:52:38buy that argument for one thing if the
2:52:43killer or killers were after the
2:52:44contents of that envelope
2:52:47why didn't they take it
2:52:49not only didn't they take it but as you
2:52:51folks know that envelope which contained
2:52:54Nicole's mother's eyeglasses wasn't even
2:52:57opened I
2:53:01have to say I'm disappointed in Johnnie
2:53:03Cochran he's a bright fellow
2:53:06but he's been on this case for well over
2:53:09a year and this is the best that he and
2:53:12his colleagues can come up with
2:53:14Colombian drug lords or killers out to
2:53:17get the contents of an envelope that
2:53:19they don't take or even bother to open I
2:53:21mean these arguments are simply
2:53:23embarrassing
2:53:27no one on the face of this earth other
2:53:30than this man
2:53:32committed these murders
2:53:39the defense attorneys know this so in
2:53:41desperation
2:53:42they come up with speculations and
2:53:44arguments so empty and weightless and
2:53:47substance
2:53:49that they're not only floating lazily up
2:53:52in the atmosphere the clouds unconnected
2:53:54to any evidence in this case but worse
2:53:56yet are unconnected to any previously
2:53:59recognized form of logic
2:54:04both mr. Cochran and mr. Scheck told you
2:54:07folks and their summations that the
2:54:09prosecution didn't prove mr. Simpson's
2:54:12guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
2:54:13but of course we have ladies and
2:54:15gentlemen
2:54:16we've proved his guilt beyond a
2:54:18reasonable doubt ten times over
2:54:22let's briefly look once again at this
2:54:25incriminating evidence
2:54:26which these defense attorneys say is
2:54:29insufficient to prove this man's guilt
2:54:30beyond a reasonable doubt and let's do
2:54:33it from the aspect of coincidences
2:54:35with respect to all the pieces of
2:54:38evidence and circumstances that the
2:54:40prosecution has offered in this case
2:54:42which point irresistible to mr.
2:54:45Simpson's guilt
2:54:46do you realize ladies and gentlemen of
2:54:49the jury the tremendous off the edge of
2:54:51the paper
2:54:52mathematical improbability of all these
2:54:55things pointing towards his guilt merely
2:54:58being a coincidence
2:55:01obviously as a number of pieces of
2:55:03evidence in circumstances pointing to
2:55:06guilt increases the likelihood of any of
2:55:09them being a mere coincidence
2:55:11dramatically decreases just like the
2:55:14strands of a rope working together give
2:55:18the rope tremendous strength the
2:55:20combination of all these pieces of
2:55:23evidence and circumstances working
2:55:25together
2:55:26makes the conclusion that this defendant
2:55:29is guilty mandatory
2:55:33let's talk about some of these quote
2:55:35coincidences obviously they're not
2:55:38coincidences the defense only wants us
2:55:41to believe that they are
2:55:44the five blood drops at the murder scene
2:55:46as well as the blood on the rear gate
2:55:48all fresh blood by the way
2:55:52just happen that is just a coincidence
2:55:54just
2:55:56happens to be mr. Simpsons blood
2:56:00as we've said this fact all by itself
2:56:04without any other evidence in this case
2:56:07conclusively proves that this man is
2:56:10guilty
2:56:11in fact even if there was only one small
2:56:14tiny drop of this man's blood at the
2:56:17murder scene and nothing else that would
2:56:21be enough to prove his guilt beyond a
2:56:22reasonable doubt because other than
2:56:24guilt
2:56:26there's no justification for even one
2:56:29drop of his blood
2:56:31being at the murder scene
2:56:35it's like the fellow comes home early
2:56:37from work one day
2:56:39he finds his wife in a negligee there's
2:56:43a man hiding in the closet when he asked
2:56:46the man what are you doing here and as
2:56:48well everyone's got to be somewhere
2:56:52yes yes everyone does have to be
2:56:56somewhere and everyone's blood has to be
2:56:59somewhere
2:57:00but other than guilt
2:57:03mr. Simpsons blood being at the murder
2:57:06scene makes as much sense as that man
2:57:10hiding in the closet
2:57:14going on we know from the killer's
2:57:17bloody shoe prints leaving the murder
2:57:19scene in the direction of the rear gate
2:57:21an alley that he wore size twelve shoes
2:57:25size twelve shoes just happens just a
2:57:29coincidence just happens to be mr.
2:57:32Simpson's shoe size
2:57:36from the distinctive pattern of the
2:57:38bloody shoeprint impressions left on the
2:57:40terra cotta walkway at Bundy we learned
2:57:43that the size twelve shoes the killer
2:57:45wore were rare Italian made Bruno Molly
2:57:49shoes
2:57:50in fact only 299 pair of those
2:57:54particular Bruno Molly shoes were ever
2:57:57imported into this country and that was
2:57:59in the years 1991 and 1992 and those 299
2:58:05pairs were only sold in 40 department
2:58:08stores in this country one of which was
2:58:11Bloomingdale's department store in New
2:58:13York City
2:58:15and as it turns out we learned that mr.
2:58:19Simpson just happens to have been a
2:58:21regular customer at Bloomingdale's
2:58:24during the same period
2:58:27the glove left at the murder scene was
2:58:30an heiress leather light glove which
2:58:32just happens to be the same identical
2:58:35type of glove Nicole bought from mr.
2:58:38Simpson had Bloomingdale's around
2:58:40Christmastime
2:58:42December of 1990 one of only 200 pairs
2:58:46like them sold throughout the country
2:58:49that year
2:58:51and as we saw from photos and videos of
2:58:55mr. Simpson broadcasting NFL games
2:58:57between 1991 and 1994 he just happens
2:59:01it's just a coincidence to be wearing
2:59:03these same identical highly distinctive
2:59:06gloves
2:59:08this left hand glove found at the murder
2:59:11scene because they size extra large
2:59:13which just happens to be obviously
2:59:16Cystic coincidence just
2:59:19happens to be this defendants glove size
2:59:23size extra large
2:59:26shortly after hearing two men arguing at
2:59:30the murder scene Robert heights drugs
2:59:31walking his dog a defense witness by the
2:59:33way not a prosecution witness
2:59:35saw a white utility vehicle which he
2:59:39testified could very well been a Ford
2:59:41Bronco
2:59:42rapidly leaving the area where the
2:59:44murders occurred
2:59:46mr. Simpson of course just happens to
2:59:48own a
2:59:50white Ford Bronco
2:59:53these murders just happened to have
2:59:56occurred on the same day that Nicole
2:59:58rejected mr. Simpson's company at the
3:00:00dance recital for their daughter Sidney
3:00:03he was also unable to reach his
3:00:06then-girlfriend Paula Barbieri that day
3:00:08suggesting a rejection perhaps by her
3:00:11also in the likelihood that he may have
3:00:13been in a high state of anxiety and
3:00:16agitation
3:00:18on the day of these murders
3:00:20mr. Simpson just happens to have beaten
3:00:23Nicole severely in the past to the point
3:00:27where she was in fear of her life at his
3:00:29hands and he just happens to have
3:00:32threatened to kill her on previous
3:00:34occasions
3:00:37mr. Simpson just happens to have cut
3:00:40himself very badly around the very same
3:00:42time of these murders we've already
3:00:44discussed the astronomical improbability
3:00:49that this type of thing would have been
3:00:51a mere coincidence
3:00:55also he just happens to have cut himself
3:00:58on his left hand and we know that the
3:01:01killer most likely cut himself on his
3:01:04left hand or at least the left side of
3:01:06his body
3:01:07because four out of the five blood drops
3:01:09were immediately to the left of the
3:01:11killer's bloody shoe prints leaving the
3:01:13crime scene
3:01:15dark blue cotton fibers the same color
3:01:19and material as the sweat suit mr.
3:01:21Simpson was wearing on the night of the
3:01:23murders just happened it's just a
3:01:25coincidence to have been found on Ron
3:01:28Goldman's shirt
3:01:30nine hairs with the same microscopic
3:01:33characteristics as mr. Simpson's hair
3:01:35just happen to have been found inside
3:01:38the dark knit cap found at the feet of
3:01:41Ron Goldman another of these same hairs
3:01:45just happens to been found on Ron
3:01:48Goldman's shirt a
3:01:51fiber with the same microscopic
3:01:55characteristics and rolls Bay's color as
3:01:58nose on the carpet of mr. Simpson's
3:02:00Bronco
3:02:01just happen just the coincidence just
3:02:05happens to have turned up on the knit
3:02:07cap found at the crime scene
3:02:10not just mr. Simpson's blood but Ron's
3:02:15blood in the Cole's blood the blood of
3:02:18the murdered victims in this case
3:02:21just happens to turn up inside mr.
3:02:25Simpson's Bronco within hours
3:02:28of these murders
3:02:32Nicole's at mr. Simpson's blood just
3:02:35happened to have been found on the socks
3:02:37of mr. Simpson's found on the floor of
3:02:40his bedroom a
3:02:44bloody right hand glove just happens to
3:02:47have been found on the defendants
3:02:48property within hours of the murder and
3:02:52it just happens to match the
3:02:54left-hand glove be the mate of the
3:02:57left-hand glove found at the murder
3:02:59scene
3:03:01Ron's Nicole's of mr. Simpson's blood
3:03:05just happens to been found on this
3:03:07right-hand glove
3:03:09also hairs with the same microscopic
3:03:13characteristics as the hair of Nicole
3:03:16Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman
3:03:19just happen have been found on this
3:03:21glove found on mr. Simpson's Rockingham
3:03:24estate
3:03:26it just so happens just a coincidence
3:03:30that
3:03:30at the same time Kato Kaelin walked
3:03:34outside his guest house with a
3:03:36flashlight to investigate the source of
3:03:38some thumps some sounds he had heard
3:03:41against the wall of his guest house the
3:03:44limo driver who saw Kato Kaelin
3:03:46searching the premises saw mr. Simpson
3:03:49coming from the same general direction
3:03:52of
3:03:53where the thumps were heard and walking
3:03:57briskly toward the front door of his
3:03:58residence it just so happens just a
3:04:01coincidence that the right-hand glove
3:04:04with Ron's and Nicole's and mr.
3:04:06Simpson's blood on it was found on the
3:04:09dark pathway right next to the wall
3:04:11where Kato Kaelin heard the thumps on
3:04:14his wall and
3:04:16against which the defendant may very
3:04:19well stumbled in the darkness
3:04:23of the
3:04:25392 exhibits introduced at this trial by
3:04:28the defense it just so happens that
3:04:32the heiress leather-like gloves Nicole
3:04:35bought mr. Simpson the dark blue cotton
3:04:38sweat suit that Kato Kaelin saw him
3:04:40wearing less than an hour before these
3:04:41murders in the little black bag on the
3:04:45edge of the driveway
3:04:48which this defendant insisted that kato
3:04:51kaelin not pick up to put in the limo
3:04:54about the depart for the airport saying
3:04:56that he would pick it up although he had
3:04:58no objection to kato kaelin picking up
3:05:00the other four traveling bags of his
3:05:02just so happens that those three items
3:05:05were not among the 392 exhibits in fact
3:05:09the dark blue cotton sweat suit and the
3:05:12little black bag predictably have never
3:05:14been seen again why would the defense in
3:05:17this case
3:05:19want the DA's office and the LAPD to see
3:05:23and chemically examine the sweat suit
3:05:25and the bag
3:05:26we all know of course what happened to
3:05:29the pair of gloves
3:05:30Nicole bought mr. Simpson the left hand
3:05:33glove was found at the murder scene the
3:05:35right-hand glove obviously on his
3:05:38Rockingham estate
3:05:39what a heartbreaking thought what a
3:05:42heartbreaking thought that the gloves in
3:05:44the Cole bought for this defendant
3:05:46apparently is a Christmas present in
3:05:50December of 1990 he was wearing when he
3:05:53stabbed her to death
3:05:57even though the temperature around 11 to
3:05:5911:30 on the evening of June the 12th
3:06:031994 between Brentwood and LAX was in
3:06:07the low 60s high 50s a cool evening and
3:06:12even though the air conditioner was on
3:06:14in a limousine
3:06:16just so happens that mr. Simpson was
3:06:20sweating and very hot in the limo
3:06:22complaining two or three times to the
3:06:25limo driver about the heat
3:06:29two plastic bags just happened to have
3:06:33been missing from the hotel room in
3:06:34Chicago
3:06:35where mr. Simpson stayed for a few hours
3:06:39on the morning after the murders of
3:06:42the 24 hours of the day On June 12 1994
3:06:47the only one out of those 24 hours that
3:06:52the defendant mr. Simpson
3:06:55did not have an alibi for which he could
3:06:58provide any substantiation just happen
3:07:01to be the one hour in which these
3:07:05murders occurred
3:07:08not what point ladies and gentlemen of
3:07:10the jury do all of these things and
3:07:12there are more stop being a coincidence
3:07:14well of course none of them ever were
3:07:17but at least for the purposes of this
3:07:19trial these things stop being a
3:07:22coincidence when you folks as
3:07:24intelligent human beings using your
3:07:25common sense say to these defense
3:07:28attorneys aw come on you've got to be
3:07:29kidding it's insane to suggest that all
3:07:34of these things are just some
3:07:35unbelievable incredible coincidence
3:07:38that's not life as we know it
3:07:41stop insulting us show some respect
3:07:45that's what all of these things stop
3:07:48being a coincidence ladies and gentlemen
3:07:52when a person is innocent of a crime
3:07:57chances are there's not going to be
3:08:00anything at all
3:08:01pointing towards his guilt chances are
3:08:04there won't be anything nothing but now
3:08:08and then
3:08:09because of the because of the nature of
3:08:12life and the unaccountability of certain
3:08:14things maybe one thing in rare
3:08:18situations maybe even two things may
3:08:20point to a person's guilt even though
3:08:23he's innocent and
3:08:25in highly unusual situations very very
3:08:29rare situations maybe even three things
3:08:32will point to someone's guilt even
3:08:35though they're innocent
3:08:37but ladies and gentlemen of the jury in
3:08:39this case everything everything points
3:08:43to this man's guilt well over fifty
3:08:46pieces of evidence I
3:08:49mean it's so obvious that this man is
3:08:52guilty could just as well have walked
3:08:53around with a large sign on his back
3:08:56declaring in bold letters I
3:08:59murdered Ron and Nicole
3:09:04not only does the physical scientific
3:09:06evidence conclusively prove his guilt
3:09:08but virtually everything he said and did
3:09:12points irresistible to his guilt
3:09:17under these circumstances is not even
3:09:20humanly possible for him to be innocent
3:09:22I
3:09:25think we can put it this way I think we
3:09:27can put it this way
3:09:30if mr. Simpson did not commit the two
3:09:35murders in this case then the two
3:09:37victims in this case are still alive
3:09:42winding down this final summation of
3:09:45mine ladies and gentlemen and still
3:09:47responding to the defense allegation
3:09:49that we have improved mr. Simpson's
3:09:51guilt beyond a reasonable doubt I think
3:09:53even if we had a film of him you know
3:09:54what they would say it's not mr. Simpson
3:09:56it's a look-alike
3:09:59we must return to the blood evidence
3:10:02since it remains the heart and soul of
3:10:05this case
3:10:07as I said earlier mr. Simpson has told
3:10:11us of his guilt in his words and in his
3:10:14actions but most of all
3:10:18he told us of his guilt in a way that is
3:10:20more convincing than if he had left
3:10:24his business card at the murder scene Oh
3:10:27Jay Simpson left his blood he left his
3:10:31DNA
3:10:35business cards can be duplicated DNA
3:10:38can't just like no two people have the
3:10:40same fingerprints no two people in the
3:10:43face of this earth other than identical
3:10:44twins have the same DNA
3:10:46case interviewer one green mr. Simpson
3:10:49does not have an identical twin
3:10:52we learn from the testimony of experts
3:10:55at this trial the DNA is the genetic
3:10:57material found in all human cells
3:11:00that carries the components of our
3:11:03heredity which are unique to each
3:11:06individual in other words DNA is our
3:11:09genetic
3:11:10fingerprint
3:11:13however
3:11:15once blood leaves the body and is in
3:11:18various stages of degradation because of
3:11:21exposure to bacteria the elements etc
3:11:24not all other humans can be excluded has
3:11:28been a source of that blood what the
3:11:31experts at this trial called a marker is
3:11:34a gene that makes up one part of the DNA
3:11:36molecule and the more markers that are
3:11:39present in a sample of blood the more
3:11:41comparison tests that can be conducted
3:11:43and therefore the greater exclusion of
3:11:46other humans
3:11:47with respect to the five blood drops
3:11:50found on the Terra Cotta walkway at the
3:11:53murder scene none of which belonged to
3:11:54Ron and Nicole
3:11:56DNA test showed that one of them had DNA
3:12:00markers which only one out of
3:12:035,200 people could have
3:12:07picture of vast auditorium with
3:12:115,200 people in it and only one
3:12:15person in that vast auditorium of 5,200
3:12:19people is likely to have DNA markers
3:12:22like one of the blood drops found at the
3:12:26Bundy murder scene
3:12:29mr. Simpson's blood has these markers
3:12:34three other drops had DNA markers that
3:12:38only one out of 240,000 people could
3:12:41have
3:12:43240,000 peoples a fairly decent sized
3:12:46City
3:12:47yet only one out of the 240,000 people
3:12:51that live in that city would be likely
3:12:54to have DNA markers like three of the
3:12:58blood drops found at the Bundy murder
3:13:01scene
3:13:02mr. Simpson again
3:13:05has these markers
3:13:08the fifth blood drop had DNA markers
3:13:11that only one out of
3:13:13170 million people could have we're
3:13:16talking about a huge country now
3:13:19and only one out of the hundred and
3:13:22seventy million people that live in that
3:13:24country is likely to have DNA markers
3:13:27like the fifth blood drop found at the
3:13:30Bundy murder scene again mr. Simpson's
3:13:34blood has these markers
3:13:38as you know those five blood drops on
3:13:42the Terra Cotta walkway started near the
3:13:44bodies of the victims and then proceeded
3:13:46through the rear gate
3:13:47out to the Le and
3:13:50the richest sample of blood taken from
3:13:53the three bloodstains on the rear gate
3:13:56richer than the others because DNA would
3:13:59break down much faster in the Terra
3:14:01Cotta walkway than the far less
3:14:02absorbent paint on the rear gate the
3:14:06rear gate blood had DNA markers that
3:14:09only one out of fifty seven billion
3:14:12people
3:14:13could have
3:14:16mr. Simpson
3:14:19just happens to be that one person
3:14:27in other words just on the Bundy blood
3:14:30evidence alone and excluding all the
3:14:32blood at Rockingham there's only a one
3:14:35out of a 57 billion chance that this man
3:14:38is innocent fifty seven billion people
3:14:41you probably know it's ten times the
3:14:45current population of the entire world
3:14:49don't mind you mind you in all fairness
3:14:54to this defendant we want to be fair
3:14:57here I
3:15:00realize I'd be the first to admit that
3:15:04maybe maybe Igor in Moscow
3:15:09Gino and Naples Colin down Johannesburg
3:15:12way
3:15:13car Tech up on Pluto might have the same
3:15:17DNA's OJ Simpson
3:15:20and if a person were a skeptic I
3:15:23wouldn't blame him at all
3:15:25if he checked to see if Igor Gino Colin
3:15:30or car tak was in Brentwood on the night
3:15:33of these murders
3:15:35used to beat Nicole within an inch of
3:15:38her life
3:15:39had blood all over his car home and
3:15:42driveway on the night of these murders
3:15:43had no alibi and five days later fled in
3:15:47a friend's car with a gun a passport and
3:15:49a disguise who knows who knows
3:15:54maybe this defendant isn't the murderer
3:15:57after all
3:16:00maybe Igor or one of the others is
3:16:05the skeptic should definitely check this
3:16:08out
3:16:10and while he's checking it out someone
3:16:13should be checking them in to the
3:16:15nearest mental ward a
3:16:20few more pages and I'll wrap this up I
3:16:24know the summation has been very long
3:16:28almost three court days but as you know
3:16:31this trial lasted over nine months
3:16:33close to 200 witnesses their testimony
3:16:36consumed over 50,000 pages the
3:16:39transcript
3:16:40more importantly two precious human
3:16:43beings Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald
3:16:45Goldman who wanted to live just as much
3:16:47as anyone in this courtroom
3:16:49were brutally and savagely murdered on
3:16:52the summer night of June 12 1994 and as
3:16:56the prosecutor in this case representing
3:16:58the people of the state of California
3:17:01of course have a duty to make sure that
3:17:04no stone is left unturned in our quest
3:17:07to bring about justice in this case
3:17:11in any event after judge Ito instruction
3:17:13on the law and you deliberate to come
3:17:15back with your verdict you'll finally be
3:17:17able to return home to your family and
3:17:19your loved ones which I'm sure you're
3:17:21all very anxious to do we all know what
3:17:23it put an enormous tremendous imposition
3:17:26and hardship this trial has been on all
3:17:28of you folks at least we attorneys and
3:17:30judge Ito could go home every night
3:17:31during the trial you folks had to go
3:17:32back to that lonely hotel room away from
3:17:35your loved ones
3:17:36and your family and your friends
3:17:39as everyday folks performing your civic
3:17:43duty you've been exemplary citizens
3:17:46I want to personally thank all of you
3:17:48and congratulate all of you for this
3:17:53the evidence at this trial that came
3:17:56from this witness stand under oath has
3:17:59proved beyond all doubt that this
3:18:01defendant was the human being when the
3:18:05night of June 12 1994 held a sharp knife
3:18:09in his right hand
3:18:12the same right hand has been holding the
3:18:15pen that you've seen him write notes
3:18:16with throughout this whole trial and
3:18:19savagely plunged that knife into the
3:18:22defenseless bodies of two human beings
3:18:25Ron and Nicole in fact 37 times
3:18:30over and over and over again until the
3:18:35blood of life that streamed from their
3:18:38bodies finally caused their hearts to
3:18:41stop beating
3:18:43we learned from the coroner that some of
3:18:46the knife thrust by this defendant
3:18:49were so inhumanly vicious that they went
3:18:53beyond mere stabbing
3:18:56some of the wounds clearly show that
3:19:00this defendant was actually cutting
3:19:03Ron and Nicole for instance we know that
3:19:06poor Nicole was almost decapitated
3:19:10the horror the fright the terror
3:19:14that must have been in the eyes of Ron
3:19:18and Nicole as
3:19:20they looked into the eyes of this
3:19:22defendant in the very last moments of
3:19:25their lives is something too to
3:19:29nightmarish to horrendous to even
3:19:30contemplate for for more than a couple
3:19:33moments it's a type of horror that
3:19:35Hollywood's finest actors couldn't even
3:19:38begin to depict
3:19:41we weren't there that night like Ron and
3:19:44Nicole to see this defendant commit
3:19:46these murders no jury in any murder case
3:19:49ever is
3:19:50but the evidence of this trial cast a
3:19:53very bright and penetrating spotlight on
3:19:55mr. Simpson as the person
3:19:58who committed these murders who murdered
3:19:59Ron and Nicole mr. Simpson of course has
3:20:03tried to run away retreat hide from the
3:20:07spotlight of guilt
3:20:08but our system of law ladies and
3:20:11gentlemen is predicated on the concept
3:20:13of justice
3:20:14which means that when you commit a
3:20:16terrible terrible crime like this you
3:20:19have to be punished
3:20:22ladies and gentlemen of the jury we have
3:20:25beheld the form of the retreating
3:20:27octopus we have brought this defendant
3:20:30mr. Simpson back to face justice
3:20:35because of its importance I want to
3:20:37reiterate to you that under the law
3:20:39judge Ito will give you the prosecution
3:20:42in this case did not have the burden of
3:20:44proving this man's guilt beyond all
3:20:46doubt just beyond a reasonable doubt
3:20:47it's a much lower burden of proof
3:20:51what this means
3:20:53is that even if one of you for whatever
3:20:56reason I can't imagine what it could
3:20:59possibly be
3:21:00but if one of you had some small tiny
3:21:03doubt of this man's guilt but you knew
3:21:06it wasn't a sound sensible logical dump
3:21:09that is a reasonable doubt under the law
3:21:11you would still be duty-bound to come
3:21:15back into this courtroom with a verdict
3:21:18of guilty
3:21:19but the reality of course is that even
3:21:22though we had this lower burden of proof
3:21:24we did in fact of course prove this
3:21:27man's guilt beyond all doubt beyond any
3:21:30doubt or as they say in the movies or in
3:21:33novels and on the screen beyond a shadow
3:21:35of a doubt
3:21:37the evidence of guilt that we offer from
3:21:40this witness stand against this
3:21:41defendant was so overwhelming but the
3:21:44world's greatest skeptic the world's
3:21:46greatest doubter wouldn't have any doubt
3:21:48at all
3:21:50of this man's guilt
3:21:54based on the evidence that came from
3:21:57that witness stand
3:21:59as sure as I'm standing here
3:22:02as sure as night falls day this man is
3:22:07guilty
3:22:09guilty
3:22:14and this is why you folks shouldn't have
3:22:16any difficulty at all coming back into
3:22:19this courtroom with a verdict of guilty
3:22:21should be one of the very easiest
3:22:22decisions you've ever had to make in
3:22:24your entire life
3:22:28ladies and gentlemen of the jury you are
3:22:3012
3:22:31reasonable men and women that's why we
3:22:34chose you for this jury
3:22:37the police in this case did their job
3:22:40and gathering the evidence
3:22:42we did our job and presenting that
3:22:44evidence to you
3:22:45now you are the last link in the chain
3:22:50of justice
3:22:53Nicole Brown Simpson
3:23:02only 35 years old at the time of her
3:23:05death
3:23:08Ronald Goldman
3:23:13just 25 years old the time of his death
3:23:17they are not here with us now in this
3:23:20courtroom
3:23:22but from their graves
3:23:25they cry out for
3:23:28justice
3:23:31justice can only be served in this case
3:23:35by coming back into this courtroom with
3:23:38a verdict of guilty
3:23:44you've been a wonderful jury the
3:23:47plaintiff at this trial is the people of
3:23:50the state of California I have all the
3:23:53confidence in the world that you will
3:23:54not let them down
3:23:56thank you so very much ladies and
3:23:58gentlemen
3:24:13that's how I would have delivered my
3:24:15final summation to the jury and I've
3:24:17been the prosecutor in the Simpson case
3:24:18in conclusion the judge in this case
3:24:21made egregiously erroneous rulings the
3:24:23defense attorneys engaged in
3:24:25reprehensible conduct the jury was a
3:24:27disgrace and the prosecution was
3:24:29incompetent beyond belief as a result a
3:24:33double murderer was freed back into
3:24:35society a society whose blacks and
3:24:37whites were both harmed by the jury's
3:24:39verdict justice was blindsided and a
3:24:42one-two punch of bias and incompetence
3:24:45since OJ Simpson was absolutely 100%
3:24:48guilty and got away with murder I was
3:24:51and still I am outraged
3:24:55in the matter of the people of the state
3:24:57of California versus Oran fall James
3:25:00Simpson case number ba0 972 1 1 on
3:25:05October 3rd 1995 the 12 member jury of
3:25:10eight black females one black male two
3:25:13white females and one Hispanic male
3:25:15returned a verdict of not guilty a
3:25:18double murderer was allowed to walk out
3:25:21of the courtroom a free man the vast
3:25:24majority of Americans were and still are
3:25:28outraged
3:25:29[Music]
3:25:34you
3:25:34[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON -- "ABSOLUTELY 100% GUILTY" (PART 2 OF 2) by David Von Pein's Channel #3, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 29,596 words across 4,713 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.