OJ Simpson Trial - September 28th, 1995 - Part 6 (Last part)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: I would reflect that we've now been rejoined by all our jury members, and Mr. Cochran, you may make your concluding remarks. [00:00:07] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor, Judge Edo, again to my colleagues. Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen. Seems like we did this yesterday, but I won't be nearly as long this time. I'm back, as I promised you I'd come back, to try and wrap up the defense discussion of the evidence with you. You just heard what I believe was a remarkable discussion by Mr. Barry Sheck, an excellent lawyer. He may be from Brooklyn, but he's become a Californian as far as we're concerned. He is a very valued member of our team of defense lawyers for Mr. O.J. Simpson. And you see why. This is indeed a talented lawyer. And so he shared with you a number of things which I will not be redundant about, and go over, you have them clear in mind. And if I were not to say anything else, there are many reasonable doubts in this case. And O.J. Simpson is entitled to an acquittal based on what we have told you. This is my last chance, of course, to speak to you. And I want to take this time to tell you again that the prosecution, because they bear the burden, proving this case beyond a reasonable doubt, will have the opportunity to speak to you last. We may not be here too late tonight because I'm not going to be much longer. And I think that more than likely, I think we can probably guarantee this case is going to get to you sometime tomorrow afternoon. So you can kind of sit back and relax. It's been a long, long, long road to get to this point. It's been kind of like a relay race, hasn't it been, in many respects, in this journey toward justice. The prosecution was first running with it. We then took the baton and we started running with it. We've run almost up to the jury box. And soon, we're going to pass the baton to you. This is how our system works. This is what makes it so great. We pass the baton to you and we'll be glad we can then sit back and watch you at work. You've watched us for a year. Two or three days. Now we get to watch you. It'll be symbolically watching you because we won't see you back in that room. But you know, we're going to be counting on you giving both sides the benefit of your individual opinion. Now it's your time to perform. You know how you could think about us in those days when you wanted to criticize us. We're not going to criticize you, though. We're going to just watch you work. And watching you work is what makes this country so great. Because it's 12 citizens, good and true, coming together from this community from disparate backgrounds. Experience not required. Citizenship. The only requirement. To do justice, to do right, to right some wrongs, to straighten this out. That's what we're asking you to do. To follow the law, determine the facts, and come to a well-reasoned decision. That's what's going to happen tomorrow afternoon for you. Now it may take one day or a hundred days. But you've been committed. I know that you'll stay the course. Keep your eye on the prize and do the right thing. Now when I sit down this time, I won't get another chance to argue to you or discuss the inferences because it has to stop sometime. But Ms. Clark gets to talk to you later tonight or tomorrow. And I want you again to use your common sense. And remember, if she raises some point, I may not be able to get up and respond, Mr. Sheck or I. If it's something that's not purely rebuttal, you may see more objections this time because we've got to keep it in line. But if it's a point that we can't respond to, you substitute your wisdom and common sense as to any point. I think you know by this time we can answer anything that they would say. So I'm sure you'll give her the same attention you've given us today. And I wish them good luck. In fact, let me say this. In this case, we have been advocates. We have fought hard, I hope. But it's not personal. What is personal is this case. What is personal is our zeal and our desire that our client be acquitted. It's not personal against these prosecutors. In this part of our discussion, I want to share a couple of things with you. And clear up a couple of things with Mike. Remember, I was examining Detective Lang and it was interesting that we saw Detective Lang here today. That's interesting, isn't it? Detective Lang was here. He's the only one who can really come anymore. We discussed the roles of these people. He's the only one who's going to show his face here. He can count on. But Lang says that early on that they had, I asked him questions about traveling around the world to investigate this case. To get an idea of what resources were they putting on this case. You remember right at the very outset, the reason that robbery homicide was put on the case was because downtown they supposedly had better resources. There's some doubt about that. But they did that and they put resources, including everybody in the LAPD. They had the DA's office and their investigators. They've had the FBI. They've been all over the world. You know, they've been everywhere looking for Bruno Magli shoes. They've been to Italy. They've been to many of the states in the United States. And I asked them about those things to give you a scope of what they were trying to do. And, you know, it's awesome, the power of the state. And at one point, I worked as an assistant district attorney, so I know about the power of the state. There's no priority to being on this side. I used to be on this side. You'd be on both sides. Perhaps it gives you a little different, a balanced perspective. But they have a lot of power. They can do a lot of things. They have a lot of resources. And they've used them in this case. So don't feel sorry for them. They've used every resource they had. But they didn't call people. There was a reason for it. It wasn't they didn't have the resources. These are excellent lawyers. They know the facts. If they didn't disprove something, if they couldn't disprove Henry Lee, if they didn't call anybody for John Gertys, it's because they couldn't find anybody. Earlier, I talked to you about Detective Fuhrman on this particular point. I wanted to make sure so we could be as accurate as possible. This question was asked by Bailey. There is a problem that has been brought to your attention, isn't there, Detective Fuhrman? Answer, no. Question. When discussing this event in the preliminary hearing and talking about the glove, your tongue slipped and you said them, didn't you? Answer, yes. In case there was any question about what we said earlier, Mr. Sheck has covered the brush marks on the door. But what I'd like for you to do is look back at your notes because Fuhrman said that regarding these brush marks, he said he saw these marks on that door while the door of the Bronco was closed, remember? The reason why this has become so important was he was trying to say he hadn't gotten inside. Then we called Larry Ragle, who said you couldn't see the ones at the top unless the door was open. And then Fuhrman also had said that he told Fung about these brush marks. If you look at Fung's testimony, I think you'll find that Fung never says that he heard that from Fuhrman. And so, you know, with regard to Fuhrman, we could have, I could have gone on and on and on about lies, but that would be counterproductive after a while because you know who he is now. There's one other point I wanted to share with you about Fuhrman before we take our leave of him is that there was a question, some questions in council at 18906 about opportunity for Detective Fuhrman and here was a series of quick questions. When you arrived at the scene this night, were you wearing a coat, a jacket of some sort? When I first arrived at the scene, yes. Can you describe it? Answer a blue blazer. All right. And you were wearing the trousers and shirt that we see you in with your weapon in the picture pointing at the left handed glove. Yes. It's tan slacks. Okay. Now, at some point, did you walk back to your vehicle and take off your blazer and hang it to lay in the vehicle somewhere? Yes, sir. Okay. Can you tell the court and jury about what time of day that happened? Bearing in mind that you arrived at about 210, that's a.m., it would be after I was relieved from the case. Now, he's relieved a short time after he gets there. He's relieved by three o'clock, isn't he? Before three o'clock. All right. That would be close to three o'clock? Yes, sir. Question. And that is when you walk back to the vehicle and left the jacket and stood waiting for your relief. Yes, sir. Now, I don't believe hardly anything he says, except that it is true that in this photograph taken at 4.30 or before sunrise, the one you saw, where he's pointing at the glove, he doesn't have a jacket on. So, he had a jacket, went to that car by himself. There's many things in that car. This man had ample opportunity to get up to that scene. You know, as I told you, it so stretches the credulity to believe that so neatly placed where this knit hat and this glove, where the two gloves at some point, when he says, I saw them, I would just say them. There weren't two gloves. And, you know, it's so unusual because everything else is spread all out. This was a vicious fight. There's a beeper over here and there's keys over there. But these items are right there, right where he can point at them. It's too, too packed. So, you can ask yourself those questions when you go back into that jury room. Now, in this case, I discussed with you Miss Juanita Moore, a lady that I called to the stand. And I think I misspoke myself. I think I mentioned to you that, I think I may have said, she said that Mr. Simpson did not have dandruff. And I did say that. I got that wrong. She said that Mr. Simpson would get dandruff, I think, in the off-season, in the spring and summer when he was here, as opposed to when he was in New York. And I wanted to make sure, in looking at the transcript over the lunch hour, I noted that. Miss Clark seemed to be amazed when Mr. Sheck said that Kelly Muldorfer said she didn't see blood in that Bronco. So, to save her some time, I'm going to read you the transcript. Kelly Muldorfer at 38268. Lines 26 through line 9, they got 38269. Question. And when you looked at the console, do you remember seeing any blood there? Answer. No. I don't have any specific recollection. That's the lady, the investigator, who was looking at this. And so now we come to some jury instructions, which I think have some real relevance as we conclude this case, hopefully. We've already talked about a witness willfully false. We've talked an awful lot. You now know a lot about circumstantial evidence. And I dare say you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. We won't talk further about that. And you know what happens where the proof circumstances are equally consistent, one of which points to innocence, the other of which points to guilt, where they're both reasonable. You must adopt that which points to innocence. You understand that. You understand about circumstantial evidence. So, enough about that. And we've displayed this and we've talked about how this works and how it inures to the benefit of the defendant because there's this burden of proof. But there's another instruction which I want to talk to you about now. And this is one that where the prosecutors keep wanting to change things around. And as what we proved, what we didn't do. This is what the law is. The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information. And that the defendant was a perpetrator of any search crimes. There's no doubt about that among any of us, is it? The defendant is not required to prove him or herself innocent or to prove that another person committed the crimes charged. So, now, if that's what the law is and the judge gave you that, all right, Mr. Darden asked the question, who did this? Who committed this crime? Why would he ask that when the judge just said? The defendant doesn't have to show anything. And we know in this case, they rushed to judgment. They didn't look at anybody else. That's a question he should be asking these detectives, not us. We're the ones who had the preliminary experts who wanted to help out. They wouldn't accept them. Could he ask us that question? How could he ask us that question in good faith? So, what the answer is, you go ask your detectives. That's the answer. Now, he asked another question. He said, well, where was O.J. Simpson? And he says, well, you know, how does he account for his whereabouts after 10 o'clock? Well, let me just take a minute about this. He asked that question. So, let me answer it for you and for him. Some of you in your former life probably lived alone. If you lived alone, if something happened between 10 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning, it's real difficult if you live alone to prove where you were and nobody lives there with you. Isn't that true? Is that common sense? Mr. Simpson lived alone. We've done more than that. We can establish where he was. He was at home. That Bronco was outside. He was packing and getting ready and rushing around at the last minute and coming outside to that Bronco, getting his phone, getting the paraphernalia for that phone. That's what he was doing. He was packing. He was getting the golf balls, the golf bag out of his car that was seated out there. He was getting golf shoes and whatever goes with golf if you're a golfer. That's what he's doing. He's getting this little knapsack out that has golf balls in it. And he was bringing another bag down, all of which were ready when Park and Cato were out there. And he comes down with the other bag carrying it. That's what he was doing, Mr. Darden. That's where he was. It's your speculation. He's on the side of his house running into an air conditioning. That didn't happen. That's unreasonable. Nobody here believes it. It's not going to help save their case. They're speculating again, speculating, cynically speculating, and it's not going to work. And so that brings me to this other instruction. It's called alibi. You remember during Vordar I asked you about this? I said that you won't place a bad connotation on the term alibi. That's what the law calls it, alibi. And it says as follows, that evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the defendant was not present at the time and place of the commission of the alleged crime for which he is here on trial. If after a consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, you must find him not guilty. Can I repeat that last part for you? If after a consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, it doesn't say you might find him not guilty. You might think about it. It says you must find him not guilty. And so, you know, when you talk about this whole concept of reasonable doubt, and we'll talk a little more about that, it's how you feel inside about this evidence. It's how you feel inside about these messengers and their message. It's when you have that queasy feeling. You can't trust this evidence. Barry Sheck described it well as a cancer. He talked about one cockroach you don't need to see anymore because you know if you see one, there's a lot of them around. All you need is one, and that's going to make you go the other way. In this case, you don't have to get past the socks. But then you get to the glove and the bronco, and you get to all of it, none of which you can trust. And then how do you do it? Do you get back there and say, well, I don't trust him on this. I think I can trust him on that when these essential link in the chain is broken. You've got reasonable doubt. And so your job won't be quite as tough as you may have thought. Reasonable doubt, in this case, the prosecution has not offered one coherent theory to explain how these deaths occurred. I won't talk about thanoparatus and the desperation that brought about, but let me talk to you about this whole concept of what took place in this case. One of the things that was intriguing to me, and I'm sure you've thought about it, and I know that your collective minds are far better than mine and Mr. Sheck's, but, you know, we think about things that will be helpful to you. You know, one of the things that's always troubled me about the prosecution's case is, you probably thought about this, Kato the dog was purchased by O.J. Simpson after the other dog died. Remember, Arnell told you about how they had to bury the dog and it was a real tough time for the kids and all. O.J. had that dog, Kato, along with Chachi, the other dog, over at Rockingham. And he let his son have the dog, because they named the dog after Kato, who was now living over with O.J. Simpson. That dog knows O.J. Simpson. It's his dog. He bought the dog. They didn't know this, as they were speculating. It's his dog. If O.J. Simpson had been the one there that night, that dog would have followed him out the back gate. He wouldn't be going out the front. Those paw prints wouldn't be going out that way and down the sidewalk saw. That's common sense. They said, use your common sense. They make sense to you. The other thing is the one thing that you can count on in this case is these two people, even when they weren't getting along, loved their children. And their children loved them. Whether it was pediatric AIDS affairs, whether it was recitals, whether it was sunshine preschool affairs, just look at the month of May, the things that you heard that O.J. Simpson went to. Always on the weekend because he was traveling. Wasn't no fuse. He was out of town working. He was the breadwinner. So whether it was the pediatric AIDS or something for his children's school at 400 people over there at the Rockingham Estate, he was always there for the kids. If it meant coming back from Chicago on Friday or from wherever he was, in New York, on Friday to go back to Chicago on Sunday to go back for an engagement, he came home. He came home because his little girl was having a concert. That's the kind of dad he is and somebody has to stand up for him. People don't want you to stand up for him. People can't stand the truth. But they're going to hear truth in here. There's one place you can't take away somebody's voice and that's in the courtroom. When you want to tell the truth. For 16 months, this man sat over here and heard people talk about him day in and day out. Judged him and prejudged him against the American way. What right? How dare them do that? And he has one day or two days to have somebody stand up for him. People are crying and moaning. It's outrageous in America. It's intolerable, if you will. And so, this is a good and decent man. Loves his family. Loves his kids. None of us are perfect. But he's a man who went a long, long way. Raised primarily by his mother. You know what he did with his life. He had a good life. A wonderful life. He's done well. He's not going to give all that up. Try and kill somebody with a knife. He's not going to give that up. And you know what? If you think about this case. Can you imagine that a man who loves his children so much is going to go over, kill his ex-wife, kill their mother, and leave her so that the children can come downstairs and find her? That defies credulity. None of you believe he would do that. It's contrary to everything that you can believe and that you've heard about this man and what he's done and what he's done with his life. So forgive me if I speak out for O.J. Simpson. If I am so presumptuous as to believe that the Constitution means that you're presumed to be innocent until you make the decision. Nobody outside here has a vote. You have that vote. Thank heaven. These narrow-minded people, thank heaven they don't have a vote. You will have the final say. And so, this concept then of reasonable doubt. What then does it mean? We've heard about it. We've talked about it. We have a chart. I'm going to ask Mr. Douglas to put over there. Let's talk about this whole idea of burden of proof and reasonable doubt and what is reasonable doubt. You remember during Voight-Hour, before I talk to you about this concept of reasonable doubt and before we go to that chart, I mean it's that state of the case after the entire comparison and consideration of the evidence leaves the minds of the jury in that condition where they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. That's what reasonable doubt is and let's go over it one more time because this is the cornerstone of every criminal case. What it really is is a doubt based upon a reason. In this case, we have given you myriad reasons. There are many, many, many, many, many, many reasonable doubts. It's not just one. All of which leads you to one verdict in this case and one verdict only of not guilty, but let's go over it one last time together. A defendant in the criminal case is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. And in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places upon the people the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You've heard a lot about that. That's what people need to learn and be reminded of in this country. Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not a mere possible doubt and we know that because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case where after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that conviction that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. That's reasonable doubt. It's not written just for O.J. Simpson. It's for you. It's for you. It's for you. It's for all of us who are citizens. It's given in every criminal case. You have to give it. That's the burden. You don't change it once the trial starts. That's the burden. Let's see how it works. in this whole idea of a burden of proof. Let's start down at the bottom and look at the burden that's placed upon the state. And they should have a burden like this. You're talking about taking somebody's freedom for the rest of their life or whatever. There are a number of things that you might want to think. But in the case, sometimes in cases, we actually can prove the person charged not guilty. And in this case, in my 32 and a half years, this may be as close as any case where somebody's been proven not guilty. Because if you look at these facts, you look at what we've shared with you over the course of the last two days. This man has been proven not guilty. But that's at the very bottom of the rung. You may say, somebody among you may say, well, you know, I have some suspicions. I think it's highly unlikely, but I have some suspicions. Somebody else may say, well, it's less than likely, but, you know, I don't know. I mean, they didn't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. And somebody else might say, well, you know, he's probably not guilty based upon this evidence. Somebody else will say, it's unlikely he's guilty. No way in the world is he ever going to go over and kill the mother of his children in these circumstances. The timeline shatters their case. Somebody says, I don't trust the police. Furman was central. I don't trust Van Atter. It's the messengers and their message. It just doesn't fit. Something's wrong. There's a cancer here. Possibly not. Guilty? Maybe not. As Mr. Sheck said to you, you know, maybe not's not good enough when you're talking about somebody's freedom for the rest of their lives. Well, then somebody else may say, well, perhaps. Gee, I don't know. I suspect that he might be. Maybe he's possibly guilty of something. Maybe he's probably guilty. Maybe guilt is likely. Maybe guilt may be highly likely. I don't think any of you are going to find this case because I think we've shown that he's proven he's not guilty. But all of those levels from proven not guilty to the guilt highly likely is our interpretation of what you have to do before you get all the way up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so that you won't have that queasy feeling about this case where you can believe to an abiding conviction the truth of these charges. can you have that? I think not on this evidence. Not on this evidence. Not on this case. They have failed. You know, we ask you a question. Did you have the courage? Did you have the intestinal fortitude to walk back into this courtroom? If they fail to prove Mr. Simpson guilty? Did you have the courage to walk back in and say we find him not guilty and you said you could do that? That was part of your job. You said you could do that. I'm going to hold you to that because that's what makes the system great. Your courage. Your willingness to stand up for what is right. And so in this scenario and I was thinking about reasonable doubt even more the prosecution had a puzzle. And it was interesting how they did this puzzle. Technology is wonderful. And you saw they kept under this puzzle putting on pieces and that sort of thing. And so we thought about that. I thought about this puzzle. Thought about what it meant in this particular case. They got a call from a very, very wise, wise, wise, wise lady who reminded me that if you've ever gone to the store and bought a puzzle when you buy a puzzle on the outside of the box of the puzzle there's a picture. So you know what the puzzle looks like when it's finished. Well in this case the prosecution took a photograph or picture of O.J. Simpson first. Then they took the pieces apart. If they really wanted to talk about reasonable doubt you don't jump to conclusions at the beginning. You don't rush to judgment and then be concerned about an obsession to win. What you do is you take the pieces and put them together and then you come to the conclusion. They got it all backwards. It's like what they did with the Fourth Amendment. It's like asking us where is this witness? What did you prove? Solve this crime for us. They got it all backwards. Don't you see? And so that little example a jigsaw puzzle was clever but really it trivializes a man's fight for his freedom who's always said that he was innocent from day one. So I wanted to just summarize our sense with a graphic thanks to Mr. Bob Blazer of this evidence and why there's reasonable doubt as to each of these items. Please note the monitor. All right. Let's look at first we know in the upper left-hand corner there's missing blood. They can't explain it and they went down in flames going out with a home video where it was actually embarrassing this morning. You want a little levity during the tough times in your deliberations? Play the Thanoparatus video. In fact, it's so bizarre that if you listen to it again you'll hear Hank Goldberg is laughing himself. He starts laughing when you look at the words of mouth by Paradas. He goes like that and Goldberg starts laughing at his next question. How embarrassing this is but this blood is still missing. You'll have that syringe there. So Mr. Blazer and Mr. Harris what does that mean that missing blood? It means reasonable doubt. Then we have the socks. My personal favorites and when I talked to you about the socks yesterday I may not have told you that in addition to the socks not being in the video at 413 on June 13th and how they placed them there later and how they were collected at 435 or between 430 and 440 Willie Ford came in here and testified to you he didn't see the socks. I forgot to tell you that yesterday. He testified they weren't there either. So thank heaven there's one person who wasn't part of that cover up although they got to him and he was saying things oh well the socks may have been covered but he still works over there. So we'll forgive him for that but he didn't know what we knew about Lange and Mazzola and the time they were collected in their log plus the timing on the whole thing got them and those straps on the bed further. So what have we shown you about the socks? Reasonable doubt. That moves to the back gate. What about that back gate with EDTA and more DNA than you could ever imagine and it's picked up and collected three weeks afterwards when people have been all over the place and you saw the photograph? Look at that photograph. That photograph doesn't show any blood. It shows some little tiny spot. It was totally inconsistent. They're trapped again by the video. This case will go down as the video case because we have shown you for your own eyes why they lose this case. Why there is reasonable doubt. So the back gate reasonable doubt. And then we started out with the timeline because we knew at the outset the timeline with the witnesses that they failed and refused to call established a reasonable doubt. It shatters the prosecution case. If you start there you'll find these witnesses credible. OJ Simpson couldn't have committed these crimes. There's reasonable doubt. He's not guilty. The timeline. We went from there to the EAPB and you'll remember that and Mr. Sheck has talked about it. I won't be redundant. The double banded B that's somebody else. They can't explain it. They never tried to explain it except to talk to you about something that's not in the literature. It didn't work. There's reasonable doubt about who that person was. And so with regard to and I see I've lost track of my chart there demeanor before we get to EAPB. Under demeanor. OJ Simpson's demeanor. All those witnesses who didn't know each other. who you heard who they talked to. You saw them all. You think that he was acting for those people? You remember that one of the most interesting things was Mr. Darden said that when the Scott Kennedy video at the June 12th recital where a man just happens to stop by and takes a video. Simpson doesn't even know he's being videoed. This guy doesn't know Simpson. He's taking a video. Just came to us out of the blue. They had the audacity to tell you he was on camera. He didn't know anything about being on camera. Somebody's taking a video of you. How do you know that? But we had that video and they have nothing else to say. You ever notice when they have nothing else to say how they just say anything? That's an example of that. That's an example of OJ Simpson's demeanor. And that was our answer to this so-called fuse. We had proof for you. You saw him on that date and we took you through step by step through that date. We've already covered the EAPB, the Bundy blood drops that Mr. Sheck did such a great job on and you know about those drops. You know the numbers as well as we do and I won't go over those anymore. I think there's reasonable doubt based upon those and of course you know the Bronco. How can you trust the Bronco? Chain of custody, how can you trust it? There's nothing you can trust about that Bronco and how they handle it. And then the gloves. The gloves didn't fit. The gloves didn't fit. The gloves didn't fit. Reasonable doubt. And then the why. The motive is not an element of the crime of murder but absence of motive will tend to establish innocence. That's why Mr. Darden went to such a long and exhaustive study. And I've shared with you the fact that there is no motive in this case. But I just want to briefly tell you this about their theory at the end. If you believe what the prosecutors want you to believe you have to believe that O.J. Simpson who has a limo driver are coming I guess around 10.30 or 10.40 after he goes and gets a hamburger at McDonald's after having been worried about change because he had $100 bills and he's already been packing because clothes are being brought down and he's taking his golf clubs because he is going to play golf and that makes sense as a pre-planned trip. He's just off the road and going back on the road that he is perhaps the most recognizable person in Brentwood in that area where he's lived we know for 17 years that he drives a white Bronco that he decides to put on a knit cap and you saw that exhibition yesterday of him or you or I in a knit cap. he decides he'll put that on he changes out of his tennis shoes his Reebok tennis shoes and his sweat socks and puts on some dress socks and puts on some Bruno Magli shoes and let me just stop right there for a minute put a pin in that the Bruno Magli shoes you heard all about Bruno Magli shoes and Bruno Magli shoes and we searched all around the world and we went to Bloomingdales and what did we find there is nobody who ever sold OJ Simpson any Bruno Magli shoes they searched they tried they never sold him any shoes so they've just been talking about Bruno Magli shoes I mean there must be every other house in Brentwood if somebody wanted to afford some Bruno Magli shoes I guess they could now that's that's their case there is no evidence that OJ Simpson had any Bruno Magli shoes ever in fact when Lang is looking for the clothes and OJ Simpson says this is what I wore here are the tennis shoes he took only tennis shoes that night there is no evidence that OJ Simpson ever owned any Bruno Magli shoes and please remember that so he gets puts these Bruno Magli shoes on and he's trying to disguise himself of course he puts on a pair of gloves that don't fit and he gets in his car and he decides that what he'll do is he'll drive over to the alleyway behind Bundy where his wife lives in this big bronco now while he's going to do that he's been over there a number of times and you know they've already told you about Pablo Fenvis and these people who live back there remember when you went on that jury view there are homes and windows and things that face down on that alley on both sides from I guess running the green side and from the Bundy side people are looking down in that alley it's well lit you saw the photograph yesterday of what Mark Storfer would have seen he pulls into this alleyway in this bronco in this disguise dressed the way they want to have him dressed he's going to come and kill his wife now somehow they're trying to kill his wife or whatever he doesn't kill her in the back back there where the car is he goes and lures her to the front gate doesn't make any sense does it he goes to the front gate to lure her to that front gate then he gets into a fight somebody he doesn't even know this fight goes on for 5 to 15 minutes the fight is so fierce that a hat and a glove are torn off that's how fierce this fight had to be the keys the beeper you saw how tough it is for any kind of an altercation for gloves to come off for hat to come off there's kicking there's all kind of fighting in this small, small area but that's what they want you to believe and so we find the keys and the beeper and the gloves all of course we find specifically the cap and the gloves neatly packaged under the item there and then he leaves this one glove behind and then just walks slowly out to the alleyway now the dog that we've heard so much about who he brought who was his dog doesn't go with him he goes the other way out the front to go down the other way Cato the dog under what they would have you believe and he's got these bloody clothes on and everything now he goes back out there where his car has been sitting 10, 15, 20 minutes right out there in the alleyway anybody can look anybody coming home people are driving up and down the street gets back in his car then presumably he races back home where the limousine driver who's there doesn't hear him come up doesn't see him doesn't do any of those things we know from the time they see OJ Simpson within five minutes he's coming downstairs packed luggage is already down there looking neat as a pen heading for the airport now he was expecting this man after he came back from the hamburger this is what their case is this is what they want you to believe and just for good measure it's not enough that's not enough under their scenario once he gets home after he's rushing he's got enough time he's got all these bloody clothes on he runs down the side of his house where he's lived for 17 years and runs into the air conditioning and says oops no marks of course on his body but while he's back there he drops a bloody glove to match the other glove found over at Bundy and just for good measure so they'll be sure and find it he knocks on the wall he doesn't run into the wall he knocks on the wall he says he gives a signal then he decides he comes in the house but nobody sees him do any of that that's what they have you believe that is the prosecution's case we have been here one year ladies and gentlemen and two days to hear this is what they have told you it just doesn't fit it doesn't fit you must acquit something is wrong the prosecution's case and your common sense is never going to let you fall for it so the other side of course we submitted answering the questions that O.J. Simpson was at home getting ready for his trip he had no problem with his ex-wife he had gone to this concert she had gotten the tickets for him there's no argument nobody's come in here said they had any argument that day there's no fight they talked early and made arrangements for the tickets he went to the concert you saw him at the concert you traced his steps that day and what he did and then he went on to Chicago and came back immediately and everything he did was consistent with innocence this case is a tragedy for everybody for certainly the victims and their families for the Simpson's family and their victims too because they lost the ex-daughter-in-law for the defendant he's been in custody since June of 1994 for a crime he didn't commit someone has taken these children's mother I certainly hope that your decision doesn't take their father and that justice is finally achieved in this case one final word about Alan Park we talked a lot about Alan Park he's somebody that Ms. Clark of course found credible but even credible people don't get everything right remember the golf bag he thought it was a blue golf bag and we know it's black with an insignia on it we know that there was a lot of questions asked about whether you saw a car parked at the clear-up and I read you the portion that when I questioned him where he said he hadn't really been looking he was not very clear with regard to that but like all witnesses you hold him up to the same standard and look at them and so now I promise you we're going to coming to the end if after hearing all of this evidence you have a reasonable doubt it is clear that O.J. Simpson is entitled to an acquittal and whether it is O.J. or No.J. the result would have to be the same his status it doesn't count it's the evidence that counts and what's been proven to you out of these circumstances but he is a good and decent man who you have seen and observed every day we are in session since September 26, 1994 now as it comes time for me to conclude my remarks I may never have an opportunity again to speak to you certainly not in this setting maybe when the case is over as you've been told many many times these are very heavy burden placed upon the people and for good reason prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt as such it is Ms. Clark's duty to answer for you as best she can any legitimate questions arising from the evidence which we believe casts doubt upon Mr. Simpson's guilt there may be 1,000 such questions in a case like this which can be put to her but we intend no such exercise I do think after careful deliberation that it might be fair to suggest 15 questions just 15 questions which literally hang in the air in this courtroom at this moment and as the time approaches for you to decide this case for us to hand the baton to you I offer these questions now as a most important challenge to the prosecution the prosecution which claims that it's met its burden in this case if that burden has in fact been met you will be given logical sensible credible satisfying answers to each of these 15 questions if the questions are overwhelming and unanswerable they will be ignored or you will be told that the prosecution has no obligation to answer the questions if you're given anything less than a complete sensible and satisfactory response satisfying you beyond a reasonable doubt to these 15 questions you will quickly realize that the case really is transparent and you will think about the scenario that I just went through for you and that the term smoke and mirrors that you heard about doesn't apply to the defense we proved real hard things for you things that you can see things you can take back in that jury room and according you'd have to find Mr. Simpson not guilty when I've concluded for Ms. Clark's convenience should she decide to deal with these very troublesome questions I'm going to leave a written list of these questions here when I conclude let me go over these 15 questions with you just briefly one why are we on the monitor did the blood show up on the sock almost two months after a careful search for evidence and why as demonstrated by Dr. Lee and Professor McDonald was the blood applied when there was no foot in it think that's a fair question in this case let's see if she can answer that question question number two why was Mark Furman a detective who'd been pushed off the case the person who went by himself to the Bronco over the fence to interrogate Kato to discover the glove in the thump thump thump area number three why was the glove still moist when Furman found it if Mr. Simpson had dropped it seven hours earlier as Agent Boziak told you Sir McDonald has told you blood dries very rapidly four if Mark Furman would speak so openly about his intense genocidal racism to a relative stranger such as Kathleen Bell how many of his co-workers the other detectives in this case were also aware that he lied when he denied using the n-word yet failed to come forward part of Barry Sheck's fourth C of continuing cover-up five why did the prosecution not call a single police officer to rebut police photographer Rokard's testimony that Detective Furman was pointing at the glove before before Furman went to Rockingham that is around 4.30 in the morning six if the glove had been dropped on the walkway at Rockingham ten minutes after the murder why is there no blood or fiber on that south walkway or on the leaves the glove was resting on why is there no blood on the 150 feet of narrow walkway or on the stucco wall abutting it and you've been back there number seven for what purpose was Van Adder carrying Mr. Simpson's blood in his pocket for three hours and a distance of 25 miles instead of booking it down the hall at Parker Center number eight why did Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg in a desperate effort in a desperate effort to cover up for the missing 1.5 little leaders of Mr. Simpson's blood secretly go out to the home of police nurse Thanoparatus without notice to the defense and get him to contradict his previous sworn testimony at both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing Paratus was never sworn we were never given notice nine why if according to Ms. Clark he walked into his own house wearing the murder clothes and shoes is there not any soil or so much as a smear or drop of blood associated with the victims on the floor the white carpeting the doorknobs the light switches and his bedding 10 if Mr. Simpson had just killed Mr. Goldman in a bloody battle involving more than two dozen knife wounds where Mr. Goldman remained standing and struggling for several months how come there is less than seven tenths of one drop of blood consistent with Mr. Goldman found in the bronco number 11 why following a bitter struggle allegedly with Mr. Goldman where there are no bruises or marks on O.J. Simpson's body and you'll have those photographs back in the jury room number 12 why do blood stains with the most DNA not show up until weeks after the murders those on the socks those on the back gate those on those are the two major areas number 13 why did Mark Furman lie to us why did Phil Van Adder lie to us and finally 15 given Professor McDonald's testimony that the gloves would not have shrunk no matter how much blood was smeared on them and given that they never shrank from June 21st 1994 until now despite having been repeatedly frozen and thawed how come the gloves just don't fit I'm going to leave those questions for Ms. Clark and we'll see what she chooses to do with and about them that'll be her choice but I think you have a right to demand answers if you're going to do your job in this case it seems to me you will need to have answers to those questions now there are many many many more but as with everything in this case there comes a time when you can only do so much we took 15 as representatives but I can tell you we had more than 50 questions but 15 will be enough don't you think I think so in this case when we started out a long time ago we talked a lot about truth and I always like in a circular fashion that you kind of end up where you started out truth is a wonderful commodity in the society some people can't stand the truth but you know what that notwithstanding we still have to deal with truth in the society Carlisle said that no lie can live forever we've seen a number of big lies in this case in this so-called rush to judgment we've seen lie after lie so much so [00:55:17] Speaker ?: so much so [00:55:17] Speaker 2: that at least two of the major witnesses Van Adder and Lang Van Adder and Strike That and Furman their testimony by you may be totally disregarded further dismantling the people's case you have that right you know in this search for truth in times like these we often turn to the bible for some answers to try to figure out when you've got situations like this and you want to get an answer and you want to try to understand I happen to really like the book of Proverbs and in Proverbs it talks a lot about false witnesses it says that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that speaketh lies shall not escape that meant a lot to me in this case because there was Mark Furman acting like a choir boy making you believe he was the best witness that walked in here generally applauded for his wonderful performance turns out he was the biggest liar in this courtroom during this process but the bible had already told us the answer that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that speaketh lies shall not escape in that same book it tells us that a faithful witness will not lie but a false witness will utter lies finally in Proverbs it says that he that speaketh truth showeth the forthrightfulness but a false witness shows deceit so when we're talking about truth we're talking about truth and lies and conspiracies and cover-ups I always think about one of my favorite poems which I think is so very appropriate for this case you know when things are at the darkest there's always light the next day in your life in all of our lives you have the capacity to transform Mr. O.J. Simpson's dark yesterdays into brighter tomorrows you have that capacity you have that power in your hands and James Russell Lowell said it best about wrong and evil he said that truth forever on the scaffold wrong forever on the throne yet that scaffold sways the future and beyond the dim unknown standeth God within the shadows keeping watch above his own you walk with that every day you carry that with you and things will come to you and you will be able to reveal people who come to you in uniforms in high positions who lie and are corrupt that's what happened in this case and so the truth is now out it's now up to you we're going to pass this baton to you soon you will do the right thing you've made a commitment for justice you'll do the right thing I will someday go on to other cases no doubt as will Ms. Clark and Mr. Dart Judge Edo will try another case someday I hope but this is O.J. Simpson's one day in court by your decision you control his very life in your hands treat it carefully treat it fairly be fair don't be part of this continuing cover up do the right thing remembering that if it doesn't fit you must acquit that if these messages have lied to you you can't trust their message that this has been a search for truth that no better how bad it looks if truth is out there if truth is out there on a scaffold and wrong is in here on the throne remember that the scaffold always sways the future and beyond the dim unknown standard the same God for all people keeping watch above his own he watches all of us and he'll watch you in your decision thank you for your attention God bless you [00:59:44] Speaker 1: thank you very much Mr. Cochran all right let me see council over the sidebar without the court board please Thank you. [01:00:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:01:50] Speaker 1: All right, ladies and gentlemen, contrary to our previous schedule, I'm going to recess for the evening at this time. We will resume tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, and the lawyers have promised me that we will finish this case. One of the conditions that we go over until tomorrow morning is that we will finish tomorrow afternoon with the rebuttal arguments by the prosecution. I will instruct you and the case will be yours tomorrow afternoon, and hopefully we'll at least get it far enough to have you go in, select a four-person to preside over your deliberations, and then Mrs. Robertson has a list of the exhibits and everything that will be presented to you so you can get organized for the coming days. All right, having said that, please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves. Don't form any opinions about the case. Don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll see you tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock sharp. All right, we'll be in recess.