Opening Statements - CA v. O.J. Simpson — 27th Anniversary — COURT TV

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: All right, back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Ullman, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey, people represented by Ms. Clark, Mr. Darden, and Mr. Hodgman. The jury is not present. Deputy McNair, may we have the jury, please. All right, counsel in the audience, please be seated. All right, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are going to begin with the opening statements made by the lawyers in the case. Let me remind you from my instructions to you yesterday that any statements made to you by the attorneys during the course of their opening statements are not evidence and should not be considered as such by you. These opening statements are normally given by the attorneys to sort of give you an overall view of the evidence that they intend to present. It's to give you a roadmap, so to speak, as to how to evaluate the evidence. This case, as you know, will be relatively long, and by necessity, some of this evidence will be presented to you out of chronological or logical order. So they'll need to explain to you the case that they intend to present. All right, are both sides prepared to go forward, Mr. Cochran? We are, Your Honor. Mr. Clark? [00:01:25] Speaker 2: Yes, we are, Your Honor. [00:01:26] Speaker 1: All right, do the people wish to make an opening statement? [00:01:28] Speaker 2: Yes, we do. Thank you. [00:01:29] Speaker 1: All right, you may proceed. Mr. Darden? Thank you. [00:01:36] Speaker 3: Your Honor, Judge Edo, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Shapiro, and Dean Ullman, and to my colleagues seated here today in front of you, and to the real parties and interests in this case, the Brown family, the Goldman family, and the Simpson family, and to you ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good morning. I think it's fair to say that I have the toughest job in town today, except for the job that you have. Your job may just be a little bit tougher, but your job and, like my job, both have a central focus, a single objective, and that objective is justice, obviously. It's going to be a long trial, and I want you to know how much we appreciate your being on the panel. We appreciate the personal sacrifices you're making by being sequestered. We understand that can be difficult, and I'd like to thank you in advance for keeping the promises you made to us when you were selected for the jury initially. You promised to be fair, and you promised to be open-minded, and you promised to hear and see and carefully consider all the evidence in the case, and you promised to find this case, to come to a verdict in this case solely on the basis of the evidence and the law given to you by Judge Ito, and you promised to do that based on the law, based on the facts and the evidence, and nothing else. You promised us that you had no hidden agenda, that you only wanted to see justice done, and you promised us that you would do everything you could under the law to see that justice was done. And so I thank you for that, and I thank you in advance for the verdict you will at some point render in this case. And we're here today obviously to resolve an issue, to settle a question, a question that has been on the minds of people throughout the country these last seven months. It certainly has been on the mind of my people up in Richmond, California, and friends in Fayetteville, Georgia, and all across the country, and everybody wants to know, and everybody I know often posed the question to me, did O.J. Simpson really kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman? Well, finally, ladies and gentlemen, I am here in front of you this morning to answer that question. And we'll answer that question from the witness stand, and from the exhibits you'll see in this case, and from the evidence. And when you see the evidence, and when you hear the witnesses, and when you put it all together and consider the totality of circumstances in this case, the answer will be clear to you as well. The answer to the question is yes. The evidence will show that the answer to the question is yes. O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. And I'm sure you'll be wondering why as the trial proceeds on, and I'm sure you're wondering why right now. As the judge instructed you already, opening statements are not evidence. Opening statements are given by lawyers, and in an opening statement, we inform the jury of what we think the evidence will show in this case. Or we believe the evidence will show. But we're lawyers. We're not witnesses. We're not under oath. Nothing we say is evidence. The things we say to you today are not the things that you should carry into the jury room and into deliberations. You should carry into the jury room and into your deliberations the evidence in the case, the testimony from the witness stand, the exhibits admitted at trial, the instructions given to you by the court. And when you look at all of that, when you go back and reflect on the testimony and the exhibits and everything you heard and saw in this case, you'll know why he killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. And when I give you the answer, and you stop and consider and you think, why would he do it? Why would he do it? Not O.J. Simpson. Not the O.J. Simpson we think we know. Not the O.J. Simpson we've seen over the years. But that raises another question, and that question is, do you know O.J. Simpson? We've seen him play football for USC. We've watched him thrash UCLA and play in the Rose Bowl. We've watched him win the Heisman Trophy. He may be the best running back in the history of the NFL. We've watched him leap turnstiles in chairs and run the airplanes in the Hertz commercials. And we've watched him with a 50-inch afro and naked gun 33-and-a-half. And we've seen him time and time again and we came to think that we know him. What we've been seeing, ladies and gentlemen, is the public face, the public persona, the face of the athlete, the face of the actor. It is not the actor who is on trial here today, ladies and gentlemen. It is not that public face. It is his other face. Like many men in public, like many public men, they have a public image, a public persona, a public side, a public life, and they also have a private side, a private life, a private face. And that is the face we will expose to you in this trial, the other side of O.J. Simpson, the side you've never met before. we will expose in this trial and show to you in this trial that other face, the face he wore behind the locks and the gates and the walls at Rockingham. That other face, the one that Nicole Brown encountered almost every day of her adult life, the one she encountered during the last moments of her adult life, the same face Ronald Goldman encountered during the last moments of his life. when we look upon and look behind that public face, the public face of the man who sits here in court today, you will see a different face and the evidence to show that the face you will see and the man that you will see will be the face of a batterer, a wife beater, an abuser, a controller. You will see the face of Ron, of Ron's and Nicole's murderer to understand what happened at Bundy. We need to examine this defendance relationship with Nicole because when we do, we can discern from that. We can see a motive. We can see his motive for killing his ex-wife. And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that as the trial proceeds on and as you hear the evidence in this case, that motive will become clear. He killed Nicole for a single reason. Not because he hated her. He didn't hate Nicole. He didn't kill her because he didn't love her anymore because in his mom anymore because in his mom, his mom, he did. He killed her for a reason almost as old as mankind itself. He killed her out of jealousy. He killed her because he couldn't have her. and if he couldn't have her, he didn't want anybody else to have her. He killed her to control her. Control is a continuing theme. It was a continuing theme. The central focus of their entire relationship. By killing Nicole, Mr. Fendan assumed total control over her. By killing her, he committed the ultimate act of control. By killing her, no one else could have her. No one but him. And he killed Ron Goldman. And he killed Ron Goldman for another reason. He killed Ron Goldman because he got in the way. He killed Nicole because he had a problem with her. As men and women sometimes do have in relationships. They have a problem. And it's the Fendan's problem. The man in the courtroom. I think he stated his problem rather out of him when he had a weight because he stood over the body and had a weight. And he said then, and he said on other occasions and I quote, he said, while standing over that casket, while standing over Nicole's body, my problem was that I loved you too much. But it wasn't really love, ladies and gentlemen. And this will be reflected in the evidence and the evidence will establish this, that it wasn't really love. What this defendant had for Nicole Brown wasn't love. It was obsession. he became obsessed with her. And his obsession was so great that he developed a need to control her. And his need to control and his feelings of obsession, his obsession was so great that when he came to realize that he could not keep her, he killed her. because to let her go would mean to lose control of her. To let her go with Ron Goldman or someone else would mean to lose control. He couldn't have her. and neither could anyone else. Now the evidence in this case will establish that the man in the courtroom, this defendant, is an extremely controlling and possessive man. And as I said before, control and possessiveness was a single dominant theme throughout their relationship. and he controlled her in a variety of ways. He controlled her financially. When the defendant and Nicole first met, she was barely 18 years old. He was almost 30. She shared an apartment. He owned a mansion. She waited tables at a restaurant. He was a millionaire. No one had ever heard of Nicole Brown. But he was one of the most recognized men in America. But after he met her, he slowly began to control her. She shared an apartment with a friend. He got her her own apartment. He bought her things. He gave her things. By the time she was 19, she was driving a Porsche. He got it for her. He began to gain control over her. And throughout the years, throughout their relationship, he maintained that economic control over her, that financial control. The evidence will show that Nicole never really held a job. She never really worked. She never really operated a business. She never had an income really of her own. Throughout her entire adult life, this man, the defendant in the courtroom, held the purse strings in her life. whatever money she got, whatever material possessions she got, she got from the defendant. People can sometimes be bald. And young people sometimes can be easily misled. Nicole was a very young woman, if a woman at all, when she first met this defendant, the man seated in the courtroom. And as the years went on, and as they continued to date, and as he gained more and more control over her, the more control he gained, the more abusive he became. as you listen to the evidence in this case, you're going to be hearing evidence regarding domestic abuse, domestic violence, stalking, intimidation, physical abuse, wife beating, public humiliation. As you listen to the trial, and as you hear this evidence and see this evidence, please keep in mind that all of these different kinds of abuse were all different methods to control her. Let me proceed on. The evidence will show in this case that he abused her mentally. He stripped her of his self-esteem. This defendant dictated the way Nicole would dress. He dictated the way she would wear her hair. And when he didn't like her appearance, he would criticize her, he would humiliate her to the point that she would cry. If he didn't like her shoes, he'd go out and buy shoes. This is what I want you to wear. Wear this. Look like this. She was not a Barbie doll, ladies and gentlemen. The evidence would show that he was so controlling that he attempted to define her identity. He attempted to define who she was. When she was pregnant and put on weight, the evidence would show that this defender was so abusive that he called her names. He called her fat. he called her a pig and he did this in the presence of her family and in the presence of her friends and he humiliated her. That is the face we intend to expose in this trial. That's the other side of the defendant. that we're going to show you in this trial. And by doing these things and by hurling these insults, he stripped her of his self-esteem. And when you're controlling someone financially and when they have no self-esteem and when they have no identity, you have them. You control them. the evidence would show that this defendant, this man in the courtroom was a very controlling and possessive man and that the dominant theme throughout their relationship was his control of Nicole Brown. But he did more. He did more than just demean her in the presence of others. He attempted to isolate her, sometimes from some people. When certain men came around, he became jealous. And he became so jealous that it got to the point that she would not agree or want to be around certain men because she was concerned that he might get you. And as time went on and as he became jealous and more and more jealous, he even insisted that she not be around certain men. He began to isolate her, ladies and gentlemen. When her friends came around, her girlfriends came around, and when he felt that she was spending too much time with those girlfriends, he talked to the girlfriends. He let them know. He didn't like them hanging around. He dissuaded her girlfriends from hanging around. He attempted to isolate her from other people. And when you isolate someone, and when you have economic control over someone, and when you strip someone of their self-esteem, and when you establish their identity, you have them. they're yours, they're yours, you can control them, and the evidence will show in this case that this man is an extremely possessive and controlling individual, and that he is an extremely obsessive individual when it came to Nicole, and his obsession was manifested by the things he did toward controlling her. But demeaning her and controlling the purse rings and isolating her and defining who she would see and who she wouldn't see and who her friends would be and who they would not be wasn't all this defendant did to control this woman. There are more powerful forms of control. There's force. There's violence. There's fear. There's intimidation. And you will hear testimony. You will see evidence. that in his quest to control Nicole, this defendant used all these things. He used fear. He used intimidation. And he used violence. And he instilled such a fear in her, ladies and gentlemen. The jury tells him that he could walk into a room. He could walk into a room and Nicole would be there and a moment before he walked in she would just be the most charming individual there is, relaxed. But when he walked in, her demeanor changed completely. As time went on, his mere presence became intimidating to her. I mentioned earlier that they met when she was around 18 years old back in 1977 and they dated for eight years and they eventually married in 1985. And the marriage was a stormy marriage and it was a marriage punctuated by acts of violence. and that violence [00:22:12] Speaker ?: and that violence [00:22:12] Speaker 3: would always be followed by an apology. He would apologize, give her jewelry, fire flowers. He would promise to do better. promise to maintain to maintain control of himself and he would promise not to do it again. And then those acts of violence would be followed by additional acts of violence and it became a cycle. Violence, apologies, a period of quiet and calm, then violence and apologies, quiet and calm, a cycle of violence characterized their relationship, it characterized their marriage. And domestic violence, ladies and gentlemen, that's, that's a difficult topic because domestic violence is something that happens behind the gates and the walls. It happens in the bedroom and inside the home and in places where the public can't see. Domestic violence is a private affair generally while it's occurring and so it makes it difficult to obtain evidence to gain proof that the violence occurred and it makes it difficult to obtain evidence and gain proof that the relationship is a violent relationship but we do have that proof. we do have proof, we do have evidence, you will hear testimony from witnesses in this case and they will discuss the violent relationship, the violent marriage this defendant had with Nicole Brown. In 1985, the police responded to the defendant's home in Rockingham in response to a call and when they arrived they were met by Nicole and she was crying and she was upset and her face was puffy and she was near hysterics and she told these she told these people, she said, we had a fight and after the fight I was trying to leave and when I tried to leave the defendant grabbed the baseball bat and he took that baseball bat and smashed the windshield to my car. This is 1985. And as they looked around these law enforcement officers, they looked to the right and they saw a white 450 SL Mercedes Benz and the windshield and the windshield was smashed out. And just then the defendant came out of the house and he offered an explanation. well, the police didn't arrest him. They left. They left Nicole there. They left the defendant there. And that isn't an act of physical violence toward Nicole, is it? Or is it? Maybe it is. Nicole Brown was there to witness this act, this violence on her vehicle. And if you're married to someone and you love someone and you have a fight with them and they take a baseball bat and they do something like that to one of your prized possessions, could it be that they are sending a message? The evidence will show that this was a message. It was an indication. It was a warning as to what would happen next. It was a warning that what happened to this Mercedes Benz could just as well happen to you. And it did happen to Nicole. Not with the baseball bat. But just like that Mercedes got smashed and dented. So did Nicole. You'll be hearing evidence. You'll be hearing testimony. You'll be seeing witnesses in this case regarding an incident that happened on January 1, 1989. It was almost 4 o'clock in the morning on January 1st when the 911 operator received a telephone call from Rockingham. And that operator will be here to testify in court and that operator will be here to authenticate the tape of that 911 call from Rockingham. And when the operator appears and when the tape is played, listen very carefully. because if you listen carefully in the background you will hear a woman screaming. And you'll hear something else. You will hear the sound of this defendant, this man beating this woman. You will hear the sound of his hand smacking across her face. You will hear the sound of this defendant beating his wife. When the police arrived, they arrived at Rockingham in response to that telephone call and Nicole never got to tell the 911 operator to come and help me or anything like that. All she did was scream and the operator could hear her screaming and the operator could hear her being beaten and she advised LAPD units to respond to 360 North Rockingham. We can hear the sound of a woman being beaten now, right now. And the officers arrived at Rockingham a short time later. And when they did they rang the buzzer to the security gate and as they did so they saw someone run from the bushes, run from the darkness in their direction and this person that they saw was Nicole and Nicole came running out of the darkness wearing nothing but sweatpants and a bra running toward the officers and she was covered with mud and she was dirty and she was filthy and she ran toward the officers and as she ran toward the officers she was shouting and yelling, he's going to kill me. He's going to kill me. And the officers stood there. They didn't know what to do. It's four o'clock in the morning and she's out in her bra. Sweatpants are covered with mud. They just got a call. There's a woman in Rockingham being beaten now. She comes running out of the darkness and out of the mud and out of the bushes and she pushes the button to the security gate and she runs through the gate and she collapses. in the arms of the officer. The entire time she's yelling, he's going to kill me. He's going to kill me. And the officer said, who? Who's going to kill you? And she said, OJ is going to kill me. And the officers looked. They looked at her. Her eye was swollen. Her lip was cut. Her lip was cut. One of the officers, the senior officer there, he looked at her neck and what he saw startled him. On her neck, he could see the imprint of a hand. The imprint of a hand around her neck. Well, it was then that the defendant came out of the house. He was wearing nothing but his bathrobe. And he did not address his wife at the time. And he did not ask the police how she was doing or if she was okay. And what the evidence will show and what you will hear in this case is that he demeaned and humiliated her even more. He shouted to the officers in the presence of Nicole, his wife. I've got two women now. I don't need that one. I don't want that one in my bed anymore. This was his wife and this is what he said to these officers who were strangers to him. This is what he shouted out to the police. The officers were on one side of the gate of the wall and the defendant at that time was on the other side. The officers said, Mr. Simpson, we're going to have to place you under arrest. It appears that your wife has been beaten. So please go back into the house and put on some clothes and come with us. We're going to take you to the station. The evidence would show that that did not sit well with this defendant. And he responded, the police have been here eight times before and now you're going to arrest me for this? Eight times. That's what the defendant said. The police have been there eight times before. And as he said, you're going to arrest me for this? The defendant told the officers, this is a family matter. That's what the evidence would show him. The defendant said to the officers. This is a family matter. And he asked, why do you want to make such a big deal out of it? We can handle it. The evidence would show that the officers did not like the way he had handled things up to that point. And they insisted that he get dressed. And they told him that he was under arrest and that they were going to take him to the station. Well, this was O.J. Simpson. And he did get dressed. But he didn't go to the police station. He jumped in his Bentley and he sped away and they chased after him. They didn't catch him and he got away. The next day, he went to the Rose Bowl. But despite this, despite 89, what happened on January 189, despite the Mercedes-Benz incident in 1985, she stayed. She stayed with him. And I'm not suggesting and the evidence won't suggest that every day of their marriage or their relationship was stormy, rocky and filled with violence. That's not what we're suggesting here. But we are suggesting and the evidence will show that there was a cycle of violence. A cycle of violence and the dominant theme and that relationship and in that cycle and the ultimate objective was always control. Control. Well, after the 89 incident, after that night, their relationship changed somewhat. she was concerned and the defendant was concerned. The defendant is a public man and he was concerned about his public image. And in the public domain and in the public media back in 1989, he was interviewed by Roy Firestone on ESPN. And during that interview, Mr. Firestone asked the defendant about that incident on the morning of January 1 and the defendant downplayed. he minimized things. He left it over. And you'll hear and see that interview. And in that interview, the defendant said it was sort of a mutual wrestling match. She was wrong, he was wrong, ta-da. No big deal. And that's what he said to the press and to the public. He minimized things. But you'll hear testimony from investigators employed with the DA's office and they'll tell you about a day just a few months ago when they drilled a hole in the safe deposit box, Nicole's safe deposit box. And they'll tell you about the day that they recovered photographs taken of Nicole's injuries back in 1989. And they'll also tell you about the recovery of some letters the defendant wrote to Nicole after the 1989 beating. And you'll see those letters. They'll be here. You'll be able to read them. And you'll note that the account the defendant gave the press and the media and the public was not the same account he gave Nicole in those letters during that apology phase. The apology phase, the contrition phase, the phase he was going through. In the letter he wrote to Nicole, he apologized for hurting her. In the letter he wrote to Nicole, he admitted that he had lost control. He said the same old thing he'd been saying all along and that is that I will do better. We can get through this. And that happens in bad relationships and in abusive relationships, doesn't it? things get bad, bad things happen. It's always somebody's fault. But nobody wants to take the blame. And in this situation and the evidence will show that what the defendant did was he made these promises and sort of roped her back in. You know how it is. Bad relationship, I'll do better, here's a gift, I'm sorry, and they just roped you back into it. And if you're the other person in Nicole's position as she was and this will be reflected in the evidence, she wanted to believe. She wanted to believe that her marriage could survive. She wanted to have hope and he gave her hope for a while because this is a cycle. And so he beat her up on January 1 and he admitted to her privately in his letters that he was responsible and he apologized and he gave her things and he tried to make it all better and he gave her hope and he roped her back in and she stayed. She stayed because she had hope and because she wanted to believe that January 1, 1989 would be the last time that he would abuse her physically or mentally. As you hear the evidence in this case, something very sad becomes very apparent. they met when she was 18 and he was almost 30 and in 1992 they divorced. She was only 33 or so and she died when she was almost 35. Throughout her adult life, throughout most of her adult life, her concept of marriage marriage and a relationship was defined by this defendant, that was adult love. Her notion of adult love for 15 years was what this defendant gave her and he abused it throughout that relationship. Well, as I said before, you know, sometimes you get roped in, people get roped in, Nicole got roped in by the defendant and she stayed and she stayed and people stay in those situations, those abusive relationships for years and years until one or two things happen. One, they just can't take it anymore or two, until they just can't take it anymore and they wake up to reality. And finally, in 1992, Nicole woke up to the reality of her situation and in January 1992, she moved from Rockingham and she left the defendant and she filed for divorce. Well, this did not sit well with this defendant and this will be reflected in the evidence. He did not like this. He did not like the fact that Nicole was leaving his house, going somewhere else to live in her own house, away from him. There's that issue of control. How could he control her if she wasn't right there with him? And he didn't take it well and he lost 20 to 25 pounds like that. And almost on a daily basis he would call her sisters, Dominique and Tanya and Denise and he'd call her mother and her father, sometimes crying on the telephone and he would call them and he would whine to them and he'd tell them how much he loved her and how he wanted her back. He'd use them to try and rope her back in. Well, she couldn't let him go, not completely. I mean, how could she? She'd been under his control for 15 or 16 years. And so she didn't go too far. She rented a house in Brentwood on Gretton the Green. They saw each other. They had children together, lovely children. You'll probably be seeing a picture of one pretty soon. But he couldn't deal with the loss of Nicole. He couldn't deal with not having her there. He couldn't deal with the loss of control and he couldn't help but pursue her. You'll hear a testimony in this case from Nicole's mother and she'll tell you about some of the telephone conversations she had with the defendant after 1992 and some even more recent. And in one conversation he told her, he told her, he said, all my friends tell me that I should just leave her alone, just forget about it, just go on with my own life. And when Mrs. Brown said, why don't you do that? Let her go. If you let her go and maybe she'll come back to you. Just let her go and maybe she'll come back. And his response was, I can't. You know I can. You know I can't help myself. I can't let her go. He couldn't let her go. He couldn't help but pursue her. He couldn't leave her alone. He couldn't handle the loss of control. And because she had left his house and moved somewhere else and established her own home, her own house and began establishing her own relationships, he did the only thing he could do to gain control, to try to regain control, to try to find out what was going on with her. And so he stalked her. He stalked her. When she left Rockingham in January of 92 and set up a new household on Gretna Green, also in Brentwood, she began dating a man named Keith. Keith Zolomzowicz. And she got a babysitter for their two children. Whenever Keith and Nicole would go out, not every time, but enough, he would show up. They went to a nightclub. And Keith will tell you about this. He'll be here to testify. The defendant showed up. They went to a restaurant called The Trist. It had just opened. Nicole and Keith and some other friends, they were there. They got a table. They began to have dinner. And as they sat there having dinner, guess who showed up? Guess who attempted to gain control again? The defendant showed up. And that will be reflected in the evidence and in the testimony. And what he did is he walked into the restaurant. He saw Nicole and Keith and her other friends. He went to another table and grabbed the chair. Now, the chair was facing in an opposite direction. But he grabbed the chair. He turned it around. He sat there staring at Keith and Nicole and their dinner party. Well, Keith will be here to tell you that that was an awfully intimidating experience. Why? There was another incident at the Mezzaloomia. Nicole was there. Keith was there. The defendant suddenly showed up, drove up in front of the restaurant, got out of the car, walked up to the table where they were seated, put his hands on it, said, I'm O.J. Simpson and she's still my wife. Well, she filed for divorce and moved out of his house. But that was intimidating. And there's more. And you'll hear about the other incidents. There's more evidence of stalking in this case and you'll hear about that. There was one evening when Keith and Nicole, they went to a comedy show. And after the show, they went to Nicole's house on Gretna Green. It was about 3 in the morning. And they were seated on the sofa in their living room. The kids, the kids were upstairs asleep. It was 3 o'clock in the morning. And Keith and Nicole made love on the couch. But they weren't alone. there was somebody watching. There was someone watching through the window. It was the defendant. At 3 o'clock in the morning, he was looking through Nicole's window, watching her make love to another man. And the next day when Keith and Nicole were together, he walked right into her house. And he was beside himself and he was angry. And he said some very naughty things. But one of the things that he said to Keith and Nicole was that, he said, I watched you last night. I watched you when I saw everything. all the evidence will show that that is some unusual behavior, to say the least. But the evidence will show also that this is all part of this cycle. It is all part of this dominant theme in their relationship. This is all part of his need to know everything about her, to know where she is, to know who she's with, to know what she's doing, to control her. It's control. It's all about control. And though he did not interrupt them during the middle of the act, and he didn't punch Keith out, and he didn't punch Nicole out, he still watched so that he would know. And to control her, he had to confront her with what he knew to intimidate her, to keep her from doing it again. It's all about control. Well, over the months, you know, Nicole still wanted to believe that they could be a family again together. And they would attempt reconciliation, and they would fail, and they would attempt again. And Nicole was as much a party to that as the defendant was. But there was a situation in October of 1993, an incident. Another control incident. He forced his way through the back door of her place on Gretna Green. He forced the door in. He entered her house without her permission, without her knowledge, and he confronted her, and he scared her. He frightened her, and he scared her so badly that she telephoned 911. And she asked for police assistance, and you will hear that tape, the tape of that 911 call, and you will meet the 911 operator, and you will hear the defendant in the background. This is October 1993. He watched Keith and Nicole have sex in April of 1992, and when you listen to the October 1993 911 tape, you can hear him in the background still yelling and shouting about what happened in April of 1992. But that 911 tape is a telling glimpse into their relationship. That's for sure. And it's also an example of this defendant's private side, his private face. The other man, the man in the courtroom, the man that's on trial here today. and you will hear [00:53:22] Speaker ?: and you will hear [00:53:22] Speaker 3: Nicole on the telephone talking to the operator. And as you listen to her, you can't help but discern from the tone of her voice and the things that she says that she's a tough woman, but that she's also afraid and intimidated. And not only that, but that she feels that her situation is hopeless. The evidence will show that by October of 1993, Nicole, her situation was hopeless and she was helpless. Way back in 1989, the defendant said that the police had been to the house eight times before and never done anything. Nicole said the same thing on the telephone to the 911 operator in 1993. Her situation was hopeless and she was helpless. And you can infer from the evidence that Nicole Brown expected or had no expectation that anyone would ever do anything to this defendant because he beat her. There was no help coming and she didn't expect any help. But you will hear that telephone call and you will hear the defendant and you will get a true sense of the fear he instilled in her and he didn't hit her that day. He didn't strike her and he didn't punch her. He did go through the house to see who was there. But he didn't hurt her that day. Still she stayed. Still they remained involved. Not only in the sense that he was the father of her children but they still attempted to reconcile. and over the months after October of 1993 they tried to get together and they failed. They tried to get together and they failed. And in May of 1994 it was Nicole's birthday and the defendant gave her a very nice gift, a piece of jewelry. and they attempted to reconcile for lack of a better description. But the evidence will show that it was a very brief attempt because a few days later Nicole called it quits. she woke up to the true reality of her situation. She couldn't be bought anymore. She couldn't live like that and the evidence will show that she let the defendant know that it was over. This is it. Hasta la vista. And this was significant in the mind of this defendant ladies and gentlemen. It was something that had never happened before. He would do things to her and he would try to appease her by giving her things and she would accept those things and they would reconcile. But not this day. This day she couldn't be appeased. She couldn't be bought. She couldn't be bribed. She had had enough and the evidence will show that she let the defendant know that. and the evidence will show that finally after 17 years he finally got the message. It finally became clear that she wanted to live her own life and that her life and in her life that he was not going to be a part of it. She couldn't handle it. She woke up to reality. She wanted to live and have her own identity. She no longer wanted to be under his control, under his thumb she let him know that it was over, that it was over, it was over and it was final but this defendant's private side, the other man, not the one on TV, the defendant, he couldn't take that. He couldn't accept that. He could not accept that loss of control and he wouldn't and he didn't. On June 12, a dance recital was held in Brentwood for the defendant's daughter, Sydney. The entire Brown family went to the recital as did some friends, Candace Garvey for instance. The auditorium was crowded and so not everyone could sit next to a family member and so their party was, there were people between them, it was separated somewhat and different people had to sit in different roles and not all together. Well the defendant arrived late and he arrived carrying a bouquet of flowers, some flowers he'd brought for his daughter. But when he walked into the auditorium he greeted just about everybody in the party in the Brown family. He said hello to them, he kissed the niece on the cheek, how are ya, how ya doing, whatever. And he pretty much addressed everybody except in the cold. You hear evidence of his relationship with one of the victims. And as you hear it, you'll, as you hear the evidence and as you listen to Ms. Clark, you'll see how it is that Ron Goldman happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. As you listen to the evidence you'll see that his decision to kill finally was merely a final link in a progressive chain of abusive and controlling conduct. And it was a chain that consisted of fear and intimidation and battery and emotional and mental abuse and economic abuse and control and stalking and you'll see that there was a common scheme, a common plan in all of this and that was to control, to control her. it was all designed just to control her and in controlling her it was the private man, private O.J. Simpson, it was the defendant who committed that final ultimate act of control. She left him. she was no longer in his control. He was obsessed with her. He could not stand to lose her and so he murdered her. And as you hear the evidence in this case it will become clear that in his mind she belonged to him and if he couldn't have her then nobody could. Thank you. [01:02:13] Speaker 1: Ms. Clarks? [01:02:35] Speaker 2: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. we've all seen him for quite a while but haven't seen Mr. Darden he was busy with other matters and he is an integral member of our team. Let me introduce some of the other lawyers you haven't met yet but you will be students [01:02:51] Speaker 4: through the course of this trial. Mr. Hank Goldberg Mr. Willie Clark and Mr. Robbie Harmon. Good morning. They will all be presenting the scientific evidence in this case that relates to the blood analysis [01:03:08] Speaker 2: and DNA testing. When you hear the amount of evidence that we have you'll understand why I need the help and I thank them very much for their able assistance thus far. Of course you know Mr. Hodgman he's still here. You've now heard the why. You've heard why. Why would Wrenthal James Simpson a man who seemingly had it all commit such heinous crimes throw it all away. The one simple truth about the evidence described to you by Mr. Darden is that it shows that Mr. Simpson is a man not a stereotype but flesh and blood who can do both good and evil. Being wealthy being famous cannot change one simple truth. He's a person and people have good sides and bad sides. whether you see both sides or not both sides are always there. Now we will show you the other side of the smiling face you saw on the Hertz commercial the one you never saw on camera the one none of us ever wanted to see and that was the side that went from Rockingham at his estate to Nicole's home at 875 South Bundy on the night of June the 12th 1994. Now on that night many events were happening at the same time and in order to give you a true picture the most clear and accurate picture of what really happened how the events occurred I'm going to go back and forth between the parties and between the locations so what I want to do first of all is describe the setting for you. As of June the 12th 1994 Nicole was living at 875 South Bundy in Brentwood that's a condominium it was a duplex and so it's one building she had one side had a common wall and her neighbors had another side. She lived there with her two children Justin and Sidney. The defendant was living at 360 Rockingham Avenue in Brentwood. Brian Kalin known as Cato some of you already are familiar with the name was living in one of the guest units behind the defendant's home on Rockingham Avenue. The defendant's daughter Arnelle lived next to Cato in another one of the guest units. I'll show you a diagram a little bit later to get you more familiar with the location but the guest units are behind and apart from the main house and they share common walls it's kind of like one long building. So Cato had one and then Arnelle had the next one. Now the background on Cato and the evidence we'll show you is the following. Cato met Nicole in 1992 after she had left the defendant at a party in Aspen. They remained friendly after that point not romantically platonic just friends and he went to a party that she gave in Gretna Green in 1993. He noticed that that house had a guest unit behind it that was a separate living quarters and he asked Nicole if he could rent that location. She said yes. She rented it to him for $450 to $500 a month and he was allowed to reduce that amount if he did babysitting for her. He was very good with the children so that was an arrangement that worked well for everyone. However, Nicole decided to move out of Gretna Green in 1994 and she found the residence on Bundy that I've described to you. Now the Bundy residence did have separate quarters with its own entrance and exit but it didn't, it was all under one roof. It didn't have a separate living quarter like the other house did on Gretna Green. The defendant asked Cato not to stay there not to live under the same roof as Nicole saying it wouldn't be appropriate and he asked Cato to come stay in one of the guest units at his house on Rockingham. He told Cato he could stay there for free. Cato obviously saw a much better financial situation for himself and agreed and so in January of 1994 Cato moved to the guest unit behind the defendant's house on Rockingham and Nicole moved to 875 South Bundy. Let me show you a board now of the Rockingham location. [01:08:06] Speaker 1: so we can tell [01:08:20] Speaker 5: which one it is. [01:08:35] Speaker 6: is that the defendant's home? [01:08:37] Speaker 4: Is it Sean Mark it now? [01:08:39] Speaker 1: Let's just [01:08:39] Speaker 4: describe it. 360 North Rockingham Avenue. [01:08:55] Speaker 2: This is an overall diagram of the defendant's home of the defendant's home on Rockingham Avenue in Brentwood. This location here, this area here, is the main house. These rooms that are shown down here are the guest units. Now the guest units close off. They are locked off with a door so that you can't enter from the guest unit into the main house. You see the area here, it's Mark Kalin's room. I don't know if you can all read it. That's why I'm pointing to it for you. That is Cato's guest unit. Right next to his unit is a... [01:09:33] Speaker 1: Excuse me, Clark, if you allow me to step over to your right so that he can see what you're pointing at. [01:09:39] Speaker 6: Thank you, Ron. [01:09:49] Speaker 2: This is an office that Cato had access to and this would be Arnell's room right next to Cato's. Now the Rockingham address also had, it had a gate that opened onto Ashford Street on the north and a gate that opened onto Rockingham on the west side. I'll get into more details about it a little bit later. Now before I really get into the events of the night of June the 12th and into all the details, there are a few key points that I want to bring out to you right now. I'll come back to them again but I want you to bear them in mind. This has to do with the timing of the events that happened that night. You're going to hear a lot of talking about that throughout this trial. I think I can guarantee that. With respect to the timing, the evidence will show that on the night of June the 12th, 1994, the defendant had an hour and 10 minutes of time in which his whereabouts are unaccounted for. and we will show that it was during that hour and 10 minutes that the murders were committed. And so the evidence will prove that Cato last saw the defendant on the night of June the 12th at 9.35 at the latest. He did not see the defendant again until 10, excuse me, after 11 o'clock. In between those two times at 10.15 a dog is heard barking that the evidence will show was Nicole's dog which fixes the time at which the murder occurred. At 10.45 Cato heard thumps on his wall and shortly after 11 he saw the defendant. An hour and 10 minutes during which the murders occurred in which the defendant's whereabouts are unaccounted for. I'll come back to that point. Now on the night of June the 12th as Mr. Darden has already described to you that was the recital for Sydney. It was a dance recital for her school. On the morning of June the 12th the defendant played golf [01:12:33] Speaker 4: played cards [01:12:35] Speaker 2: and he was scheduled to go to the recital at 5 p.m. on the evening of June the 12th. Mr. Darden described to you how the defendant behaved that night. He was in an ugly mood morose depressed and clearly fixated on his ex-wife Nicole Brown. He returned home after the recital and he spoke to Cato. It was approximately 6.30 to 7 p.m. He returned home to his home on Rockingham. Now at about that same time 6.30 to 7 p.m. Nicole was arriving at the Mezzaluna with her party. That was all of her family and Sydney and Justin. Now back at Rockingham Mr. Simpson spoke to Cato. He discussed with the recital but he wanted to tell him about it and he mentioned to him that Nicole was wearing a tight dress and he wondered how she'd look in that tight dress when she got to be older. During the course of that day he also told Cato that he and Nicole were through. It's important to remember that the defendant would make statements sounding like he was cavalier about it but the truth that we learned from the inside is that he was not at all cavalier about losing Nicole. Now while the defendant is talking to Cato on Rockingham Nicole and her party arrived at the Mezzaluna for dinner to celebrate Sydney's recital. Ron Goldman was a waiter at the Mezzaluna. He didn't wait on her table that night but he was working there that night. Nicole was wearing a black halter dress and a black blazer. She left the restaurant with her family at approximately 8.30 p.m. Now between 8.30 and 9.00 p.m. Cato was back in his room and the defendant came out to his room to ask him for some change. The defendant was set to take a flight out that night to Chicago in 11.45 red eye. He indicated to Cato that he only had $100 bills that he needed smaller change for the sky cap. He asked Cato if he had that smaller change and Cato said he did. He then told Cato that he was going to go out and get something to eat. Cato asked if he could come along. The defendant said okay. They then left and they went out to the driveway. The defendant drove to McDonald's in his black Bentley. They got some burgers and as he drove back the defendant ate his food while he was driving. Cato did not. They got back to 360 Rockingham and the defendant parked his Bentley in the driveway in the same position in which it was found by the police in the early morning hours of June the 13th. When Cato got out of the car it was 9.30 to 9.35 at the latest. and when he got out of the car we last saw the defendant standing near the Bentley. Cato walked through the driveway through the side yard and back to his room. Soon as he got back to his room he made a call to his friend in San Diego at 9.37. So we know that the defendant got home between 9.30 to 9.35 at the very latest based on the timing of the phone call that Cato placed to his friend in San Diego. When Cato left the defendant standing at the Bentley at 9.35 he did not see the defendant again until after 11 p.m. Now what I'm about to describe to you is a series of events that proves that the murders occurred between 9.35 and 10.45 on the night of June the 12th and that during that time the defendant's whereabouts are unaccounted for. At 9.37 Judith Brown that is Nicole's mother called the Mezzaluna to see if they had found her prescription glasses that she thought she had left there at dinner that night. Karen Crawford the bar manager for Mezzaluna took that call and then went to look for the glasses. She found them out in the gutter near where the family had gotten out of their car to come into the restaurant. She brought them back into the restaurant told Judith that she had found them. Judith asked her to keep the glasses there so Ms. Crawford put them into an envelope marked Nicole Simpson prescription glasses. We'll show you photographs of that envelope today. Now Judith called Nicole at 9.40pm and told her that the glasses had been found and were being kept at the Mezzaluna at 9.40pm and that was the last time Judith ever spoke to her daughter Nicole. A few minutes later Ms. Crawford received a call from Nicole and they spoke. Ms. Crawford then called Ron Goldman over to the phone. Ron Goldman spoke to Nicole for a few minutes and when he was done and he hung up Ms. Crawford gave him the glasses and he took the envelope containing those glasses. Shortly thereafter at approximately 9.50pm Ron Goldman left the restaurant still dressed in his waiter's uniform the white dress shirt the black pants and the black shoes and his friends at the restaurant never again saw him alive. [01:18:55] Speaker 1: Which graphic is this? [01:18:58] Speaker 2: This is a view of the alley. [01:19:02] Speaker 1: Alright what item what exhibit number? What exhibit number just for the record until we can demonstrate this. [01:19:08] Speaker 4: Oh I'm sorry number [01:19:09] Speaker 2: he won At approximately 10.15pm Pablo Fenves who lived diagonally across the alley behind Nicole's condominium heard a dog begin to bark. The area you see here in the photograph and I'm trying to designate it with the red light this is Allie behind her house behind Nicole's house at 875 South Bundy. This jeep that you see here is her jeep. Pablo Fenves whom I've just described lived in the area where you see the police car. The lights that you see here on the balcony indicate where Nicole lived that's her condominium. This is a rear view again of Nicole's the rear of Nicole's condominium that's her jeep that's her garage that I'm indicating and this is the balcony area I've indicated before and there's the upstairs area this is P2 this garage and these living quarters here belong to another family as I indicated before it's a duplex so at 1015 Pablo Fenves heard a dog bark he remembered it clearly because the bark was like a plaintive insistent wail it was like nothing he'd ever heard before although he'd heard dogs barking in the neighborhood often other dogs lived in that neighborhood this was different this bark sounded to him like a dog in trouble at 11 p.m. when Pablo Fenves went to bed the dog was still barking he went over to his back to his bedroom shutters and opened them to look out in the direction that the barking seemed to be coming from and he looked in the direction of Nicole's condominium which is the direction it seemed to be coming from and he noticed that there were lights on in the upper floor of her condo when he fell asleep shortly after 11 o'clock the dog was still barking the evidence will show that this dog wailing and barking so insistently was Nicole's white Akita Kato another neighbor Steve Schwab left to take his dog for a walk at approximately 10.30 at about 10.55 when he got to the corner of Dorothy and Bundy which is right on the corner of Nicole's where Nicole lived maybe one house down he saw Kato the dog walking alone the dog was acting very agitated seemed to be barking at the house on the corner of Dorothy and Bundy he couldn't tell which one and he noticed that the dog had an expensive collar when he checked it further looking for tags he noticed that there was blood on the paws and on the legs of the dog although at that time he saw no injury he assumed there must have been a cut on the paw to cause all that blood as he continued to walk the dog began to follow him but it behaved in a very strange manner because at the walkway to every house that they passed the dog would stop and bark insistently when Steve got home at approximately 11.05 he and his wife discussed what to do with this dog they sat outside gave it some water because it seemed very dehydrated and decided to try and get it to lead them to its owner's home so they took it out and they started to walk back but as they neared Bundy the dog resisted the dog pulled back and they couldn't get it to go any farther so they took the dog back to the courtyard of their apartment building now in that courtyard there was more light and they were able to see more clearly that there was no injury on the dog but that its paws and its legs were clearly bloody now Steve Schwab later gave that dog to another neighbor in his apartment building Sukru Bostepi you'll see them testify in this courtroom and Sukru Bostepi agreed to take care of the dog for the night but again the dog was acting very agitated with Sukru Bostepi he tried to take him inside the apartment and he was sniffing and scratching and trying to get out so he tried to do the same thing that Steve did and he took the dog out for a walk hoping it would lead him back to the owner's home as they went south on Bundy the dog started pulling harder and harder until they got out to the location of 875 South Bundy and there at the pathway leading up to that home the dog stopped and the dog looked up the pathway and that made Sukru look up the pathway and there he saw a sight that he'll never forget he saw the body of Nicole Brown lying at the foot of the steps in a pool of blood now I'm going to backtrack for a moment and talk about Rockingham I last mentioned Cato at 937 he was on the phone to his friend in San Diego he was on that phone for seven minutes that call ended at 944 at which point after trying to use a typewriter in that office I showed you before which is right next to his guest unit this would be the room right here he called his friend Rachel Ferreira [01:24:57] Speaker 1: why don't you finish with that [01:25:05] Speaker 2: it goes into it's kind of better to break here if that's alright with the call alright [01:25:13] Speaker 1: alright ladies and gentlemen we're going to take our recess for the lunch hour Ms. Clark could you take the poster down please thank you alright ladies and gentlemen we're going to take our recess for the lunch hour please remember my admonition to you don't discuss the case amongst yourselves form any opinions about the case talk to anybody about the case or allow anybody to talk to you about it and we will see you back here at 1.30 alright have a nice lunch [01:25:41] Speaker 5: thank you very kindly your honor and I'll be very brief this morning your honor I have received several calls regarding the witness Rosa Lopez and at noon I spoke with her personally she indicates she's being besieged by individuals who are trying to either interview her the press is outside of her house she can't get out of her driveway or where she works she's very very afraid that in these harsh economic times that she may lose her job her lawyer Carl Jones has written a letter asking that should the people want to interview her he'll arrange it and not to try to come on her job she is a works as a housekeeper and she's I don't know what the court can do about the press but she was really exasperated when I talked to her and I perhaps the court can appeal to the good side and the press and ask them if they would give her some privacy she's very very concerned about herself and her family and she feels it's unfair I thought I should bring this to your honor's court because I got a call here and several calls here in court [01:26:42] Speaker 1: all right Mr. Darden you have some response or comment on that [01:26:49] Speaker 3: yes your honor thank you and I appreciate Mr. Cochran's comments I would just like to indicate that we haven't been part of the harassment we haven't attempted to contact Ms. Lopez as Mr. Douglas alluded to yesterday and I would join in Mr. Cochran's request that this witness as other witnesses in the case not be harassed by the media by the public leave these people alone it's not their fault that they happen to be witnesses in the case of people versus Simpson and we will contact Mr. Jones at the proper time and before we attempt to interview Ms. Lopez all right [01:27:23] Speaker 6: thank you we join we should agree on something your honor and we welcome your suggestion to the press if you have one [01:27:29] Speaker 1: I think it goes without saying all right thank you counsel [01:27:35] Speaker 3: yes I'm sorry [01:27:56] Speaker 1: briefly who are we missing [01:28:03] Speaker 4: our technical support all right [01:28:07] Speaker 7: well it appears that the best laid plans can go astray Mr. Harris [01:28:30] Speaker 1: what's the warm up time [01:28:32] Speaker 7: opening statement by the prosecution technical support is not on board there all right Ms. Clark are you ready to proceed so there's a delay but perhaps now they're ready [01:28:43] Speaker 1: are we ready to proceed all right Deputy Magnero back on the record in the Simpson matter Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel people are represented and we have all the members of our jury panel again present with us Ms. Clark do you wish to continue your opening statement [01:29:07] Speaker 2: thank you good afternoon everyone I forgot to introduce a very important member of our team and I sincerely apologize for that Jonathan Ferlo he's a new member of our office and he does all of the technical work that you're seeing here I wouldn't have a clue how to operate these things without him I'm in serious trouble I hope you all had a very good lunch let me remind you of where we left off so that we can pick up from there we were talking about the timing and I was discussing with you that Cato had last seen the defendant at 935 at Rockingham and that an hour and 10 that it was after 11 before he saw him again so he saw the defendant at 935 did not see him again until after 11 and during that period of time the defendant's whereabouts are unaccounted for now last I spoke to you Cato was on the phone with his girlfriend Rachel Ferreira at that time at that same time that he was on the telephone and this was approximately 10 to 1015 Alan Park a limousine driver was on his way to Rockingham to pick up the defendant to take him to the airport where he would take his flight at 1145 to Chicago now although his instructions were to arrive at Rockingham at 1045 he hadn't been in the Brentwood area before and he didn't want to be late so he left early and he arrived at Rockingham at 1025 now I'm going to use the diagram again when Alan Park pulled up on Ashford Street he parked across the street from the defendant's residence got out of his car sat behind it on the curb and had a cigarette he got back in his car at about 1030 sat in his car for a few minutes listening to the radio and at 1035 he decided that he would go and look at the Rockingham gate to see if that drive-in would be easier for him than the Ashford Street gate what I should tell you right here is that he was driving a stretch limousine and that has a very hard time making tight curves he wanted to be able to pull up in front of the front door to an area that would be easy to load the baggage and so he wanted to see if the Rockingham entrance could be more easy for him than the Ashford Street address so he decided to pull down to Rockingham he pulled the limousine down to Rockingham all the way down to the point where the driver's side window would be parallel with the Rockingham gate so he could look inside now in doing that he had to pass right by the curb area just north of the Rockingham gate and what he noticed when he pulled to that area that was right in his field of view is that there was no car parked there no white Ford Bronco and it was 1039 that's very important we'll come back to that again he looked down the driveway and he saw that that looked like a tighter turn even than Ashford so he backed the limousine up Rockingham Avenue and made a left turn onto the Ashford Street and pulled right up to the Ashford gate when I say he pulled right up to the Ashford gate on this photograph you see the Ashford gate of the defendant's residence he actually had the grill of the car almost touching the gate facing inward toward it [01:33:01] Speaker 6: it's p29 all right thank you [01:33:12] Speaker 4: so the court won't have to inquire after every photograph we can get a list in court for each and every one well I think you [01:33:21] Speaker 1: should make the record counsel you should tell us which this is because the clerk can't see the clerk has the list she can't see directly the the video so you need to tell me which video you're using which graphic you're using [01:33:35] Speaker 2: very well your honor I'll ask that Jonathan fairlo be allowed to thank you now when Alan Park pulled back to the Ashford gate parking up against it facing into the driveway he looked at his watch and it was 1040 p.m. at that point [01:33:58] Speaker 4: at that [01:34:01] Speaker 2: point he decided to go and ring the buzzer I wanted to show you something else on there so you'll know what I'm talking about when I say ring the buzzer [01:34:13] Speaker 4: I'm gesturing with this red light you can see right here that's the call box [01:34:21] Speaker 2: where you'd be pressing the buzzer and it rings inside the house the person inside can then press a button to open the gate at 1040 he began to ring the buzzer he could hear its sound but there was no answer there were lights on in the upstairs one light on upstairs there were no lights on downstairs it seemed to him like no one was home and he was a little worried about that so he decided to page his boss and find out if perhaps the plans had changed at 1043 he paged his boss he was then worried that perhaps the page didn't go through so at 1049 he called his boss at home but there was no answer he then got out and pushed the buzzer at the Ashford gate a few more times still got no answer now during this period of time Cato is still in his room on the phone with his girlfriend Rachel now what I haven't explained to you yet this area here shown this is the southern border of the defendant's property this is a walkway here but it's not like a sidewalk it's very narrow and it's very dark just a few feet wide it's covered with leaves it has the shrubbery that's indicated here it's actually from the neighbor's yard and there's a chain link fence the shrubbery is right up against it it overhangs the walk to make it very dark here you can see what's indicated as an air conditioner I don't know if you can all read it but that's what's written here this little black box here this black this air conditioner actually hangs over the walkway quite a bit it's an air conditioner that is set into Cato's wall so you can see the air conditioner on the inside and then it hangs [01:36:23] Speaker 4: outside the wall outside the house over that walkway so that this [01:36:28] Speaker 2: wall of Cato's room faces onto the south walkway there's no entry or exit there he can't go out that way if he wants to exit his room he has to exit through the doors that are right here they're like shuttered doors like shutters door like shutters and he goes out through those shuttered doors to the pool area and that's how he exits so on that night he's on the phone with his girlfriend Rachel okay what's indicated here P what [01:37:07] Speaker 6: P4 [01:37:10] Speaker 2: what's indicated here is the area I've just described to you you see the shrubbery from the neighbor's yard and the chain link fence and this is the air conditioner right here that I'm circling that air conditioner is for Kato's room it's set into his wall this is the walkway you can see how dark and narrow it is this is a shot taken during the daytime at 1045 Kato is talking to his girlfriend Rachel when when suddenly he heard on the wall where the air conditioner was three loud thumps the thumps were so loud that a picture on that wall actually moved Kato was alarmed he asked Rachel have we had an earthquake when she said she hadn't felt any he became even more alarmed and then he wondered if there might be a prowler somebody trying to break in because if it wasn't an earthquake that's what it had to be he was worried about the sounds he had heard he was worried about those thumping noises and so he decided that even though he was afraid and it was late at night and it was dark he should go and see what the cause of those noises might be a few minutes later he hung up with Rachel and went out of his room to go and look [01:38:38] Speaker 7: P6 this [01:38:46] Speaker 2: is a picture of Cato's room [01:38:48] Speaker 4: right up here where I'm indicating that's the air [01:38:55] Speaker 2: conditioner in the wall the part of the wall that you can't see in this photograph which we actually over here the opposite side of the bed is where the picture was hanging that moved when the thumps were made and now the shuttered doors I referred to you can see them here at the left edge of this photograph see them better here this is taken from the head of the bed facing outward these are shuttered doors that lead out to the pool area [01:39:24] Speaker 7: he [01:39:33] Speaker 2: walked out of those shuttered doors and out through the pool area coming out onto the side lawn that borders Ashford Street when he came out to that side yard he saw the limousine that was pulled up to the Ashford gate but he figured that the defendant had already made contact with him was about to let him in anyway and didn't pay any further attention because he was very distracted by what the cause of those noises might be now with him he had a little dim flashlight that he was going to use to try and see what was going on back there in the dark in the meantime just before Cato came out onto the side yard Alan Park was standing at the Ashford gate ringing the buzzer still getting no answer finally he heard the carphone ringing inside his car and it was 1052 he had still received no answer to the buzzing at the Ashford gate got back telling his boss I don't think anybody is home what shall I do his boss told him to wait a little longer and when he had been speaking to his boss for three minutes he saw Cato coming out the side yard with his little flashlight almost simultaneously seeing Cato in the side yard he saw a person six foot tall 200 pounds wearing all dark clothing African American walk quickly up the driveway and into the front door entrance immediately as that person entered the house the downstairs lights went on Alan Park hung up the phone and walked over to the Ashford gate and buzzed again this time he got an answer and the defendant said a voice that Alan could recognize as the defendant said sorry I overslept I just got out of the shower I'll be down in one minute now Cato who was distracted by the possibility of a prowler wasn't looking to see if anyone was coming and didn't see and although Alan Park could not see well enough at the time the person entered the house to identify who it was clearly that was the defendant now while Alan was standing at the gate speaking to the defendant on the intercom Cato decided to walk around to the south side of the garage and he was going to attempt to go down that narrow walkway to see what had happened but when he got actually back to this corner of the garage with that little dim flashlight it was very dark and he was scared so he decided not to and he came back around when he came back around he realized that the limo driver was still outside the gate so even though the defendant had spoken to him and said he was coming down he did not open the gate for him Cato had to go and open the gate he opened the gate and let him pull in as soon as Alan Park pulled the limousine into moved he thought it might be a prowler or maybe was it an earthquake had Alan felt an earthquake Alan said no I haven't Cato was very nervous but now with Alan pulled into the driveway and inside the grounds he felt a little safer so Cato decided to go back to the area and try and check out the sounds and what caused them but he went back to the south side of the garage he went through a first gate that basically you just lift and push against the wall it's not a locking gate went up as far as a second gate but couldn't see anything it was still dark the flashlight was very dim and he decided to come back he was still too afraid to go back there by himself Cato came back out around the garage and when he came out he saw that the defendant had come out of the house by that time defendant was now wearing a light blue denim shirt and light blue denim jeans as he came out Cato also noticed that there was a small dark bag placed near where the Bentley was parked remember I told you the defendant parked his Bentley this way facing out towards Rockingham he could see that there was a small dark bag on the grass near that Bentley while they were it was Allen Park and Cato who were loading all of the bags into the limousine and while they were loading the bags into the limousine Cato spoke again of the thumps that he had heard and being worried that it was a prowler thinking it might have been an earthquake hoping I guess it was an earthquake so he asked the defendant for a better flashlight so he could go around to the back area and check out the source of those sounds again he and the defendant then walked into the house very briefly but then the defendant said oh it's late I gotta go he came back out while they were loading the bags Cato offered to go and get that small dark bag on the grass and put it in the car for the defendant unlike any of the other bags the defendant said no no no I'll go get it he went and got the bag the defendant got the bag and put it into the car now the defendant did not give Cato a better flashlight and when he left although Cato seemed very concerned about the thumbs the defendant seemed relatively unconcerned he got into the limousine and they left for the airport at approximately 11.15 and let me back up for a minute just before he left the defendant asked Cato to set the alarm Cato said he didn't want to do that he never set the alarm before he didn't know the code he felt very uncomfortable with the responsibility told the defendant no I really don't want to do that the defendant then left they took out they left out the rocking gate at 11.15 Cato went back to his room to call back his girlfriend Rachel Ferreira as he promised to do on the way to the airport the defendant repeatedly complained of being hot Alan Park could see that he was sweating and he rolled down the windows and turned on the air conditioner the temperature that night was 63 degrees during that drive to the airport Alan could see that the defendant was moving around with his bags in the passenger compartment although he couldn't see exactly what he was doing they arrived at the airport at 11.30 and that small dark bag that the defendant insisted on putting in the car himself was never seen again after the defendant left for Chicago now during the time the defendant was driving to the airport Cato was on the phone again with his girlfriend Rachel during that phone call there was a call waiting interruption call was interrupted by the defendant the defendant told him I need you to set the alarm I forgot to set the alarm he had to give Cato the security code and tell him where to go and set the alarm there was a key pad outside the front entrance front door now in the six months that Cato had been living there the defendant had never asked him to set the alarm before had had never had to give him the security code before this was the very first time that had ever happened now at this point we know the following talk to you about the timing again Cato last saw the defendant at 935 when he was standing by that black Bentley after they had come back from McDonald's 40 minutes later at 1015 we hear Nicole's dog barking that loud insistent bark that went on and on and on and it would be safe to assume that it was very shortly within that period of time that the murders occurred when Alan Park drove over to Rockingham and saw that the defendant's Bronco was not there at the Rockingham gate it was 1039 and so we know that the defendant had not yet returned home the drive to Rocky between Rockingham and Bundy was timed taking a normal rate speed between the hours of 930 and 1030 at night it took approximately six minutes just so you can see the relationship of the two locations here's [01:49:38] Speaker ?: here's [01:49:38] Speaker 2: Nicole's condominium 875 South Fundy here's the [01:49:43] Speaker 4: defendant's residence 360 north rock [01:49:46] Speaker 1: so at [01:49:56] Speaker 2: 935 last side of the defendant 40 minutes later at 1015 the dog is barking Nicole's dog is barking at 1045 half an hour later we hear the thumps on the wall this leaves us between 935 and 1045 for the defendant to drive from Rockingham to Bundy and back a total of 12 minutes which leaves him a full hour to commit the murders now let's go back to Nicole's home at 875 South Bundy now I'm going to show you what Sukru Bostepi saw when Nicole's dog took him to 875 South Bundy [01:50:48] Speaker 6: P7 [01:50:58] Speaker 2: this is the view from the walkway this is from the sidewalk area at the end of the walkway at the foot of the steps you see the body of Nicole she's wearing the black dress that she wore at the mezzaluna that night officers Risky and Tarasas were the first officers to arrive at the scene they got there at 1213 that's 1213 a.m. shortly after midnight they immediately contacted Mr. Bostepi and his wife who pointed to where they had seen Nicole next what you see here is what officers Risky and Tarasas saw when they arrived at the scene you can see here the paw prints of a dog officer Risky will describe to you what it was he saw when he got there they were the same paw prints no shoe prints only dog prints up and down this walkway in order not to disturb the blood or any of the evidence officer Risky and Tarasas walked up the side where you see the bushes next to the walkway [01:52:11] Speaker 7: they [01:52:16] Speaker 2: walked alongside it would be to the left side of the walkway [01:52:19] Speaker 1: give me just a moment before you bring up the next one to let me know and let me know what it is because I indicated to you I do not want to let out a video feed of certain items [01:52:31] Speaker 4: thank [01:52:35] Speaker 1: you [01:52:36] Speaker 2: officer Risky went all the way up to the end of the walkway in the bushes to where to a point where he was able to see at that point that it was not just Nicole but also Ron Your Honor [01:53:01] Speaker 6: P11 [01:53:04] Speaker 2: thank you you see here Ron Goldman as he was found by officers Risky and Terrazas now what you're not going to be able to see in these photographs ladies and gentlemen is the fact that Nicole Brown's throat was hideously slashed and you'll be able to see and the evidence will show that her murder took very little time to accomplish the same goes for Ron Goldman as a matter of fact what you will be able to see in this case but I'll describe to you now is the area in which he was confronted the area in which he was suddenly attacked by this defendant was very small he was literally backed into a cage where he had nowhere to run and that the area he is in right there what you can't tell from these photographs is how small how narrow this area really is very small he's bordered on one side by the fence and by the other at his feet yet another fence it's literally back into a corner [01:54:19] Speaker 4: now so you can see the relationship and how close it actually work and have a diagram [01:54:31] Speaker 1: yes [01:54:45] Speaker 4: what this board shows you and this is a board you want to call 875 South Bundy Drive depicting envelope hat glove and both of the liftings [01:55:04] Speaker 2: all right this is a view looking from up to down we did warn you ladies and gentlemen that this was a case that was going to have photographs that would be very very hard to look at we have to show you the evidence and I apologize for the graphic nature of them but this is the crime that we're here to examine looking down the steps what the officer is pointing to is the ski cap and the glove that I've just shown you in the photographs you can see it now in relation to Nicole at the top of the photograph you can just see the boot wrong gold and you can see the envelope in between them that is the scene as it was found by officers Risky and Tarasa [01:55:52] Speaker 6: there [01:56:00] Speaker 2: there's a close-up you can see now underneath the plant it was harder to see before from a distance the glove and the ski cap what you can also see here is the bloody shoe print we'll be showing you more of those [01:56:14] Speaker 1: this one video [01:56:17] Speaker 2: okay [01:56:18] Speaker 6: p 14 [01:56:36] Speaker 2: this is a little bit closer shot to let you see how clearly you see the bloody shoe print at the scene right at the right near the ski cap and the glove and you can see how on a dark night when it is dark there the ski cap and the glove would be hidden by the plant be difficult to find and under pressured and hurried situation you're not going to have a lot of time to look for them upon seeing that what you've just seen here you ladies and gentlemen officer Risky went and notified his supervisor who arrived at 1230 a crime scene was immediately set up yellow tape was placed in front of the residence and behind the residence in order to make sure that no one would walk in and disturb any of the evidence after the arrival of his supervisor officer Risky entered the condominium now what I should tell you is that when he came to the scene he found the body of Nicole he could see the front door of the condo and it was standing wide open so she had just come outside when she was attacked he went inside thinking that there might be a suspect inside and looked all through the house not only did he not find a suspect but he found no evidence of ransacking no evidence of forced entry no evidence of a struggle nothing that would indicate this was related in any way to a burglary when he got upstairs in that condo he found the two children Justin and Sydney asleep in their beds they were taken quickly out of the condo out through the rear to avoid the hideous sight in front of their house now what officer Risky saw he had gone inside to clear the house he came out the front door and he looked down the walk and I'd like to show you now what he saw on that walkway [01:58:24] Speaker 1: P [01:58:27] Speaker 2: okay your honor this is can you kill this [01:58:31] Speaker 1: I'm gonna turn it off until I see something on the thank you [01:58:36] Speaker 2: honor [01:58:36] Speaker 1: P 50 [01:58:37] Speaker 2: what I'm showing you here is a shoe print again right here heel print a bloody heel print and another one here next [01:58:51] Speaker 6: one here is a P16 [01:58:54] Speaker 2: again bloody shoe prints you can see one set of bloody shoe prints as they go down the walkway [01:59:04] Speaker 1: I'm releasing those bloody [01:59:09] Speaker 2: shoe prints that one set of bloody shoe prints continues all the way back towards the rear alley area where there's the driveway remember I showed you earlier on that there was a driveway area behind the condominium where her jeep was parked these bloody shoe prints are all in the same direction leaving the bodies of Ron and Nicole going towards the back area [01:59:28] Speaker 6: P17 [01:59:31] Speaker 2: and you can see them here again in a perspective shot I'm circling with the red pen about halfway down the walkway they start to fade out as the blood is picked up by the sidewalk what officer Risky also saw were that there were blood drops just to the left of those bloody shoe prints so next to that single set of bloody shoe prints leaving the scene you had blood drops to the left of them [02:00:02] Speaker 7: P18 these [02:00:07] Speaker 2: markers here indicate where there were blood drops found and close up P19 the close up of 112 that you saw farther in the distance the blood drop [02:00:20] Speaker 6: P18 again [02:00:23] Speaker 2: that gives you the perspective now I can show you what I was talking about here's a bloody shoe print to the left blood drop all farther see this one I'm circling here close up P21 another blood drop you can see that it is to the left again of a bloody shoe print see that's a heel you're looking at there [02:00:47] Speaker 7: P22 [02:00:51] Speaker 2: again this is showing you another blood drop that was found going down the stairs I should explain to you ladies and gentlemen that the walkway going from the front of the house to the rear has many stairs going up and down see there are landings going up and down see a lot of stairs on this pathway and on these stairs as well I'm circling here that's a blood drop there were also bloody shoe prints seen here I think you can see this one I'm circling with the pen right now [02:01:21] Speaker 7: P23 [02:01:22] Speaker 2: and that's close up the one on the stairs blood drop [02:01:26] Speaker 7: P24 [02:01:28] Speaker 2: again now this is at the rear gate of the of the condo this tag shows another blood drop that was found close up [02:01:37] Speaker 7: P25 [02:01:39] Speaker 2: and there is and now the blood drops continued out to the driveway [02:01:47] Speaker 7: area P26 these [02:01:50] Speaker 2: markers show close up [02:01:54] Speaker 7: P27 [02:01:55] Speaker 2: you see here the blood drop on the driveway now the shoe prints that you saw were determined to have been made by a size 12 shoe the defendant wears a size 12 the blood drops to the left of the bloody shoe prints when the defendant returned home from Chicago he was found to have had a cut to the middle finger of his left hand [02:02:29] Speaker 6: P35 P35 [02:02:31] Speaker 2: the case was assigned to the robbery homicide division detectives Philip Van Adder and Tom Lange the investigating officers assigned to handle the case they arrived at the scene just after 4 a.m. and they viewed the crime scene and the evidence as I've just described it to you they found the same things that officer Risky found given the fact that there were two young children being held at the station pending some adult who could take charge of them they determined that they would go and make notification to the defendant they then proceeded to the defendant's house now they got to the defendant's house at approximately 5 a.m. at that time they started to ring the Ashford gate and they buzzed and they buzzed but they got no answer now at that point they could see there were lights on in the house there were cars in the driveway but no one was answering they eventually got the defendant's home phone number called it repeatedly but again they got no answer then the detective saw the white Ford Bronco parked at the Rockingham gate [02:03:54] Speaker 7: P30 this [02:04:04] Speaker 2: is the position in which the Bronco was found just to the north of the Rockingham gate and that's what you're looking at here this area here is the Rockingham gate entrance to the defendant's home this is the location that Alan Park drove by earlier that night at 1039 and saw that there was no Bronco there at that time [02:04:26] Speaker 6: the detectives [02:04:33] Speaker 2: noticed that there was a small spot of blood near the driver's handle of that door the criminalist is pointing to it here that's Dennis Fung [02:04:41] Speaker 6: P32 [02:04:43] Speaker 2: that's a close-up you can see how small that spot of blood is [02:04:49] Speaker 6: P33 [02:04:53] Speaker 2: this is taken from the rear of the vehicle [02:04:57] Speaker 6: P34 [02:04:59] Speaker 2: inside the vehicle they saw in the rear cargo area they were able to see a package that was addressed to Orenthal Productions knowing that that was the defendant's first name they realized that was probably his car after all they had seen and failing to be able to get any answer at the defendant's home they became alarmed and they decided they would enter the property to see if they could locate someone or find perhaps another victim when they went in they went first to Cato's room they knocked on his door and they asked him if there was someone there who could assist them he directed them to Arnell who was right next door Cato told the detectives about the loud thumps that he had heard against the south wall of his residence that night and about being worried about the source of those noises after he told them about those noises indicating that it was on the south wall and it seemed to come from the area of his air conditioner the detectives went out to look to see what could have caused those noises [02:06:02] Speaker 7: P36 and [02:06:08] Speaker 2: this is where they went the same area that Cato had walked to earlier but never gotten up to because he was too afraid the area of the air conditioner as they approached this area it was very dark they were unable to see anything until they got closer [02:06:22] Speaker 7: P37 P38 and [02:06:28] Speaker 2: there's the glove where it was found in the very same location in which it was found that night right next to the air conditioner on that narrow path when they saw that glove they realized that it looked like the mate to the glove that you already saw at the Bundy scene underneath the plant at the foot of the body of Ron Goldman they then realized that perhaps they needed to secure the residence and Detective Van Adder then walked out of this pathway and out onto the driveway [02:06:59] Speaker 7: P40 [02:07:08] Speaker 2: when he walked out onto the driveway what Detective Van Adder saw now that it was becoming light it was at least six o'clock in the morning at that point were blood drops on the driveway that led from the Bronco and all the way into the house [02:07:27] Speaker 7: P41 and [02:07:33] Speaker 2: close up [02:07:33] Speaker 7: P42 and [02:07:36] Speaker 2: there's the blood drop one of the blood drops that was seen [02:07:39] Speaker 4: this [02:07:43] Speaker 2: is inside the house this is in the right inside the front door in the foyer area there were a series of three blood drops here close up [02:07:52] Speaker 7: P44 you [02:07:55] Speaker 2: can see them here I'm circling them having seen all of this the detectives then realized that this was not just an occasion to make notification that in fact they had uncovered evidence that indicated that the defendant had committed these murders they secured the home and prepared to conduct a search criminal Dennis Fung arrived at Rockingham at about 7 AM where he began to test all of the blood drops they had found he tested the bronco and then he tested the drops on the driveway determined that the drops on the driveway were indeed blood then he went to test the glove and found that it contained blood a a search of the house inside the house revealed among other things a pair of rumpled socks at the foot of the defendant's bed in his bedroom [02:08:51] Speaker 6: P45 [02:08:53] Speaker 2: see there the socks that I just spoke of this is the this is exactly where they were found in that condition [02:09:03] Speaker 6: P46 [02:09:07] Speaker 2: close up those socks were collected along with many other items and submitted for analysis now the defendant's bronco the defendant's bronco that you earlier saw in rockingham proved to be locked they couldn't find any keys for it they couldn't get into it so it was towed in a locked condition on to the print shed which is an area where the police keep large items that need to be fingerprinted where they can keep it locked up they towed it to the print shed and did not open it until the 14th when they opened it by use of a slim gym you'll probably hear some discussion of things that occurred with that bronco after the 15th and they may be interesting but they have nothing to do with the evidence that was recovered on the 14th and a search for blood was conducted of that bronco on June the 14th those items were recovered the blood was collected and it was analyzed and those items that we'll be talking about today that were analyzed were recovered from the bronco on June the 14th now all of the items I've just shown you were collected and submitted for examination and analysis and what you have here is a trail of blood from Bundy Drive to Rockingham Avenue and into the defendant's very bedroom linked by the defendant's white ford bronco I'm not going to go into the details right now with you ladies and gentlemen about the manner in which evidence was collected or the manner in which it was all analyzed we have experts for that but I do want to make some general comments in order to point out a few things right now just to dispel any misconceptions anyone might have about evidence collection and analysis first of all collecting blood stains is a very simple thing you or I could do it and I tell you this because I'm not that good mechanically or and you put distilled water on it and you soak up the stain there's no magic anyone can do it it's just like you would go and soak up a spill in your kitchen not very different now many laboratories or many police agencies use lab technicians for that you know people that don't have a bachelor of science or any particular degree in criminal criminalistics or forensics forensics is a science of crime scene analysis and investigation many of them don't use anyone with a degree in that but LAPD does LAPD uses criminalists who are people that have bachelor of science degrees in forensic science the science of crime scene analysis so they actually use people that are over qualified for the job likely issue in this case will be the testimony of the coroner now I know that we've all seen as some of us have seen anyway Quincy seen Jack Klugman on television he goes out to investigate the crime and he finds out who did it in the general course of things although there is a coroner's investigator that investigator is just responsible for collecting intact what the coroner does is the coroner looks at the body to determine cause of death ladies and gentlemen I can guarantee you one thing in this trial there will be no dispute as to cause of death no one will argue about what the cause of death was for Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown the issue that will be raised is the time of death now what can tell you just based on his examination of the body he can usually bring it down to a range of within three hours between nine and midnight between midnight and three but if you want to pinpoint the time to within a minute ten minutes a half hour or even an hour or two hours a coroner solely by his examination of the body cannot do it we always have to and that's true in any case in any case we always have to rely on the testimony of other witnesses witnesses who will tell you when the victims made a phone call or when they heard the victim leaving the house or when they last saw the victim dogs barking the kind of evidence I just talked to you about is often what is used if you want to try and really pinpoint the analysis of evidence I would like to talk to you a little bit about what scientists and criminalists look for nowadays when they examine the evidence we've made tremendous strides in many areas in general in order to be able to solve crimes the police have to stay at least one step ahead of the criminals that means that they have to look for evidence in places and in ways that the criminals will not have thought of for example when it became known that you could match fingerprints criminals wore gloves when it became known that a bullet removed from the body of a victim could be matched to the gun that fired the bullet they started to dispose of weapons or to use weapons that could be easily disposed of other than guns and nowadays it's very common to find cases where no murder weapon is recovered because they're smart enough to get rid of those weapons so not all criminals figured this out but smart ones did so we look at blood for example we test it for DNA we look at hair and fiber we examine it microscopically comparing it to the victims and to the suspects to see if we can exclude them or if it's consistent with them now in particular the value of hair and fiber is a very unique thing the reason for that is that through your daily life you walk around you shed hair you shed fiber you pick up hair you pick up fiber and you're not aware of it it goes unnoticed it's an involuntary thing and it happens constantly throughout the day there's a very fancy term for this and it's called the locard exchange principle you don't have to remember that because all it really says is when you go into a place the environment affects you and you affect the environment and it's just what I said you leave hairs and fibers you pick up hairs and fibers so for example if you have a red couch an expert can look at your clothing and find the red fibers look at them under a microscope and compare them and say first of all you are near something with red fibers and if he has access to that couch can examine and see if they're consistent that is that they could have had the same source what the value of this is is that it shows contact it shows where items of evidence might have been it shows who might have been in a given location and very great value in solving crimes so every crime scene and every piece of evidence has value in terms of being able to help you solve the case now with respect to blood evidence as you know we've made enormous strides we have advanced our ability to extract information from blood with the development of DNA testing this allows us to be far more precise in pinpointing the possible source of blood stain and we can also have then the experts tell us how rare it is that you have a blood stain matched to the type of a particular person I'm not going to go into the details of all that testing I'm going to let the experts talk to you about that when they come in and testify but they will they'll come in and tell you about all of the processes and they'll explain how rare it is to find a match between a blood spot in a place and a particular person now the defense is going to speak to at length about contamination and all the problems that could ensue in the testing but I'll simply say this at this point there are safeguards built into the DNA tests that you will hear about and these safeguards will show when problems occur this is one of the reasons why DNA testing is so reliable and you'll see that in this case we have many blood stains as you've already seen not just one you might question it if only one of many blood stains came back to a suspect but when one after another after another matches the same person then you realize that the testing is accurate that it works and that if there was contamination it wouldn't keep coming back to one person it just wouldn't come back at all and although we're talking about science and sometimes just saying that word can make us uncomfortable all you're going to need is common sense and logic to follow this evidence that's all you'll need now DNA testing is not only used to solve crimes it has many other purposes as well some of you talked about Jurassic Park and they used it to make dinosaurs but there are other more common uses for it as well for example it is used in the amniocentesis we talked about that in your questionnaire and when we talked to you during the voir dire process if you recall that's the process where you determine whether a fetus may have a genetic defect most of you are familiar with that either by first or second hand experience and what happens in that process is that fluid is extracted from the mother's stomach from the sac and that's amniotic fluid that's a fluid that the baby floats in to protect it they analyze that fluid to see if the baby has a genetic defect now that procedure has many of the same problems [02:19:11] Speaker 7: yes [02:19:13] Speaker 1: with the reporter please [02:19:14] Speaker 7: your honor while council's approaching sidebar if we could maybe take just a little stretch break stand up just stand up maybe the jury would like to do on one [02:19:27] Speaker ?: you [02:19:27] Speaker 1: should need to take an unscheduled comfort break and we will take regular breaks but if something comes up feel free to raise your hand because it's going to happen to me during this trial I'm sure it'll happen to one or two of you during the trial so if we have to take an unscheduled break that's life in the big city we can deal with it feel free to let us know all right we are going to take our regular breaks you should expect about every hour and a half or so hour and 45 minutes we're going to take our first break this afternoon at 3 o'clock you notice I'm very time conscious I have clocks all over my courtroom [02:20:05] Speaker 4: all right [02:20:11] Speaker 1: Ms. Clark would you resume your comments please thank you [02:20:15] Speaker 2: now the evidence will show that the amniocentesis procedure has many of the same problems that crime scene analysis does and those problems are this you have limitations in quantity there's only so much you can get right if you go to a crime scene you collect the evidence that you find and you're limited by that the same thing is true of the amniocentesis first of all you can't withdraw too much fluid or it will endanger the baby not to mention it's very uncomfortable for the mother you're limited in quantity then in both situations you also have a problem with a mixture by that I mean at a crime scene you often have a mixture of the victim's blood either with each other or with the defendant and that means that they have to know how to separate them out who could be the source of this and what possible mixture you have that's a very similar problem to the amniocentesis where you might pick up cells from the mother and then you're analyzing for the genetic makeup of the mother instead of the baby so they have to know how to separate that out in case it happens so you have very similar situations another another situation that is similar to crime scene analysis is identification of the war dead one of the tragic aspects of dying in a war is that sometimes we're left with nothing but body parts and we have to be able to identify whose they are in order to establish the identity they will take that body part extract the DNA and determine if it matches to if that goes into a parental thing you have to take the parents and then you can tell based on what the parents makeup is whether this was their child that's one way of doing it it's called paternity match DNA testing can do that now obviously the body parts tissues or organs that are found in war dead are found out in jungles in deserts they're found in terrible places where there's going to be a house a car that's not a laboratory situation well it's the same thing with the war dead you have unfavorable conditions that are going to deteriorate a sample very rapidly and so you have a similar problem with non-criminal crime scene uses as you do with crime scene uses and yet DNA has been very successful in identifying war dead another way that DNA has been used that is not in crime scene analysis is in identifying old remains by that I mean skeletons they can extract the DNA from skeletons to determine the identity of the people that once those skeletons were and they did that recently to identify the Russian royal family that lived back in 1917 so you can see that the DNA testing procedures is a very powerful tool that is useful in many many ways not just in crime scene analysis but in medical diagnosis and in identifications that are necessary in other areas now there are a couple of approaches to DNA testing that can be taken the first one you're going to hear these terms a lot so I'm going to start you today is RFLP that stands for restriction fragment length polymorphism and that's all you have to know is RFLP for now the experts will explain everything to you at the appropriate time that is a very powerful tool used to pinpoint the identity of the person who left blood or hair or fiber or excuse me blood or hair or bodily fluid in an area very powerful tool another DNA test not quite as powerful but still more powerful than we used to have is called PCR testing polymerase chain reaction in that form of testing you can take much smaller bits of DNA and amplify them that is actually you just multiply them it's like xeroxing and you make it large enough so that you can test it and that's been very very powerful tool as well in analyzing and determining the source of the stain or bodily fluid that you find at a crime scene regardless of the method used whether it's RFLP or PCR they're both DNA testing and the tests are really tests of exclusion what does that mean? that means that when you conduct these tests the effort is to exclude you analyze the DNA and you see can I exclude the suspect can I rule him out is there anything here inconsistent with the suspect or the victims depending on what you're looking at and that's exactly what was done in this case with every piece of evidence collected the effort was to exclude the defendant and to exclude the victims that was the focus and that is the aim of DNA testing in this case we ask this question over and over and over again can the defendant be excluded no matter how hard we tried over and over the samples were tested and retested and tested again over and over again we asked ourselves can the defendant be excluded and over and over and over again the answer was no the defendant cannot be excluded I would now like to briefly summarize for you all of the test results of the analysis of the evidence I've just described and I'm going to start with the hair and fiber now the hair and fiber is microscopic analysis it is not DNA okay this is the comparison of hairs and fibers that were found on various items of evidence and in locations of the scene that were compared to the defendant the victims and various other items of evidence it's easier to explain to you if I actually tell you the results [02:26:30] Speaker 6: P14 [02:26:34] Speaker 2: the ski cap that was found at the feet of Ron Goldman was examined for hair and trace analysis and it was found on that knit hat that there was fiber like those from the carpet of the defendants Ford Bronco now stop and think why would there be carpet fibers like those from the defendants Ford Bronco [02:27:06] Speaker 1: that's true just state what the evidence is thank you [02:27:13] Speaker 2: also on that knit hat we find hairs like those of the defendant which is what you would expect to find on a hat worn by the defendant your honor the next one [02:27:34] Speaker 7: P11 [02:27:36] Speaker 2: your honor before we pull that up [02:27:39] Speaker 7: okay [02:27:39] Speaker 2: thank you on the shirt of Ron Goldman we find a head hair like that of the defendant on the on the glove found at the defendant's home at Rockingham we find hair like those of Nicole Brown hair like those of Ron Goldman fibers like those from the shirt of Ron Goldman and fiber and fiber like those found in the carpet of the defendant's Ford Bronco this shows you the defendant's Ford Bronco you see the tags those all indicate blood spots that were recovered on June the 14th the blood stain on the panel and that I'm going to try and indicate it with the red light because it's at the edge of the photograph where that tag is that blood as well as the blood on the that blood on the panel matches the defendant [02:29:12] Speaker 6: P49 [02:29:15] Speaker 2: the blood indicated here with the number 34 matches the defendant [02:29:21] Speaker 6: P50 [02:29:24] Speaker 2: the blood on the panel here matches the defendant [02:29:38] Speaker 6: P51 [02:29:40] Speaker 2: blood on the console matches the defendant the item number 31 on the console consistent with a mixture of the defendant and Ron Goldman [02:29:56] Speaker 7: P53 [02:29:59] Speaker 2: this blood stain was on the console this was recovered later in time after the 14th that is consistent with a mixture of the defendant Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown [02:30:12] Speaker 6: P54 [02:30:14] Speaker 2: the blood stain found in this area marked with the number 33 matches Nicole [02:30:22] Speaker 6: P40 [02:30:28] Speaker 2: on the Rockingham blood trail the item number 6 which is they don't have a close-up of it it's one of these three markers we will have it better explained to you with a diagram during the trial the blood spot number 6 matches the defendant [02:30:46] Speaker 7: P41 [02:30:48] Speaker 2: this is the blood spot number 7 we showed you before close-up matches the defendant [02:30:56] Speaker 7: again the blood [02:31:02] Speaker 2: blood drops that were found just inside the front entry of the defendant's home this is blood drops number 12 [02:31:08] Speaker 6: P44 [02:31:10] Speaker 2: matches the defendant The socks that we indicated earlier to you were found in this condition thrown hastily at the foot of the defendant's bed in his bedroom the blood on those socks was analyzed [02:31:25] Speaker 7: P46 [02:31:29] Speaker 2: it was determined that the blood on one spot matched the defendant the blood on another spot matched Nicole [02:31:38] Speaker 6: P19 pardon me P39 [02:31:47] Speaker 2: the glove that was found at the south walkway of the defendant's property at Rockingham revealed blood that was consistent with a mixture of Ron Goldman Nicole Brown and the defendant [02:32:04] Speaker 6: P19 [02:32:08] Speaker 2: these are the blood drops at the Bundy location at 875 South Bundy this blood drop that you see here marked with the item number 112 matches the defendant [02:32:20] Speaker 7: P21 [02:32:22] Speaker 2: matches the defendant P23 matches the defendant P25 matches the defendant P27 matches the defendant apart from the test results ladies and gentlemen the mere fact that we find blood where there should be no blood in the defendant's car in his house in the driveway and even on the socks in his very bedroom at the foot of his bed that trail of blood from Bundy through his own Ford Bronco and into his house in Rockingham is devastating proof of his guilt and the results of the analysis of that blood confirms what the rest of the evidence will show that on June the 12th 1994 after a violent relationship in which the defendant beat her humiliated her and controlled her after he took her youth her freedom and her self-respect just as she tried to break free Orenthal James Simpson took her very life in what amounted to his final and his ultimate act of control and in that final and terrible act Ronald Goldman an innocent bystander was viciously and senselessly murdered remember that in voir dire we asked you if you could use your common sense and reason to fairly and to objectively evaluate this evidence as neutral impartial judges of the facts you all promised that you could and you would and we believe that you will we have every faith and belief in the fact that you will all keep that promise but it will not be easy you will be tested and tempted throughout this case to accept the unreasonable and be distracted by the irrelevant the defense will talk to you about possibilities and they'll insinuate many sinister things based on those possibilities possibilities of contamination possibilities of setup all in an effort to explain away all of the physical evidence but possibilities alone do not equal proof you've heard the instruction that says that all matters subject to human affairs are capable of some possible doubt that's why the standard is reasonable doubt and you'll hear the word reasonable more than once in the jury instructions and you already have because if the proof standard was beyond all possible doubt there could never be a conviction there can always be a possible doubt about something the question is whether you have a doubt that's founded in reason so beware of the efforts to get you to accept the unreasonable be distracted by the irrelevant and to base your decision on speculation on mere possibilities with no hard evidence to show that any of them really occurred listen carefully to all the possibilities and the hints raised by the defense and ask yourselves is there any proof that any of these possibilities actually occurred listen carefully for the defense to explain how the defendant's blood got on 875 South Bundy walkway it's going to be up to you ladies and gentlemen you're going to have to be ever vigilant in acting as the judges in this case each one of you is a judge each one of you is a trier of fact you have to examine all of the evidence very carefully and as you do so ask yourselves is this reasonable is this logical does this make sense would I look at this evidence the same way [02:36:30] Speaker 1: sounds like argument to me [02:36:33] Speaker 2: look at the evidence the same way as you would for any other case now winning is not what this is about this is not a game this is about justice and seeing that justice is done two people have been brutally murdered and the evidence consistently will point to the guilt of only one person as their murderer talking what the evidence will show [02:37:00] Speaker 1: are you about to conclude [02:37:02] Speaker 2: there was no rush to judgment in this case it was very carefully considered before it was filed the evidence will show ladies and gentlemen that as of June the 15th many DNA results had already been returned as of June the 15th there had already been a match between the defendant and the blood found at Bundy Drive there had already been a match between the victims and the blood found on the glove at his house many things were known and yet it was examined carefully the entire case examined very carefully and was not filed till two days after those results were obtained my job is to seek justice I've had cases before this one there will be cases after it this case is not about the lawyers myself Mr. Hodgman Mr. Darden or Mr. Cochran we have to remember what this case is about and justice for all ladies and gentlemen if those words are to mean anything we must all be equal in the eyes of the law and we cannot use a sliding scale to judge guilt or innocence based on a defendant or a victim's popularity we live in very very strange times [02:38:16] Speaker 1: counsel this has all been an argument for the last five minutes [02:38:20] Speaker 2: I'll wrap up your honor [02:38:21] Speaker 1: please [02:38:22] Speaker 2: we cannot succumb to the temptation to thwart justice and throw truth out the window [02:38:30] Speaker 1: I'm going to have to stop you right here I've warned you three times now [02:38:32] Speaker 2: all we're asking is that counsel [02:38:34] Speaker 1: all we ask [02:38:51] Speaker 2: is that you stay focused on what the case is about about the murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown thank you [02:38:58] Speaker 1: all right thank you counsel [02:39:04] Speaker 2: thank you Ron ladies and gentlemen I want to thank you very much for your kind attention in this matter and to thank you also on behalf of all of us for putting up with the rigors of sequestration we all know it's difficult and we appreciate all of your dedication to duty and service in this case thank you very much [02:39:24] Speaker ?: all right [02:39:25] Speaker 1: thank you Ms. Clark all right ladies and gentlemen I think we will take our recess just a little bit early let me ask Deputy Magner how much time do we need about 25 minutes [02:39:35] Speaker 4: just 20 minutes [02:39:36] Speaker 1: all right we'll reconvene at 25 minutes after 3 all right thank you