MS. CLARK: I want to sit down and talk to you and tell you, "What do you want to know? What do you want to talk about?" Because that way I don't have to talk about stuff you don't want to hear, stuff that you don't want explained, stuff that you are not interested in, and I can't, and I always have a sense of frustration. So I'm sorry if I say things that you don't need to hear or I explain things that are already clear to you. Please bear with me because I am not a mind reader and I don't know. First I want to take the opportunity to thank you and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have been through so much. You have made a tremendous sacrifice. You haven't seen your children enough, you haven't seen your family enough, you haven't seen your loved ones enough, and all of this in the name of justice and the service of justice. Your dedication and your selflessness are truly beyond the pale. No one can say that any jury has sacrificed more for the cause of justice than you have, and I want you to know sincerely from my heart I appreciate it.

*****

[Simpson & Kato] went to McDonald's, they had a burger, they came back. He went to his guest house, Mr. Simpson stayed outside. He later heard thumps on the wall during a phone call. At that point he didn't know the significance of what he was saying and he would surely never have told the police any of those things had he known what they meant.

*****

You may recall that. Asked him if he had fives. Kato went to look and he realized he only had twenty dollar bills, so he gave the Defendant a twenty dollar bill which the Defendant took. Then the Defendant told Kato he was going out to get something to eat. He didn't invite Kato. Kato invited himself. Now, I remember when I heard that, I thought, what is wrong with this picture? This doesn't fit. If you are going out to eat and you only have hundreds, you need change, you are going to break that hundred when you go out to eat. Why do you have to ask Kato for fives? You have only got hundreds, wherever you go, you can break it if you are going out already anyhow, so what is the point? Now, keep that thought in mind because I'm going to come back to that. That is very significant.

*****

They return to Rockingham and Kato proceeded--I wanted to indicate when they returned, during the ride home, the Defendant wolfed his food down while he was driving. Kato saved his. And I will--all of these facts are going to be tied in at the end of this presentation, so I ask for your patience. Bear with me. I want to stick with the timing right now so I don't get distracted. When they got back to Rockingham, Kato got out and he walked toward the house expecting the Defendant to follow him, but when he got to the front door, he turned and he realized, he is not here, and he saw the Defendant still standing by the Bentley watching him and he had not moved. So as Kato told you, he took the hint, turned and went to his room. Now, why didn't the Defendant just walk in the house? Or if he intended to go somewhere, why didn't he just get back in the car and go either in the Bentley or in the Bronco? Why wait for Kato to be out of sight?

*****

Now, let's talk about Allan Park for a minute. You remember he was the young man who had never been to Brentwood before, so he decided to make sure that he wouldn't be late, and although he was not supposed to be there until 10:45 for this pick-up to lax, he left at 9:45 to be on the safe side. And you may remember that this was a witness who was absolutely neutral, absolutely neutral. He was not going to strain to avoidance.

*****

He saw a person approximately six feet tall, 200 pounds, African American wearing all dark clothing, walking at a good pace up the driveway and he told you that he hung up.

*****

Now, he hung up within thirty seconds of seeing that, which means that according to the cell phone bill--I will do it--according to the cell phone bill, the call ended at 10:55 and twelve seconds.

*****

So Allan got out of his car and buzzed again and this was now within a minute of seeing the man walk into the house, the lights go on. Within a minute of that Allan buzzed again. This is the fourth time. This time he got an answer immediately and the answer that was given to him was by the Defendant. The Defendant answered and told him he had overslept and he had just gotten out of the shower and he would be down in a minute. Now, Allan told you that the man who he saw entered the house appeared to be the same size as the Defendant and about the same height and weight. He would not stretch even one iota to draw the obvious conclusion that the man he saw walking up the driveway was the Defendant. Of course it was. There was no one else there that night. It was the Defendant. Who else could walk in the door, immediately turn on the lights and then answer the intercom? I mean, this is an easy reasonable inference to draw. Easy. But what is significant here is that he lied. Why did the Defendant lie? Why when he was just out in the driveway walking into the house dressed in all dark clothing, why when he answered the intercom for Allan Park, did he lie and say I have overslept, just getting out of the shower? We know it is not true. We know it is not true. Why was it important for him to make Allan Park believe that he had been at home?

*****

The Defendant came back from Bundy in a hurry. Ron Goldman upset his plans and things took a little longer than anticipated. He ran back behind the house, that dark narrow south pathway--you all saw it. You were there in daytime. But imagine how dark it is at night--that dark, narrow south pathway thinking he could get rid of the glove, the knife, in that dirt area in the back. You recall back behind the guest houses there is a dirt area, just all dirt, not very well tended, but he was in a hurry. He was moving quickly down a dark narrow pathway overhung with trees, strewn with leaves, and in his haste he ran right into that air conditioner that was hanging over that south pathway and running into that air conditioner caused him to fall against the wall, making the wall of Kato's room shake. You recall that air conditioner. It was hanging low. You had to stoop to get down under it. And if you are in a hurry and you are not looking where you are going in that dark, narrow pathway, you can see how it can easily happen how someone in a hurry can do that. And it was just as simple as that. Simple common sense tells you that the thumping, the glove and the Defendant's appearance on the driveway almost immediately thereafter are all part of one set of events, all connected in time and space. You don't need science to tell you that; you just need reason and logic.

*****

Now, while Allan Park was speaking to the Defendant on the intercom at that time, Kato who realized that--who wasn't worried about Allan being left outside, went over to the south pathway and looked down the gate. Can we get section 6-D back? I'm going to put up that diagram again so you can orient yourself because it's hard talking about this in the abstract. Okay. Can we back out just a little bit more? A little bit more. There we go. And the south pathway if you'll recall is at the bottom most edge below where the area marked "Garage" is you might recall. And he said that he went over to that area, looked down there, went through the first gate, went as far as the second gate, but that flashlight was very dim and he was worried and he was scared and he didn't want to go any farther. So he looked down there, but it was dark and he didn't want to go any farther. He said that he could not see the portion of the pathway that was right outside the wall of his room where he had heard the thumping. It was too dark, and he came back out without going actually any farther on the pathway. When he came back out, he realized that Allan Park was still waiting outside the gate. Now, this is after Allan had spoken to the Defendant on the intercom. And when he realized that the Defendant had not yet buzzed Allan in, he went and he let him in.

Now, let me ask you this. Why didn't the Defendant let Allan Park drive into the driveway? Why leave him sitting out there at the gate? Why make him wait outside? Because the Defendant was frazzled, ladies and gentlemen, he was hurried and he needed to buy some time, time to wash himself up, wash off the blood, change the clothes and to compose himself to appear normal, to appear calm, business as usual.

*****

Now, the Defendant left. And when he left, as you know, he didn't set the alarm. While he was in the limousine, he asked the limousine driver to turn on the air conditioning. He complained repeatedly of being very hot. He rolled the windows down, "Boy, it's hot. Boy, it's hot." You have the weather report and it will indicate to you it was a cool night. The Defendant was--kept complaining about being hot, "Man, I'm hot. Roll down the windows, turn on the air conditioning." I asked Allan Park, "Were you hot that night?" "No." I asked Kato, "Were you hot that night?" "No." It was a cool night. Now, I said I'd show you that the Defendant did not get that big cut on his middle finger from that cell phone when he went to get it from the Bronco. Let me show you something. You recall the testimony that blood was collected from the bathroom upstairs that's just off the Defendant's bedroom, and the blood is found very--it's found basically in-between the sink and the shower in the Defendant's bathroom. The Defendant was bleeding in his bathroom when he was cleaning and changing his clothes obviously. That was before he went down to the limo, ladies and gentlemen, before he ever went to the Bronco. He already had that cut by the time he got downstairs. He got it long before he went out to that Bronco to get that cell phone. So since we know he was bleeding upstairs in his own bathroom and before he went down to the limo, how come there weren't any bloodstains on the staircase? Obviously, he didn't fly. And just as obviously, he also bled downstairs. I show you that foyer picture. You've seen that quite a number of times, with the blood spots on the floor. So he left blood downstairs as well. There are two possible reasons we didn't see photographs of blood spots on the staircase. No. 1, they were there and they were missed. It seems doubtful because it's a light carpet, light colored carpet. Blood should show. It's possible. Or, two, the cut temporarily stopped bleeding.

*****

With the blood drops and the bloody shoeprints leading out to the driveway, a very reasonable and very logical inference is that his hand was still bleeding when he went to reach for the door to open it at Bundy.

The point here to make is that it doesn't matter at which point you think that blood was placed on the outside of the door because the important point to get is that he was already cut, he was already bleeding when he went to his Bronco. Whether it was after the murders at Bundy or whether it was at Rockingham to go and get the cell phone out, that finger was already cut .That's the point. So why did he tell Dr. Baden that he got the cut getting the cell phone out of the Bronco? When you look at the blood at Rockingham, that's an obvious lie. Why did he do that unless he knew that he had to come up with an explanation for something that was very, very incriminating.

*****

That, ladies and gentlemen, is one piece of evidence that proves the Defendant's guilt, opportunity, one piece of the puzzle. I don't know if--I don't think I've given you the example I would like to give of a jig-saw puzzle. It helps to talk about reasonable doubt in this frame. When you think about reasonable doubt, you think about not only a doubt found in reason opposed to mere possibility as I talked to you about before, but you talk about something that's missing that you need to believe that the Defendant is guilty. And in that sense, I compare it to a jig-saw puzzle. In order to get the picture, to know what a jig-saw puzzle is depicting, if you're missing a couple pieces of the sky, you still have the picture.

*****

The Defendant cut his hand on the night of June the 12th. That is conceded. That is not in dispute. The blood found on the blood trail at Rockingham is in fact the Defendant's and that is conceded. There is no dispute. Even Kato saw the blood in the foyer. If you recall when he was testifying, as he left that morning about 7:30, he saw the blood drops on the floor of the foyer and that was before the Defendant ever came back from Chicago. Now, it's also clear that the Defendant cut himself on the night of the 12th after the recital. As I told you, you have that picture showing his left hand. No cuts. So it was on the night of the recital--I mean, it was on the night of June the 12th on the night of the murders his left hand got cut after the recital. Now, add to that the fact that the cut is on the left hand, but he's right-handed. And the killer lost his left glove at Bundy. Now, we know that the killer cut his left hand because we have the blood drops to the left side of the bloody shoe prints. So now we have the Defendant getting his hand cut on the night of his wife's stabbing, cut on his left hand, which just happens to be the hand that the murderer cut that same night. That's an alarming coincidence.

*****

Using your life experience, stop and think about the blood at Rockingham just for a moment. Sure people get their fingers cut. May not happen every day, but it happens. It's happened to me. I'm sure it's happened to you. And I don't know whether anybody's ever gotten their finger cut on a cell phone. That might be a little bit more of a rare occurrence, but the thing is, when we do--when we cut ourselves and we drip blood, what do we do? We clean it up. You drip blood around the bathroom, you drip blood in your kitchen, you drip blood in the foyer, you get a napkin, you clean it up. It's just a natural--it's something that you wouldn't even think about doing, but you would do it. Now, in all the months that you've been sequestered, how many blood trails have you left in your rooms from the bathroom to the hallway? How many times in your life have you left a trail of blood around your house or your apartment and not cleaned it up?

*****

The scariest homicides are always the ones where the bad guy is handsome, charming, someone who doesn't look like a murderer. That threatens our sense of security. We want to believe that bad people look like what they are because we can steer clear of them. Strictly as a matter of our personal security, we want to know. We want to know. And when we can't know, then we are deceived by the appearance of a pretty face. Then our sense of security is threatened by that. Our life experience tells us that we cannot predict what a killer looks like. We cannot say this one does or that one doesn't. We know it's a command of common sense. You can sit next to a killer in the movies and you can stand behind them in line, stand in line for the bus with a rapist and you wouldn't know it. Well, the same is true for post-homicidal conduct. No different. What exactly do you expect someone to do after he's committed murder? If he wants to get away with it, he's going to do everything in his power that he can, and that's just common sense. So whatever his image is of someone who is not guilty is the image he will try to project. And to the extent he is accurate in determining what that is to the extent that he has an image that comports with our own of what an innocent person would do, we will be deceived. Now, Mr. Simpson is not the first killer to commit murder and drive a car, to commit murder and fly in an airplane. They don't wear any neon sign saying, "I just committed murder." I know that's common sense. But there are certain things that he can do, things that tell you that it most certainly was not business as usual on the night of June the 12th after he murdered Ron and Nicole.

*****

Now, Detective Phillips testified that he told the Defendant Nicole had been killed. And what did the Defendant do? Did he ask how? No. Did he ask who? No. Did he ask where? No. Did he ask when? No. Did he ask whether it was a car accident? No. Now, think about the reasonable response. Someone is informed that the mother of their children has been killed and a detective calls and says, "I'm sorry to tell you this, but the mother of your children has been killed." What do you do? Wouldn't you think that the first reaction--I can understand shock. Wouldn't you think that the first reaction would be one of disbelief? No. First response, deny it, no, that can't be because you don't believe--you know, you don't believe someone close to you can be met with violence. Even if it's a car accident, you have a sense of disbelief about can't be, you know, someone I know doesn't die that way. Can't be. And so in your effort to make it where it might be real or to test the truth of the statement, you ask questions. How did it happen? When? Who do you think did it? Where did it happen? What was the cause of death? How could this be? Not one of those questions, not one.

And I think probably the first thing that you normally ask is, "Was it a car accident," one of the first things that pops in your mind. But he said none of those things, ladies and gentlemen. He asked none of the questions that an innocent man would ask. So now you have another piece of the puzzle. You have opportunity, you have the cuts on the hand and you have post-homicidal conduct showing you consciousness of guilt all over the place.

*****

Let's talk about the physical evidence. I'm not going to do it in the detail you have already heard it, heaven forbid, but although you have already seen with the opportunity evidence, with the conduct evidence, we already have evidence to show you that the Defendant did commit these murders, without even really getting into the physical evidence, and once you see the vast array of physical evidence, you can see that there is virtually an ocean of evidence to prove that this Defendant committed these murders. What all of this does, all of this evidence, it links the Defendant to the victims and the crime scene at Bundy. Now, the Defense has gone to great lengths to try and show that they could discredit this evidence and the lengths that they have included have been some of the most bizarre and farfetched notions I think I have ever heard. They hint that the blood was planted. They have tried to create the impression that multiple other bloodstains were contaminated and that somehow all the contamination only occurred where it would consistently prove the Defendant was guilty. So now the little amplicons, those little DNA, they are co-conspirators, too, because they know they have got to rush to only the places where you can attribute the blood to the murderer. When you think about that, just think about that one point logically, okay? Obviously it is common sense, if contamination is going on you are going to see it going on all over the place. As a matter of fact, if what they are saying is true with this aerosol effect, flying DNA all over the place, then Mr. Simpson's blood type ought to be showing up in other cases somewhere. You know, somewhere out or down in another department in a rape case Mr. Simpson's type should be showing up because it is everywhere. Or even let's confine to it this case. Talk about that. That how come if the argument is that his blood is flying all over the place, DNA is flying all over the place, why didn't we find his blood type showing up where obviously it shouldn't be? What I mean is this: They took samples from the pool of blood by Nicole's body. They took samples of blood that was near Ron Goldman's body. Obviously the blood came from them because they were lying there.

And then of course you know you have the blood drops leading away from the crime scene that had to be left by the killer. There is no question about that. That was left by the killer because they are next to the bloody shoeprints. So you know, why is it that the samples of blood they took from her pool of blood didn't come up with the Defendant's blood type if the Defendant's blood type DNA is flying all over the place?

*****

From the fact that you have higher molecular weight DNA on blood collected later, July 3rd, they want you to infer that somehow it was planted. But they are inconsistent, because if you remember, now if you plant the blood, aren't you going to plant it close to the time you collect? What are you going to do, plant it and hope somebody finds it later? You plant it when you expect someone to find it, right? When they have the EDTA going on, you have all these cross-examination questions about EDTA breaking down due to sunlight exposure. No proof that that happens, by the way, and as could you tell, they did no test to prove that that happens, by the way.

*****

[T]hey brought in Dr. Rieders to try and tell you that that jagged noise looks just like that high arc which is ridiculous, which is insulting to your intelligence. But the reason that they have to say this, defying logic, defying common sense, is because, ladies and gentlemen, his blood on the rear gate with that match that makes him one in 57 billion people that could have left that blood, I mean there is what, five million people on the planet, that means you would have to go through 57 billion people to find the DNA profile that matches Mr. Simpson's. There is only five billion people on the planet. Ladies and gentlemen, that is an identification, okay, that proves it is his blood. Nobody else's on the planet; no one. Now, they know that. Now, the blood on the socks, Nicole's blood on the socks. Again RFLP match, very powerful. Showed from cellmark that was a five-probe match and I believe found to be one in 6.8 billion people. Again, more than--there are people on the planet. Identification. And 11-probe match by DOJ showed that it was one in 7.7 billion people. Again, her blood and only hers on this planet could be on that sock. Now, how do you get around that? It wasn't wrong and they couldn't find an expert who would say it was contaminated because there is too much DNA. That is the blood. That type is the type. It is her blood. How do you get around that? And if you know that that is true, if you know it is her blood on his socks that they find on the morning of June the 13th, that alone with the rear gate stain convicts him. You can't believe otherwise.

*****

The knit cap. You can barely see it under the plant here. This was the position in which it was found. Now you see how the Defendant could miss it in the dark. It is underneath that plant I'm pointing to right here, that patch of blue here, (Indicating). On that knit cap you recall that the--well, it is the Defendant's hairs. Now, let me refer specifically to Mr. Deedrick's testimony in this regard because what he told us is this: He said there were hair--the hairs that he said were consistent with the Defendant's, he found nine inside the cap. It is clear--extrapolating from his testimony, it is clear that nine--there were nine I think naturally shed hairs is what he said, not fragments, but naturally shed hairs, that he wore the cap from that. Now, what is interesting also is that he talked about fragments that were found inside the cap, hairs of black origin that were not consistent with Mr. Simpson's, and so I asked him, you know, what about those hairs? He said they were treated, chemically treated.

How long were they in the cap? Can't tell. They could have been there for years, because you can--you know, life experience, if you ever had anything knit like that kind of a loose weave, you will have it in evidence, you can check it out, it is going to get hairs in it and those hairs could stay there for a very long time if it is not washed and it is not laundered. So that is why I asked the Defendant's hairdresser, what about the Defendant's former wife Marguerite, did she treat her hair? What about Arnelle, did she treat her hair? These are other people, people that could have worn the cap whose hair--the fragments, old fragments could be from, but the nine naturally shed hairs inside the cap that were consistent with the Defendant's were different in quality than those, because they were not fragments and therefore unlikely to be old. All right. And taking into account everything that we know, those were his hairs in the cap. He wore the cap. He also found on that cap fiber. He said it was consistent with the Defendant's--the carpet from the Defendant's Bronco. And he talked to you about the unusual nature of the--the trilobal cross-section of that fiber, and he showed you photographs of it through the--that were taken from the scanning electron microscope. You will have that back in the jury room if you want to see it, it is very interesting stuff, but what we know from all we know, that was a fiber from the Defendant's Bronco on that cap. Now, that is very important because that actually--with that cap we have tied the Defendant and his car to the crime scene at Bundy and now you see, to summarize, on the knit cap we have the Defendant's hair and the Bronco fiber from the carpet in his Bronco. And another piece of the puzzle.

*****

Now, let's go to Ron's shirt. Now, on Mr. Goldman's shirt we have the Defendant's hair and we have the blue black cotton fiber. Now, of course the Defendant's hair is of obvious significance. Mr. Deedrick was asked whether or not that hair appeared to be--the hair that he said was consistent with the Defendant's, whether it appeared soiled. He said no. That was very important and that was very important for this reason: If we had simply found hairs of the Defendant in the soil of that area at Bundy where Ron Goldman was lying, we probably would not think that was a big deal. Why? He visited the place. He was there. Pick up the children, leave the children, and that there might be stray hairs lying around in the soil, you know, falling from whatever reason. This would not be very significant. I wouldn't be standing here talking to you about it right now. But you have an unsoiled hair on the victim's shirt. That is important. And that makes the distinction. Because if it had been something that he picked up from the soil, then you should have seen dirt in it. The fact that it was unsoiled means it was the result of contact between the Defendant and Ronald Goldman that night during the murders. We certainly have no reason at all to believe there was any contact between the Defendant and Ronald Goldman before the murder is committed.

*****

We have something else on Ron's shirt. We have the blue black cotton fibers. All right. So what is the big deal about that? Well, you recall that Mr. Deedrick found blue black cotton fibers in two other places and the blue black cotton fibers that he found that shared the same microscopic characteristics as those he found on Ron Goldman's shirt were found on the Rockingham glove and on the Defendant's socks. So what could that be? Well, clearly those are fibers from what the Defendant was wearing this night. You recall what Kato described. He was wearing the dark blue to black cotton sweatsuit with long sleeves. Now, a sweatsuit has banded ankles and is going to be in contact with your socks. Obviously, too, a sweatsuit, you know, if you have those--if you have an elastic ankle, exertion, you are going to pull the pants up, it is going to rub, there is going to be some friction there. And it is natural, it is also common sense, that you will find fiber from one piece of clothing transferred to another, which is why if you recall when he was testifying, I asked him did you find any of Ron Goldman's shirt fibers on his jeans? Yeah, I did. Not a surprising thing. Very common. Same thing happened with the Defendant. And when he had contact with Ronald Goldman, when he attacked Ronald Goldman, he left fibers from what he was wearing on Ron Goldman's shirt. And when he went to take--and in wearing that sweatsuit over those socks, he left fibers on those socks. And in having maybe the Rockingham glove in his pocket, when he was running down the south pathway picking up fibers from it, from his clothing, when the glove fell out, it still had the fiber from his clothing and that is why you have those fibers sharing the same microscopic characteristics with all the tests he performed on them, there were quit a few, in these three places, going to the crime scene, the south pathway and the Defendant's bedroom. So with this piece of evidence we have again tied the Defendant to the murders and this link carries us from Bundy clear into the Defendant's bedroom in Rockingham.

*****

And another piece of the puzzle. All right. Now, let's move away from Ron and start up the walkway. Now, for this I'm going to direct your attention to the board, the bloody shoeprints. Now, the bloody shoeprints actually start down here--I will just hold it up for a minute. On this very first photograph on the bottom you can see the shoeprints right next to the blue knit cap. It starts between--okay. And those bloody shoeprints go all the way down the walkway until you get to about halfway when they fade out. This is another important piece of evidence that proves the Defendant's guilt. The shoeprints are all size 12. The shoeprints were all--and by the way, size 12, less than ten percent of the male population wears that size and the men who wear that size tend to fall within the height range of 5-11 to 6-4. The Defendant is 6-2. And these are not just any size 12's. They are expensive shoes, casual shoes that cost 160 bucks; not dress shoes, shoes that would be worn by a rich man, the kind of man who would wear cashmere lined gloves. And what is more important is that those shoes were only sold in forty stores in this country.

*****

Now, on the rear gate I think I have already talked to you about that, the blood that matches the Defendant was type 1 in 57 billion. In other words that is his identity, that is his blood. Then we go out to the driveway and you recall blood drop no. 52 and that drop was also done with RFLP and in that blood drop out on the driveway you have the typing I think determined with RFLP was one in 170 million. The reason for the lower number is because there are fewer probes, it was a weaker sample. The reason for that--let's talk about that for a minute. You have a different environment--and I think it is important to note on the walkway--we don't have a beginning picture of it here--there are other pictures that you have in evidence that will show this. The walkway is very dirty and it is concrete, it is porous, it absorbs. On the other hand, on the gate you have a smooth surface. It is up off the ground and it is not as much in contact with dirt and with the elements and it is not going to be absorbed in the gate because the paint on the gate prevents it from doing that, which is why you have higher molecular weight DNA.

The more that DNA is subjected to bacteria, to dirt, that degrades it, the more it is going to degrade, the less DNA you are going to have. The dirtier the environment, the less the DNA, the cleaner--less hostile environment, the more DNA, very simple, so you have more than DNA on the gate than you do on the dirty walkway. The gate is not the cleanest thing in the world, I guarantee, but you do have--it is up off the ground, you do have a non-absorbent surface, so that is part of the reason for the higher weight DNA. The other part of the reason is that the rear gate, by inference from all of the testimony, that stain was collected and taken down right away instead of sitting in plastic bags in a hot truck. All right. So you have all of the blood on the walkway match the Defendant. You have RFLP results on the rear gate that identifies the Defendant. You have a--a drop on the driveway, one in 170 million. That is a virtual identification of the Defendant under all of these circumstances as well. And another piece of the puzzle. Now, let's talk about the Bronco.

*****

[J]ust consider the fact that there is blood in the Bronco at all. I mean, ladies and gentlemen, do you have blood on the interior driver's door of your car, on the dashboard, on the console? I mean, think about that. And all at the same time. As for the amount of blood in the car, how much would you expect to see? When you think about it, the Defendant inflicted the wounds that bled out on these victims, the ones that really bled out from behind them, the throat cut that was demonstrated to you by Dr. Lakshmanan. So if he is standing behind them, they are bleeding out this way, how much blood is he going to get on him? Not very much. And he certainly wouldn't be getting any on his back which is where he is going to be in contact with his seat, the back and the back of his legs. If any blood at all on his hands from touching.

*****

So he gets in the Bronco and he drives back to Rockingham, parking it on Rockingham just north of the Rockingham gate where we see it in all of the photographs. Now, as I have described earlier, the Defendant runs down the south pathway, and you are thinking to yourself, you know, why? Why would he do that? And I talked to you about disposing of the knife. Really common. Murderers want to get rid of the murder weapon, they think that is the one thing that can nail them. He is running back to that rear lot. He never gets there because he crashes into the air conditioner dropping the glove. Why would he need to put the knife on his own property? You are thinking why not drop it in a dumpster on the way home? Doesn't that make sense? Why would you want to do it, leave that on your own property or bury it on your own property? He can't. He can't because he is famous. If someone sees him hanging around near a dumpster on that night of all nights at that time of all times, dropping something into a dumpster, they are going to recognize him and he is going to have a witness, a witness who is going to put him very close to the scene of the crime, at the very wrongest time he could be there, right after the murders. He can't dispose of evidence in public. Every move he makes is noticed.

*****

What do you do with gloves that don't fit? You throw them away, right? That is why he was able to wear them. He would have bought gloves that did fit. That is what he would have done. Now, the testimony has told us that the gloves in evidence are smaller now than when they were new, so the issue with all that has been done to them blood soaked, frozen, unfrozen, who knows what, the issue is how they fit at 10:00 p.m. Just before the murders on the night of June the 12th. The issue is how stretchable they were then before the murders at 10:00 p.m. On June the 12th. And we know that those gloves fit him on the night of June the 12th because he wore them, the size extra large, the size you know fits him, because he put on a new pair of extra large in this room, as Mr. Rubin said, they fit him beautifully, and he did that, of course, without the benefit of latex--I say "Benefit" sarcastically--latex to catch on them. So you have in these gloves all of the points that I have described and as shown on the slide. And another piece of the puzzle.

*****

Now, let's move back down the walkway, the south pathway that is, that dark narrow south pathway, and when he ran back down there the Defendant undoubtedly saw that the limousine was already there because it was pulled up facing into the driveway at the Ashford gate. It would be hard for him to miss. And he knew that he should already have been home. He was running late. And don't forget, you know he is pretty shook up at this point. He is running into the air conditioner and banged into the wall. He is worried, got to be worried about the fact that Kato is going to come out and worry--and try to investigate the source of the noises. And he has got to get out of that south pathway because if Kato sees him back there how is he going to explain that? How is that going to look on the night of the murders of the wife and Ron Goldman, if Kato comes outside and sees him in that dark south pathway? What is he doing there? So he has got to get back in that house and he has got to get back in a hurry, which is why there was no time to hide the knife behind the guest house. He had to get out of there, which is also why there was no time to realize that he had dropped a glove. All right. So he goes into the house, which is at the point that Allan Park sees him go in, which is a couple minutes after the thumps are heard by Kato. The Defendant went upstairs quickly, he answered the intercom when Allen buzzed him this fourth time, I think, and he needed to collect himself, he needed to buy time. He left Allan sitting and waiting at the gate while he got ready to go, but he took off his socks, he reopened the cut on his finger, and that is why you have blood on the bathroom floor, and under pressure to get out of there, get changed and get going, because the limo driver is downstairs waiting. He left the socks on his bedroom floor. And in that one simple careless act gave--gave us the most--possibly single most devastating proof of guilt in the case, because on that sock, on that sock we found blood that matched Nicole Brown, blood that matched the Defendant and the blue black cotton fiber.

*****

Now, while I'm talking about hair and fiber, there is one other piece of that evidence that tells you that the Defendant acted alone. And that is this: You recall that Mr. Deedrick testified that he found Nicole--well, Mr. Deedrick said he found hairs consistent with Nicole Brown's on the shirt of Ron Goldman and we know from all of the evidence that that is Nicole's hair on his shirt. Think about how that happens? If the killer kills Nicole or attacks Nicole in the initial attack, and I will get back to that later, and he touches her hair, touches his head, he gets her hairs on him, goes over to attack Ron, those hairs will be transferred.

*****

What was he doing? What he was doing was, he was setting up an alibi with Kato. He's going out to see Kato so that Kato can say that he saw him. He can--then Kato can later say, "I saw the Defendant. I saw him at 9:00, 10 after 9:00. He told me where he was going. He said he was going to get something to eat." So if it's discovered that his whereabouts are unknown during the time of the murder, he at least has someone to say, "Well, wait a minute. He told me." He has a noncriminal explanation for where he was. So he comes up with a pretext of needing change for the skycap, and it's a good way to remind Kato that he's going to be out of town too. He'll have Kato remember that alibi also. "I need change for the skycap." Unfortunately, Kato stepped in his way. Kato invited himself along, and the Defendant would have been hard-pressed to refuse because think about that. If Kato is going to be his alibi to tell anybody who later asks that, "I saw the Defendant at such and such a time, and he said he was just going to go out and get something to eat," and then he says, "But I tried to invite myself along, but he wouldn't let me go with him," then you have further evidence of consciousness of guilt. Then it's going to look suspicious.

*****

Now, there's much more evidence of planning, planning that you see at the crime scene itself. And in that, I mean, the Defendant wore dark clothing. The dark blue, black cotton sweat suit that Kato described, perfect in the nighttime if you don't want to be seen. The dark blue, black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman, the socks, the Rockingham glove, the fibers of the clothing he wore, the watch cap and the gloves. It was June the 12th. It's a summer night. Why do you need these cashmere-lined gloves and a watch cap on a summer night unless you're going to commit a crime, unless you're planning, unless you're preparing to commit a crime? Gloves are easy. Why wear the gloves? Fingerprints. You don't want to leave fingerprints. And he didn't. You heard from the print people. He didn't. Watch cap. A partial disguise. If he has to walk around the house, if he's going to be standing at the front gate, he doesn't want someone glancing to make the immediate connection. He doesn't want someone to see exactly who it is right away. Now, he doesn't intend to be there but a minute. But a watch cap over that head is going to make sure that doesn't look like something that he would wear and it throws someone off. Now, those items alone show clear evidence of planning, planning activity, planning for a murder preparation. But there's more. There's also timing. And by that, I mean, we know that the children were asleep at the time these murders were committed. We know that from the evidence. But who else would know when the children were going to be in bed? Who else would know when they would be safely out of the way? Who else would know when Nicole would be home alone with the children? Who else would know the perfect time to attack and get Nicole without the children being in the way? The Defendant. And that not only shows premeditation, it also shows identity, who did it.

*****

Nicole was incapacitated very quickly. She had little, if anything, in the way of defensive wounds to her hands and she had no opportunity to defend herself. Likewise, the four wounds in close proximity on the left side of her neck very close to one another, they indicated very little resistance and they suggested that she was controlled or otherwise incapable of moving away to avoid being stabbed. And the gaping neck wound, the final coup de grace that nearly decapitated her, that is classic evidence of a cold, calculated, premeditated murder.

*****

Now, Ronald Goldman. Now, once again, a very significant point with respect to Ronald Goldman. As with Nicole, the neck is the target once again, and we know that from the neck wounds on Ron described by Dr. Lakshmanan. Why the neck? Why is the neck the target? Because it's a short kill.

*****

The Defendant could not leave a witness alive, alive to tell what he saw. He had to deliver the fatal blows and make sure that they were fatal. The Defendant surely didn't anticipate that Ron would be there that night. He came to murder Nicole. But once Ron showed up, he could not allow him to walk away with the knowledge of what he had seen. Ron was a witness who had seen what no one was supposed to see. Ron was the ultimate threat, so Ron had to die. And the intent to eliminate a witness, ladies and gentlemen, is a premeditated and deliberate decision. It is a cold and a calculated decision and it is not a decision that takes very long. As I pointed out before, the jury instruction tells you the law does not undertake to measure in units of time the degree of thought that goes into the thinking called premeditation and deliberation. And now you can see this is a perfect example of how such a decision can be made in mere moments. The Defendant has Nicole Brown down, Ron Goldman comes walking up with the envelope, a witness, and the decision is made, (Snapped fingers). That's all it takes. "I can't let him live. I can't let him stay alive." Ladies and gentlemen, this is strong and it's compelling evidence that proves that the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown were premeditated and deliberate murders of the first degree.

*****

And I spoke to you before a little bit about direct and circumstantial evidence. This is what they call--well, this is a physical evidence case obviously and they call it circumstantial evidence. Now that I've reviewed all of the evidence, you can see what I'm talking about when I say a circumstantial evidence case gives you much more assurance of the guilt of the Defendant. And that is because of this. In a direct evidence case, you may have one eyewitness to tell you, "I saw it." That means you have one thing to rely on. But in a circumstantial evidence case, especially this one, you have many things to rely on. You have the blood at Bundy. You have the blood of Nicole on his socks. You have his blood on the rear gate at Bundy. You have Ronald Goldman's blood in his car. You have his hair on Ron Goldman's shirt. You have the fiber from his clothing on Ron Goldman's shirt, on his socks, on the Rockingham glove. You have the Bronco carpet fiber on the Rockingham glove. You have the Bronco carpet fiber on the knit ski cap. The wealth of evidence in this case is simply overwhelming. If we only had the Bundy blood trail that matched the Defendant, it would be enough proof to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we only had Nicole Brown's blood on his socks, that would be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we only had Ron Goldman's blood in his Bronco, that would be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But we have all that and much more. And now, let me summarize for you what we have proven. One piece of the puzzle. We've proven the opportunity to kill. We've given the time window in which he was able to kill because his whereabouts were unaccounted for during the time that we know the murders were occurring. We have the hand injuries that were suffered on the night of his wife's murder to the left hand, as we know the killer was injured on his left hand. We have the post-homicidal conduct that I told you about, lying to Allan Park, making Allan Park wait outside, not letting Kato pick up that little dark bag, his reaction to Detective Phillips when he made notification, when Detective Phillips said to him, "Nicole has been killed." Instead of asking about a car accident, the Defendant asked no questions. We have the manner of killings, killings that indicate that it was a rage killing, that it was a fury killing, that it was not a professional hit, the manner of killing that indicates one person committed these murders, one person with the same style of killing. We have the knit cap at Bundy. We have the evidence on Ron Goldman's shirt of the blue black cotton fibers, the Defendant's hair. We have the Bruno Magli shoeprint, size 12, all of them size 12, his size shoe, all of them consistent going down the Bundy walk. We have the Bundy blood trail, his blood to the left of the bloody shoeprints. We have the blood in the Bronco, his and Ron Goldman's. We have the Rockingham blood trail up the driveway, in his bathroom, in the foyer. We have the Rockingham glove with all of the evidence on it, Ron Goldman's fibers from his shirt, Ron Goldman's hair, Nicole's hair, the Defendant's blood, Ron Goldman's blood, Nicole's blood and the Bronco fiber and the blue black cotton fibers. We have the socks and we have the blue black cotton fibers on the socks and we have Nicole Brown's blood on the socks. There he is. I haven't even spoken--you haven't even heard yet about the motive. You haven't even heard the why of it, the why he did it. And you know he did it. Now, these murders did not occur in a vacuum, and it's very important evidence that you've heard in the beginning of this case. They occurred in the context of a stormy relationship, a relationship that was scarred by violence and abuse. And this important evidence completes the picture of the Defendant's guilt as it explains the motive for these murders and shows you what led this Defendant to be sitting here in this courtroom today. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.