Simpson Murder Case : Closing Arguments by Defense, Prosecution at Murder Hearing

The following are excerpts from the closing arguments of Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor in the case.

In order to find in this case . . . that there is no strong suspicion to believe the defendant has committed the crimes . . . you would have to ignore all of the evidence. And the evidence is consistent and very powerful . . . (Indications are that) the defendant has indeed committed every crime that he is charged with. . . .

I will address the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to prove premeditation . . . (But) I will leave that for now . . . because I do think the evidence is clearly sufficient to show that these crimes were premeditated. . . .

First of all, the killer in this case was clearly injured during the commission of these murders. He left a trail of blood leading away from the victims to the rear of the residence and out to the alley. A trail of blood was found from the defendant’s Ford Bronco leading up the driveway to his front door.

And I would remind the court that the distance between the two locations is a mere two miles . . . (There was) not enough time for whatever injury was sustained . . . to have healed sufficiently so that (a person) would not bleed, unless he was holding something in his hands that would stop the blood.

Now the fact that we failed to find the bloody shoes that clearly were worn from the scene--although we did find a bloody glove--is hardly illogical at all. The reason we found the bloody glove was simply accident. . . . If he knew he dropped the glove, obviously we would never have found either. But . . . he did drop the glove, not intentionally but by accident.

Secondly, the bloody glove that was found at the crime scene is left-handed. That’s a very important fact. The bloody shoe prints leaving that crime scene with blood drops alongside them were to the left of those shoeprints. That shows us that the killer was injured somewhere on his left side.

The blood on the driver’s door handle of the Ford Bronco would logically be opened with the left hand, and it’s no coincidence that we just happen to find the blood spot on the driver’s door handle . . .

Now on the day that the defendant returned from Chicago, Detective Vannatter makes the observation that after having seen the left-handed bloody glove at the crime scene that clearly came off during the struggle . . . he sees the defendant with a bandage around his middle left finger. And then he takes him down to Parker Center where he sees . . . a swollen finger on the left hand with a cut that was dressed and treated at Parker Center. No coincidence.

Third. The right-handed mate to that glove is found on the defendant’s property . . . mere hours after the crimes were committed. . . . And a . . . test on that glove came up positive.

Fourth. The defendant clearly lied to the limousine driver, Allan Park. When Allan Park drove down to the Rockingham gate about 10:40 (p.m.), the Ford Bronco was not there. Between 10:40 and 10:55, he rang the intercom repeatedly and received no answer.

It was only when 15 minutes later, after Park had just seen a black person, 6-feet, 200 pounds, walk quickly up the drive and into the front door, that the intercom was finally answered by the defendant.

Before that person . . . entered the house through a front door . . ., all downstairs lights were off. Immediately after that person entered the house, all the lights went on. And 30 seconds later, the defendant answered the intercom. . . .

Now it must be obvious to everyone at this point that the person seen entering the house by Allan Park was the defendant. But he lied to the limousine driver, and it’s a very significant lie, because why would he need to do that? Why not just say: “I was out getting some last-minute things. . . .

But it’s very significant that he chose to lie to the limo driver at all. . . . What lie did he tell? He said: “Oh, I overslept. I just got out of the shower.” We know that’s not true. He was seen going in the house 30 seconds before.

The only reason to tell such a lie is that the defendant is trying to set up an alibi for the time when he knows that the murders occurred. . . .

Fifth. The blood drop on the trail leading away from the victims at 875 Bundy. Testing revealed that only (0.43% ) of the population could . . . have been the source of that blood drop.

Now what’s interesting is on cross-examination, (defense) counsel attempted to (show) that that stain might reflect that two people left that blood drop . . . If that’s true, we do know this: At least one of them had all the markers that can be attributed to the defendant, who is within 0.43% of the population that could have left that blood drop.

And of those (people) that could have been the source, the 0.43% that could have been the source of that blood drop, how many had a bloody glove found on their property mere hours after the murders occurred, a bloody glove that matched the bloody glove found at the crime scene?