THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is defense attorney Gigi Gordon, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: A murder scenario and more gruesome photos.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “The prosecution started by presenting domestic violence evidence to establish O.J.’s capacity for violence and his motive to use it against Nicole. Then came the DNA wars: abstract and mind-numbing testimony that obscured the horror and tragedy at this case’s core. But the last two days have been about murder and rage.”

On the defense: “The DNA evidence linked O.J. to the murders with science, but it could not touch the jurors’ hearts. The coroner’s pictures and his demonstration of how the murderer might have slit Nicole’s throat as she lay helpless had a visible emotional impact. The defense was wise to have O.J. present, if only to show that he, too, felt the horror.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “For the first time, the prosecution suggested a murder scenario. Brian Kelberg implied that O.J. knocked out Nicole, then attacked Goldman and later slit Nicole’s throat. If proven, such a scenario would strengthen the premeditation claim. The jurors can now see, and perhaps feel, what happened during these murders.”

On the defense: “Shapiro took great glee in the coroner’s admission of Golden’s mistakes. In the long run, however, the defense will have a tougher time because those mistakes have been discounted. Instead, Shapiro might attack the prosecution’s crime scenario, reminding jurors that autopsy findings can only tell the cause of death, not who did it.”

GIGI GORDON

On the prosecution: “Only someone who really knows what he is doing could have put on the elegantly choreographed but hollow show Kelberg has presented this week. Dr. Golden’s 30 mistakes are hardly insignificant; they have prevented the victims from really telling their story from the grave and it’s unfair to pretend that isn’t so.”

On the defense: “We have a true case of garbage in, garbage out. Shapiro’s challenge is to show that Kelberg’s playing field is a ruse. Kelberg wants to have it both ways: To lament the understaffed, overburdened coroner’s office, but to also say Golden’s mistakes are harmless. If the mistakes were so harmless, why did Dr. Lakshmanan review them for hundreds of hours?”

Compiled by HENRY WEINSTElN / Los Angeles Times