(3 of 7)
The most compelling series of "nos" came during the exchanges about domestic violence. As Petrocelli wove for the jury a narrative of Simpson's life and times with Nicole, he hammered away at their tempestuous relationship--one that resulted in calls to police and a no-contest plea to spousal battery in 1989. With an enormous blow-up of Nicole's face, cut and purpled with bruises, looming on a huge screen behind the former football star, the lawyer quizzed him about numerous other incidents in which witnesses say Nicole was hit by her husband. And Petrocelli walked Simpson through some landmarks on his former wife's bashed-in face: a split lip, a welt over her eye and red marks around her neck. Maybe they were caused by Nicole's propensity to pick at her pimples, Simpson suggested. "A lot of this redness would normally be there most nights, once she picked and cleaned her face," he said.
With an almost numbing repetition of the word never, Simpson insisted he never hit, slapped or beat Nicole, and that the contents of her diary, in which she wrote that he hit her, and her complaints to the police were lies. He did, however, acknowledge that they had "physical altercations"--engaging in what he repeatedly referred to as "rassling." And even as he denied causing her bruises, he did say, "I was wrong for everything that led to this."
To many observers, Simpson's first day on the stand was notable as much for what did not occur as for what did: Simpson's famous hair-trigger anger never flared. "He hasn't exploded, and they [the other side] want him to," says lawyer Leo Terrell, who had lunch with Simpson, his father-and-son lawyer team Robert and Phil Baker, and family members on Friday during the break from testimony. "One family member overheard the plaintiffs saying, 'We've got to get him angry.' The one thing he's doing is keeping his cool." Of course, the former actor has no doubt been extensively coached. In recent days he has even been seen poring over copies of his depositions while sitting in court, like an actor rehearsing his lines.
The plaintiffs' lawyers have the advantage of plucking out the elements of the prosecution's case that worked and rethinking the rest. In fact, the original prosecutors spent hours with Petrocelli and his team, helping them prepare. As Boston criminal lawyer Harvey Silverglate puts it, "The side that prevailed is going to try it as close as they can to the way that they did when they won, and the other side is going to change the contour of the second trial."
That goes a way toward explaining some of the more remarkable moments of the civil trial so far, and a key member of the original prosecution team talked to TIME about how envious he feels as he watches this case unfold. "The plaintiffs, like any good lawyers, have learned from our mistakes," the prosecutor says. "The plaintiffs have had a built-in advantage in that they could depose people. They could take pretrial statements under oath, months before the trial."