THE SIMPSON VERDICT

BY F. LEE BAILEY

This is intended to be an outline - a deliberately detailed outline - supporting

the proposition that the jury reached the correct verdict in the California case of
People v. Orenthal James Simpson. But the outline - and the book which will
someday follow - is planned to go further. When all of the facts in the case are
assimilated and viewed in proper perspective, it should be clear that Simpson was
not simply the beneficiary of a reasonable doubt, but in fact totally innocent of the
murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
We have no judicial machinery capable of establishing factual innocence, or
what forensic investigators might term ground truth innocence. More than half a
century ago, before the infamous military Courts & Boards were abolished by the
much-enlightened Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1951, a court had two
optional verdicts in the case of an accused who was not going to be convicted:
“Not Guilty”, often said to be the equivalent of the famous Scottish Verdict “Not
Proven”, or “A Complete and Honorable Acquittal”, a formal stamp of approval
that said in essence, that the accused had done nothing wrong. An officer who was
court-martialed, and did not receive the latter form of verdict, was pretty much at
the end of his career.
But as has ever been, the facts of a case are much, much more important
than the law or the lawyers, if showing innocence is the objective. The facts
offered here are either largely unchallenged, or much more persuasive that those
contrary views which have been argued.
The outline has been divided into categories of proof, or non-proof as the
case may be, and then subdivided into the pieces of evidence which seem to fit into
that category. All of this is preceded by a Background Section which is intended
to aid in understanding the specific facts which follow.

INTRODUCTION

Just over fifteen years ago, I explored the idea of trying to reduce the many-
faceted complexities of the O. J. Simpson trial to a bare-bones analysis of the
actual evidence in the case, shorn of its manifold encrustations of hyperbole.
Books about the case were sprouting from every quadrant, many of them from
lawyers who had been in or near the action. Most were unabashed polemics
claiming that the verdicts were wrong. And most simply ignored the key pieces of
evidence which did not fit the author’s thesis of the case. Many of these books
were more about their creators than about People v. Orenthal James Simpson.
1
 After considerable research, and lengthy conversations with trusted friends, I
concluded that anything I might offer at that time in support of the verdicts would
be knee-jerk rejected by many, and perhaps most, of the prospective readership. I
decided to let time go by, to see whether the dust would settle. I believe that if a
decade and a half is insufficient “settling” time, my chronicle might never emerge.
I am seventy-seven, and in excellent health; nonetheless, the passage of additional
years will do little to change what I can contribute to this segment of our
courtroom history, and thus this undertaking.
Perhaps it is best at the outset to state categorically what this book is
intended to be, and what it is not intended to be. As the person initially in charge
of the preparation of the defense case, I watched the facts evolve as my team and I
dug them out, catalogued them, and tried to fit them to the puzzle. Some of what
we learned emerged as evidence, and was heard by the jury that decided the case.
Some of these facts were presented to the trial judge and rejected, which meant that
the public got a look at them, but the jury did not. Some of the most compelling
facts never emerged at all, because the defense presentation was aborted far in
advance of its intended length and breadth by the risk of a mistrial caused by an
ever-shrinking jury panel, and a prosecution team which was on the run. I will
attempt to set forth here the most important facts in the case, as I see them after
fifty-five years in the courts of the United States and other countries. Each of these
would - before most experienced and even-handed judges - be accepted as
evidence and submitted to the jury. I shall present these facts as objectively as my
training and experience will allow.
This book, however, is not about the petty infighting and name-calling on
both sides of the courtroom which dogged the proceedings. History will eventually
forget the personal sniping and gutter rhetoric which sullied the trial day after day
as it lumbered along. A clear recital of the facts is too important to be frayed at the
edges by such trimmings. Hopefully, those who read what I have set forth here
will at least understand why I have never, ever wavered in my assertions that O. J.
Simpson did not harm or kill anyone the night his former wife and her friend were
butchered in Brentwood, California, at about 10:35 p.m., Pacific Daylight time, on
June 12, 1994. And perhaps some number of those readers may revisit their
original perceptions of the case, based on these facts.
Before beginning my recitation and analysis, however, some discussion of
what “evidence” really means, is appropriate. Simply put, evidence is any
information which a presiding trial judge will permit his jury to hear. The
information may be true, or it may be false, It may be direct, or circumstantial. It
may be first-hand, as from an eyewitness or an original document, or it may be
second or third hand, as is hearsay or a copy. It may be factual evidence, or the
2
opinion of an expert. All of this is information.
The Rules of Evidence, now more and more uniform in all courts in the
United States, are basically rules of exclusion. Some have said that all information
that is relevant to the litigation is admissible before a jury unless it is excluded by
one of the rules of evidence. Hearsay - one person reciting what another claims he
or she saw, as an example - is initially inadmissible. However, there are so many
exceptions to the Hearsay Rule that lots of law students remember Evidence as
one of the most difficult courses in the curriculum, much as medical students have
unpleasant memories of Organic Chemistry.
In general terms, the Rules of Evidence are predicated on the notion that
only the most reliable kinds of information should reach a jury. An exception to
this principle involves privileges and policies, even though the information
excluded by rules of this type may be very reliable. Examples of privilege include
conversations between husband and wife, attorney and client, doctor and patient,
and priest and penitent. If one charged with murder confesses the deed to one of
the above, that confession may be barred from the trial. Policy exclusions include
the much-abused claims of “National Security” often invoked by public officials.
Since neither privilege nor policy had any serious impact on the information which
the jury was allowed to hear in the Simpson case, my discussions of what was
credible evidence and what was not will focus on reliability.
That being said, the reader should bear in mind in that in most homicide
cases, ninety-five percent of the contested evidence is the testimony of witnesses.
This is true whether the witness is claiming to describe something that he or she
saw, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled (the classic five human senses), or describing a
procedure which was used to yield scientific evidence. The myriad popular
programs currently featuring “Crime Scene Investigation” provide many examples
of just how important these procedures are to the integrity of the test results which
follow. Although witnesses who lied and those who told the truth as best they
could are the nucleus of the Simpson case, the procedural mistakes made by the
“CSI” types are nonetheless a most important factor.
In saying that “reliability” is the aim of the “Rules of Evidence”, let me
hasten to point out that in almost all respects the Rules surrender to the jury two
most important powers: determining which witnesses to believe (direct evidence)
and deciding what inferences to draw from facts the jurors believe to have been
established (circumstantial evidence). Upon the application of these powers by a
jury, lives may be condemned. Since no witness in the Simpson case claimed to
have seen the accused stab anyone, or even possess a weapon, it was at the end of
the day a case of purely circumstantial evidence. Thus the jury was required to
find a set of facts, from the evidence it chose to believe, from which logical
3
inferences could be drawn. To convict, the jury-drawn inferences would have to
support a hypothesis - or theory - of guilt of the two murders. But there is more.
Where a jury’s verdict of guilty will rest ultimately on circumstantial
evidence, then the facts which the jury is convinced are true must not only support
a logical hypothesis of guilt, but must at the same time exclude every reasonable
hypothesis other than guilt! More simply put, whatever facts are proved true to the
jury’s satisfaction must be incapable of explanation other than that the accused -
and no one else - committed the crime(s). But if the facts - or any of them - do not
support a compelling theory of guilt, the jury’s function is at an end. It must
acquit.
To those whose job it is to expose weaknesses in human testimony through a
process called cross-examination, it is usually critically important to determine
when the witness first told his or her story. The earlier the witness committed to
the facts testified to at a trial, which usually occurs more than six months to a year
after the observation was made, the more likely it is that the witness is telling the
truth. This is a reliability factor well-recognized by the Rules of Evidence. The
early recitation of one’s story is called a Prior Consistent Statement.
Prior Consistent Statements by a witness are initially not admissible, and
will not reach a jury, unlike Prior Inconsistent Statements by the witness, which are
almost always received to impeach, or undermine, the witness’ believability.
However, should the cross-examiner attack by claiming that the witness has made
up, or even embellished, his account of what he originally observed, this attack
will be categorized as accusing the witness of having concocted a Recent
Fabrication. Now the cross-examiner has opened a dangerous door by virtue of the
attack: the Prior Consistent Statement becomes admissible to contradict the claim
that the witness’ story was recently concocted.
As an example related to everyday life, people will often try to buttress the
truthfulness of what they are saying by asserting that “...I told this to Sarah two
weeks ago...” In court that is not allowed, unless and until someone says “...you
just made that up!” Now the judge will permit you to describe what you told
Sarah (and allow Sarah to testify that indeed you did tell her those facts two weeks
ago) simply to prove that this story was not “just made up”.
The threat of inviting into evidence a Prior Consistent Statement is enough
to cost experienced cross-examiners many winks of sleep. It is a shackle, in a
sense. If one doesn’t attack an important witness for the other side, the jury may
conclude that the cross-examiner is conceding that testimony to be true. On the
other hand, if the cross-examiner does suggest that the witness is not being truthful,
there is a strong likelihood that his or her Prior Consistent Statement will come in,
making it all the more probable that the jury will believe the witness. This is a
4
Hobson’s choice that is likely to confront a cross-examiner repeatedly throughout a
trial.
Prior Consistent Statements are very, very important to any responsible
analysis of the Simpson case. I therefore invite the reader to pay close attention -
as to each of the witnesses whose testimony or expected testimony is described in
this book - to the time at which the witness first committed to his or her version of
what he or she observed. This timing factor offers a “tipping point” in assessing
the case. I have taken to the notion of calling the time when one can prove having
first made a statement consistent with the one being testified to the establishing
point of that statement. If the statement is immediate - that is made even while or
directly after an event takes place - that statement, if it meets the time-honored
criteria, is not hearsay, or is an exception to the hearsay rule. In either case, such
statements (variously called “Excited Utterances”, “Spontaneous Exclamations”, or
“Spontaneous Declarations”) are thought to be reliable because the observer who
makes the statement is reacting - perhaps involuntarily - to whatever he is
observing, and because it is thought that he has had insufficient time to fabricate an
untruth. But there were none of these in the Simpson case, because no one
witnessed the crime.
I therefore re-emphasize: keep a watchful eye for the establishment point of
the statements of the witnesses herein described.

BACKGROUND

I can recall first being distinctly aware of O. J. Simpson in December, 1973,

while I was in the fourth month of trial as a defendant in the U.S. District Court in
Jacksonville, Florida. He had just broken the National Football League Record for
rushing yardage in a single season - two thousand yards - and the grin on his happy
face, like the grins on the faces of hundreds of thousands of fans of the Buffalo
Bills team, ran from ear to ear. I remember thinking, in my misery, that it was
good to see someone succeed so well.1 I later met Simpson personally in some
television “green room” or other, where the guests wait their turn to go on stage.
He impressed me as a friendly, easy-going if somewhat garrulous guy; he was not,
as some celebrities of his dimension become, so full of himself that he talked down
to the common folk.
Three days after my sixty-first birthday I heard on the news that Simpson’s
ex-wife, Nicole, had been murdered, the victim of a slice wound to her neck almost
1
The case against me was severed from the other defendants the following month, and
eventually dismissed because the government refused to go to trial again.

5
completely front to back, in a manner that is known in the drug trade as a
“Colombian Necklace”. This kind of brutal attack was usually reserved for those
who owed a substantial balance for cocaine or heroin to the local “Mr. Big”, and
had been untidy about keeping to an agreed payment schedule. The drug lords,
like the Mafia, had no access to the courts to collect their debts. As an alternative,
both groups were wont to use dramatic methods of murder on the hapless debtor, to
send a message to other delinquents that they had best rob a bank or steal from
their loved ones, if necessary, to avoid being tardy on their payments.
I next heard that Simpson, who had returned to Los Angeles from Chicago
very suddenly when he learned of Nicole’s fate, had elected to speak with the high-
powered detectives assigned to the case without the presence of his very able
lawyer, Howard Weitzman. This impressed me as unusual, but was a strong
indication that Simpson had no involvement whatever in Nicole’s murder, or that
of the unfortunate Ronald Goldman, who was present with her for reasons that
were initially unclear. Although it is fairly common for sociopaths - who consider
themselves to be clever - to chat with detectives even though they are guilty as sin,
Simpson was by no means sociopathic. Indeed, he had hauled himself out of the
“hood” with pure grit, inspired by legends such as Willie Mays and Gale Sayers.
He was by all accounts an intelligent man, and probably felt a duty to help the cops
find the culprit. Further, if he had thought his client to be inculpated in some way,
a lawyer of Howard Weitzman’s experience would have found a way to torpedo
the interview.
On the evening of June fourteenth, 1994, I received a call from my friend
and colleague of many years, Bob Shapiro. He had been hired to replace Howard
Weitzman, who had outraged Simpson business lawyer Leroy “Skip” Taft and
long-time friend and former lawyer Robert Kardashian, both of whom thought that
Simpson should not have been allowed to talk to two grizzled detectives from the
LAPD’s Robbery-Homicide Division without the protection of counsel.
Unsophisticated in criminal matters as they were, the two had little appreciation for
the fact that Simpson’s talk with the police would become a piece of solid gold for
O.J.’s defense. They had heard that Bob Shapiro was a fellow who could “head
off” trouble, such as unwarranted arrests. And indeed he did have a reputation for
“working out” criminal cases. But Bob had never tried a murder case.
Nonetheless, by the time he called me he had already made a number of
eminently commendable moves on Simpson’s behalf. He had retained pathologist
Dr. Michael Baden and Criminologist Dr. Henry Lee, both crackerjacks in forensic
science and evidence. Additionally, he had caused to Simpson to be photographed
and examined by a local medical doctor, to preserve the fact that O.J. had none of
the cuts and bruises which would inevitably have been suffered by whoever killed
6
Ronald Goldman; Goldman’s seventeen defensive wounds made it clear that he
had put up a vigorous fight.
But now Shapiro was deeply troubled. He had attempted to have Simpson
tested on the polygraph, hoping to use the results to persuade the cops to back off
and take another look. I had been deeply involved in polygraph testing since 1954,
when as Investigating Officer in my Marine Fighter Squadron in Cherry Point,
North Carolina, I had learned to rely heavily on results obtained by two excellent
examiners. In 1983 I hosted a program called “Lie Detector” - a misnomer, but a
name that has stuck to polygraphy like glue - where people were tested under
public scrutiny on a variety of issues, including murder. My co-host was Dr. Ed
Gelb, Ph.D., formerly a Lieutenant in the Los Angeles Police Department. With
Simpson’s arrest loudly rumored to be imminent, Shapiro correctly thought that the
LAPD senior detectives would be given pause if someone of the towering status in
the field of polygraphy such as their own Ed Gelb declared Simpson’s denials of
involvement to be truthful. Unfortunately, Gelb was in Madrid at the time. His
top assistant, Dennis Nellany, who had worked with me as an examiner on the “Lie
Detector” TV show, attempted to test Simpson despite the enormous pressures
facing counsel, the client, and the examiner. It didn’t work. Simpson’s reactions
were severe, in Dennis’ view
In the opinion of virtually all experienced polygraph examiners, it is not
feasible to test someone accused of killing a loved one within a short time after the
death has been discovered.. Indeed, Dennis said as much, when Simpson insisted
he wanted to continue, despite the fact that every time Nicole’s name was
mentioned he felt as though a jolt of lightning had coursed through his body.
When Shapiro told me over the phone what was happening, I instructed him
unequivocally to discontinue the test, and finish it later. It might have been
possible to test Simpson on whether he killed Goldman, where the emotional factor
would presumably have been attenuated, but I thought it not worth the risk.
Shapiro did me one better; he terminated the testing and walked out of Nellany’s
office with the polygrams, or test charts. Examiners never, never permit this to
happen. Dennis should not have. To my knowledge, I am the only other person
capable of making sense of a polygram that ever saw the Simpson charts which
were created that night. I studied them in Bob’s office one day the following
month. To me they showed rather dramatically that the rule against testing
suspects who have recently lost a loved one is well-justified. The tracings painted
a picture of a human subject whose emotions were roiling like the oceans in a
typhoon. Since Shapiro has since reported that these charts are “missing”, no other
qualified examiner will likely ever get to see them. They certainly did not, in my
view show “guilt”. I don’t believe they even showed deception.
7
 This polygraph experience - certainly bewildering to one who expected to be
thumpingly cleared of any complicity - no doubt contributed to the deep depression
which ultimately led Simpson to have his friend Al Cowlings take him to Nicole’s
grave, where - with the pistol he had brought with him - he planned to join her.
When it became clear after a few minutes that there would be no suicide, Cowlings
took him home, in what has always been called a “low-speed chase - a classic
oxymoron if ever there was one - and was in reality a high-tension escort. This one
scenario has no doubt contributed heavily to the views of those that suspect O.J. to
have been guilty as charged.
When I entered the case a few days later, to take charge of the defense
investigation and all dealings with the news media, I was still in favor of giving
Simpson a polygraph. Shapiro wanted none of it, and there are many legitimate
reasons not to test a client while he is in jail. But the issue if far from dead, as I
will explain at the end of this outline.
I asked Shapiro to hire John McNally of New York as Chief Investigator.
McNally came aboard promptly, and recruited Pat McKenna of West Palm Beach
to join him. I assigned Howard Harris, my firm’s in-house computer expert and a
veteran of numerous important trials, to take over the task of collecting,
organizing, and preparing trial information for use as evidence. All three were
soon headquartered in Los Angeles, working out of Shapiro’s tiny office.
They did their jobs well, and by late December, I was able to summarize the
defense evidence and strategy in a memorandum to all counsel and staff. Because
this memo was created before we had had any meaningful disclosure of the
dimensions of the prosecution’s case, it may be useful to take a look at it in its
original form, for it is in a sense an establishing point of the defense which
emerged:

FILE NAME: CUT ONE

SIMPSON SUMMARY
TRIAL OVERVIEW
December 21, 1994

From: FLB
To: Defense Trial Team

8
Introduction: This will be a preliminary effort - i.e., a “first cut” - to bring the
preferred trial strategies and tactics in the forthcoming trial into focus as I see them
now, at this stage of the case. It will attempt an “overview” of sorts, offering
fodder for alternative or contrary suggestions.2 While there is more than one way
to try this case, there is probably only one “perfect” way; I think that no lesser
standard is demanded if victory at the end is to be assured. I believe that through
the prudent use of the wisdom and experience of the defense trial counsel and staff,
such a standard is attainable. It will, however, require a good bit of work by all
concerned, including O.J. himself.

I. The Charge: It has been established beyond the pale of doubt that at some time
in darkness between 9:40 and 11:30 p.m. on Sunday, June 12, 1994, Nicole Simp-
son and Ronald Goldman were murdered through the use of knives or knife-like
weapons, in the proximity of Nicole’s town house at 875 South Bundy Drive in
Brentwood, California. From the position of the bodies and the blood-track
evidence discovered, it would appear that Nicole was lured to a position on her
steps nearest the Bundy sidewalk. Her wounds and the blood-flow from them
strongly suggest that a right-handed killer thrust at her several times, causing minor
wounds, and then grabbed her hair from behind and inflicted a deep wound from
left to right across the front part of her neck, severing both carotid arteries and both
jugular veins in the process. The massive loss of blood pressure from these
severance wounds would have caused instant loss of consciousness followed
almost immediately by death, causing her to slump to the stairs where she was
found.
Further, it seems almost certain that Ronald Goldman came upon the scene -
quite innocently - to return Judy Brown’s glasses, which had been left at the
Mezzaluna restaurant earlier in the evening when Nicole and the family ate dinner.
It would appear that Goldman arrived during the assault on Nicole, for two
reasons:
1. The blood on Nicole’s back is very probably his, since he put up a
protracted defensive fight while he was being repeatedly wounded;
therefore, she must have been slumped on the ground before his wounds
were inflicted, and he began to spray blood.
2. The most significant defense witness (Robert Heidstra) we have
discovered - in my opinion - was walking his dog in an alley parallel to
Bundy and roughly opposite - at a distance of 200-300 feet - the entrance to
2
This is being written on British Airways #215 from LHR to BOS, strictly from recollection.
Forgiveness is asked for errors in detail, since I have no reference materials available.

9
 #875. He had no view of the murder scene, but was within earshot of any
voices which were raised. He heard a male voice cry out, “Hey! Hey! Hey!”
followed by a scuffle of some sort. This occurred sometime between 10:35 -
10:45 p.m., and was likely Goldman. Significantly, the voice did not
identify anyone by name. Goldman knew O.J.
Both murders should have left the killer(s) with a significant quantity of blood
spatter on both clothing and exposed skin. Goldman appears to have been cut with
two different knives.3 It further appears that one of those who stabbed him was
holding a weapon in his left hand.4
Based upon the undisputed and virtually unassailable evidence, all of the
elements of two first-degree murders are present. The only issue to be challenged
at trial is that of the identity of the perpetrator(s).

II. The Defendant: Anomalously - and the sole reason for the frenzied treatment
of this case by the press and others - is that O.J. Simpson, now charged alone with
both murders, is and has been a public figure much endeared to the American
public since the late ‘sixties. Although reports of spousal discord (including some
physical abuse) rub some luster from the idealistic Simpson image, it is still
antithetical to most members of the public to contemplate the actual commission of
this manifestly grotesque series of acts by such an “All-American” icon and role-
model for young minorities.5
It seems clear that without its evidence of past domestic disharmony and
allegations of jealousy, the prosecution is completely bereft of any semblance of a
motive, or trigger, for the violence it claims O.J. experienced that evening. It
seems equally clear that Judge Ito will let at least the most damaging parts of the
“911" situations into evidence, forcing us to confront and deal with them.
On the other hand, we have the following facts to counter this allegation:

3
Per the state’s pathologist who performed the autopsies, Dr. Golden.
4
Two of the wounds on the right side of Goldman’s torso are - assuming that Goldman was
facing his assailant, as knifing victims inevitably do - consistent with a left-handed forward
thrust.
5
The unlikelihood that a person of O.J.’s character would be capable of such brutality has
somehow devolved into a mystical certainty among many that he nonetheless is the perpetrator.
Most amazing to me is that many - indeed the majority - of my otherwise intelligent and
thoughtful friends have a knee-jerk certainty of O.J.’s guilt. I can only attribute this to a natural
tendency to infer guilt from the suicide escapade, despite O.J.’s clear declarations of innocence
to the contrary.

10
 1. O.J. - apart from the infliction of injury on Nicole - has no history of
resorting to raging violence to solve his emotional problems.
2. After a competent psychiatric evaluation - by Dr. Bernard Yudowitz, and
possibly others - I anticipate that it will become apparent that O.J. is not and
has never been psychotic. If this is the case, he would be incapable of
committing murderous acts of the type shown on the one hand, and
maintaining his generally affable affect on the other.
3. There had been no domestic physical abuse for many months at the time
of the murders.
4. The attendance at Sydney’s recital by O.J. and Nicole appears to have
been at worst chilly, and at best cordial. Nothing occurred there which
should have prompted rage.
5. The jealousy motive seems to be seriously undermined by O.J.’s lack of
reaction to the Keith Zlomsowitch6 - Marcus Allen7 liaisons; it is further
undermined by the obvious fact that he was trying to engineer a tryst with
both Paula Barbieri and another lady that very evening, prior to his expected
departure for Chicago.8
6. O.J.’s conduct from 10:55 p.m. on June 12 until the end of the day on
June 13, is completely consistent with his character, and with innocence.
More on this point under “Defenses - Demeanor”, supra.

III. The People’s Case: Since the fact of two murders is a given, the state’s entire
case will be devoted to linking the defendant with the crime, including a motive to

6
Keith was Nicole’s lover for a short time in early 1992 while the divorce machinery was
grinding. One night O.J. came to Nicole’s town house to visit, and saw Nicole performing oral
sex on Zlomsowitch in the living room. O.J. did not fly into a rage, but simply rang the bell.
The next day he remonstrated with Nicole and Keith about conducting themselves intimately
under circumstances where the children might walk in at any time. He treated Keith cordially,
according to Keith’s testimony before the grand jury.
7
Marcus Allen - star halfback for the Los Angeles Raiders - was O.J.’s good friend. At some
point, Marcus had sexual intercourse with Nicole, a fact which came to O.J.’s attention. Once
again, O.J. did not become enraged, but subsequently hosted Marcus’ wedding at his home!
8
I realize that O.J. is not too keen on the notion that he was soliciting “Kathy” that evening, per
her answering machine, particularly since he anticipates that Paula may be miffed. I nonetheless
think this frolicsome state of mind is a powerful - and perhaps essential - counterpoint to any
claim of jealous obsession on his part; after all, this a case where all the marbles are at stake, and
omitting helpful evidence for the defense is a woefully dangerous undertaking.

11
commit it.9 I anticipate that the state - which perceives itself to be weak - will
empty its garbage pit on the evidence table. I also anticipate that the judge will
adopt a laissez faire attitude with respect to admissibility; hopefully this trend will
emerge as a two-way street. In any event, I expect that the state will rely on the
following facts:
1. A left glove with the blood of both victims was found at the murder scene.
A companion right glove was found on the margin of O.J.’s home. Ergo he
dropped one at the scene, and the other while sneaking into his house to
avoid detection by one whom he then believed to be Dale St. John.10
2. A very similar pair of gloves (together with a second pair of some sort)
was purchased by Nicole in New York in 1992 on her credit card.11 We
should expect that a representative of the manufacturer (believed to be
Isotoner) will examine a blow-up of a video frame of O.J. on the sidelines of
a late-season NFL game, and declaim that the gloves he is wearing are those
purchased by Nicole.12
3. There is blood on the Bronco (and in it, see below), as well as on O.J.’s
walkway and inside his front door.
4. O.J.’s blood is seen (as established by routine serology at the Preliminary
Hearing, and since confirmed through RFLP13 testing at Cellmark) in four
9
I use the word “it” because I believe that both sides will take the position that Nicole was the
only target, and that Goldman was tragically incidental.
10
St. John had been his regular driver for some time, and normally came 15 minutes early to pick
up O.J. for a run to the airport. Typically, O.J. was late, and wound up “running through
airports” as in the Hertz TV advertisement for which he became famous. Because O.J. had
ordered the limo for 10:45, he would have expected it to arrive at 10:30. As it happened, St. John
was busy that evening and sent a youngster named Alan Park to do the pickup. Park - being
unsure of his geography - actually arrived at 10:25. This becomes a significant factor in the
TimeLine.
11
In answer to this claim, O.J. asserts that he has never been given a pair of gloves by Nicole.
12
I realize that this may seem a little far-fetched; however, complacency is our worst enemy.
We could be unpleasantly surprised by what a much-enlarged, digitized image can show.
13
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism, a genre of DNA identification testing; of the two
(the other is PCR[ Polymerase Chain Reaction]), RFLP is the more senior, and generally the
more unassailable. PCR has three sub-methodologies of identification. DQα (DQ Alpha) is the
most senior, and the most difficult to attack. D1S80 and Polymarkers are of more recent
vintage, and have more slender databases from which to draw statistical inferences. PCR testing
is mandated when the minimum sample (50-150 nanograms) of DNA material is unsuitable for
RFLP testing. PCR testing can - allegedly - be performed with only .5 nanogram (50 picograms)
12
 separate droplets at the scene.
5. Nicole’s blood is seen on a spot on one of O.J.’s dark blue socks14 - found
in his bedroom at the foot of the bed. Confirmed by RFLP testing at Cel-
lmark. Almost surely this was planted, since the droplet goes completely
through the sock at both ankles; ergo, there was no foot in the sock when the
blood drop was applied.
6. Nicole’s blood is found in the carpet of the Bronco, as confirmed by DQα
testing at the DOJ laboratories. Also present is a faint alleged shoeprint; the
state hopes to show that the imprinting sole is consistent with shoes that O.J.
purchased.
7. Goldman’s and O.J.’s blood - in a mix - are found on the right side of the
center console between the driver’s and passenger’s seats. This claim results
from DQα15 testing, is from a faint trace, and must be challenged as either
(1) inaccurate, or (2) planted by someone.
8. Nicole’s, Goldman’s and O.J.’s blood (a trace16) are found on the right
leather glove that Fuhrman claims17 to have discovered at O.J.’s home on the
morning of the 13th. The decision as to how to handle Fuhrman on cross at
the trial is critical, and one that is worthy of exhaustive discussion by all trial
counsel, the investigators, and O.J. A mistake in this area could be very
costly. So far, the press has opined that our implication of Fuhrman is

of specimen available, because of the ability through PCR to clone - and thus multiply - the
actual sample. Dr. Kary Mullis, who received the Nobel Prize for discovering PCR, will testify
for us that he would not trust the results of PCR testing in this case, because of the crude way the
samples were gathered.
14
It is ever to be borne in mind that this spot was most belatedly discovered, perhaps
symptomatic of deliberate evidence corruption by someone; in any event, a single droplet is
wholly inconsistent with an exposed sock a killer would have worn. That sock should have
evinced many droplets, and primarily those of Goldman.
15
For purposes of DQα testing, Nicole is a homozygote (1.1, 1.1); both O.J.(1.1, 1.2) and
Goldman (1.3,4) are heterozygotes
16
This is a product of D1S80 testing by the DOJ in Berkley. For D1S80 purposes, Nicole is a
18,18; Goldman is a 24, 24; and O.J. is a 24, 25.
17
In the present state of the evidence, I think we ought to restrict our speculation as to how the
glove arrived at O.J’s. place to the conclusion that Lt. Vanatter voiced during Shapiro’s cross
during the PH: “Somebody carried it there.” Since it wouldn’t and couldn’t have been O.J., it
was placed on his property by either (a) Mark Fuhrman or (b) the murderers. At least until
closing argument, we ought not to choose.

13
 “without substantiation”.18 Despicable as Fuhrman may be, I would hate for
the jury to come to the same conclusion.
9. We anticipate that various pieces of hair and fiber evidence will be intro-
duced as “consistent” with O.J., or the carpet in his Bronco, etc. From what
I have seen so far, if the blood barriers can be successfully hurdled, this
evidence will not carry the prosecution’s day. While it is not to be ignored,
it is less than critical at the moment.
10. We anticipate a plethora of “declarant” evidence from profiteers such as
Faye Resnick. These are people who will claim that O.J. announced to them
an intent to kill Nicole, and will attempt to testify that Nicole told them that
O.J. had threatened to kill her. Judge Ito’s ruling on the admissibility of this
hearsay will be most important; I think that in an abundance of caution we
ought to assume that it will all come in, and will have to be confronted. This
is dangerous ground, and a lot of work. Putting the wrong question to one of
these witnesses could invoke disaster. I would suggest that each of these
“opportunist” witnesses be assigned now to one of the cross-examiners who
will participate in the trial, and to one of the investigators as well; from now
until such witness takes the stand, the investigation and compilation of every
scrap of arguably relevant information needs to be relentlessly pursued, and
catalogued in the computer. Witnesses such as these normally have rich
lodes of scruffy details in their mines: We must mine exhaustively ourselves
to discover what may be out there.
11. There will probably be a potpourri of miscellaneous evidence offered to
link O.J. with the crime, and this can be sorted out and dealt with as it
appears. If the prosecution doesn’t make its case with the blood evidence
and/or the “opportunist” evidence, it will fail.

18
This is not to say that I agree with the press. The case against Fuhrman is not insubstantial.
He was drawn into a monstrous and obviously soon-to-be-front-page homicide. He knew the
Simpsons, having been involved with them in some fashion in 1985. He learned that the
eminence grise of LAPD homicide (Vanatter and Lange) were being brought into the case, which
meant that Fuhrman and Phillips (his partner) would soon be out, or relegated to a minor role.
Fuhrman suggested going to Rockingham (the recently revealed statement of the photographer -
Roarta? - is of interest here), and it was he - Fuhrman - who decided to climb the wall. It was
Fuhrman who “discovered” the bloody glove in the alley. He has - for better of for worse -
inexorably cemented himself into this case. If that was his purpose in acting as he did, one
wonders if he had completely forgotten the court papers wherein he tried to cadge a pension by
claiming that he had become a psychotically dangerous racist as a result of his police duties. Dr.
Yudowitz should have a look at this file.

14
IV. The Defense Case: The defense case consists of two distinct elements, to wit:
A. The defense evidence negating guilt.
B. The denigration of the People’s evidence.
The affirmative defense case is formidable, and is calculated to leave the jury in
this frame of mind: “Since the defense has shown that O.J. couldn’t have
committed these crimes, evidence suggesting that he did so is either (1) illusory,
(2) misleading, or (3) deliberately concocted. Our evidence can be described as
follows, in descending order of probative value:
Defense #1: Demeanor Evidence: From the time he is first seen by
limousine driver Park and Kato Kaelin, his tenant, at about 10:55pm, until he
is checked in at his Airport Hilton Hotel at Chicago’s O’Hare, virtually all
of the witnesses who see him at the LAX airport, on the American Airlines
flight to ORD, at the ORD airport (including another limo driver) and at the
hotel observe a relaxed, happy, affable O.J.; no one sees a distraught or
unnerved person who might have just experienced an unconscionable
trauma. However, after O.J. receives a phone call in his hotel room from
Detective Phillips informing him that Nicole has been murdered,19 his affect
reverses.
From this juncture forward, O.J.s demeanor is seen to change dramatically.
He slams a glass on the counter-top in the bathroom, and nicks a knuckle
sweeping the shards into the sink. Blood from this wound is found by the
Chicago Police on the glass fragment, on a pillowcase, and on a sheet. We
will run (hopefully) DNA tests of our own20 to establish that this is O.J.’s
blood, although there may be little debate on that issue. O.J. then places a
series of phone calls to make arrangements to go back to L.A., accepts a
coach seat on an American flight to LAX, packs, and goes to the front desk
to check out. He pushes to the head of the cashier’s line, declaiming that he
needs transportation to the airport at once. He requests a bandage from the
desk clerk for the bleeding knuckle, which he exhibits. He boards the
American flight, and by chance is seated next to a Chicago lawyer, a
Harvard guy, whom we have interviewed. The lawyer will say that O.J. was
totally distraught, and was making phone calls and asking questions only
19
According to O.J., Phillips told him little if anything about the manner of Nicole’s death, and
nothing about Goldman’s being killed also. While this may be commendable police procedure, it
significantly bolsters - in my view - the integrity of O.J.’s “solo” statement to the police later in
the day, wherein he repeatedly complains: “...you guys aren’t telling me anything about what
happened.”
20
One wonders why the prosecution has shown little interest in these tests.

15
 consistent with ignorance of what had happened to his former wife. Others
on the flight will corroborate this impression. Upon landing, O.J. was met
by Howard Weitzman (who had represented him during the “spousal abuse”
plea of nolo contendere in 1989) and Leroy “Skip” Taft, who carried him to
his Rockingham home. He was there confronted by Lt. Vanatter, who
wanted to take him “downtown” for questioning. Weitzman, who had a
conflicting engagement, advised against submitting to questioning in the
absence of counsel. O.J., however, felt a responsibility to assist the police in
identifying and apprehending the responsible party, and against his
attorney’s advice submitted to interrogation by Detectives Vanatter and
Lang. This was fortunate in several respects, and unfortunate in others.
Defense # 2: The Statement: On the good side, O.J.’s initial story to the
police is nearly bullet proof. With no chance to have dove-tailed his account
with Kaelin and Park, there is a near perfect fit between the three statements.
O. J. answers every question, volunteers his blood,21 and generally agrees to
all police requests. In summary, the statement speaks for itself, and the
affect reflected on the audio tape is - in my experience - compatible with an
innocent man who is in shock, and severely depressed.
Defense #3: The TimeLine: We have constructed a series of aerial photos -
O.J.’s house and surround on the one hand, and Nicole’s on the other - in
part to illustrate graphically the recollection of witnesses from that night’s
episode, as well as to demonstrate that at no time is there a “window” of
fifteen or more minutes when O.J. could have snuck off and committed the
crime. Showing these photos - side by side on mounting boards, and by
computer as well - and using different icons for each of the witnesses, we
will display a new set for each five-minute interval between 10:00 p.m. and
10:55 p.m. to show what is in essence an alibi for the crime. In some ways it
is a desirable alibi, because it is fragmented, and does not depend on the
credibility of a single witness. Further, some of these witnesses are total
strangers, who have never talked to O.J.. Properly orchestrated, this can be a
powerful garden in which reasonable doubt can grow and flourish.

(To Be Continued)

December 24, 1994

21
This of course was tragic. We will never know where that blood has traveled since June 13th
when it was taken, except for the fact that it walked around in Vanatter’s pocket like a rabbit’s
foot for a number of hours.

16
 Defense #4: Lack of Motive: The prosecutors are really reaching in trying to
conjure up a motive that would explain why O.J. would suddenly become so
enraged at Nicole22 that he would butcher the mother of the two small
children he adored. They will be at pains to define what in the world she
might have done23 which could have triggered such a white-hot destructive
emotion on his part, in light of his manifest equanimity when confronted on
two occasions with Nicole’s sexual expeditions.
Defense #5: Lack of Feasibility: Although I am sure that the prosecution
will have to speculate endlessly on this score, O.J. committing this murder in
this fashion at this place and time makes no logical sense whatsoever, to wit:
A. Assuming that Kato last saw O.J. at 9:37 p.m. just prior to placing
his first phone call since returning from MacDonalds with him in his
Bentley, and that O.J. is free to fulminate in some unforeseen mental
fire-pit in solitude, rapidly becoming homicidal, he would have to
decide to go kill Nicole with a knife knowing that Dale St. John could
be expected to arrive at 10:30 p.m., and would expect to find O.J. at
home to let him in the gate.24
B. The notion that O.J. would take his well-known face in his well-
known Bronco to 875 S. Bundy, park in the back alley, and walk
through the walkway to the Bundy side in order to lure Nicole outside
to her death is patently ludicrous. We will show beyond doubt that
there were many habitual evening dog-walkers in Nicole’s neigh-
borhood, any one of whom might have come by at any time. Virtually
any neighbor could be expected to recognize him at a glance. The
chances of pulling off such a murder without detection would seem
hopeless to anyone but a madman, and the evidence will clearly show
that O.J. is anything but.
Defense #6: The Testimony of O.J. Simpson: My first meeting with our
client last June was memorable in many respects, but I think the most
striking moment was when O.J. said, “Just let me get on that witness stand,
22
He evinced no signs of such a mood whatsoever during the time he spent with Kato prior to
9:37 p.m. that evening.
23
There will be no hard evidence that she even spoke with O.J. between the recital and his
departure for ORD, as I understand it.
24
It seems likely that if O.J. had formulated such a plan, he might well have asked Kato to be
alert for St. John’s arrival “...in case I am in the shower...”

17
 and let me tell that jury ‘Hey, this ain’t no crazy killer, this is just O.J., like
you’ve always known . . .” At that moment - had I been a judge sitting
without jury - I would have absolved him of any connection with the
murders. His tone, his inflection, and his accompanying facial expression
and affect were all in perfect harmony as he uttered those words. If we can
project that personality to the jury, we will need to concern ourselves with
the other evidence in a greatly reduced manner.
I think it inevitable that O.J. will decide to testify, and clearly that is his
decision to make alone, no matter what his lawyers say. With that in mind,
we should begin planning forthwith some educational sessions wherein O.J.
can learn the nuances of being an effective witness, and dealing with
questions, both friendly and hostile.25 Experience has taught that where the
defendant testifies:
A. If the jury believes him, acquittal is assured.
B. If the jury likes him, acquittal is probable.
Y. If the jury dislikes him, the case is in trouble.
Z. If the jury thinks he is lying, all is lost.
O.J., like every other honest but inexperienced witness who is new to
litigation, will need guidance and advice before being sworn.

V. The Defense Strategy: In my opinion, the defense in this case has been trashed
and pummeled in the press like no case in history. I continue to be astonished to
see otherwise semi-responsible newshounds throwing ethics, caution, and concern
for the truth to the four winds. For all he has been to society prior to these events,
O.J. deserved much better. However, that is water over the dam and if we have to
swim upstream, we can and will do it.
To couch the plan in terms which will be crystal clear to our client, we need
to grab the ball at the outset of opening statement, and run with it just as fast and
far as we can, knocking the opposition solidly to the ground at every opportunity.
The history of this case, and the evidence we have to show that this indictment and
trial is a miscarriage, warrant a demeanor of controlled indignance. This is an
important and admirable American sports hero and public figure who has brought
great credit to his country, and we need to return him to that status, enshrined in a
presumption of innocence, right at the outset of the case. This ought not to be a
polite request to the jury, but a formal demand supported by a foundation of
appropriate righteousness. It should be made crystal clear that this is O.J.’s very
25
As I have indicated before, Dan Leonard of my Boston Office is somewhat of a specialist at
this sort of grooming, and is available if selected to undertake this responsibility.

18
first chance to be heard, to tell his story, a story that will - as it is gradually
absorbed - demonstrate that the many in the media, fueled by law enforcement,
have misled the public about this case in a manner and to a degree worthy of
nothing more than contempt. They have done their reckless best to ruin him before
he ever had his day in court. He is a victim of their misconduct, and that of the
prosecution and police, who rushed headlong into murder charges they had hardly
tried to investigate in order to cover a miserable record of community failure in
other, prior cases. Their overwhelming political governance has left them with no
ethical remains, such that to save face they will try to put an innocent man in jail,
and allow two guilty killers to roam free, probably to kill again.26 The manner in
which the investigation in this case was botched from beginning to end - including
protection and preservation of the crime scene, intervention of the medical team,
letting the Bronco sit about for all to enter, delaying the blood testing
unconscionably, and “salting” the blood evidence to incriminate O.J. will be
described by historians as a blight on the face of justice. The overwhelming
evidence excluding O.J. as a suspect (which must be laid out in detail in the
opening, I think) was pointedly ignored by the authorities, even though it cried for
attention. We will show time and time again where police and prosecutors
deliberately avoided bringing to public awareness evidence that they knew would
make their case look foolish.27
At the end of opening statement we need to have the jurors thinking to them-
selves: If these people can prove half of what they’ve just told us, O.J. is outta
here!28
VI. Southeast Group - Tasks in Progress: In order to avoid duplication of effort,
I will attempt to set forth below the things that the “Southeast Crew”29 are un-
26
I realize that some of this rhetoric could be termed a trifle argumentative. There seems to be a
great variance among trial judges (even in a single jurisdiction) as to what the allowable limits
are in opening statement. I have found that if even the most hopped-up verbal shots are preceded
by “. . . and the evidence will show. . .”, most judges will permit one to continue.
27
Such as: O.J.’s blood on the drinking glass, sheets, and pillowcase in the Chicago hotel room
(we should DNA-RFLP this stuff at once); the testaments of the eastbound and westbound
American Airlines passengers and crew on the 13th; the numerous statements of witnesses at
Rockingham and Bundy whose evidence is plainly inconsistent with O.J.’s guilt.
28
None of the above will have much value unless and until it is translated into “Downtown”
dialect by our able colleague Cochran; given the makeup of the jury, he would probably be very
effective at delivering his translation himself.
29
John McNally, Pat McKenna, Howard Harris and myself.

19
dertaking during the next seven plus days. We have brought with us twelve boxes
of documents and a copy of the full hard drive from the master computer in
Howard Harris’ office in Century City. With these materials we expect to
accomplish part or all of the following:
A. The Prosecution’s Case: We will try to anticipate the presentation by the
prosecutors as best we can. We will make up a list of the witnesses they
ought to be calling30 and assemble as to each the documents and other
exhibits relating to that witness. We will of course list and organize - both
on paper and electronically - all prior known utterances of the witness, both
oral and in writing. The statements will be end-noted31 and cross-indexed
for conflicts and/or corroboration, both internally and as against other
witnesses and evidence. As to those witnesses deemed to be important
(Vanatter, Furhman, Resnick, Golden, etc.) suggested avenues of
impeachment will be set forth.

B. The Defense Case: We will attempt to give the same treatment to the
defense case, but slightly in reverse; that is to say, we will scrutinize our
witnesses to attempt to discern where they may be vulnerable, and what
should be done to minimize any cross-examination damage which is
inevitable. We will list those exhibits with which the witness ought to be
familiar by the time he or she hits the stand, particularly those exhibits
which need to be introduced into evidence through that witness.

C. The Computer: While John and Pat are combing the boxes, Howard and
I will be organizing the computer programs which we expect to utilize
before trial, and while it is in progress. When we return to L.A. in January,
Howard will load these programs into all of the individual computers which
are to be used at trial, and give a course - estimated to take four hours, with a
large-screen projector - to train those who will actually use the programs.
We will also fashion and fabricate the colored icons representing the
individual witnesses who will place their respective marks on the TimeLine
photos while testifying.

Please feel free to comment, criticize and add or subtract without limit. If O.J. has

30
Many of whom ought to be subjected to little, if any, cross-examination.
31
While footnoting may seem more convenient and attractive for this purpose, the use of
footnotes would disturb the pagination of the existing (and official) transcripts now in existence.

20
one strong force going for him in his quest for liberty, it is the quantity and quality
of intellect and experience which has been assembled to serve him, to RLS’
everlasting credit. Happy Holidays.
(END OF DOCUMENT)
------------------------------------

I. THE PROPENSITY AND MOTIVE: Although it not necessary to prove that

an accused had a motive to commit either charged crime, or a propensity to act in
the kind of violent way embraced by that crime, the fact is that detectives usually
look right at the outset at whether a suspect had either or both of these incentives.
Simpson had neither. The best the prosecution could do in these categories was to
argue that (1) Simpson had hit his wife early in January of 1989, a misdemeanor to
which he pleaded guilty and paid his penalty, and (2) that he was insanely jealous
of Nicole, and killed her in a rage. But the witnesses lent little credence to these
hollow claims:
A. DR. BERNARD S. YUDOWITZ
Dr. Yudowitz is not only a leading forensic psychiatrist, he in uniquely
experienced in one special respect: he has interviewed more than four
hundred men and women who have recently killed someone. For some
years he held a post as chief psychiatrist at the infamous Bridgewater State
Mental Institution in Massachusetts. By Massachusetts law, it was Dr.
Yudowitz’ job to examine all of those who had just been arrested for some
degree of homicide, to determine whether that person was competent to
begin a long trek through the legal system. In this capacity Dr. Yudowitz
got to learn a lot about the appearance, demeanor, and expressions common
to those who had just had the experience of killing another human being.
At my request, he spent eight hours examining Simpson in the Los Angeles
County Jail in December, 1994. He visited with John McNally, Pat
McKenna, Howard Harris and me in my West Palm Beach conference office
room for an hour on December 23. His brow was furrowed.
“I don’t know why they have this guy in jail,” he said. “He hasn’t killed
anyone.”
Because of the critical jury situation, we never got a chance to learn whether
Judge Ito would have allowed the jury to hear Dr. Yudowitz’ expert opinion.
However, it is clear that in order to rule, the judge would have had to hear an
offer of testimony from the witness stand. It is now obvious that the jury
didn’t need this testimony; but it is also clear that if the public had heard it
the very cogent reasons underlying Dr.. Yudowitz’ opinion - as it, but not
the jury, had heard the Fuhrman tapes - many would have taken a whole new
21
 and enlightened view of O. J. Simpson.
B. DR. LENORE WALKER
Dr. Lenore Walker, Ph.D., had become nationally known as an expert on
battered women, and the “Battered Woman Syndrome”. She was often
called on to explain why women who were continually beaten by their
husbands did not flee, or seek protection or sanctuary, or prosecute, due to a
state of emotional paralysis. During jury selection, Alan Dershowitz
suggested that she examine Simpson. Her experience was such that she
might be able to recognize the contrary of what she usually saw: a husband
who did not have the profile of a batterer.
She examined Simpson at the jail on January 15, 1995. On February 26, just
over a month later, she gave her report to the defense team. He definitely
did not fit the profile of a batterer who murders, she said. He had good
control over his impulses as well as his emotions. She elaborated on the
foundation for her views with confidence. She would, I believe, have made
an excellent and compelling witness, particularly for the millions of women
who had soured on O.J. amid the reports that he had beaten Nicole.
Unfortunately, like so many others who could have shed a whole new light
on People v. Simpson, justifiable panic over the juror attrition caused her to
be omitted.
C, KEITH DOUGLAS ZLOMSOWITCH
In early 1992, while her divorce from Simpson was dragging through the
courts, Nicole began a relationship with a restaurant person she had met in
ski country in Colorado, a man named Keith Zlomsowitch. From time to
time he would stay with her at her home, where she lived with the two
Simpson children. One evening late in April of that year, the two were
involved in an intimate exchange on the couch in Nicole’s living room.
Simpson came by - unannounced - for a brief visit with his children. As he
approached front door, he saw through the living room window what was in
progress. He pushed the doorbell button at the front entrance to the
apartment, and left.
Later, he remonstrated with both Nicole and Zlomsowitch for behaving so
openly when either child - or both of them - could have walked into the
room at any moment. Following a private conversation with Nicole after
Zlomsowitch left them together, Simpson emerged to speak to Keith. As
Zlomsowitch described his encounter with Simpson to a grand jury on June
21, 1994:

20 HE STUCK OUT HIS HAND TO SHAKE MY HAND, IN

22
21 WHICH I STUCK MY HAND OUT IN REPLY.

22 AND HE SAID, "NO HARD FEELINGS; RIGHT? NO HARD

23 FEELING?"

24 AND I LOOKED UP AT HIM AND I SAID -- I DON'T

25 RECALL IF I SAID, "NO HARD FEELINGS," BUT I SAID, "IT'S

26 OKAY," YOU KNOW, "IT'S OKAY," OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

27 AND HE SAID -- HE SAID, "YOU UNDERSTAND, YOU

28 KNOW, I'M A VERY PROUD MAN."

242

1 AND I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT HIS WORDS WERE

2 AFTER THAT, BUT HE SAID, "I'M A VERY PROUD MAN. YOU KNOW,

3 I'M VERY VISIBLE IN THIS COMMUNITY," OR SOMETHING TO THAT

4 EFFECT, I RECALL.

5 Q. ANYTHING ELSE?

6 A. NOT AT THAT TIME, NO.

7 Q. HE LEFT?
8 A. HE LEFT. YES, HE DID.

The public never heard from Zlomsowitch, even though his testimony would
have posed a powerful contradiction to the prosecution’s only claim of
motive: that Simpson killed Nicole because of a jealous rage. We had him
under subpoena and were prepared to call him, but like so much other
critical evidence, the threat of further erosion of the jury was just too great.
His subpoena was cancelled.
D. MARCUS ALLEN
Two of the greatest running backs in the history of the National Football
League - O. J. Simpson and Marcus Allen - were also close friends.
However, one day sometime after Simpson and Nicole had officially
separated, Marcus - according to papers filed in People v. Simpson and later
in a court in Kansas City (where Allen was playing for the Chiefs at the

23
 time) - had a sexual experience with Nicole. Ultimately he confided this fact
to Simpson. Although Simpson scolded Allen for jeopardizing his
impending marriage to his fiancée, he expressed no outrage at the intimate
congress which had occurred. He even thereafter hosted Marcus’ wedding
to Kathy at his home. What happened to this valuable testimony, once again
giving the lie to claims that Simpson was insanely jealous of Nicole in June,
1994? Two things: first, after Marcus declined an invitation to appear and
testify voluntarily, I went before a Judge in Kansas City to enforce the
California subpoena issued by Judge Ito The Kansas Judge declined to issue
the necessary order. Second, had we appealed and won, as we did in North
Carolina with respect to the subpoena for the Fuhrman tapes, we probably
would have had to drop Allen from the witness list just as we dropped
Zlomsowitch.
II. THE DEMEANOR EVIDENCE: In any homicide case where the suspect is
other than an experienced killer, the demeanor, or overall behavior, of that suspect
it one of the principal elements considered by experienced detectives. As Dr.
Yudowitz could explain in great detail, people who have just killed someone for
the first time act very differently than your average Joe who has just downed a hot
dog and a Coke. The experience dominates the killer’s persona, and manifests
itself through quaking, or a rush, or through a total lack of affect, an almost
catatonic state. Real killers are totally incapable of affability and light-heartedness
in the aftermath of the event. The demeanor evidence in Simpson’s case was so
strong as to be every defense lawyer’s dream.
A THE INTERROGATION OF O.J. SIMPSON
Although it was categorized separately in the December 21/24 1994 trial
outline set forth above, I will include O.J.’s experience with the police in
this segment, simply because it never made evidentiary status during the
trial, and the jury never heard or read of its contents. And, it is in fact
demeanor evidence of the greatest importance. It should be noted that
whenever a suspect sits down with police at the outset of a homicide
investigation, he is in the most grave peril if he has anything to hide. I do
not suggest by that assertion that only guilty people are in jeopardy; equally
likely to screw up his own case - royally - is the man who did not kill his
wife, but who was at the time of the murder in the No-Tell Motel with Suzie
Q., and lies about that. The detectives need not win any confessions or
admissions out of their interrogation session; they need only get some
statements from the accused that they can later disprove, such as a false
alibi.
To my colleagues who have had clients closeted with the police in the
24
immediate aftermath of a terrible crime, I need say no more than that the
statement was never offered by the prosecution. It was repeatedly offered
by the defense, and its admission was vigorously opposed by the prosecution
each time.
But to those readers not schooled in handling homicide cases, consider for a
moment the formidable situation a guilty Simpson would have faced for
three hours with Lange and Vanatter, talking into a tape recorder whenever
they chose to activate the “record” switch. Assuming that he went to
Nicole’s home in a high state of rage for some reason never to this day
explained, nearly cut her head off with a knife out near the front gate of 875
S. Bundy for any passer-by to see and hear, then was confronted before he
could leave with Ronald “Hey Hey Hey!” Goldman and got in a real fight
with him, inflicting seventeen wounds before Goldman was subdued, then
walking (not running, as the footprints showed - twice!) out to his Bronco
sitting in the alley behind the condo, then returning to the site to retrieve
something (perhaps the knife, or a right glove, or both), then driving home to
Rockingham, which would have taken at a minimum six minutes to cover
the two miles involved over heavily residential streets.
Simpson arrives at his home some time after 10:45 p.m. (see the Timeline,
below), at the earliest. He sneaks into the house carrying the bloody knife
and whatever towel or drop-cloth he was sitting on to protect the upholstery
of the Bronco from the gore dripping from him. He has no reason to know
that it is Alan Park, not Dale St. John, who has been sitting at his Ashford
Street gate since 10:25 p.m., waiting to be let in, and able to see clearly into
the front yard. Simpson parks the Bronco on Rockingham Avenue, and
walks across the lawn to his front door, bearing his weapon and other
accouterments in plain view. But wait! Before entering, he detours to the
pathway which runs along side the house opposite Ashford Street, to drop
the right-hand glove from the murder scene, knowing that if all else falls his
way, this glove will incriminate him.
In the few minutes remaining before he enters the limousine, freshly
showered at 10:55 p.m., he changes and washes, hides the knife and bloody
garments and towel in the house in a place where they are never discovered,
and psyches himself into wearing a jaunty affect. Arriving at the airport he
is so nonchalant as to give autographs at the curb, while American Airlines
is holding his plane for him. All the way to Chicago he comports himself
like a happy man without a care in the world, even chatting with the captain
and signing his log book. Upon arrival in Chicago in the wee hours of the
morning, his happy face continues. All an act, of course.
25
Once Ron Philips gets him on the phone in his hotel room and imparts the
tragic news - not news to Simpson of course - he puts on an act worthy of Sir
Laurence Olivier. He cuts himself, acts rudely in the hotel lobby in his rush
to get back to Los Angeles, which no one has asked him to do, and does not
attempt to reach either of his lawyers, Howard Weitzman or Leroy Taft.
During the flight he bests both Sir Alec Guiness and Sir Anthony Hopkins in
the little show he puts of on for lawyer Mark Partridge, sitting next to him.
He is met by Taft and driven to Rockingham, where he is handcuffed but not
given a reason. He does not yell for counsel. Weitzman shows up, demands
that the cuffs be removed, and they are, since there were no grounds to arrest
Simpson. Over the protests of his lawyers, Simpson insists on going down
to police headquarters with two grizzled homicide detectives, to match wits
with them.
Though neither Tom Lange nor Phillip Vanatter is likely to displace
Sherlock Holmes in the annals of detective brilliance, they are no dummies
either. The net result of their unfettered interrogation of O.J.? They extract
from him a sheepish admission that a piece of jewelry he gave Paula
Barbieri was originally intended for Nicole, and please, guys, don’t let on to
Paula...
Any defense lawyer in any court in the world would be overjoyed to
have a transcript of a non-lawyer-aided interrogation such as this one to
wave before his jury. We never got that chance. However, the reader
should not be similarly deprived. The entire record of that interrogation is
published as an appendix in the back of this book.
B. CAPT. WAYNE STANFIELD
When Simpson left Los Angeles for Chicago shortly before midnight on
June 12th, 1994 to play golf for Hertz, he rode in the first class cabin
on American Airlines Flight 215, an MD-80, which actually lifted off the
runway at 11:56 p.m.. The captain in command was Wayne Stanfield, right
out of central casting; tall, fit, a nice-looking man with the de rigeur
“straight teeth and a crooked smile”.
He knew of course that he had a famous passenger on the flight, and he was
a Simpson fan. After the plane was level, cruising and on autopilot,
Stanfield grabbed his pilot log book - a treasured item no pilot likes to be
without while flying - and went back to the first class cabin to meet O. J. He
introduced himself, and they chatted for the better part of thirty minutes.
During this time O. J. autographed Stanfield’s log book, and wrote in the
inscription: “Peace to you”.
It should be noted that although the horrors of 9-11 were more than seven
26
years in the future, hi-jacking airliners had been in fashion for at least twenty
years. Airline pilots were trained to be observant, and to pick up the
slightest nuance which might indicate that a passenger has something
untoward on his mind. This is not a special effort, but an ongoing instinctive
practice. Every pilot flying a jet has nightmares about being given a change
of destination with the muzzle of a pistol at the back of his head.
During their time together, Stanfield was able to discern that Simpson had
no cuts, bruises, or unusual marks about his body, and that he was relaxed,
affable, and polite. Any notion that Stanfield might have fabricated or
exaggerated this visit was put aside by Simpson’s autograph, which
Stanfield showed to the jury. This was the establishing point of this
relationship. There was no attack of any significance on cross-examination.
Our most important and believable eastbound demeanor witness had
delivered without a blemish.
C. MARK PARTRIDGE
One of the most important witnesses for the defense who did get to testify
was a Harvard-educated Intellectual Property lawyer from Chicago named
Mark V. B. Partridge. On the morning of June 13, 1994, Partridge was
flying from Chicago to Los Angeles on business, on American Airlines’
9:15 a.m. flight.
Simpson, upon being told by Detective Phillips by phone that Nicole was
dead, immediately made arrangements to get back to Los Angeles as soon as
possible. He called American Airlines, where he held a first-class return
ticket for a later time, and had to accept a seat in coach, in the first row aisle
on the right side. Because it was an emergency exit row, there were only
two seats instead of three on each side. He was seated next to Partridge, “on
the bulkhead”.
Simpson began to monopolize the sky-phone, which was accessible directly
in front of him. From Simpson’s tone of voice, and his side of several
different conversations, it was apparent to Partridge that Simpson was trying
to get information about some cataclysmic event. He told Partridge that his
ex-wife had been killed, that they had been together for either seven or
seventeen years and had two children, and that he loved her very much. As
he talked to one person and then another, including several conversations
with “Skip” [Taft, his business lawyer], he became more and more
distraught, and told Partridge: “they’re blaming me for this ...”
Partridge made notes of some of the phone numbers Simpson called. He
recommended that Simpson get “someone with a clear head” to meet him at
the terminal at Los Angeles, since there would likely be hordes of media
27
 people there. He gave Simpson his business card before they parted.
On June 15th, now aware of what the media were saying happened,
Partridge sat down and wrote a six-page double-spaced memo recounting his
recollection of the events of the flight. He sent a copy to both sides
(prosecution and defense). His final observation in the memo was that
Simpson “seemed like a man who didn’t know what had happened”. From
the defense perspective, this was a beautiful establishing point for the origin
of Partridge’s testimony, which thereby became totally unassailable.
I have the memo and will set it forth verbatim in the book.
III. THE TIMELINE: One of the most compelling defenses that can be asserted
in a criminal case is an alibi. Since most people will accept the fact that no
individual can be in two different places at the same time, proof that a suspect was
elsewhere when a crime is committed usually ends the case against him. Like
other issues in a criminal trial, an alibi can be proved by direct evidence - that is, a
witness or witnesses who say they were present with the accused when the crime
was occurring somewhere else. Desirable direct alibis include being in the Vatican
in the presence of His Holiness, or being in a high-security jail.
Indirect, or circumstantial, evidence may also provide an alibi, usually
referred to as a Timeline. In cases such as these, no one person is able to place the
accused somewhere else at the time of the crime. However, a combination of
demonstrable facts may - when linked together - make it clear that the accused had
no opportunity to commit the crime, and couldn’t have been at the scene.
The use of an alibi defense - although powerful when it can be properly
made out - has a couple of down-sides which go with the territory. First, it is the
most often concocted defense of them all, and is frequently the product of
subornation and perjury. Judges and juries are apt to scrutinize alibi defenses with
great care, and often grave doubt. Second, most innocent people - where nocturnal
crimes are concerned - don’t have a very powerful alibi. They are either in bed
asleep, or with family or loved ones who have a lot to lose if the suspect goes to
jail, and thus do not make very impartial or credible alibi witnesses.
Simpson had no alibi witness as such. He was seen by Kato Kaelin at about
9:37p.m., and then by Alan Park, the limousine driver, at about 10:55p.m.. During
the interim he was alone, either in the house or out in his yard, practicing golf
swings for the game he expected to play the next day in Chicago for the Hertz
company. His story as to what he was doing during that period - just over an hour
- is set forth in good detail in his statement to Lange and Vanatter. Had there been
no homicide, his activities were what one might expect with the current trip
looming: packing, showering, puttering about.
But a homicide did occur - two homicides at the same place and nearly the
28
same time - and one of the victims was Simpson’s former wife, while the other was
a bare acquaintance who was friendly with the former wife. To determine whether
Simpson could possibly have been a candidate as the perpetrator, as the
prosecution claimed, a close examination of the known facts and surrounding
circumstances must be undertaken, to see whether or not a Timeline can be seen;
and if so, whether there is room within the time period involved for Simpson to
have committed the crimes.
We have two possible starting points: one can say that Nicole was last seen
alive at 10:00 p.m. by the witness Lang, last described below, or - perhaps more
usefully - one can say that murder had not occurred at 10:25 p.m.
A. DANNY MANDEL & ELLEN AARONSON
Danny Mandel was employed at Sony Pictures in the finance department,
and was at the same time pursuing a Master’s Degree in Business at UCLA.
On June 12, 1994, Danny had a blind date with a young lady named Ellen
Aaronson who lived on Darlington Avenue, a stone’s throw from Nicole
Brown Simpson’s condominium. Mandel drove to her home, arriving about
8:30 p.m., then walked with her to the same Mezzaluna Restaurant where
Nicole and her mother had eaten dinner earlier, and where waiter Ron
Goldman came into possession of the eyeglasses that Juditha Brown had left
behind. The pair had dinner, and paid their check at 9:55 p.m. (according to
the time-stamp on the credit card receipt) because their waitress was going
off-shift and wanted to close out. Mandel and Aaronson remained another
ten or fifteen minutes chatting. The restaurant had few patrons while they
were there; they did not see Nicole or any of her family.
When they left Mezzaluna, they walked along South Bundy back toward
Darlington. They passed directly in front of Nicole’s sidewalk gate at 10:25
p.m.. There was no commotion, no people visible in the area, and no blood
on the sidewalk. Based on the totality of the evidence later catalogued at the
murder scene, Nicole Brown Simpson was still alive at that hour. As the
two approached Aaronson’s apartment, it was 10:30 p.m. Neither had been
much enamored of the other, and both looked at their watches frequently.
Neither had heard any voices, or dogs barking, or other disturbance as they
visited together for a while in Ellen’s apartment. One of Ellen’s room-mates
- Jean - arrived at 10:35 p.m. The other, Jennifer, came in at 11:00 p.m.
Danny left to drive home.
Both Danny and Ellen made their observations known early on to the police,
creating establishing points for their later testimony. Both were treated less
than politely by the prosecutors, who inevitably saw them as big trouble for
the prosecution’s theories that the murders happened no later than 10:15
29
p.m.
B. DENISE PILNAK
Denise Pilnak lived diagonally across the street from Nicole, about a block
and a half to the south. She had been employed by a high-tech publishing
company for ten years. She was single, and lived alone. On June 12 she had
gone to church at about 5:30 p.m., then had dinner with her family at
Louisa’s restaurant on San Vicente Boulevard, nearby. When she returned
to her home at 9:30 p.m., she found her friend Judy Telander using her
computer. Denise announced that she was getting ready for bed, and Judy
completed a print job she had in progress, then left the house. at 10:21 p.m.
Denise’s mother and another friend had left three minutes earlier at 10:18
p.m. Between 10:33 ad 10:35 p.m., Denise heard dogs barking loudly. This
noise continued until 11:20. p.m. Denise finally went to bed at 12:30 a.m.
on the 13th. She told police officers what she had observed and heard at
10:15 a.m. on June 13th, thus creating an almost immediate establishing
point for her story. Judy Telander corroborated all that Denise had to say
about Judy’s activities that night.
C. ROBERT HEIDSTRA
He had lived alone in an apartment on Dorothy Street for seventeen years.
He was born in France, but had become a naturalized citizen of the United
States. He had his own business detailing automobiles for the well-to-do
residents of the neighborhood. He had two dogs - a Collie and a sheep dog -
whom he walked on a regular basis. His name was Robert Heidstra, and he
was probably the only witness to the Simpson-Goldman murders, not with
his eyes, but with his ears.
On the night of June 12th, 1994, Heidstra was walking along an un-named
alley which was close to and parallel to the east side of South Bundy Drive.
Nicole’s front gate was no more than one hundred feet away, and Heidstra’s
hearing was unimpaired for a man in his fifties. At 10:35 p.m. he heard
Nicole’s Akita - whose bark he recognized from his thrice daily walks with
his own dogs - barking in what Heidstra described as an hysterical and
panicky manner. He was sufficiently concerned that he changed his route to
avoid 875 S. Bundy, fearing that his own aging and much smaller dogs,
might run afoul of the upset Akita.
At 10:40 p.m. he heard two adult male voices. One was clearly shouting
“Hey! Hey! Hey!” The other was talking fast and indistinctly, saying
words Heidstra couldn’t decipher because of the barking dog. It sounded
like an argument.
Then Heidstra heard a loud “clang” as if an iron gate were being slammed
30
shut. The dog barking continued. Heidstra took his dogs home. The next
morning, while shaving, he heard the news of the murders.
On June 21, he was interviewed by Officers Payne and Parker of the LAPD,
and thus made an establishing point for his story. He was subsequently
taken down to the District Attorney’s Office by Payne, where he spoke with
Marcia Clark and William Hodgman. He was never subpoenaed by the
prosecution.
D. WILLIAM BODZIAK
Special Agent Bill Bodziak was the FBI’s point man in the area of foot
prints and foot impressions. The distinction between the two lies in the fact
that prints are two-dimensional like finger prints, and impressions are three
dimensional as where a foot steps in wet sand. Hard surfaces like concrete
do not yield foot impressions
At first blush, and despite the fact that he was the author of the leading text
on the subject, Bill Bodziak did not do a lot to enhance the prosecution’s
case. The bulk of his testimony related to the scene at Bundy, and the fact
that there were bloody foot prints leaving from the bodies along a walkway
to the rear of the condo, where it was apparent that the killer(s) had parked a
getaway car. Bodziak described the impressions as having been made by a
large shoe identified as having been manufactured by “Bruno Magli”. This
was of little concern to the defense, since the only Bruno Magli product that
could be tied to O.J. was a pair of bedroom slippers found in his closet,
which had soles completely different than those of the shoes Bodziak was
describing. Bodziak, like many of the experts, had arranged for large
graphic drawings to be created in order to illustrate his testimony. One of
these showed the murder spot near the sidewalk on Bundy, the place where
the getaway vehicle had been parked during the killings, and the areas in
between, where the foot impressions were carefully drawn in.
Bodziak was my witness. I saw no need to attempt to impeach anything he
had said on direct examination, since he had not hurt Simpson’s case, but
one item I noticed on his large graphic aid seemed worth a little exploration.
I asked him whether or not it was clear that a certain trail of bloody foot
prints, becoming more faint as they walked away from the pool of victims’
blood, were the Bruno Magli sole prints he had identified. He conceded that
I was correct.
“And would you agree with me that there were two such trails?”
I asked, innocently. Bodziak was suspicious as to where I was going, but
answered in the affirmative.
“Was each trail made by a pair of Bruno Magli shoes?” I went on.
31
 “Yes”, he agreed.
“Do you think that two killers managed to get hold of two identical pair of
Bruno Magli shoes, and wear them to the scene?” I inquired.
Bodziak snorted disgustedly, as though he were being annoyed by
foolish questions from some cretin (he knew of our two-killer hypothesis,
and was set to pounce on it). “Of course not,” he said, as if speaking to a
stupid child. “That’s ridiculous!”
“Then you would agree, Mr. Bodziak, would you not, that one killer wearing
one pair of Bruno Magli shoes, left the scene, leaving a bloody trail of foot
impressions as he went, and then returned, leaving no impressions as he did
so because the blood was worn off his soles, and then left the scene again,
leaving a second trail very similar to the first?”
“I would,” said Bodziak.
“And then you would agree, I assume, that a killer probably left the scene,
then went back to get something he thought important, retrieved that item,
and left again, yes?
“It’s possible,” conceded Bodziak, now wary once again.
“To your knowledge no murder weapon has ever been found in this case,
true?”
Bodziak had little choice but to say that such was the situation as he knew it.
“And it is apparent, Mr. Bodziak, that as lights began to come on and dogs
were barking, whoever went back to the scene ran some risk that he would
be seen and identified?”
Bodziak still didn’t quite grasp the import of where I was headed, but agreed
with my suggestion. He waited for my next question.
I sat down. Tempting though it was to ask one more leading question,
asserting that a face as famous as that of O. J. Simpson, who was doubtless
well-known to Nicole’s neighbors, would hardly take that risk, I thought it
better to leave the matter for final argument. I also chose not to debate with
Bodziak what the return trip to the scene by the killer did to bolster our
“timeline” defense.
IV: THE PLANTED EVIDENCE: The fact that police officials plant evidence
to incriminate a suspect does not necessarily mean that the suspect is innocent,
although that is often the case. In the case of notorious gangsters, drug kingpins,
and other professional criminals, law enforcement officials have been known to
“seed the ground” with incriminating evidence, excusing their conduct with the
twisted notion that the “...end justifies the means...”
But the notion of framing a citizen like O. J. Simpson, who had no criminal
past and was well-liked by the police, is all but unheard of. Who would set such a
32
dastardly strategy in motion? Who would approve it? How could one know that
prosecutors would not catch wise to such a ploy, and reject it, perhaps even
prosecuting the culprit planters? These questions scream for answers in the
Simpson case, since beyond question there were at least two attempts to frame him
with seriously incriminatory pieces of physical evidence.
A. THE SOCK
If the question as to whether someone attempted to frame Simpson by
planting the right glove outside his home on Rockingham Avenue remains
open, the matter of the sock is not. It is a slam dunk case of not only
planting, but creating evidence. It was an incredibly sloppy piece of work.
Some one in the LAPD had video-taped Simpson’s master bedroom at his
home, panning the camera about the room to catch everything viewable.
The carpet at the foot of the bed comes into frame, and there is nothing on it.
Hours later, a Simpson sock is discovered at the same place on the carpet
which had been vacant before. This sock had a large blood spot on it, later
confirmed by RFLP testing to be Nicole’s. Looks like a bad piece of
evidence against O.J. Must have gotten splashed with a single drop of her
blood while killing Nicole, right?
Wrong!
This particular blood spot appeared on both sides of the sock. The spots
were a match in size and location, as well as content. Obviously someone
had dripped a droplet of blood on the sock when there was no foot in it, then
placed it where it would be discovered, and implicate Simpson. That
someone necessarily had access to Nicole’s blood, i.e., a member of the
LAPD32. That someone must also have been aware of the earlier videotape
showing “no sock”. Dr. Herbert MacDonnell, an internationally known
expert on such matters, buried the prosecution on this issue. There never
was a response or explanation of any kind offered to the jury. Someone, had
tried to frame the defendant, usually but not always, something that is done
to suspects whom the police know to be innocent.
B. THE GLOVE
By far the most crucial piece of evidence in the case for the prosecution was
the blood-marked glove allegedly found by Mark Fuhrman in a narrow, dark
pathway between Simpson’s home and a chain link fence on his property
line, in the early morning hours of June 13, 1994. The facts surrounding that
“find” are worth of extremely close scrutiny.
32
During the civil case, evidence developed to show that detective Vanatter had possession not
only a vial of Simpson’s blood, but one of Nicole’s as well.

33
The evidence establishes, without much question, that the murders occurred
at about 10:35 - 10:40 p.m. on June 12th. Fuhrman was called, and arrived
on the scene at 2:10 a.m. on June 13th. He was an officer with a bad racist
record, who had been criticized by his superiors for ignoring lesser duties
while trying to make “the big arrest”. For a short time, he and his partner
Ron Phillips were the lead detectives in the case. When Fuhrman referred to
a leather glove he saw at the murder scene at the Preliminary Hearing, he
used the term “them”. The police vehicle to which he had access had
“baggies” to preserve evidence as part of its standard equipment.
At 2:45 a.m., while Fuhrman was sitting on a couch in Nicole Brown
Simpson’s living room making some notes, Ron Phillips came in to
announce that Captain Spangler was sending two senior detectives from the
Robbery-Homicide Squad at Parker Center in downtown Los Angeles to
take over the case; he and Fuhrman were out of what Fuhrman would later
describe on tape as “the biggest case of the century”.
Detectives Tom Lange and Philip Vanatter arrived sometime thereafter, and
Fuhrman was given no duties to perform. At about 5:00 a.m., he suggested
that a call be paid to Simpson’s house on Rockingham Avenue, almost
exactly two miles away. He even offered to lead the way; he knew where it
was, because in 1985 he had gone to that house to answer a complaint by
Nicole. When he arrived, he was told that there was no complaint pending,
and he could leave. He did note that a black man and a white woman were
living together, a circumstance he detested. Indeed, when in early 1989 he
learned that Simpson had been charged with a misdemeanor for striking his
wife, Fuhrman volunteered to testify against Simpson. His offer was
ignored.
When Fuhrman and the other detectives arrived at Simpson’s home shortly
after 5:00 a.m., Fuhrman went alone to look at the Bronco which was parked
on Rockingham Avenue, at the end of the driveway. What he did there
remains a unsettled, but at the Preliminary Hearing he made reference
something “in the Bronco”. At the trial he swore he hadn’t even looked in
the Bronco.
Then, at about 5:15 a.m., while his colleagues were trying to get someone to
respond to the doorbell by pushing the button at the Ashford St. entrance
gate, Fuhrman vaulted the wall surrounding the premises. He later claimed
he had gotten Vanatter’s approval to intrude on private grounds, and
although Vanatter covered for him, that approval is most doubtful. If
Vanatter had admitted that Fuhrman had acted on his own, the glove
evidence would almost surely have been excluded as the product of an
34
illegal search and seizure.
Fuhrman, Vanatter, Lange and Philips entered the house, and roused Kato
Kaelin and Simpson’s oldest daughter, Arnelle. Philips tracked down
Simpson in Chicago, and told him Nicole was dead. He did not mention
Goldman.
Acting on his own once again, Fuhrman left the house and disappeared for
fifteen minutes. When he returned, he announced a find, and took each
detective - individually - to a place in a narrow, dark corridor between the
wall of the home and a chain-link fence running along the property line.
There he pointed out to them a man’s leather glove, shaped for the right
hand, which glistened; it was moist with human blood. It turned out to
match the left-handed glove left at the murder scene at 875 South Bundy
Drive.
On July 14, 1994, a week or so after the Preliminary Hearing had been
concluded, Newsweek and The New Yorker magazines both broke a story
headlining Mark Fuhrman. Eleven years earlier, it seems, Fuhrman had sued
the City of Los Angeles, asking in essence that he be retired early with a
disability pension. He claimed that he had become so enraged during his
dealing with minority youth gangs - mainly African-American - in the course
of his duties, that he was no longer fit to continue. His hatred for these young
men was so deep- seated, he asserted in an affidavit filed with the suit, that he
might be unable to contain himself.
In fact Fuhrman did have a very deeply ingrained detestation not only for
black people, but for Jews as well. We had information that he had sought a
police position in South Africa through that country’s Embassy branch in Los
Angeles, because he understood that “...you could shoot niggers there, and
nothing would happen....” He also perceived Adolf Hitler as an heroic
person, and lamented that his ethnic cleansing project of the Jews was never
completed. There was testimony that Fuhrman kept a copy of Hitler’s Mein
Kampf! on his mantel, with the cover - not the spine - facing out. He also
supposedly decorated his Christmas tree with small, stainless steel swastikas.
Just two weeks following the publication of magazine articles, Fuhrman had
his last recorded conversation with Laura McKinny, the writer who had
repeatedly interviewed him on tape over a ten-year period. It took place on
July 18, 1994. Two statements Fuhrman made during that conversation
would seem to be of cardinal import. McKinny had asked whether the
exposure of his stance on racism might get him removed from the case.
Fuhrman brushed the notion aside:
“I’m the key witness in the biggest case of the century. If I go down, they
35
lose the case. The glove is everything. Without the glove -- bye, bye.”
Then a few minutes later:
“The funny thing about it is, just like the attorney said, ‘for the rest of your
life this is you, “Bloody Glove Fuhrman”. If you don’t make it
payoff, you’re going through all this for nothing. So, go for
Shapiro, he’s an asshole.”
In view of his acute awareness of “the glove” and it’s importance to the
prosecution’s case, one should note his response when he was asked by me in
March, 1995 (Transcript page 18625):
Q. “ Did you believe that you would be an essential witness if you were the
first to find an important piece of evidence?
A. Well, I couldn’t make that determination at that time, sir. I didn’t even
know what the implication of the glove was.”
This was of course the same Detective Fuhrman who described his first
perception of a glove(s) at the murder scene on Bundy by saying “them”,
during the Preliminary Hearing
It must be noted that chemical tests for the substances on the glove, and
attempts to identify possible sources of those substances, were not
undertaken until more than two months later, in October, 1994. And yet
Fuhrman already knew that this glove would be the subject of the principal
effort to connect Simpson to the murder scene. How did he know that? How
could he be so sure - in July, 1994 - that some other evidence, such as a
bloody knife with traces of the blood of both victims on it, wouldn’t be found
before the trial commenced, and thus attenuate the prosecution’s almost total
reliance on “the glove” from Rockingham.
Another critical matter concerning the right glove was its condition when
“found” by Fuhrman, then by other detectives, and when retrieved and
bagged by the Crime lab of the LAPD. The “substance” coating its surface -
later clearly identified as human blood - was still moist!
If O.J. had dropped the glove, it could have been no later than 10:50 p.m on
June 12th, since he boarded his limousine for the airport five minutes later.
That would have left it exposed to the atmosphere until at least 5:30 a.m on
June 13th. when it was “discovered” by Mark Fuhrman. Experience, as well
as all I could read on the subject, convinced me that under those
circumstances the blood would have dried. I decided to conduct an
experiment, which we videotaped.
I had Pat McKenna buy a pair of men’s leather gloves, black in color, on the
afternoon of June 12th, 1995. That evening at 10:30 p.m., in Simpson’s
Rockingham kitchen, we had Dr. Robert Huizenga draw three cubic
36
centimeters of blood from McKenna’s arm. The doctor smeared part of the
blood on each of the gloves. He then sealed the right glove in a plastic
“Ziploc” bag, similar to the bags kept in the trunk of detective’s vehicles in
the LAPD Both the exposed glove and the bagged glove were placed in the
exact spot that Fuhrman had identified as where he made his “find” in the
pathway a year earlier. Their presence was monitored periodically
throughout the night to ensure that there was no tampering.
At 5:30 a.m. on June 13th, 1995, McKenna and I returned to Rockingham.
We photographed the gloves before disturbing them, then opened the bag
containing the right glove, and photographed it again. The blood on its
surface was still wet. The blood on the left glove was completely dry.
The results of this experiment never were heard by the jury.
Finally, during the June 15th testimony of one of the prosecutions’s glove
witnesses - Richard Rubin, president of the company that had manufactured
the “Aris Lite” men’s glove such as the ones found at Bundy and
Rockingham, Judge Ito took a recess. I took advantage of the moment to try
on the “Rockingham” right glove which had been marked in evidence. I
have a perfectly average size nine hand, which is regular in every way. I
found the glove to be a very tight fit.
O. J. Simpson is a very handsome man, who has a large head and very large
hands. He could wrap either hand around a football the way “Sweetwater”
Clifton of the old Harlem Globetrotters basketball team could envelop a
basketball, pretending to dribble vigorously while never letting go of the ball.
Those whose adulation for the National Football League goes back to the
Simpson era will recall that he rarely fumbled. His hands were just too big to
allow the ball to be pried away. I was convinced that if they were tight on
me, they would look ridiculous on Simpson. A demonstration of that fact
would be far more telling if it were staged by the prosecution, rather than the
defense.
Rubin’s was Chris Darden’s witness, and I had learned long before that if one
wanted to cause Darden to do something silly, a press of his hot button would
do the trick. While the recess was still in progress, I walked up to Darden
and said:
“Chris, you’re a good shit, but you’ve got the balls of a stud field mouse.”
Predictably, he was infuriated. “What the hell do you mean by that?” he
demanded.
“What I mean ,” I replied, “is that you don’t have the balls to make O. J. try
on that glove. If you don’t, I think I will....”
Darden immediately assumed that Rubin would be my witness on cross-
37
 examination, which was not the case. As Judge Ito made his way back to the
bench, Darden charged and caught him half-way up his little stairs.
“Judge,” he spluttered. “Mr. Bailey just told me something, and I want the
defendant to try on that glove.” Like so many who act impulsively when
goaded, Darden got his wish. Simpson was brought before the jury, and
plainly showed that the glove could not be his. This result was seen
repeatedly all over the world. That night the press was chanting that the
defense may have turned the case around in its favor.
There would seem to be but three possible explanations for the presence of
the glove at Rockingham in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994:
1. O. J. Simpson put it there deliberately, for some unfathomable
reason. Due to its small size, as the world saw, it is doubtful that
Simpson could ever have worn it for any purpose.
2. Whoever killed Nicole and Ron Goodman took it from the scene and
put in this unlikely spot, hoping to draw suspicion away from himself
and toward Simpson.
3. Mark Fuhrman, upon discovering that his moment of glory was to
be denied him by the “old pros” from Parker Center, decided to embed
himself in the case. Grabbing a plastic baggie from the trunk of the
police car, he scooped the right glove from the scene, and tucked it in
his pocket or perhaps his sock, as Marines often did with their
cigarettes. Fuhrman suggested the trip to Rockingham, and led the
way. Fuhrman went alone to the Bronco, then jumped the perimeter
wall. Fuhrman went alone to the dark pathway, was gone for fifteen
minutes, and then “discovered” the glove after removing it from the
baggie, still moist. Fuhrman was both supportive of and experienced
in planting evidence to frame people, as he boasted for Laura McKinny
during taped interviews. Fuhrman knew that there was incriminating
blood residue on the glove at least two months before the police lab
ever examined it. And when asked if he had planted evidence in the
case, Fuhrman ultimately took the Fifth Amendment, then pleaded
guilty to perjury.
V. THE BLOOD EVIDENCE: Throughout the trial the press immersed itself in -
and endlessly assured the public - the notion that there was some “mountain” of
blood-related evidence which conclusively showed Simpson’s guilt. In so doing
these reporters (with a very few prominent exceptions) ignored other evidence
which showed that Simpson must be innocent, much of which is described above.
Although the blood evidence aspect of this case is complex and will require
some explanation, see footnote 13 on page 13, above, basically it fell into three
38
categories:
1. It was correctly collected, tested, and identified, but these results did little
to help on the question of guilt or innocence, or
2. It was correctly collected, tested and identified, and seemingly
incriminated Simpson, but the blood had been planted by a policeman, or
3. The blood was incorrectly gathered, handled, and was subjected to PCR
testing because of the minute quantities involved. It could not have been
correctly identified under those circumstances. On this issue, we were loaded
for bear, but never got to pull the trigger.
From early in the game, as my memo of December 21/24, 1994, shows, the
defense considered itself fortunate to have Dr. Kary Mullis in its corner. He had
received the Nobel Peace Prize for developing a process called Polymerase Chain
Reaction, (PCR) which enables small specks of DNA material - blood, saliva,
semen, etc. - to be multiplied through a “cloning” application, in order that the
sample could be tested. The standard laboratory test to identify a person’s DNA is
called Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP). But to use this process
one must have a substantial sample to work with - say, a droplet of blood - or fifty
to one hundred fifty nanograms. PCR, on the other hand, can be performed with as
little as half a nanogram - one one-hundredth of the RFLP minimum.
Dr. Mullis had reviewed the laboratory results and pronounced that the police
PCR work should not be allowed in evidence in court when the samples tested had
been gathered from the field. The likelihood of contamination, he said, was too
great in every case of field sampling. In this particular case, however, he thought
the collection methods used by the LAPD were so sloppy and unprofessional that
this factor alone would negate the value of any PCR results that might be obtained.
In addition to being a brilliant scientist, Kary Mullis was a bit of a hoot. He
had spoken about his adventures with LSD (before using that drug became illegal)
and expressed doubt as to whether the HIV virus caused AIDS. Johnnie Cochran
was a little curious as to how the good doctor might show on the witness stand,
especially since a special prosecutor named Rocky Harmon was telling the world
that he was going to skewer Mullis on cross-examination. Cochran was not much
moved by Harmon’s bluster, but asked if I would visit with Mullis and give him a
confidential appraisal of the man. From what I had read and heard, I was more than
pleased to accept the assignment.
An appointment was set to meet and chat at Mullis’ home, on the ocean in La
Jolla. When I arrived, the front door was wide open, and a friendly young man in
his twenties greeted me. Dr. Mullis was out surfing, he explained, but should return
presently. He pointed to a figure a hundred yards or so out at sea on a surfboard.
I entered the kitchen, and the young man reached into the refrigerator and
39
withdrew a glass of red wine. “Dr. Mullis left this for you to sip on, in case he was
a couple minutes late.” I mumbled a “thank you”, but my attention was much more
drawn to several dozen photos, each affixed to the refrigerator door with a magnetic
clip. Every photo depicted a different pretty, well-formed and nude lady, ranging in
age from the early twenties to late forties. I was studying one after another quite
intently when there was a voice behind me:
“See anyone you recognize?” asked a male voice with a pleasant lilt to it. I
turned to greet the doctor himself, still dripping in his bathing suit, his wet curly
grey hair an attestation to his recent water play.
“If I did I’m not sure I’d dare say,” I replied. “How the hell do you get away
with showing a display like this? I should think some might object - loudly!”
Mullis shrugged. “If I have a complaint, I can remove that one and put it
away. There are some others in the drawer.”
We spent a delightful afternoon talking about the case, and a few dozen other
things. My assessment was that the jury and the public would love him and believe
him, and that if Rocky Harmon went after him in some offensive way, Harmon
would sprout horns on the spot. I passed this very positive assessment along to
Johnnie. But once again - even for a witness of such importance - there wasn’t
time. The world never heard what he had to say, which would have gone a long
way to show the press-created “Mountain” of blood evidence for what it really was
- a Potemkin Village.
VI. THE DEFENSE SMART BOMB: Perhaps the most important witness in the
Simpson case - who may well have seen the killers or their confederates - was
Thomas Lang, who lived about two blocks south of Nicole’s condo at 875 S. Bundy
Drive in Brentwood. It was a great irony that he shared his name (with a minor
spelling variation) with Tom Lange, the Senior Detective in the case. Tom Lang
the witness could have trashed the efforts of Tom Lange the detective with a few
minutes of testimony, which would have been all but unassailable on cross-
examination. Indeed, so critical did I think that the testimony of Tom Lang would
be that I had my one and only disagreement with Johnnie Cochran about whether or
not we should call a witness. Johnnie was the chief, and he eventually decided that
Lang would not be used. Because of the result in the case, his decision cannot be
faulted, based as it was on the probability that if we called Lang, the prosecution
would stretch the trial out ad nauseam, and thus get the mistrial - through jury
attrition - they so badly wanted.
If given the decision to make, I would have called Lang. He was, I thought,
worth whatever risk was involved. People asked me then, and have continued to
ask for eleven years, “... well, if Simpson didn’t do it, who did?” Tom Lang could
have come closer to answering that question that any other person involved in the
40
case. He could not have identified the killers later in a lineup, as he admitted from
the outset. He could have said decisively that neither of them was O. J. Simpson.
On the night of June 12th, 1994, Tom Lang and his wife had returned to their
home at 975 South Bundy Drive from a trip they had taken together. Tom decided
to take his dog for a walk. His wife, who was trying to decide whether to unpack
her things or leave the chore ‘til morning, noted the time as ten o’clock.
As Tom left his house, he turned left (northwest) on South Bundy drive and
walked toward the intersection of Dorothy Street, about six hundred feet away. His
dog, a large Rhodesian Ridgeback, was not on a leash. Almost immediately, Lang
heard loud voices, as if some people were either partying or arguing. As he drew
closer he saw the front of a white Ford truck parked on the west side of South
Bundy on the north side of the Dorothy intersection. He had owned no less than
eleven Ford trucks himself, and thought this one to be a model F-350.
There was a female on the sidewalk with long, blonde hair, wearing black
clothing, talking with a male person standing in the street beside the truck, partially
obscured by the open truck door and by a palm tree growing in the space between
the sidewalk and the street/ She had an angry look about her. Northwest of her, on
the sidewalk near the entrance to Nicole Simpson’s property at 875 South Bundy,
was a male person. He was standing in a somewhat crouched position, facing
toward the blonde woman, in what Lang thought to be a “menacing” posture.
Lang was concerned that his dog might frighten some of those he was
viewing, and for that reason turned left on Dorothy Street, thus avoiding any
encounters. He heard no more loud voices, and continued on his way, then returned
to his home. He left for work the following day, unaware that anything calamitous
had occurred in his neighborhood the previous night. When he learned what had
happened via media broadcasts, he realized that he had probably seen Nicole Brown
Simpson talking to someone shortly before she died. On the next morning - June
14th, 1994 at 10:00 a.m., he sat down and wrote out in his own hand a detailed
account of what he had seen and heard. He included a sketch which retraced his
steps as he had walked past the blonde woman and the two males, and sent a copy
to the police. This memo was the establishing point of his account of the events we
witnessed.
Lang’s employer - the owner of the *** hotel in Santa Monica, was also a
lawyer; when Tom told him what had seen, the lawyer suggested that he describe
his recollection for a tape recorder while they were still fresh in his mind. This
recording was made on Friday, June 17th, in the lawyer’s office, thus creating a
second establishing point. I have both the hand-written statement and a transcript
of the recorded statement.
Officer David Payne of the Robbery-Homicide division of the LAPD
41
interviewed Lang on June 20th, 1994, at 8:30 p.m. Lang offered to retrace his steps
of the night of June 12th for officer Payne, who declined the invitation. Payne then
filed a one-page written statement allegedly summarizing his interview with Lang
(which report I have, with Payne’s signature). Some parts of Payne’s report were
accurate, and other parts were quite inaccurate. These discrepancies may have been
just sloppy police work, or they may have been deliberate, On the day of Payne’s
interview of Lang, his superiors had already arrested Simpson and charged him with
murdering Nicole. Lang’s evidence, if found to be credible, badly undermined the
prosecution’s case. In my view, and that of my investigators, there was no more
credible evidence in the entire case than the account given by Tom Lang..
Johnnie did not let Lang’s testimony go by the wayside easily, not by any
means. The final decision was a cliff-hanger of the most classic kind. It occurred
at the ** hotel in Santa Monica at a Sunday morning brunch on **. Johnny was
present with **, Tom Lang’s employer-lawyer, myself, Carl Douglas (the case
manager from Cochran’s firm) and Pat McKenna, who had interviewed Lang on
three separate occasions. We reviewed everything that Lang had said, and
compared it with all the other testimony relating to the night of the murders. It
was, in essence, flawless. McKenna and I argued long and strenuously that Tom
Lang should tell the jury and the world what he had viewed and heard.
But Johnnie was concerned about the “white truck”, despite the fact that Lang was
quite sure that it was a Ford F-350, which does not look much like - head-on or
otherwise - a Ford Bronco. He had visions of Marcia Clark or Chris Darden
bellowing in cross-examination that Lang had in fact seen O.J.’s Bronco, and that
O. J. was the man behind the passenger door. He also could see Officer Payne on
the witness stand, swearing before God and everyone that Lang had told him on
June 20th that the Ford could have been a passenger vehicle. Johnnie’s nightmare
was that while all of this melee was in progress we would lose three more jurors, or
that we would lose them thereafter, and before the case was over, thereby giving the
prosecution the mistrial it so badly wanted.
To my knowledge this is the first time that ninety-nine percent of the world
has ever heard of Tom Lang, the witness, and what he knew about the murders of
Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
VI. THE POLYGRAPH: Many have let me know in one fashion or another that it
seemed anomalous to them that I did not follow up on the aborted polygraph
examination initiated by Dennis Nellany on that fateful night of June 14th, 1994.
Because I have had such a close relationship with polygraph testing in so many of
my cases - famous and not-so-famous - the assumption has been that I knew
Simpson couldn’t pass, and was therefore ducking the subject. Since much of what
has transpired since the trial in this particular arena has been out of public view,
42
most have little idea as to just how wrong their assumptions are.
After O. J. was released from prison, I kept an eye out for some propitious
opportunity to revisit the issue of polygraph testing. I had no doubt that he could
pass a properly administered test, easily as to any involvement in Ron Goldman’s
death, and ultimately as to the death of Nicole. Simpson still had - as he had
evinced in private conversations throughout the trial - strong feelings for his dead
former wife.
During the civil trial in Santa Monica, in December, 1996, opportunity
knocked at the door. Plaintiff lawyer Daniel Petrocelli had brought out that Robert
Kardashian was present during Simpson’s original test attempt in June, 1994, and
got before the jury the notion that Simpson had allegedly “failed”. Why in the
world presiding judge Fujisaki allowed the evidence to come in is a mystery to this
day, but I pounced on the chance to retaliate. I spoke immediately with Simpson,
lead defense counsel Bob Baker, and my former partner Dan Leonard who was now
working for Baker and trying the case with him. Petrocelli had opened the door.
We would march through it.
I contacted Robert Brisentine, one of the most experienced and respected
examiners in the world. While working for the Army as Chief Polygraph Examiner
- “the other side”, in lawyerspeak - he had tested my client, Captain Ernest
Medina, who had been charged with over one hundred murders and other offenses
in connection with the infamous “Massacre at My Lai 4", a small village in Viet
Nam where infants, women and elders were annihilated by American soldiers.
Brisentine had been impressive through the most difficult test I have ever
witnessed, which took four days. I wanted an examiner who had never been hired
by me, or testified as my chosen expert. Bob agreed to test O.J. at my Boston
Office during the two-week Christmas recess in the trial which was about to begin.
Because of the intense airline passenger traffic at that time of year, we made
immediate arrangements to get both men to Boston. When the defense began its
case in January, Simpson’s trial team would have a surprise for brother Petrocelli.
But the fickle finger of fate intervened. Bob Brisentine’s wife became
critically ill a few days prior to the scheduled test, and he called to say that he could
not leave her side. The polygraph examination was postponed, with plans to run it
when Mrs. Brisentine was better, in Los Angeles.
Apparently, during the recess, Judge Fujisaki had had a mighty change of
heart. He ordered the reference to the “lie detector” already in the record to be
stricken, ordered the jurors to disregard it, and forbade all lawyers and parties to
ever mention the term again in his courtroom. My quest to find another examiner
was stalled.
At a later time, I approached the editor of the National Enquirer with a
43
proposal. Normally, if I contemplated initiating an arrangement for a client’s
benefit with a newspaper, ii would be one of journalistic prestige such as the New
York Times, or the Chicago Tribune, or the Washington Post. But this was a
situation, I thought, more suited to the likes of the Enquirer. I wanted some money
put on the table, a lot of money. But not for Simpson or myself.
When an unsolved crime of these dimensions is “out there”, there are
normally only two ways that it can be cracked after an unsuccessful prosecution. In
the first instance, some loser gets caught red-handed in a serious criminal act, and is
invited to “give us some one big” so we can “cut you some slack”. This is by far
the most common means of solution for unsolved murders, especially notorious
ones. But in Simpson’s case, the chances of the Nicole Simpson-Ron Goldman
murders being solved in this fashion was and is remote, even foreclosed.
The LAPD had arrested Simpson prematurely in what Johnnie Cochran
constantly reminded their brass was a “rush to judgment”. They had sent the
prosecutors to trial with what every true expert saw as a tragically anemic case, with
very little substance and a plethora of doubt. Now, let’s say that Sergeant Smith of
the Malibu Division snares Edward, a cocaine Don,, and invites him to “rat out”
some of his more high-ranking confederates for some crime of greater significance.
Edward has a bomb. He confides to the Sergeant Smith that he knows - and heard
him admit it - that Alphonse Garcia killed O. J. Simpson’s wife. He even saw the
bloody knife and clothing several hours after the killing. Trouble was, Garcia had
killed the wrong woman by mistake, and then this other guy came along, and would
have been a witness, so Garcia had to kill him too, although it took some doing...
Smith probes further. Everything he is told rings a corroborative bell. He has
a chance to crack “the case of the (last) century”. But then he realizes that this can
never be. The LAPD would have little stomach for indicting itself for one of the
worst investigative blunders in history, by formally accusing another of the crime
for which O. J. had been acquitted. If Smith were to identify Edward and his story,
Edward will not be long for this world; perhaps Smith would be helped to depart as
well. Edward’s story is lost forever to history. So much for the “snitch” option of
bringing the real killer(s) to book.
But the second method is viable: the cash reward! Some months ago the tidy
sum of twenty-five million U.S. dollars was paid to the person who told the United
States where Osama Bin Laden’s top lieutenant, Al Zaquiri, could be found and
bombed to death. Money almost always talks. The National Enquirer frequently
had its check book at hand if something exciting and exclusive should present itself.
It happened that at the time this idea occurred to me, I lived in Manalapan,
Florida, a stone’s throw from the national headquarters of the Enquirer. If they
were to double-cross us in any way, I could get them into a Florida State Court in a
44
hurry, where they might have trouble finding a sympathetic jury. But of much
greater importance, their law firm was Williams & Connolly in Washington, the
prestigious group of lawyers that represented Newsweek, the Washington Post, and
other notable clients. Edward Bennett Williams, the firm’s founder, had been my
hero when I was in law school. I had the honor to have lunch with him the day after
I took the Bar Examination in 1960. I had worked with the firm on more than one
occasion. I trusted them. With them involved and O. J.’s approval, I cut a deal
with the Enquirer.
O. J. would take a polygraph examination on the issue as to whether or not he
had killed his wife by an examiner of their choosing, so long as he or she was
experienced, a Full Member for more than ten years of the American Polygraph
Association, and of good reputation. The Enquirer would have the exclusive right
to attend and report on the examination, whatever the result, and to videotape it if
they wished.
If Simpson passed, the Enquirer would offer a reward of two million dollars
cash leading to the identification of the perpetrator or perpetrators of the murders.
A notice of this reward, to be paid wherever someone entitled to it might specify,
was to be widely published by the Enquirer. Very simple. Perhaps reward money
would do the trick. Fortuitously, with no prompting or information from me, the
Enquirer selected Bob Brisentine as the examiner they would like to use. I was of
course delighted.
And then, for reasons which to this day I do not begin to understand, a short
time before the deal was to be consummated, the Enquirer ran one of its famously
insulting stories about Simpson’s daughter. He was understandably enraged. Any
trust he might have been trying to muster - and trust is not easy to come by when
dealing with the “supermarket tabloids” - was shattered. We agreed that the deal
was off. Perhaps the Enquirer had thought we might see success, and didn’t want
to lose the money, but I doubt it. Cracking the O. J. Simpson Murder Case would
have been worth many times that modest sum to any newspaper, especially one like
the Enquirer, which flogs its stories again and again.
A number of experiences, most of them sad, have befallen O.J. Simpson
since that aborted effort to allow him to show his innocence to a worldwide
audience. I am convinced that he sits in jail today because a jury in Nevada
believed it was punishing him because he “beat the rap” for these two murder
charges, and a number of Nevada judges who said - astonishingly - that he had been
accorded a fair trial. But so long as I am alive, there will be one person - aside from
Simpson himself - who “knows” from the evidence that he did not kill Nicole
Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

45
-30-

46