Traditional Christianity

I grew up in Waukesha, Wisconsin, population around 20,000.  I attended First Methodist Church from 1^st grade until I left to finish my bachelor’s degree in Madison at the university.  So from 1941 until 1957, my religious tradition was that of the Sunday School, choir, youth fellowship, and church services at First Methodist, visiting other churches with my friends on occasion (Catholic, Presbyterian,Episcopal, Baptist, Congregational, Reformed, and Lutheran).

Every church as well as mine seemed to have the same basic traditional teaching:  God is love, the Golden Rule, and the Two-fold Commandment.  All straight from the Bible, all beyond our ability to be perfect about, but all something we were to strive for.  And we knew that was possible because so many of the adults we knew were way better at them than we as kids were.

There were differences especially with the Catholics who had their own school and confession and unmarried priests but outside of that, you could hardly tell the difference among us.  

From first grade, we all were taught Jesus’ parables.  We all knew the parable of the Good Samaritan.  By the time I was of confirmation age, I was aware that the parable arose out of a typical argument among rabbis who were searching for the key to their own religion.  For Jews, it was “Which is the greatest law?”  For Jesus it was the Two-fold Commandment, “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.”   

Like the one who questioned Jesus about it, I too wondered if I could love all of my neighbors.  That was pretty easy.  I knew the folks who lived on our street, and around the corners off both ends of its one block length.  I knew all the kids in my Sunday School class and most of their parents.  I knew the kids in my class at school and some of their parents too.  We had Jewish, Mexican, African American, and Italian classmates.  We got along.  

There were two kids I avoided.  One had a funny shaped head and talked a little funny.  He turned out to be a really sharp and friendly guy, I found out after thinking about him as a neighbor.  The other kid was a bully and I finally decided to walk home from school with him one day in sixth grade and met his mother.  He and I never became friends but I discovered he was human.

That is my religious tradition.  No one was really not my neighbor.  Some I just had to get around some mental obstacles in myself.  

Jesus had a way of changing the question.  His rabbi challenger asked “Who is my neighbor?” almost as if he could exclude some people like foreigners, people of other religions, particularly that mixed breed known as Samaritans.  Jesus turned it all around.  He told the story of the Good Samaritan.  And then he put in the zinger, “Who was neighbor to the man struck down by thieves?”  Jesus wanted all of us to be neighbors to anyone around us.  We were to be neighborly toward, to love as God does, everyone who is nearby.

That is my understanding of Christianity.  It goes back in my lifetime to 1941 when I first remember encountering the nature and purpose of being a Christian.

It seemed to me that all my friends and neighbors, Jewish, Mexican, whatever, were on the same page.  Growing up meant getting better at treating one another with respect and offering help in time of need.

That was and is and always will be my understanding of Christian tradition.  

So if someone demands I follow their tradition which excludes others and allows mistreating them, that really bothers me.  It is one thing to be trying to figure out what is the best way to treat murderers and other people who harm anyone.  It is another to make it lawful to set up a segment of people for discrimination, for exclusion from being treated with respect and being given help in time of need.  I don’t care if some part of the Bible is quoted to allow that discrimination.  What makes the Bible the Word of God for me is that part which Jesus said was the most important, Good Samaritan and all.  Everything else in the Bible must then be understood in light of that, as we have done with left-handed people, people who eat crustaceous seafood, slaves, those who blend cloth, and those who have divorced.  

That is traditional Christianity to me.  All this stuff that has been harped on since 1972 somehow does not fit my understanding of Christianity.  I have no trouble living and working with those who think that 1972 stuff is terribly important.  There are so many things going on that differences of opinion on what is Christian tradition usually doesn’t matter.  We’re being neighbors to one another on everything else that is really important.  

In Christian tradition, it is out of mutual respect that we exchange views on differences of opinion and try to find a better way to deal with them.  I’d tend to think in terms of “live and let live” unless somebody was suffering harm because of the behavior in question.  Where there is harm, we had better relieve it rather than perpetuate it or initiate it.

So, if someone thinks my tradition causes harm, tell me what that harm is.  And if I perceive a harm being done by someone with a different Christian tradition, I will do my best to point it out respectfully.  And if we can’t alleviate the harm being done, then maybe we have to go back to Jesus and ask once again, perhaps in more modern terms, “What is the best basis for Christian tradition?” 

ESPN on OJ

I have found that ESPN has done some interesting work in its ten hour five-part series on OJ Simpson.  It has done a good job detailing OJ's rise to fame and the development of the antagonism between the LA police and the Black community in Los Angeles.  And did you notice where Nicole came onto the screen dribbling a basketball. She was strong, athletic, and in physical control. Nothing meek and mild about her in that scene.

But the series is making the same mistake all the other specials have made, talking only with friends, police, and reporters who are in essence testifying with hindsight without being cross examined by an advocate for OJ. Of course that makes OJ look bad. He may have been bad but we are getting no relief from the drumbeat about spouse abuse from only Nicole's side, with OJ's being dismissed completely.

At least that is what I have seen in the first two installments. I will comment further if I have anything to add.

The People V. . . . What if he confessed?

My friends that believe OJ did it wonder if anything could change my mind.

"What if he confessed, admitted that he had done it?" they ask.

My answer is that he'd have to answer several questions because I couldn't believe him based on the evidence.  Where did he remove the bloody shoes, and clothes?    When did he change out of them?  Where did he hide them and the knife?  How did he get the coroner to write phony autopsies?  How did he hide the dog bites when Kato charged out after him?  How did he hide the bruises and abrasions from Ron's "hell of a fight?"  How did he get the bloody right hand glove onto the walkway behind Kaelin's guesthouse?  How did he get the Bronco back to the Rockingham gate without the limo driver seeing or hearing him drive up?

Give me time and I could come up with more questions.

There are things I take as facts: the police photographer's video from the morning after the murders that showed OJ's bedroom to be orderly, immaculate, and no socks on the floor; the autopsies as printed in the book KILLING TIME are duplicates of the coroner's actual reports; Ron and Nicole were not passive victims but would have fought back;  OJ did not have a mark on him from a fight to the death;   the detectives involved in the case presumed OJ was guilty and planted evidence to implicate him; and there wasn't time for OJ to do everything required if he were the killer.

 I have already explained some of these when I was critiquing the various episodes so let me focus on the video, the autopsies, and the timeline.

During the Esquire playing of segments of the original trial, a video taken of OJ's bedroom the first thing on the morning of the 13th was shown to the jury by the defense.  The video was taken by the police photographer when he first arrived at Rockingham.  The camera panned from the entrance to the bedroom all the way across the room to the headboard of the bed.  It showed the room to be completely in order as if the maid had just finished cleaning it, nothing on the floor, not even a ripple on the bedspread, no dark smudges, and no clothes hastily thrown about the room.  It showed that after showering, dressing, and packing for the Chicago trip, OJ took time to make sure the wrinkles on the bedspread had even been smoothed out and everything he might have rejected as unnecessary for the trip was put away.

The video shows that OJ was a neat freak, that he would have taken time to be sure the room was neat, and that there were no bloody socks lying in the middle of the floor.  (As pointed out earlier in this blog, the bloody socks appear in another police photo taken around 5 pm.)  If it can be shown that the video was taken at a different time such as days before or after the house had been cleaned after the police were done with their investigation, then I would reconsider my  opinion.

The autopsies to me are absolutely critical to my argument that OJ didn't do it.  Upon review, the two show three different knife blades, they show stabbing and not slashing as the way the killings occurred, and they show the two victims fought back, causing some real injury to whomever attacked them.  If it can be shown that those autopsies were not authentic and the real autopsies provide different information, then I would reconsider my opinion.

There was insufficient time between when OJ tried to call Paula Barbieri at 10:03 pm on his cell phone and 10:54 when the limo driver saw him go into the mansion.  He would have had to kill two energetic, physically trim younger people; fight off a dog; walk slowly to the front at Bundy and also to the back leaving the Bruno Magli bloody tread marks both ways; leave only trace amounts of blood in the Bronco; stop the Bronco to get out of the bloody clothes and change into the dark outfit the limo driver saw at 10:54: go behind the house to accidentally drop one of the murder gloves; hide the knife, clothes, and shoes someplace no one has found them to this day, and bleed profusely on the driveway at Rockingham.  From 10:54 to 11:15, OJ would have had to change out of the dark clothes he wore according to the limo driver's testimony, hang them up, take a shower, get into his travel clothes which included a white shirt, straighten up the bedroom, stop the bleeding of his finger, talk with Kaelin briefly about the bumps on the wall, help load the limo, and leave in the limo by 11:15.

Let's look at the things a little more closely.  It would take about five minutes each way to go from Bundy to Rockingham.  It takes about ten minutes to change from one set of clothes and shoes to another.  That leaves about 31 minutes to stab to death two active people fighting back; drop the bloody glove behind Kaelin's guest house; hide the bloody clothes, shoes and weapon(s) so that they have never been found.  And that is presuming a killing time of 10:15.  It also presumes that everything goes right like all the stop lights being green, no one interrupts him, the shoes laces not snaggling, and the cuffs not hanging up on hands or feet, etc.

If the killing time is 10:35, that means OJ would have had five minutes to get back to Rockingham and 14 minutes to do the rest, with the same potential for disruptions.  If he did not stop to change and hide the weapon et al, he would have had to do those at Rockingham between 10:54 and joining Kaelin in the kitchen at 11:05 to look for the flashlight before he could get the suitcase and clubs into the limo.  Even my friends who claim to take a two minute shower would not have been able to disrobe, shower, dress, clean up his bedroom, get rid of the bloody stuff, drop the glove out back, stop the finger's bleeding, etc. and leave by 11:15.

If it can be shown how OJ could have done all that in either time frame, and still get out to the limo immaculately dressed for the Chicago trip, then I would reconsider my opinion.

I do not think I set too high a bar here.  I can be proven wrong.  But please bring proof on those three points.  You too, OJ, if you want to confess.

The People V. . . . Episode Ten (II) Jury's Verdict

OJ didn't do it.

Episode Ten provided specifics for why the jury found reasonable doubt in the case against OJ.  The viewer had to be paying close attention when they were listed in the jury scene.   Four important items were noted: there were no bruises on OJ, there was no blood on the floor of the mansion, there was no blood leading to the glove behind Kato's guest house, and the gloves were not inside out.  Let us look at each.

One, in the video of the real trial, pictures of OJ's face, torso, arms. legs, and hands were shown to the jury at the beginning of the trial during the defense's opening statement and again in the closing statement.  It was clear that there were no bruises or other signs of his being in a life-or-death fight with Ron Goldman in the Bundy condo's small garden area.  Those pictures were not shown during the series on FX but OJ's condition was referred to in passing in the second episode.  I already indicated this as a major problem for the prosecution.  I noted Detective Lange's observation in the HLN series when he said Goldman put up "a hell of a fight."  The quick one liner in Episode Ten that OJ had no bruises indicates it was a real issue with the jury.  They saw no evidence that that fight was with OJ.

Two, there was no blood on the carpet in the mansion.  In the real trial, Johnny Cochran's closing argument reminded the jury that at Rockingham none of OJ's blood was found anywhere else but the kitchen, the front hall, and the driveway back to the Bronco.  That was explained by OJ's jamming his finger in the Bronco getting out his cell phone when he hurriedly grabbed for it when getting ready to leave for Chicago.  

The jury's observation was that there was no blood anywhere else in the house, not OJ's, not Nicole's, nor Ron's.  If OJ slipped into the house at 10:54 pm with bloody clothes on, how come there was not a drop on the carpet toward the stairs up to his bedroom, on the carpeting on the stairs, on the hand rail, on carpeting in the hallway, on the bed or on the carpeting in the bedroom?  The prosecution claimed there had been blood in the Bronco so why not where OJ went to change out of the bloody clothes and showered?  And, especially, why was there no blood on the carpeting beneath the one object in the bedroom that had blood on it, a pair of OJ's socks?  

The prosecution started out with the premise that OJ was finished killing by 10:15 (the wailing dog timeline) and had time to dispose of the bloody clothes and knife before returning to Rockingham.  However, Marcia Clark later claimed that OJ would have been recognized if he had stopped anywhere on the way home.  That allowed her to change the murder timeline to 10:35 when another witness said the dog howling began.  But that meant OJ would be in bloody shoes and clothes when he entered the house.  And there was no sign of blood anywhere else in the house.  That observation, as scripted, was very brief but it was loaded with the implication that OJ did not go upstairs after he bloodied his finger getting his cell phone and therefore the socks had to be planted.  Clark failed to prove OJ was ever in bloody clothes in his house and now was saying he could not have dumped them because he would have been recognized.  That provides reasonable doubt.

The third observation, there were no drops of blood near or on the way to the bloody glove that Fuhrman found.  The jury, as shown in the series, saw no drops of blood leading from the Bronco to the right of the garage and back to the pathway where the glove was found.  The drops were only to the left toward the front door.  Whose narrative was more likely true, OJ's about stubbing and bloodying his finger or Clark's that OJ dropped the glove on the way to bury it out in the back somewhere?

And fourth, the gloves were not inside out.  That was the hardest to comprehend given that the series writers did not show at trial how OJ took off the gloves that were too tight.  We saw it in the real trial video.  He was able to slip out of them only by pulling at the fingertips of the gloves one at a time.  According to Clark, the left glove fell off during the fight by Ron pulling it off his hand at the "V" near the palm.  But if the glove was as tight as that Aris glove was made to be, it would have rolled up OJ's hand like a latex glove and come off inside out, in a ball.  Both gloves were right side out.  There was no way they came off accidentally.

I mentioned in another post that pictures of the crime and evidence were in front of the jurors for months and they had time to notice such things.  That was shared by Armanda Cooley in the book MADAM FOREMAN.

Whether or not OJ faked the fitting of the gloves at trial so they just looked too small, they were made to fit tightly and that meant they would not come off accidentally right side out.  Defense said they were planted and that narrative made more sense than Clark's explanation.

While it wasn't mentioned specifically beyond the general phrase, "the prosecution failed to make its case," the blood evidence that the prosecution thought was a mountain was doubted by the jury.  The defense was able to show it had been tampered with and all three detectives and the main criminalist implicated themselves in testimony to have done inexplicable things that tainted the credibility of all of it.

Based on the above evidence, the jury had more than reasonable doubt.  I believe they proved OJ could not have been the killer and that the blood and fiber evidence had all been planted.  That made the decision very easy for the jury.  That's why the verdict and paper work took less than four hours.  

Because no further investigation occurred, the LAPD left the world with no answer to the question, "If not OJ, then who?"  By refusing to consider anyone else, they let everyone presume OJ was the only possible perpetrator.  

That left no closure for the families of Ron and Nicole.  And it let the real killers off.

I think the series shows that there was reasonable doubt.  I think that the jury made a legitimate decision based on what the evidence showed.  I think they made their decision separate from the emotional pressures of racism and spousal abuse fervor.  

Those who watched the series and chose not to pick up on the clues the writers left will not think the jury was fair.  The raised fist by the black male jurist for OJ to see was only a personal sign of support from him to OJ.  It could easily be read as proof of the race card paying off in a case that the jury was solely influenced by racism.  Even the clear evidence about Fuhrman could be discounted because of the technicalities around the use of the Fifth Amendment.

I have laid out my arguments that OJ was innocent of the murders.  I think the series writers felt obligated to include grounds for reasonable doubt while focusing on the great and dramatic issues of the times.  I appreciate their larger vision.  Even if they had tried harder to show his innocence, there are too many unwilling and unable to accept it and would discount it anyway.  

That OJ did not do it will probably have to be shown another time in another way.  I'd like to think this set of postings will be persuasive but I know better.  Maybe another trial and the conviction of the real killers might settle the matter but even that will not do it for many.  Sometimes the myth is stronger than the truth.

Thanks again to FX, their sponsors, and all who put this series together.  It was riveting drama and provided a lot of insights about the complexities of American life.



    

The People V. . . . Episode Ten (I) Comments

Before discussing the jury's decision and whether or not the series provided reasonable doubt, a lot of things can be said about "The People V. O. J. Simpson" series.  It deserves plaudits for its creativity, quality, and class.  And it needs to be commended for inclusion of important details that are not usually present in other tellings of this story.

Having watched Esquire channel's use of the tapes of the actual closing arguments, I was pleased at how the series writers condensed the lengthy, repetitive, and verbose statements of the lawyers at the original trial. They were summarized succinctly and adequately.  

The dialogue about resignation between Marcia Clark and Chris Darden probably never happened but the series writers brought out the themes they had been displaying throughout the series, the struggle for justice for battered women and for blacks confronted by police.  As was reported at the end, Clark and Darden resigned from the Los Angeles DA's office for the reasons each said in the script.  Clark was beat up by the experience but has gone on to not only write but establish a law office of her own concerned about domestic violence.  Darden did not have the stomach for the culture of image,  politics, and career emphasis in that job.  

I also liked the use of the gift of the puppy to OJ (something I have not heard of before) to be sure he always had a friend.  That was a foreshadowing of what OJ would soon face.

The most difficult to get across was how Robert Kardashian, OJ's best friend up to and through the trial, could descend into such doubt about OJ's innocence.  The writers implied the first doubts came when OJ flunked the lie detector test.  

I think what hurt Bobby the most was something the series writers did not address, that OJ had left Bobby out of the loop on how the marriage was going.  Being together as couples so much, Bobby would have expected OJ to trust him.

Also not explored was OJ's narcissism which disallowed much real feeling toward anything and anyone not in the center of the universe where OJ thought he sat enthroned.  

Between these two dynamics, OJ alienated Bobby.  Bobby finally saw OJ's inability to trust a friend with his own personal pain and OJ's lack of affect for his wife's death.  Bobby had not faced up to those facets of OJ's nature.  

Add the perception Bobby had that OJ tested so badly on the lie detector, and one can understand Bobby's withdrawal from OJ.  It was not simply a view that OJ was guilty.  The party after OJ was released was the final straw, though, according to other writers.  It was because there was no remembrance of the loss of Nicole.  OJ was OJ as if Nicole hadn't existed.  

No matter how much of a schmuck OJ may have been, that still did not prove he was guilty.  For that we have to turn to the evidence.  That will be the subject of the next post.

I really liked the creativity of the series writers, but I honor their quality.  Compared to all the other things done about the case that I've seen so far, this one showed genuine depth of research as well as depth of concern for broader issues like domestic violence and police/black confrontations.  I've had to add or correct some of the details offered so far, but far fewer than I've felt about all the others except Esquire's rebroadcast of tapes of the trial.  The series writers integrated the facts into a dramatic narrative which was very powerful.  The details of clothes, cars, office spaces, courtroom were authentic enough that there were few jarring moments as we watched the other TV shows which contained original material and then watched the series on FX.  

The series had class.  What was jarring was the difference in who advertised each of the different TV efforts.  With the others, we saw ads typical of TV channels with small audiences.  In this series, the ads were from top corporations.  

More significant, the drama did little to make either side be simply good or evil.  The bad on both sides was shown but not dwelt on in a way that seemed unbalanced.  OJ was not made out to be an evil caricature and Fred Goldman was not made out to be devilish in his actions.  The strengths and weaknesses of all the lawyers were laid out with respect, even when they did not choose the best course of action.  We saw the "nightmare" side of the dream team but we saw them stay together to the end.  Only Detective Fuhrman seemed to be clearly disliked by the series writers, but I think for very good reason.

The classiest thing I appreciated was closing with pictures of Ron and Nicole and their life dates.  The writers did not forget the victims.

Finally, I was grateful to see two very important things, the inclusion important details left out of nearly every other telling of the myth of OJ Simpson and what happened when the jury went into consideration of their verdict.  More on the latter in my next post.  

There were three more important details I wish to note.

 This last episode included a scene in which a deputy treated OJ with respect and appreciation.  OJ made friends while he was in jail that seventeen months after his arrest.  In fact, the party at OJ's included many of those deputies, something missed by the series writers.  

The detail of the child custody hearing shown during the concluding post-drama notes is rarely ever added.  But as was pointed out in an earlier post, it was going on during the civil trial against OJ.  The drama hinted that the Goldmans might follow up by suing OJ in civil court.  In fact, Fred's first wife had long since begun rolling that ball within weeks of the beginning of the criminal trial.  Though the Goldmans got very little once the civil court granted the Browns their share of the proceeds from the sale of OJ's mansion and other assets, the Goldman's got their half million out of the sale of OJ's book IF I DID IT.  

The DA was asked after the trial if they would seek out the real killer now.  As well shown in this episode, Gil Garcetti, with a look, said OJ was the killer and he just got off scot free.  In the prosecution's mind (and inability to admit mistakes), there was no need for the LAPD to do it.  In fact, the reason OJ's quest for the real killer failed was because it was blocked by the police.  They refused to share any of their evidence or cooperate in any way with OJ's investigators, according to Freed and Briggs in KILLING TIME.

The key argument I encounter whenever I talk about OJ being innocent is that, as Kardashian said in an early episode, there was no other suspect.  As I've indicated, there were other clues but the LAPD put all its eggs in one basket and left the impression there were no other.

I thank the writers, producers, and actors for preparing such a good piece of work.  As you will see when I discuss the jury's decision, I believe the writers agreed with them.  But they were even-handed enough that those who do not agree with the "not guilty" verdict will be able to argue against my viewpoint and feel completely justified.

It will be up to you to decide if the jury was right and if I am right going beyond their decision by affirming OJ's innocence.

The People V. . . . A & E Channel's specials

Apparently the series on FX about OJ has caused a stir.  We keep finding another two to four hours of TV specials on the case every few days.  We ran across A & E's two last night (April 4).  

In my view they were poorly titled.  They used "The Secret Tapes" and "O. J. Speaks, The Hidden Tapes."  They should have said, "The Fred Goldman Story, Parts I and II."  The scripts couldn't have been more biased in Mr. Goldman's favor.  The two shows were based on opinions and presumptions of those who agreed with him.

Most disconcerting from a professional point of view was the use of a psychologist who did not have OJ as a patient nor have extensive interviews with him.  The psychologist formed his opinions based on his reading of books and looking at videos.  While such research has merit to open up lines of inquiry for further exploration on behalf of a patient, it is unprofessional to take such observations as being valid for the purpose of diagnosing the person on TV.

But even a biased program can show some things of value in understanding the whole situation facing us as we look for the truth in OJ's case.

For one, it was helpful to get some details about the Santa Monica trial that helped us understand it better.  Paul Marciano of Guess, Inc. was revealed to have helped the Goldmans.  The level of proof ("preponderance of evidence") was mentioned as was the need for only 9 of the 12 jurors to agree to rule against OJ.  Also noted was the racial composition of the jury, 9 of which were white.  There could be no hung jury.  But it took the jury nearly two weeks to come back with their verdict!  

For another, it showed the strategy of defeating OJ in civil trial.  The lawyer for Goldman used interrogation techniques guaranteed to expose any weakness and even lies in OJ's responses.  It took eleven days of intensive questioning during the deposition period leading up to the trial before Dan Petrocelli could find enough of what he felt were inconsistencies he could use in the trial itself.

The most prominent of those were OJ's inability to remember a voice mail message from his girl friend on the morning of June 12, 1994, breaking things off with him.  He also had no explanation about how the blood from Ron and Nicole got into his Bronco and onto his socks, as if he was supposed to know if he did not do it himself.  He didn't know about his wife's diary, as if she would want him to know about it while she kept it in a safety deposit box.  And OJ didn't remember owning the Bruno Magli shoes, saying he hated their style and would never wear them.

For another bit of information, the law firm that took Goldman's case is probably the largest in Santa Monica and perhaps the most prestigious in the Los Angeles area, able to put six of their staff on the case which lasted many months.  OJ was able to afford only two.  Yet the script said that it was a David and Goliath scene with Fred Goldman as the David.  OJ did not have that much left after paying the legal fees for the criminal trial, and the costs of the child custody battle OJ was in during the civil trial.

Finally, the suing parties had the privilege of testifying.  The special included practically nothing from the Browns but it contained a great deal of emotional testimony from Goldman.  

"Preponderance of evidence" was all that was needed, no matter its quality.  There was an enormous amount of emotion included.  

And the shoes . . . .  The coincidence of the shoes.  In my reading on the criminal trial, there were two ways the gloves and shoes could have been taken from OJ's house.  One, OJ was very generous and gave away a lot of the stuff because his various sponsors had overloaded him with their products.  Two, OJ found his home unlocked the night before he left for Chicago.  The alarm was not set, either.  It is possible someone was able to access his house looking for things they could use to implicate OJ in a future crime.  

Maybe the section of OJ's brain that remembers things had been damaged by football injuries.  Maybe in his narcissism he could block out things and not realize it.  Maybe . . ., we can speculate for two reasons, one to show that there may be other explanations just as plausible as the ones condemning OJ, and two, offer areas to explore in our search for truth.  The A & E specials used speculation as truth.

It is hard to watch opinions presumed to be facts and people reading OJ's mind and diagnosing his character without any feedback from those who might disagree.  The A & E channel's offerings about OJ stressed me a lot.  But I did learn some new things and I hope they have also helped you, my reader.

The People V. . . . Esquire TV channel

By chance we came upon another effort to go into the OJ trial.  Esquire TV aired it this weekend and is repeating it this coming week (April 4-9) as a twelve part series.  Two or three segments will be shown each morning between 7:00 and 10:00.  The content has no commentary but shows only excerpts from the trial and some news conferences from that time.

Two things are clear: One, the things the jurists actually heard and saw are different from what Jeffery Toobin and every other writer about the trial has said.  Two, what was presented, viewed from the present day, makes the "not guilty" verdict look understandable

First, as my wife and I have been watching, we were seeing things that we hadn't seen or heard before, little details that now mean something we either missed or that the book writers missed, whatever their viewpoint.  There is so much richness of detail.  All of the versions of the trial leave out so much that, while it helps to read as many books as possible, it appears that it will be necessary to go back to the actual trial transcripts to be sure what was said.

Second, the editors of this Esquire series have chosen some of the more interesting moments of the trial so it is also dramatic television.  It certainly gives the viewers a chance to make up their own mind about two key witnesses, Kato Kaelin and Mark Fuhrman.  Each takes up at least two episodes and more.  The closing arguments refer again and again to each of them and their credibility.  

In any event, it is another effort to participate in the current interest in the case.  We found it to be well worth watching.  I hope it encourages you to go back to the transcript.  

(I'm a duffer, though, about the internet and am trying to sort out how to access it.  I am currently working on    simpson.malraven.org/.  
If you can find a site that is more user friendly, let me know.)

The People V. . . . "A Hell of a Fight"

The AMERICAN CRIME STORY series on OJ has led other TV channels to produce or bring back specials about the case.  Last night (April 1), Headline News Channel (HLN) showed its two one hour specials on the case, one from 2014 and one from last year.  The first was about the trial, the second about the chase on the freeways of Los Angeles.  I was surprised at how chummy the reporter was with Detective Tom Lange and with the Goldmans.  She let them spin everything to support the premise that the jury fell for the race card and failed to look at the evidence.  There were too many little moments of such presumption of guilt that it would take several posts to clean them all up.

I did hear two thing that were particularly interesting.  The first was the portions of the interview with a juror, a Hispanic American who still believes he made the right decision, that the prosecution failed to prove its case.  It did not start with Detective Fuhrman, he said.  The whole investigation by all of the LAPD failed to be done properly.  There were enough admissions to failures that there could be no confidence in any of the supposed "mountain of evidence."

I think that only a portion of the interview was shown because I think there was more that he could have said about the evidence than that it was not conclusive.  In a trial, the jury gets to determine if the prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had motive, means, and opportunity.  What people forget is that the defendant (who could be you or me) does not have to prove innocence.  That's French justice.  The American (derived from the British) system presumes innocence until proven guilty.  The defendant does not have to testify.  The prosecution has to bring sufficient evidence to prove guilt.

I contend that the jury actually felt there was proof that OJ was innocent.  If the juror was asked about that, it did not get into the show but was left on the cutting room floor.

The second thing that struck me was Lange's statement that "Ron put up a hell of a fight."

I had not heard that from anyone on the prosecution side before, other than Dr. Irvin Golden's autopsies.  Lange was present when the autopsies occurred.  

If Lange had actually said that on the witness stand, the defense should have had a field day.  I think it might have gone something like this:

Defense (D): Detective Lange, did you just say that Ron Goldman "put up a hell of a fight?"

Lange (L): Yes.

D: Would you tell how you came to that conclusion?

L:  During the autopsies, Dr. Golden pointed out bruises in his arms which would have been where he blocked blows aimed at him.  

D:  Would you show us what you mean, please?

L:  (Demonstrating how a killer might raise his hand and start to bring it down in a stabbing motion) As the killer used this move, it appears Ron brought his arm up to block it.

D:  And how would that show up on Ron's arm?

L:  There would be bruises along the forearm somewhere between here (pointing to the wrist) and here (pointing to the elbow).  

D:  And Ron had such bruises.

L:  Yes, he did.

D:  Would there be any other signs of Ron's putting up a good fight?

L:  There would be bruises and abrasions on his knuckles.

D: Detective Lange, were such bruises and abrasions on Ron's knuckles?

L:  Yes, there were.

D:  And why would there be such bruises and abrasions there?

L:  They would be from where he struck the killer.

D:  So based on the bruises on his forearms and on his knuckles, you conclude that Ron "put up a hell of a fight?"

L:  That is correct.

D:  Now, where on the killer would you find signs of Ron's defensive move to the stabbing move, Detective Lange?

L:  On the underside of the forearm is where the bruises would be.

D:  And, Detective Lange, where would Ron most likely have hit his assailant to cause the abrasions and bruises on his knuckles?

L:  Ron's blows could have landed on his assailant's head, face, torso, or whatever part of the body presented itself to his punch.

D:  Detective Lange, based on your knowledge of such minor injuries, how long would you say the bruises would last, a few seconds?  An hour?  A few days?  

L:  Bruises last up to a week or so, depending on how deep the injury goes.

D:  So based on your understanding, the assailant against whom Ron put up "a hell of a fight" would have had bruises on his underarm and perhaps on his face or torso or even his leg for up to a week after the fight.  Is that correct?

L:  That is my understanding.

D:  Detective Lange, did you and Detective Vannatter examine OJ's body for any injuries the day he returned from Chicago?

L:  We did.

D:  And what did you find?

L:  We found a cut on the middle finger of his left hand next to a split in the skin.

D:  Did you find any bruises on OJ's forearms, top or bottom?

L:  No, we did not.

D:  Did you find and bruises or abrasions on OJ's face, arms, or body that might have been inflicted by Ron's "hell of a fight?"

L:  No, we did not.

D:  Then who was Ron having this "hell of a fight" with, Detective Lange?

Who indeed?  It could not have been OJ.

But I do not think that exchange ever occurred before or during the trial.  I wonder if it happened within the jury, without Lange, of course.  

The People V. . . Where Are We?

Before we move into the last episode on Tuesday, April 5, we may want to look again at the time line of the murders and the actions of the LAPD.  We will need to review the evidence against OJ and any of the grounds for reasonable doubt, the standard of proof the jury must meet in order to not convict.

The drama depicted in the series has been wonderful TV but it is definitely not a documentary.

Let me do as simple a timeline as possible based on details offered by the series:

June 12, 1994

10 or 10:15 pm  OJ's Bronco was seen at the Rockingham gate.

10:15 pm  A "wailing dog" was heard near the Bundy murder site.

10:40 pm  Kato Kaelin heard three bumps coming from his back wall.

Between 10:20 and 10:54 pm, the limo driver saw no Bronco at Rockingham, but did see a black man approach the mansion door about 10:54, and when the driver called inside, someone finally answered.  OJ then left for a flight to Chicago.

11:55 pm  A barking dog led to the discovery of Nicole's body and the calling of the police.

June 13, 1994

Soon after midnight, police arrived on the scene of the murders.

Dets. Fuhrman, Vannatter, and Lange begin work on the crime.

Before sun-up, the detectives arrive at Rockingham to tell OJ his ex-wife is murdered and to get his children.  Fuhrman finds a drop of blood on the Bronco door and they decide to enter the estate over the wall, fearing someone may have been hurt here as well.  Kato Kaelin meets them saying OJ is out of state and tells of the three bumps in the night.  While the others contact OJ in Chicago, Fuhrman finds the bloody glove laid out on the ground on a pathway beside the mansion.  (At the trial, Fuhrman takes the Fifth when asked if he planted the glove at Rockingham.)  Vannatter sees blood drops running from the Bronco to the front door of the mansion.

OJ returns from Chicago, is invited to talk with Vannatter and Lange at the police center in downtown LA.  OJ does not know where the cut on his finger is from.  Nor does he have anyone who can vouch for where he was between 10 and 11 the night before.  Vannatter takes a blood sample from OJ.

Blood on socks that DNA tests show were from OJ, Nicole, and Ron are found at Rockingham that evening.  (At trial, Vannattter admits he does not turn in all of OJ's blood sample.  At trial, Lange admits he takes OJ's shoes home overnight.  At the trial, Criminalist Dennis Fung admits several errors were made during the investigation at both sites.)

Sometime  OJ does poorly on a lie detecter test.

Sometime  The Bronco is taken into custody.

Sometime  The funeral of Nicole is held.

Sometime  A warrant is signed to arrest OJ.  

June 17, 1994

In the morning, OJ is examined by his doctors and found to have no sign of bruises or injury.

When OJ is to be taken in for arrest, he and Al Cowling leave in Al's white Bronco and OJ threatens suicide when they are approached by police.  They return to Rockingham after a long slow chase on the LA freeways.  After spending a little time with his mother and family, he turns himself in.

At the trial, there is some question as to whether the motive of extension of spousal abuse is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  The sloppiness of the investigation is shown by the detectives' responses to questions about their possible errors.  The weapon and bloody clothes are not found.  The bloody gloves that were found at Bundy and Rockingham do not fit OJ.  Fuhrman's racism is confirmed and may lay behind what was done by the LAPD in their handling of the case.  

OJ's "escape" in the Bronco is not brought up at trial.  Nor is his lie detector test.  The decision of the civil trial is still months off and no one on the mixed racial jury is aware the wrongful death suits are in the works nor are they aware of the efforts to keep OJ from custody of his children. 

Is that enough grounds to believe the jury wisely voted not guilty because of reasonable doubt?  Or were they influenced by their prejudice against the LAPD and Johnny Cochran's "effective use of the race card?"

We await closing arguments, the verdict, and how the series' writers dramatize them.

The People V . . . Fred Goldman

One of the interesting people involved in OJ's case is the father of Ron Goldman, one of the victims of the June 12, 1994, murders.

Those watching the series on OJ's trial, but are unaware of Ron's father, are likely to see a lot of him in the final episode.  He has been in the front row of the courtroom.  He is the one reacting in the background to what is happening in the trial.  In Episode Nine, he was also seen doing a televised news conference in reaction to the defense bringing Detective Fuhrman to the witness stand.

Yes, the tall man with the dramatic mustache.

Let me tell you a little of what he writes about in his book HIS NAME IS RON.

He wrote the book as a way to distinguish his son from the Simpsons.  Their celebrity put Ron in the shadow and he wanted people to know Ron was more than some vague friend of Nicole's.   The young man was much more.  He helped coach his younger brother's high school tennis team, though Fred did not mention Ron's status as a semi-pro tennis player in California.  Perhaps Fred's effort was a typical grief reaction where he idolized his dead son.  Ron comes off in the book as a saint.

Fred also could have been writing an "apologia," which is actually a kind of tract to support a position about the person.  In this case, it was to try to block out the noise about drugs, sex, and mob connections that drifted into the media after the murders.  Ron was not the only waiter from Mezzaluna and other nearby restaurants who was murdered around that time.  The others were apparently drug-related crimes and Fred could not allow speculation that his son might have been the actual target in the murders, making Nicole the innocent one caught up in the tragedy.  On this I am willing to give Fred the benefit of the doubt.

But he never talks of Ron's black belt in karate. nor of what a fine athlete Ron was.  Going to a woman's defense, that he could write about.  Being any kind of competition with an older, overweight arthritic former athlete, that he could not do.

One of grief's characteristics is anger.  Some people weep.  Some people become deeply depressed.  And some people turn all the anger in their being upon some target.  In this case, OJ became Fred's emotional outlet.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, Fred could only use words like "killer" in place of OJ's name.  The book is a very angry one with Fred's anger including Judge Ito and Johnny Cochran.  

Fred tells of his family, of his first wife, of Ron's good nature and good deeds, and then of the shock of the murders.  He goes into detail about the trial from his point of view.  And he talks openly about the feelings he and his family members have throughout. 

He also mentions something in passing, that he struggled with taking time from his job as a salesman to be at the trial and to administer the Ron Goldman Justice Fund, Fred's effort to have resources for the wrongful death civil suit against OJ he filed in May, 1995.  Right after the Fuhrman court appearance, Fred was approached by an executive who wanted to be supportive because the executive's boss was sympathetic with the Goldmans.  The man offered Fred the services of a better lawyer from a major LA law firm and office space at corporate headquarters for the Justice Fund.  

Fred wrote that he did not want to name the corporation or the man behind the help for fear there would be boycotts against the company.  But in his acknowledgments, Fred thanks Paul Marciano of Guess, Inc. for finding the lawyer and providing "overwhelming support."

Fred Goldman is a sales representative.  He is assertive, articulate, emotional, and committed to punishing the killer of his son Ron.  He is a perfect foil to OJ.  Fred is a gifted antagonist who pursued the law suit against OJ, and then fought for the rights to a book OJ wrote to try to earn some money.  Fred won that fight and not only got the proceeds from its sale but got to change the title.  OJ had used IF I DID IT.  Fred had the publishers make the word "If" very small and of a different color than the other three words, and added several more words, so that someone picking up the book would easily see I DID IT, CONFESSIONS OF THE KILLER.  (Reports conflict as to whether the proceeds were split with the Browns.)     

Someone who wanted a person capable of reminding the public about OJ as the killer could not have found anyone better than Fred Goldman.  He channels anger more exquisitely than Donald Trump and his constituency of believers that OJ did it is larger than Trump's.  His anger has been an effective deterrent to explorations of alternative solutions to the crime for over twenty years.  Is it possible that Fred's passion was bought to distract responsible people from pursuing leads in other directions?

When word comes out that Martin Sheen is producing a TV series that shows OJ is innocent and that someone else did it, I would expect something from Fred, if he is still well and active.  

    

The People V. . . . Episode Nine

In a recent TV interview, Alan Dershowitz was asked about the TV series, "The People V. O. J. Simpson."  He said it was an interesting fictionalization.  

We saw that in the interactions between Chris Darden and Marcia Clark which the writers made out as very close to being a romantic relationship.  There is nothing I remember in my reading that they ever apologized to each other as the series writers suggest.  Over the last few days, I've read portions of Detective Fuhrman's, Fred Goldman's, Lawrence Schiller's, and Jeffrey Toobin's books about the Fuhrman testimony.  All of the books made Darden out to be very hard-nosed and aggressive, not at all the gentle giant of a man shown in the series.  And Clark never softened beyond changing her clothes and hairstyle during the trial.  

The series writers may have made up a lot of stuff but they did make points on behalf of women's rights, especially how much they are hounded if they are accomplished and successful.  They have also been clear that African Americans have been and still are victimized by the criminal justice system.

The writers made sure to have Clark say that bringing in Fuhrman for further testimony would so enflame the jury that they would ignore the evidence in order to punish the LAPD.  Toobin wrote in his book that OJ was the "undeserved beneficiary" of the the jury's attitude toward the police.  

But the writers got it right when they did the court scene with Fuhrman.  They had the wrong defense lawyer question him but the truth is that Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment and looked guilty of all kinds of evidence planting and violence against the African American community.

A few years before the trial, a screen writer from North Carolina had a chance encounter with Fuhrman and thought she found an experienced cop who could give her background for her writing police drama for TV.  She recorded and had transcribed their extensive conversations.  Not only did Fuhrman use the "N" word forty two times, he described in detail numerous events where police tactics used unprovoked violence toward Black people and tampered extensively with evidence to get convictions.  Copies of the tapes and transcripts were gone over carefully by both prosecution and defense and by the time Fuhrman came into the court room, no one wanted to look at him.  Even the crowd in the court room had heard snippets of the tapes over radio and TV the previous few days,  The only one who really watched Fuhrman enter and sit down was Fred Goldman, Ron's father, who was furious that it was now Fuhrman on trial rather than OJ.

Fuhrman wrote in his book MURDER IN BRENTWOOD that he was ready to explain everything because he felt completely innocent of any tampering with evidence and that his taped conversations had been pure fiction.  But on advice of his new lawyer (his old one quit when the tapes were released) and because he knew no one on the prosecution would be willing to be his advocate, he wrote that he had to take the Fifth.  Clark did turn her back on him as he came in and Darden left the courtroom, just as the series showed.  Poor Fuhrman . . . not!

Anyone who knew the actual content of the tapes knew he was bad.  Schilling reported that the writer who had made the tapes was called to the stand and said she was convinced during her interviews with him that he was talking about how he operated as a cop.

In the show, I noticed that there was no jury when Fuhrman testified.  The books all confirmed they were not there to see him take the Fifth.  Though it was not shown in this episode,  Judge Ito brought them in for the writer's testimony and she confirmed it was Fuhrman's voice on the two brief segments (total of fourteen words) that were allowed to be presented.  When asked, she said Fuhrman had been totally serious and scary when he described treatment of African Americans and when he used the "N" word.  The series writers indicated that the jurors found out about all the stuff outside of the courtroom during conjugal visits with spouses during "pillow talk."  

Goldman did a news conference immediately after that session blasting the judge for allowing the trial to turn into the "people v. Fuhrman."  In his book, Goldman never used OJ's name, but referred to him as the killer, murderer, and such terms.  There is more to know about Goldman and I may do a post on him.

You may ask why Fuhrman didn't say "No" when asked specifically about evidence tampering.  Another arcane rule of law is that once he started claiming the Fifth, if he answered anything but that way, he could be subjected to extensive questioning and lose his Fifth Amendment right.  Fuhrman later pleaded "no contest" to the felony charge of perjury in OJ's trial.  The LAPD found insufficient evidence to try him for the incidents he described for the screen writer.  Fuhrman was thus a convicted felon, could no longer be a policeman, and even lost his right to a gun,  Meanwhile he has done well as a mystery writer living in Idaho and being a guest expert on FOX.

Was anything entered into evidence in this episode that the jury could have used?

The opening scene has a person of foreign extraction testifying to hearing someone yell "Hey, Hey, Hey" from the crime scene.  But no time is given.  And Clark says he saw a Bronco by the alley gate to Bundy.  What wasn't shown was that the witness went on to say he saw four men running from the scene and driving the white SUV south rather than north toward Rockingham.  

The testimony was abridged by the series writers in order to focus on another point about racism.  The man said someone responded and sounded like he was Black.  Cochran jumped all over that presumption and said there was no way to take that seriously because no one can tell such a thing for sure.  

Cochran saw the case as OJ v. American racism.  But "Americans" do not realize just how racist we are and so the show leaves the impression Cochran was using a tactic rather than showing the truth.  And as Fuhrman came into focus in this episode, his racism was used as the best example of Cochran's tactic to hijack the case and put the LAPD on trial.

The writers and Toobin have set up the jury to be so angry about Fuhrman that they can't think straight and deal with the evidence.  Or was Cochran correct when he said earlier in the series that they would be mature enough to look past the epithets directed toward Blacks and be able to keep their poise.  We'll see next week if the jury is given that credit.    

The People V. . . . The Other Trial

Those who are firm believers in OJ's guilt argue that he was found guilty in that "other" trial.  So let me offer some information and insight about that other trial.

Actually, there were three, the criminal trial, the civil ("other") trial, and the child custody hearings.  Let me speak about each of the three so that we can put the "other" trial into perspective.

The criminal trial began at the end of January, 1995, seven months after the murders.  The "Not guilty" verdict was read on Oct. 3, 1995.  The trial took place in the city of Los Angeles downtown mainly because the DA's office, resources, and staff were there.  That meant the jury pool was mixed racial, reflecting to some extent the population of that city which was some miles north west of where the murders took place.

The "third" trial was the custody hearing for OJ's and Nicole's two children.  I'm not sure yet where that was held but I presume in some location where the hearing judge had Brentwood within her jurisdiction.  That concluded December 20, 1996.  There was no jury since it was a custody hearing to determine if the children should be in the custody of OJ or of Nicole's parents who had them while OJ was in jail.  Recall he was arrested June 17, 1994.  On October 3, 1995 he was freed by the criminal jury's verdict.  The Browns appealed the hearing judge's decision favoring OJ and on Nov. 10, 1998, the case was remanded back for rehearing by an appeals court with OJ retaining custody until the case was resolved.  -  One recent source indicated the Browns and OJ reached an agreement out of court.

The "other" trial, the civil case brought by the Goldmans (Ron's parents) and the Browns (Nicole's parents) began October 26, 1996, and ended January 17, 1997, with the verdict coming down on February 5, 1997.  It was held in Santa Monica, the nearest large city to Brentwood, because it was a location handier to those bringing the lawsuit against OJ.  The jury was consistent with the population of Santa Monica, 9 white, 2 blacks, and 1 Asian American.

Notice that both the child custody hearing and the civil trial occurred at the same time.  OJ won the custody hearing, for which his children were glad, according to a news report quoting the children's lawyer.  -  In child custody hearings, the court appoints a lawyer to protect the interests of the children.  They were eight and eleven at the time.

Remember that OJ's lawyers were looking ahead from the moment OJ was arrested to not only handle the criminal trial but to protect as much of his income and resources as possible against wrongful death lawsuits and child custody suits.  The first wrongful death suit was brought six weeks after the murders!  OJ needed to have the means to support his family whether or not he won the criminal trial.  The "other" trial had as its main purpose stripping OJ of any wealth he had as punishment for the deaths of Nicole and Ron.  The law provided some protection against complete financial ruin in such cases: money in certain trusts, pension, and residence are usually untouchable so that the one who is sued can survive.  State laws vary and can be changed but usually the one sued is not left completely destitute.

Everyone recalls that there was a great divide in the country over the criminal jury's "Not Guilty" verdict.  The mixed racial jury was called too stupid to understand the DNA evidence, too racially oriented to allow another of their kind to be convicted, too insensitive to spousal abuse, and too attuned to the allegations of police brutality against ethnics to be objective.  The white community believed that with eight African Americans, two Hispanics, and only two white persons on the jury, the prosecution didn't have a chance.

I will address all of that in a post related to the last episode of the AMERICAN CRIME STORY series.

But for now, needless to say, the "other" trial was set up in a place where the outcome was far more likely to be what the white community wanted.  It was far more supportive of the police than any in the city of Los Angeles would have been at the time.  (Detective Fuhrman was not a witness and was not even mentioned during the civil trial!).  The level of proof needed was not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of evidence," which is closer to the level of proof needed for "probable cause." Because the civil case did not involve a possible death penalty or incarceration, the level of proof did not need to be very high.  It was only to settle financial responsibility and provide the respective families for the loss of their loved ones.  

Civil action also did not require a unanimous verdict, just 9 of 12 jurors had to agree.  Remember the jury in the civil case consisted of 9 whites, two blacks, and 1 Asian American.  

The Santa Monica civil trial  became far more, however.  For the white community, it became a setting in which to overturn the criminal trial verdict.  And it succeeded.  The only thing it failed to do was put OJ behind bars.  That would occur another ten years later when OJ was convicted of some nasty stuff related to an ill-conceived effort to retrieve some of his own memorabilia.  He is in jail as of this writing and may be released as early as next year.

How is it that despite being judged not guilty in Los Angeles and getting custody of his children, the Santa Monica trial went against him.  I think there were three things: prejudice, OJ's "issues," and his real goal, keeping his children.

I contend that America's racism, noted by foreign scholars every generation since the mid-nineteenth century, was the dominant reason.  The very thing the Los Angeles jury was accused of motivated the Santa Monica jury.  In the mythos surrounding race in America, there is no way a Black man could be allowed to go free once he is accused.  Deep within our culture is the view that there is only right and wrong, good and evil, black or white,  There are no shades of gray, not alternatives to guilty or innocent.  And, of course, "we" are on the right, the good side.  That leaves no room for anything but evil and wrong on the other.  It must be pretty deep within us because we become irrational trying to sustain this bifurcated view of the world and people around us when it comes to race.  Being an ethnic in America is pretty scary.  Just ask any of your ethnic acquaintances.

Next, I contend that OJ's personality was not that helpful to him.  His desire to protect his family from the invasion of his and Nicole's privacy came across as defensiveness and avoidance rather than as respect for the dead and protection of his children.  The charm with which he had been successful all his athletic career and into his acting/broadcasting careers was seen as shallow and inappropriate.  His impatience with those who did not let him be the center of the universe came across as mean-spirited.  There may even have been the effects of head injuries plus the constant arthritic pain he was in from his football days which were not understood at the time but seen as just plain nastiness.

Finally, the civil trial and the custody hearings were going on at the same time, meaning that he could not be in both places.  His priority was his children and so the jury at the civil trial did not see him every day their trial was going on.  The lawyers had done their job of protecting a lot of OJ's wealth so even losing in Santa Monica was no big deal.  Losing his children would have been something he could not bear.

So OJ lost the civil trial.  The Browns would get something to compensate for their loss and the Goldmans would get nothing, actually, though they would continue trying in other ways.  And OJ got his children.

Yes, even though OJ won two out of three trials, it is the "other" one that is clung to by those who do not want to believe OJ might have actually been innocent.  It may well have been a set up for just that purpose.  And it succeeded, I am convinced,  because OJ was more interested in keeping his family together than playing that game.

The People V. . . . OJ's alibi

Marcia Clark presented the narrative that OJ, after he left his daughter's recital around 6:30 pm on the 12th of June, 1994, went home angry and fuming, building a rage in him that around 10 pm took him in his Bronco to the condo of his wife Nicole.  Using a key not found by the police, he got into the condo's gated area, lured Nicole out of the condo, and was cutting and slashing at her when Ron came by with her mother's glasses.  In his rage, by 10:15, he had dispatched the two, was chased by the Akita, got back to Rockingham after changing out of the bloody clothes and disposing of them by 10:54 pm when the limo driver saw him entering the mansion.

In the book KILLING TIME, one can find both the transcript of the interview of OJ and Vannatter and a summary of his deposition for the civil trial that later found him financially liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron.

The interview shed little light on what he was doing because the questioning detectives failed to press him for details.  He spoke about the recital, about his relationship with Nicole and how they had tried but decided the decision to divorce was the right thing for them, and that he was very careful with his clothes, hanging them up for reuse if they did not need to be cleaned.  Perhaps the most important thing that came out of the interview, however, was an explanation for the drops of blood seen in the Rockingham driveway and inside in the kitchen.  OJ said that in his rushing around as he got ready to leave for Chicago, he went to the Bronco, reached for his cell phone which he had left in there, and jammed his finger.  He discovered it was bleeding when he went back in the house to help Kato find a flashlight for checking about those odd bumps on his back wall.

The deposition provided many more details.  After the recital, he headed home hoping to contact his girl friend with whom he'd had a date the night before.  He phoned her but got no answer.  He was hungry, not having accepted the invitation of Nicole's parents to go out with them after the recital.  So he and Kato went and got McDonalds, getting home about 9:35.  He went outside to his car where he kept his golf bag, checked his golf clubs for the Chicago trip, practiced a little with one of the clubs, quit when he thought he might dent his Bentley, and went back inside.  He killed time petting his dog, watching a little TV, and then going to the toilet.  While he was in there, someone called from the gate but only let it ring four times.  At 10:36, he realized his ride was coming soon and he better shower.  While he was in the shower, he again heard the phone but had no chance of answering because it only rang a few times.  When he went out to find his golf shoes, he saw the limo, and back inside he answered the gate phone to let the limo in.  He finished packing, leaving everything in the bedroom in order, asked Kato and the driver to put his golf clubs and suitcase in the limo because his finger might start bleeding again, and left about 11:15 for LAX.

The title of the Freed and Briggs book KILLING TIME is most fitting.  Both narratives, the prosecution's and the defense's, describe the time between 10 and 11 pm and depending on how the words are defined, covers both.  The jury decided OJ's description of killing time fit the facts best.

The People V. . . . How They Died

According to Marcia Clark's opening statement, Nicole and Ron were slashed to death by a raging OJ in a matter of minutes.  Larger than either of his victims, he dominated  them with his knife and made swift, bloody work of them.

If that were so, the autopsies would show deep, arbitrary slashes and deft killing cuts.  There would be no defensive wounds because his rage would have overcome them rapidly, leaving no time to attempt defensive postures or responses from the victims.  A slashing attack would have left deep cuts on the arms and upper body.  There would be one blade shape in both bodies but that would hardly be an issue because of the speed of slashing and little time for stabbing and pulling out the weapon.

There was one deft slashing cut, the one that crossed Nicole's throat.  And, as you may recall, there were many shallow stab marks, bruises, and abrasions.  In addition, both victims had several parallel skin deep cuts at their throats.  The deep stabs near the throat down between the neck and clavical on Nicole cut an artery.  There was a similar stab attempted on Ron.  There were two stabs to his right side that caused the most damage, one that cut the aorta and and the other that entered his right lung causing bleeding that flooded it.    

Now let me set the stage for the murders.  Based on information available that the prosecution could have had and may have used in the trial, here is what happened prior to the actual murders:

Nicole had been on the phone with Faye Resnick who called her from the rehab center sometime before ten pm.  The children heard their mother sounding very upset during the call.  After she hung up, Nicole went into the kitchen to get out a butcher knife.  She set it next to the kitchen door which was the main entrance to the condo.  She had soft music playing and had lit a number of candles for her bath.  Those may have just been for her or they may have been set up for a romantic date.  She got out some ice cream to calm herself down and relax when the phone rang again.  This time it was her mother who had left her eyeglasses at the restaurant and asked for help to find them.  Nicole called Mezzaluna and caught Ron just before he left work.  He said he'd look for them and bring them over.   

Here's how I reconstruct the murders:

When someone knocked on her door, distracted from whatever Resnick had said to frighten her enough to get out the knife, she opened it and before she could react, she was grabbed by a large man and dragged out the door onto the stoop.  He put a knife to her throat from behind and demanded where the cocaine was.  She probably stomped on his foot and gave him a head butt that broke his nose.  What she hadn't anticipated was another man who came up in front of her with another knife, also threatening her that she needed to turn over the cocaine or else.  

She was not held as tightly from behind by the one who'd first grabbed her, but was not focussed too well because of his bleeding nose.  When she refused to respond, the second man tried to stab her but using her head and hands to parry the knife thrusts, she became a difficult target for the stabbing.  A third man stepped up and stabbed her between the neck and clavicle, seeking to cut a major artery.  It took three tries before he hit it.  

Just then, Ron came onto the scene and challenged the three men attacking Nicole, yelling "Hey, Hey, Hey."  As he attempted to protect Nicole, a fourth man grabbed him from behind and held a knife to his throat, nicking him as he struggled.  He was able to do some damage with his feet so one of the men struck Nicole in the head and she collapsed.  Ron found a way to break free.  Except for the one with the broken nose, the rest then turned on Ron forcing him into the small yard.  He got a few blows in with his hands and also protected himself from their knife thrusts with his hands and head as Nicole had.  But with the three encircled around him, thrusting, he no longer had a chance.  Stabbed from both sides and in the front, especially in the right side, he was losing blood mostly from internal bleeding, weakened, and fell.  As a warning to others who would hold back from the cartel, the leader of the group left Nicole with the "Colombian necktie."

With both victims collapsed, one of the men opened the condo door to go in to search for the cocaine, only he was met by a snarling Akita who charged out the door at him.  At that point, the men decided to leave. noticing pedestrians were on Bundy and might realize what was going on.  They ran out the back gate with the dog biting at them, jumped into a white van/SUV, and drove south.

In my novel, the leader of the cartel murderers came back after the dog was gone, tracked blood in a pair of Bruno Magli shoes stolen from OJ's house, smeared blood on the stolen gloves, and left them near the bodies.

The reason I felt that could have happened was because the barking dog was taken from the scene of the crime by a couple who found him on the sidewalk at 10:55 pm.  They did not notice the blood on the dog until they got him to their nearby apartment.  They called a friend who was willing to take the dog back to take a closer look.  The friend was the one who was able to see Nicole's body.  So there was about an hour between when the dog was taken away and the friend returned with him, found a body at 11:55, and called the police.

As I recall, Professor Briggs, co-author of KILLING TIME, was interested in trying to do a computer simulation of how the crime could occur, given the information from the autopsies.  He was unable to reproduce the crime with only one person.  It took no less than three and the limited space of the tiny yard held no more than four assailants.

The prosecution said the defense bruises and abrasions on Ron were damage caused by bumping into the walls of the yard and then the fall to the ground during the attack.  I don't think so.

One final note, I am still operating on memory from reading ten years ago.  If anyone takes this blog seriously, they can do what I plan to do, look up the trial transcript which is on line, and also reread the key books.