No OJ Independence on ’95 Independence Day

Independence Day.

Court’s on a holiday.

Second 4th in jail.

7/5/95

So, Kim, if Simpson was in custody in the Los Angeles County Jail from the day he was arrested on June 17, 1994, until the jury acquitted him on Oct. 3, 1995, as you claimed in your recent Rolling Stone story, your memory of him meeting with your dad, Bob Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran and other members of the Simpson “Dream Team” at your house during the trial is a false memory.

Kimmie’s Memory Must be a Dream

Anyone believing this story has to be about as big a double boob as the current queen of t&a.

“For members of a different generation, the name Kardashian invokes a different kind of infamy  — the O.J. Simpson trial, where Robert Kardashian served as O.J.’s defense attorney.

Amidst details about Caitlyn Jenner and her sex tape, Kim Kardashian shared a wild story about O.J. in her new Rolling Stone cover story, claiming he moved into Robert Kardashian’s compound and stayed in Khloe’s room while his trial was going on.”

Why can’t this tale be true? Simpson was in custody and housed in the Los Angeles County jail for the duration of his trial. He was jailed after being arrested on June 17, 1994 and wasn’t released until  Oct. 3, 1995, the day the jury’s acquittal was announced in court.

Kim K., who was 13 at the time of the trial, must have had a dream she thinks came true.

Did He Want to Sing Another Executioner’s Song–Solo?

Book author needed

To tell the defendant’s side.

Schiller, in out in.

6/28/95

Soon after defense attorney Carl Douglas tried to get a media seat for an author to write Simpson’s story of the trial, writer Lawrence Schiller showed up in seats reserved for the defendant’s family and friends.  Ito ousted him for a while, then let him back in, but only on condition that he sit in a regular defense seat, not squeeze in on the end of the bench with one cheek hanging off.

Katie Couric is PG

Good news travels fast,

But no one’s s’posed to know it.

Katie Couric’s pregnant.

6/27/95

Why do we care about such things? Strange, though. That little bun in the oven back then is 20, or nearly 20, now.

No, Mr. Ryan, That Didn’t Happen. Neither Did That.

It’s no surprise to me that the director of a TV-drama-series about the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial that’s set to air next year “didn’t know half the stuff (that occurred). I’m like, ‘That happened? That happened?’” Ryan Murphy is quoted as saying in a USA Today story.

That’s because the book it’s based on contains “stuff” that didn’t happen.

I guess that’s why it’s a drama. Sort of the difference between nonfiction, which is what Anatomy of a Trial is, and a novel,

Frustrating for me and others who know is that dramas such as this upcoming TV series will not serve the public good, but will only perpetuate the misinformation, misperception and distortions that occurred both during and following the trial.

 

 

A Truly Non-Story

He’s a wanna be.

A wire-tapper deluxe,

Scott Barnes files a suit.

6/26/95

Barnes, an wiretapper whose name is connected frequently with investigators in the case, supposedly files a lawsuit against Ito, which is never served on him.

 

No Haiku. No Cameras, Either

I didn’t write a haiku twenty years ago today. Absent that, I’ll write about something that happened yesterday — the sentencing of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. We know it happened because news reporters who were there told us it happened. But, even though people across the country saw television footage of the explosions of the bombs Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan left on the sidewalk at the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon, the hunt for them and the arrest of Dzhokhar (Tsarnaev was killed), the only people who could watch his trial were those inside the courtroom. Neither could the vast majority of the public witness his sentencing, which included him speak. It was the first time he had spoken publicly.

While reports of his statement said he had apologized to surviving victims and relatives of victims who didn’t survive, at least one survivor who was in the courtroom, said she didn’t buy it. She is quoted saying he lacked sincerity and wasn’t remorseful.

But we’ll never know. One report said he shed tears. A survivor said she could tell by Dzhokhar’s eyes that he didn’t mean it.

The point is, doesn’t it seem only right that the conclusion of a terrible tragedy that held the country in its grip and that so many people had been able to follow on their television sets should have been able to see and hear the surviving perpetrator of the horrible crime that killed three people and injured 264 others speak about his feelings when he was sentenced to death? Shouldn’t we have been able to determine for ourselves whether or not we thought he was really remorseful?

This is a prime example of why the public deserves to have camera coverage of significant trials.