Sensationalizing Kardashian Name? Really?

This says a lot:

Khloe Kardashian Reacts to The People v. O.J. Simpson: “They’re Kind of Sensationalizing the Kardashian Name In It”

”They’re kind of sensationalizing the Kardashian name in it, but I think to bring the younger audience in. I’m not upset about it, but there was some scene of the kids chanting ‘Kardashian’ when my dad was reading the potential suicide note. I even called Kim, because I was 10. I’m like, ‘Did that happen? I don’t remember any of this happening? She goes, ‘Absolutely not did that happen!'”‘

‘Facts’ Wanting in ‘Crime Story’

I fear trying to keep up with all the reviews, observations, punditry about the FX miniseries based oh-so loosely on the 1995 O.J .Simpson murder trial is going to become a round-the-clock effort. My email inbox is crammed with Google News Alerts I set for O.J. Simpson way back in 2008 before my book, Anatomy of a Trial, was published.

Here are some excerpts in one from yesterday:

Excerpt 1)  “…three categories: those who remember all the details of the trial, those who don’t know anything at all, and those who (like me) remember enough to be delighted by the references and cameos, but have forgotten enough that the bizarre truths become freshly frustrating. But it’s exactly this story’s bizarre nature that makes Ryan Murphy’s ambitions new anthology series refreshingly not like a Ryan Murphy series at all. It is, perhaps surprisingly, understated and played straight (almost), being based off of Jeffrey Toobin’s nonfiction book The Run of His Life. The facts speak for themselves,”

So much flies in the face here, such as:

• “those who remember all the details of the trial”   Who the heck can do that? I was there every day and even I can’t remember every detail. I took notes when court was in session and during every meeting I had with the trial judge, Lance Ito, which was daily and generally several times a day. And I kept daily written and audio journals.
• “those who … remember enough to be delighted by the references and cameos, but have forgotten enough that the bizarre truths become freshly frustrating.”   Many of the ‘bizzare truths’ weren’t. They were misrepresentations of events, people and/or intentions. There were, indeed, bizarre truths about and related to the trial, but they were not reported by the media.
• “Ryan Murphy’s ambitions new anthology series”   Anthology?
• “ Jeffrey Toobin’s nonfiction book”   Not nonfiction. Nonfiction-fiction hybrid.

Excerpt 2) “Speaking of parody, there are a few winking moments included in the series that work through a knowing hindsight, like Judge Ito’s (Kenneth Choi) preoccupation with celebrity…”

Judge Ito’s (Kenneth Choi) preoccupation with celebrity…”  Not!   I am well aware of how he was portrayed by the news media. Most of it was misrepresented to flat out not true. The best way to understand Ito and his ‘preoccupations’ is to read Anatomy of a Trial.

 

Excerpt 3)  “…the trial essentially being conducted to the public nightly through Larry King Live.”  Again, Not! Ir boggles my mind how people can make such specious and ridiculous assertions. King having members of the media who were covering the trial, legal pundits and people associated with the trial participants, no matter how faintly, on his show was a far cry from conducting the trial there. Saying/writing such a thing is just ignorant.

Everybody’s Gotta Say Something

The second coming of the misinformation onslaught has begun, thanks to that vast purveyor of misinformation, Fox Entertainment Group. The first of a 10-part miniseries, The People vs. O.J. Simpson, debuts tonight on its FX network.

This drama will contain a representation/misrepresentation of non-courtroom conversations and events involving the lawyers, relatives and others related to the 1994 murder case of O. J. Simpson and the defendant.

My interest is how it portrays court officials, including the trial judge Lance Ito, and media coverage. That’s because I was the Los Angeles courts’ director of public information at that time and present in the courtroom, the courthouse and behind the scenes before, during and following the 1994-95 trial.

The FX series has conjured up lots of reminiscing by people who were there — and not — with lots of mis-remembering. Here’s something that popped up online today:

In his New York Post Page Six column, Richard Johnson writes that “Judge Lance Ito was a virtual Hollywood groupie who couldn’t resist rubbing elbows with stars — including Richard Dreyfuss.”

Johnson goes on to ‘relate’ a conversation Dreyfuss had with another Post staffer about the day Dreyfuss attended the trial “as a curious bystander.”

“Ito spotted Dreyfuss and invited him into his chambers, where he showed off some of the gory crime-scene photos from the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman,” Johnson writes.

“'[Ito] said, “Ladies and gentlemen, we have a special guest today,” and introduced me to the courtroom,’ Dreyfuss recalls.”

I kept a voice-recorded journal during the trial, which I had transcribed and used as a reference when writing my book, Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from The People vs. O.J. Simpson.   Here’s what I recorded the day, Sept. 14, 1995 — nearly nine months into the trial — that Dreyfuss sat in the courtroom:

Thursday, September 14^th.

…

Today Mr. Dryfuss was in the courtroom, a rather sleepy Richard Dryfuss, I caught him dozing a couple of times. I told Judge Ito. [Earlier Ito had asked me, Did you see who was out there? And I said, ‘No’.  He said , ‘Richard Dryfuss’.  I said, ‘Oh, well, what is he in one of the special guest seats?’ He said yes. ‘But, I am taking your advice, and I am not going to go out to meet him.’   I said, ‘Good, you will avoid a lot of criticism.’  I told him later that he had been dozing and he kind of gave this little whining noise like  ‘what, he wasn’t riveted to my every word?  I said something about, ‘Don’t take it personally.’  It was really dry, boring stuff going on there.

One thing this journal entry doesn’t do is convey Ito’s wry sense of humor and subtle sarcasm. What it and the trial transcript do, though, is prove two aspects of Dreyfuss’s assertion wrong.

One was Dreyfuss’s representation of himself as ‘a curious bystander.’ Dreyfuss, like other recognizable faces that showed up in the courtroom, such as James Woods, Steve Garvey, Jackie Mason, Anita Hill, Jimmie Breslin, might have been curious, but of greater importance was an obsession of many celebrities. The Simpson trial became THE place to be seen. Dreyfuss (or someone for him) called the courtroom to see if he could get in. A couple of courtroom seats were held in reserve throughout the trial for Ito in case he got requests from people he wanted to be sure got into the trial. His parents, for instance. One day it was a cancer patient who had written him a letter and told him that watching the trial on TV was a distraction for her and help her endure the terrible side effects of cancer treatments. At his invitation she and a caregiver sat in his ‘special seats.’ He also invited her to rest on the couch in his chambers during proceedings recesses. The media didn’t report on Ruth Archey attending the trial or Ito offer or his chambers couch.

To my knowledge, Ito didn’t contact, rub elbows with or invite any of the ‘celebrities’ who showed up in the courtroom to attend the trial.

The other incorrect assertion was that Ito introduced Dreyfuss to the courtroom. The court reporter made an official transcript of everything that was said in the courtroom during that trial from the minute Ito took the bench until he left. My search of the transcript for the entire month of September 1995, turns up no mention of Dreyfuss, much less Ito introducing him to the courtroom either by name or as a “special guest.”

Ito didn’t even speak to Dreyfuss in the courtroom, so it’s not likely Dreyfuss would have visited him in chambers, and even more unlikely Ito would have shown him crime-scene photographs. One reason is that the crime-scene photos were trial exhibits and as such in the custody of the courtroom clerk which she kept locked up in a closet. Another reason is that of all the occasions I accompanied courtroom visitors to Ito’s chambers, which included some members of the media at their request, I never saw Ito show them trial exhibit photos.

So, where did Dreyfuss get that from? Who knows, but my guess is it was a false memory. That is a common phenomenon.

My younger brother swears he was with me on a late-night caper when I was 16 years old and he was 12. I sneaked out of the house while everyone else was asleep and drove the family car to a nearby town hoping to find a boy I had a crush on who hadn’t called me on the telephone that evening as he had promised he would do.

First, why on earth would I have taken my younger brother in my confidence, especially when we weren’t exactly BBFs, much less taken him with me in such a situation. In fact, I actively avoided him and wanted as little to do with him as possible as was typical for any teenage girl with a ‘little’ brother. I was 16 and he was 12, for crying out loud.

Second, although he was younger than me by four years, he wasn’t my ‘little’ brother. That year, the year he turned 12, he grew nine inches, so was not only no longer smaller than me, he was an unbelievable clutz — like a puppy that hasn’t grown into its giant paws. No way would I have risked being caught because any noise he might have made. In fact, it took me what felt like forever to sneak down the stairs without stepping on any creaky ones, tiptoe to my parents downstairs bedroom, get the keys off my dad’s bureau, creep through the house to the back door, easy out and close it and get in the car without waking anyone. So, I would have brought my bull-in-a-china-shop brother with me? And trusted that he wouldn’t tell anyone, even when my dad remarked the next morning when the entire family was in the car to go to church that the car was parked on the opposite side of the driveway from where he had parked it the day before and that the gas gauge showed a quarter-of-a-tank of gas less than it had the day before and concluded that someone must have taking it for a joyride and that he was so thankful whoever did at least brought it back instead of stealing it or leaving it in a ditch somewhere?

I don’t think so.

It’s not beyond belief that Dreyfuss saw and read so much about the Simpson case — some of which included fabrications, like some parts of Toobin’s book did when it was published a year later — that his memory inserted himself into stuff that didn’t happen.

Memories such as this one Johnson’s Page Six report and other fantasies that are sure to be vomited up in this “Everybody’s Gotta Say Something” second coming of misinformation onslaught with FX’s “The People vs. O.J. Simpson” drama are equally if not more frustrating and maddening as those I endured 21 years ago.

TV Series Promises to Perpetuate Myths

Entertainment Weekly asks the question in a web article: The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story: How accurate is it?

Before it even airs, I know the answer: Not very. Why? The biggest clue is the ten-part series is based on a book that has accuracy problems.

For instance, Jeffrey Toobin’s account in The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson of a visit celebrity Larry King had with the trial judge Lance Ito is pure fiction. It was obvious to me when I read about Toobin’s description of the visit that it was hearsay.

Last year, when I attended the roast of longtime Associated Press special correspondent Linda Deutsch at which King was the keynote speaker, I realized that he was the source of Toobin’s misinformation.

How do I know Toobin’s account was wrong? Because I was present during the entirety of King’s visit with Ito, during which I took notes, and was with King from the moment he got off the elevator on the floor Ito’s courtroom was on, took him to the courtroom and the judge’s chambers and escorted him back to the elevator after the visit. At no time was I not with King and at no time was Toobin even near him, much less present during the visit.

Toobin also misreported his own visit with the judge and violated Ito’s condition when he agreed to meet Toobin, that everything said during the visit was off the record.

It will be interesting to see what else in the TV series is accurate or not. Guess I’m going to have to watch it, much as I’d rather not.

20 Years Later: The Afterglow

Here it is 20 years since the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial and all kinds of previously undisclosed news is just now making headlines.

O.J. Simpson nearly committed suicide in Kim Kardashian’s bedroom at her dad’s house.

Kris Kardashian Jenner is finally expressing public remorse about not speaking up when she got the feeling her BFF Simpson ex-wife and eventual murder victim, Nicole Brown, thought her life was in danger. Some best friend. (BTW, interesting that when the Simpson case erupted, Faye Resnick claimed — as she promoted her hastily penned book — that SHE  was Nicole’s best friend.)

Author Lawrence Schiller, who hasn’t been seen or heard from since his book  American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the OJ Simpson Defense came out shortly after the trial, is talking about what would have been Simpson’s last words, had he, indeed, killed himself in Kim’s bedroom.

So why is all this coming out now? Oh, yeah. The 20-year anniversary of the Simpson trial and the irresistible spotlight.

Oh, My! How Times Did Change!

Jenner and Garvey.

Sit with victims’ family.

Athletes day in court.

9/27/95

Former Olympian Bruce Jenner and former Dodger Steve Garvey came to court and sat in the section reserved for the victim’s families.

This was such a strange situation — Jenner, who was male back then, was married to Simpson lawyer Bob Kardashian’s ex-wife, Kris, who bore children by both men.

Here’s an excerpt from my book, Anatomy of a Trial, about that one day a week before the trial was over:

“Another day of a strange star alignment occurred less than a week before the trial ended. On September 27, Ito had given the two courtroom seats he held in reserve for his use, generally for visiting judges, his parents or other relatives, to a songwriter, David Foster, he knew and Foster’s wife. The wife had previously been married to former Olympian Jenner. And there in court that same day was Jenner with his current wife, who was the ex-wife of Simpson attorney Robert Kardashian.^[i] The Jenners sat with former baseball star Garvey and his wife, who, months earlier, had been a prosecution witness.

[i].  Author’s notes, Author’s journal, September 27, 1995.

Even though Kris Jenner graced the court only one day of the trial — and that was vary late in the game — she has been made into a major character in a made-for-TV drama about the trial that’s being billed as what you never knew about the O.J. Simpson case that’s to air next year. The fiction goes on.

Yesterday, Today: Nobody’s Happy

My haiku from 20 years ago yesterday:

Judge Manella asked.

Two witnesses protected.

The plug briefly pulled.

9/19/95

Ito excluded camera coverage of the testimony of two small-time hoods, who apparently were informants, at the request of U.S. Attorney and former L.A. Superior Court Judge Nora Manella.

“The men were not in the federal witness protection program, ” I wrote in Anatomy of a Trial. “They had given interviews, had been photographed, and had appeared on TV.

“‘It was just too funny,’ I recorded in my journal. ‘There two characters were right out of central casting, with shiny silver pants and wide shoulder-padded jackets. There were just incredible. Tony “The Animal” [Fiato] in particular.’

“[Defense jury consultant Jo-Ellan] Dimitrius, who often sat next to me in the courtroom, said she thought we should all have mafia names and than mine could be Jerrianne “The Muscle” Hayslett, which I figured referred to my role as media enforcer.”

From 20 years ago today:

A simple syringe.

A simple stipulation.

Both parties draw blood.

9/20/95

What should have been a quick stipulation by both sides concerning the syringe used to draw a sample of Simpson’s blood deteriorated into an acrimonious squabble that angers Judge Ito so much he left the bench and courtroom so he could cool down.

 

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Did he plant the glove?

Or splatter blood around?

Fuhrman took the 5th.

9/6/95

So the lead detective on the case and prosecution witness has to take the Fifth when asked questions about the evidence or whether or not he tampered with it?

Fuhrman Tapes Continue to Rankle

Cochran ranted on,

“The judge aids the cover up!”

Who’s side is Lance on?

9/1/95

Defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran was not happy that Simpson trial judge Lance Ito allowed only two of the taped racial utterances of prosecution witness, LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman into evidence.

Would a Cartoon Have Contaminated the Jury?

The censors miss it —

Mike Peters’ Willy cartoon.

Will it sway Twinkie?

8/25/95

Sheriff deputies who cut references to the trial out of the jurors’ newspapers miss a Mother Goose & Grimm comic by Mike Peters spoofing Cochran. An alternate juror the court staff calls Twinkie spots it.