Menendez brothers join OJS in headlines

Sometimes I think it might be a curse to have not only been involved in both the Menendez brothers and the O.J.Simpson cases and all of their trials, but to have such extensive behind-the-scenes knowledge.

First, I saw this story:

ESPN profits off black culture, does not stand by black employees views’

which contains this paragraph:

“This incident reminds me of the dynamic between Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden during the OJ Simpson trial. The white Clark brought Darden, a black man, onto the prosecution team, yet ignored his plea to not use white supremacist Mark Fuhrman as their primary witness in the case. In the FX dramatized rendition of the case, once Fuhrman’s racist background dominates the trial, Darden angrily tells Clark, ‘You put me on this trial because you wanted a black face, but the truth is you never wanted a black voice.'”

While I think it was no secret that the Simpson prosecution wanted an African American on its team, I thought it was a micromanaging DA Gil Garcetti who assigned Darden, not Clark. Although, I have no reason to believe they weren’t on the same page with each other.

Also, I have no idea whether such an exchange between Darden and Clark even occurred. If it did, I got no wind of it during the trial, and so much fiction about the trial and its participants and behavior have swirled about since, it might just be a fabrication of someone’s imagination.

But the biggest bone I have to pick is with the writer of this article is referring to Mark Fuhrman as a white ‘supremacist’. Mr. Price and everyone who uses that misnomer needs to understand that there is no such thing. Individuals who self sort into anything called that are nothing but white racists.

That, however, is a subject  for another blog.

Then I saw this story:

Law & Order: The Real Story Behind the Menendez Brothers’ Claims of Abuse

which contains this paragraph:

“He later added that the current District Attorney in Los Angeles was desperate for a win after the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson trials, so there “were major mitigating circumstances” in the Menendez case that the average viewer may not know about.”

What seems strange is that Menendez prosecutor Deputy District Attorney David Conn gave DA Gil Garcetti that win with the convictions and life sentences of both Menendez brothers for the shotgun murders of their parents, then demoted Conn and exiled him to some nether office, but rewarded losing Simpson prosecutor Clark with with an obscenely generous bonus — only to have her turn around quit her job with the District Attorney’s Office.

It is, indeed, a crazy world.

And the Verdict is…

As everyone who watches TV probably knows by now, the Nevada parole board who heard O.J. Simpson’s plea today to be released on parole.

So I supposed I should blog about that.

Okay.

Oh, snap, I missed Fox coverage with Mark Fuhrman’s analysis.

Is anyone surprised the Nevada board granted Simpson’s parole request?

A number of people with the news media who were involved with coverage of Simpsons’ trial expressed disgust and ill wishes for Simpson at the parole board’s decision.

A Wisconsin television news reporter did interview me today about the board’s decision. I had hoped to have a link to the interview to post on this blug, but the station has not yet sent me the link as it said it would do.

Perhaps I can post it tomorrow.

 

Fuhrman Joins Defense–Again

Sitting in the Fox press box tomorrow with broadcasters covering O.J. Simpson’s parole hearing will be former LAPD detective, discredited lead Simpson-murders investigator, expert perjurer and N-word user Mark Fuhrman.

Even though Fuhrman testified for the prosecution in O.J. Simpson’s 1995 trial in which he was accused of murdering Nicole Brown, Ronald Goldman, he turned out to be the defense team’s star witness.

Some might argue, but I believe that Fuhrman, along with Deputy D.A. Christopher Darden’s bone-headed Simpson-glove demonstration, were pivotal points that pretty much guaranteed Simpson’s acquittal.

So it will be interesting to see/hear what kind of analysis, which is what he’s purported going  to do, he comes up with.

Frankly, I’m mystified. What’s to analyze about a parole hearing? How the board members arrived at their decision to either grant or deny parole? Simpson’s body language, facial gestures as he makes his request/listens to the board members’ decision.

ESPN is also covering the hearing live and other networks will also jump on this train.

I don’t recall such a proceeding every being covered by the news media like this. I think, to coin a cliche, this is uncharted territory.

Summer sale on Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from The People vs. O.J. Simpson @ Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from The People vs. O.J. Simpson — $7.99 (includes shipping with Prime). Or get a signed copy directly from the author — $7.99 plus shipping @ http://anatomyofatrial.com/contact/.

 

 

Interesting Question, What’s the Answer?

O.J. Simpson pal raises a question that I don’t recall being raised in court during Simpson’s 1995 murder trial, or even being battered around behind the scenes. The question is, “…what would Mark Fuhrman have to know before he placed the glove at Simpson’s (house).?’

My first thought when I read that in a Huffington Post article was if that question had occurred to Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark or her assistant Christopher Darden either before, during or after the trial that ended in Simpson’s acquittal. If so, why didn’t that question make it into the trial? If not, why not?

Guess we’ll never know.

Choi Gets Ito

Kenneth Choi as Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lance Ito in The People vs. O.J. Simpson miniseries is totally unbelievable to me, unless I close my eyes.

Except for the black hair, rimless glasses and facial hair, Choi looks no more like Ito than I, a Caucasian, brown-haired woman, do.

But Choi does capture Ito’s voice. He also either researched something other than the popular media-created image of Ito — maybe he read my book! — or managed to otherwise understand the no-win situation that crashed down on Ito well enough to develop a fairly accurate sense of what the judge was up against in the Simpson trial.

I learned that from a recent article in The Hollywood Reporter.

“According to the actor, though Ito has received a lot of criticism for the O.J. Simpson case, he has tried to stay impartial. ‘I can’t criticize or be judgmental of the person I’m playing,’ he said. ‘I have to do my best to understand him and what he does. I personally think he had the weight of the world on his shoulders as this sort of ringmaster in this circus played out on such a huge scale.’

“Though Choi admitted that the pressure on Ito ‘absolutely’ affected some of his decisions, he also pointed out that Ito was known to be a ‘very good, very smart, very fair’ judge.

“Asked whether or not he thinks that Ito’s decision about the Mark Fuhrman tapes affected the verdict, Choi answered, ‘I don’t know that it affected the outcome.’

“‘The jury heard the two snippets from the tapes, and I think that was enough,’ he explained. ‘The damage was done.'”

I do know this: Choi did not come to his conclusions by talking to Ito.

 

She’s Baaack! With Her Book

Dregs of the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial keep bubbling up more than 20 years after the verdicts in that trial. This time, it’s a book that has been published by the woman who outed the LAPD lead detective on the Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman murders case as a liar.

Mark Fuhrman had said in sworn testimony during the trial that he had never used the obscene label commonly used by bigots and racists when referring and/or addressing people of African descent.

Laura Hart McKinny, at Simpson’s defense attorneys’ behest, presented audio tapes she had recorded when she interviewed Fuhrman for her book that belied his testimony.

Her book is now available. Here, again, is the link to the Winston-Salem NC news article about her book launch:  http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/laura-hart-mckinny-launches-book-police-diversity-discussion/article_df3e2cb0-15a8-5e28-8627-4f78a804760c.html

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?

2 Days Not So Quick After All

Cross examine Lee,

Prosecution should be quick.

It is a long day.

8/28/95

The prosecutors indicated that their cross examination of defense witness, forensic scientist and blood-spatter expert Dr. Henry Lee, wouldn’t take long. But they were wrong. The same was true the next day when the Court held a hearing on whether or not Simpson’s defense team could enter Mark Fuhrman’s racist remarks taped by videographer Laura McKinny.

402 hearing.

Will the racial slurs get in?

Another long day.

8/29/95

The Tapes that Sank Fuhrman

All wait: Baited breath.

Fuhrman talked to McKinney.

The tapes have arrived.

8/10/95

After LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman testified that he had never used the ‘N’ word, it turned out that a filmmaker in North Carolina, Laura McKinney, had tapes she had made of him in which he did use that word when she used him as a consultant on a screenplay she was working on when she lived in Los Angeles. The court had the tapes subpoenaed and they arrived on this date in 1995. As a result of those tapes, Furhman was charged with and convicted of committing perjury.

#anatomyofatrial #ojsimpson

FLee Floats an Idea

Bailey’s on a roll.

Did Fuhrman’s sock hide the glove?

Marcia cuts him down.

3/16/95

Wish I had notes on this, but can find nothing except, defense attorney “F. Lee Bailey asked to introduce plastic ziplock bag which could conceal the bloody glove and be hidden in Fuhrman’s sock. That would explain why the glove would still be damp when it was found.” My guess is prosecutor Marcia Clark found that idea a bit ridiculous and said so.