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.

Deja Vu Times Two as TMZ Revisits OJS Jury Visit

TMZ’s inclusion of jury visit video in a 1995 OJ Simpson criminal trial drama promo the other day was a double deja vu for me. In the midst of my gym workout, I saw images of the long entourage of the bus carrying jurors and cars with judge, various and sundry court staff and support, lawyers and their support staff, and van flicker across the screen of a TV monitor hanging from the ceiling. Oh, I thought, there I go!

I was riding in the van with members of the media, given that they were part of my job duties with the court. Watching that footage truly was a deja vu moment for me.

So was watching TMZ’s Harvey Levin talking about the jury visit and the trial. He was a reporter with Los Angeles the CBS affiliate during the OJ Simpson trial era and, as such, he and I had a good deal of interaction.

It was kind of fun to watch, and, I’m sure, won’t be my last deja vu moment with that case and the folks associated with it.

 

 

Ex-Wife Wanted to be Mum

D.A. won’t call her.

Body attachment recalled.

Margurite Thomas.

7/12/95

Simpson’s first wife, Marguerite, apparently didn’t want to testify against him. The prosecution, in an effort to get her on the witness stand, had the court issue a body attachment*, then, apparently had a change of heart.

*“A writ of body attachment is a process issued by the court directing the authorities to bring a person who has been found in civil contempt before the court. The process may also be called an order of commitment for civil contempt or a warrant for civil arrest.

“A writ of body attachment may be ordered, for example, when a witness fails to appear in response to a subpoena. It is often issued after a court-ordered fine or forfeiture has not been paid. Body attachments may be issued in contempt, civil, or criminal proceedings.”

More about the book, Anatomy of a Trial, is at www.anatomyofatrial.com.

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.

The Great Glove Stretch

This story is such a stretch between a nuclear waste leak in New Mexico earlier this year and the Simpson trial in Los Angeles nearly 20 years ago, it’s almost not worth noting. Leading with, “What do the OJ Simpson murder trial and a nuclear waste leak in southern New Mexico have in common? A single glove.” is the writer’s obvious ploy to make her story more news worthy or attention grabbing.

I decided to post the link on this blog, however, as a bonus to the reposting of the haiku I posted last month, which actually should have been posted today.

It is July 27, 20 years to the day from when I wrote my daily haiku as I and everyone else in the Simpson courtroom waited for the trial judge, Lance Ito, to take the bench. Here it is:

Lawyers face the bench.

All eyes are on the doorway.

Black robe rustling.

How Wrong Ito Was — 20 Years Ago

Continuing my campaign to post my daily People vs. OJ Simpson haiku on the correct anniversary date, here’s what I wrote on July 25, 1994:

Lance Ito was picked.

For trial of the century.

“Press will lose interest.”

7/25/94

(Explainer: Simpson trial judge, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito, was convinced media interest in the case would wane as the case proceeded.)

And the Answer is…

It occurred to me that after posting Mr. Peter Gordon’s book-winning question  —  Vincent “Vince” Bugliosi once stated that “race was falsely injected into this trial”, by Johnny Cochran, one member of OJ Simpson’s defence team. Would you agree with this statement? — others besides Mr. Gordon might be interested in my answer. So here it is:

No, I do not agree with Vincent Bugliosi’s statement. Race is almost always a subtext in the United States in issues involving African Americans, even when African Americans are obviously absent, such as with all-white clubs and organizations. Because of the country’s history, race-consciousness, if not actual racism, is in the nation’s DNA. So race would have been an undertone of the Simpson trial even without overt injection. Because of his football-star and pitchman/B-movie-actor status, O. J. Simpson was an African American whom white America accepted as a “good guy.” That perception changed as details of the murders of his ex-wife and her friend and evidence in the trial emerged. As his attorney, Johnnie Cochran was obligated to present the best defense possible for his client. In doing so, he included race as a major component of that defense, along with police incompetence and forensic laboratory bungling. Making race a centerpiece of his defense received a great boost from audio tapes of an aspiring North Carolina filmmaker interviewing police detective Mark Fuhrman in which hMr. Fuhrman used a racial epithet after he had said in sworn testimony that he had never used such a word.