Bill Pavelic Forum | Information on William Bill Pavelic

Bill Pavelic - Former Lead Simpson Investigator Visits Good Morning America

ABC NEWS
January 30, 1997

SHOW: ABC GOOD MORNING AMERICA (7:00 am ET)
GUESTS: BILL PAVELIC

BYLINE: ,ELIZABETH VARGAS
SECTION: News
LENGTH: 1901 words

HIGHLIGHT: RESPONSE TO LANGE AND VANNATTER

ELIZABETH VARGAS, Host: As we said earlier, former LAPD detectives Phil Van-natter and Tom Lange were guests on our show yesterday. Today — and they were emphatically defending the integrity of their investigation, we must say. Today, we are going to speak with Bill Pavelic. He was the chief investigator of the OJ Simpson criminal trial, civil trial, and the custody case involving his two young children, Sydney and Justin. Bill Pavelic joins us this morning. Welcome, thank you for being here.

BILL PAVELIC, Former Simpson Lead Investigator: Thank you.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Former detectives Lange and Vannatter took on the air — were on the air — concede they made mistakes, but they emphatically deny framing OJ Simpson. Why are you so sure that, in fact, they did?

BILL PAVELIC: In fact, their book even substantiates that premise even more. They basically falsified the affidavit, the search warrant affidavit. The infor-mation that they provided to the judge in order to get the search warrant was basically fabricated. They lied to the judge by informing her that OJ Simpson left on an unscheduled flight, thus leaving them with the impression — leaving her with the impression that he was fleeing California. They did not tell her that they scaled the wall. They told her that they recovered the glove while se-curing the evidence. And as you know from the trial, that’s absolutely incor-rect. I could go on, but I don’t think we have the time.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: But even if we grant, even if we were to accept everything you just said on face value, which clearly detectives Lange and Vannatter deny and do not, you were an LA police officer for 19 years yourself. What you are suggesting is a conspiracy of such an enormous scope. They would have had to have planted Mr Simpson’s blood at Bundy. They would have planted Mr Goldman’s blood in Mr Simpson’s Bronco, planted Nicole’s blood and Simpson’s blood at the Rockingham estate. It goes on and on, and it seems fantastic to many people.

BILL PAVELIC: Yes, it does. But if you look at the facts, even Judge Ito sup-ported our premise, and that is that Vannatter, for all intents and purposes, was dishonest. If Vannatter was dishonest, his partner obviously is just as cul-pable as Vannatter. What we found in this book, in fact, is, that Vannatter was shopping for a favorable prosecutor, in this case, Marcia Clark. Vannatter con-tacted Marcia Clark before he obtained the search warrant or the affidavit, com-pleted the affidavit for the search warrant, before he went to Judge Lefkovitz (ph). So now we learn from his book that the prosecutor had a much bigger role in this conspiracy than we initially thought.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Well, let’s get to the specifics of what they said yesterday …

BILL PAVELIC: Sure.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: … on our air, for example. For — the first thing they said was that Mr Simpson was not acting like an innocent man. As one of the proofs, pieces of proof of that, they played the following tape. It’s an audio-tape from the Bronco chase. Let’s listen to it very quickly.

Det TOM LANGE: (on phone) And nobody’s going to get hurt.

OJ SIMPSON: (on phone) I’m the only one that deserves …

Det TOM LANGE: No, you don’t deserve that.

OJ SIMPSON: I’m going to get hurt.

Det TOM LANGE: You do not deserve to get hurt.
OJ SIMPSON: Ahhh …

Det TOM LANGE: You do not deserve to get hurt. Don’t do this.: OJ SIMPSON: All I did was love Nicole. That’s all I did was love her.

Det TOM LANGE: I understand.

OJ SIMPSON: I love everybody. I tried to show everybody my whole life that I love every body.

Det TOM LANGE: We know that, and everybody loves you.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Mr Simpson says on this tape, “I’m the only one who deserves to get hurt. I loved Nicole too much.” To detectives Lange and Vannatter, they say that sounds like a grieving guilty man.

BILL PAVELIC: Well, he is a grieving not-guilty man. What he is referring to is obviously not the crime itself, but the fact that he eluded authorities, and went to the grave, and was suicidal. The interpretation that the — Lange and Vannatter are putting out is that somehow this has to do with the crime itself, and that is totally incorrect.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Any question why Mr Simpson didn’t say, “I’m innocent of these crimes”? Why he didn’t say — talk more about Nicole’s death?

BILL PAVELIC: In fact, he did say that. Not only did he maintain his innocence, but he also said, in various discussions that same day, that he was being framed by the police. I would like to submit to you, why didn’t Vannatter and Lange put the contents of all — the entire tape in a follow-up report or a supplemental report? You’re not going to find that. And the reason you’re not going to find it is because there’s a problem with this tape. First of all, what probable cause did they have to tape record this conversation? Second of all, they’re to-tally contradicting their initial premise, which was that he was fleeing again, trying to leave the public with the impression that he was some-how — with the goatee and the mustache, that he was going to run away.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: But it does bring up an interesting issue. Why, in fact, if he was just going to his wife’s grave, or why, in fact, he was only going to commit suicide or contemplating that horrible thought, would he have a disguise and $8,000 cash with him?

BILL PAVELIC: Well, first of all, he had a disguise. Why would he take his passport with no disguise? I mean, it’s ludicrous to assume that he was trying to disguise himself in order to flee, but yet he took the passport that doesn’t have the disguise. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: All right. They also introduced, detectives Lange and Vannat-ter, they say there was new evidence that was never introduced at the criminal or civil trial, and they talked about it yesterday on our show. I’ve got another clip I’d like you to listen to.

Det TOM LANGE: We had a witness at the airport that initially, interestingly enough, came to the defense and said, “Listen, I was at the airport a little af-ter 11:00. I saw OJ Simpson there with his arm buried in a trash container, and then it went to a small flight bag on top. He zipped it closed, and he walked inside.” The day after — the day of the murders, this fellow reported this to the defense, and they never shared it with us. It was nine months later when this man followed up on this revelation with us.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Did you investigate this man who says he saw OJ Simpson dis-posing contents of the — of a bag?

BILL PAVELIC: First of all, first of all, let me just say something about De-tective Lange here. We don’t have an obligation to turn over discovery material to him. Discovery material would be turned over to the prosecution. If the prosecution did not let him see it, that’s their business. We did turn over that information. As far as his interpretation, what happened is, their interpreta-tion is completely different from ours.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: And the other evidence about supposedly OJ Simpson got a gift of knives just days before the murders?

BILL PAVELIC: Again, you have to ask yourself, why didn’t they introduce this man? Why didn’t they call him to testify? His contention is that it was the prosecution that didn’t want to do it. This is a question that should be posed to the prosecution. As far as we’re concerned, the gentleman that he is refer-ring to was contacting tabloids, was trying to sell his story, has changed the version of his story, and he is — he was not reliable.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: To many people in this civil trial in particular, the most damning evidence against OJ Simpson is this series of photographs showing him wearing Bruno Magli shoes, the kind of shoes that left a footprint at the murder scene. Do you still believe that first photograph printed in “The Enquirer” was indeed doctored, was a fake?

BILL PAVELIC: Unlike the plaintiffs’ witnesses, I will not comment on an issue that the jury in the civil case is adjudicating. I think it would be improper. I’m still subject to the rules and regulations and the gag order that was issued by Judge Fujisaki.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: All right. Then without commenting in specific on this evi-dence, do you think that overall, this civil trial has been a fair trial for Mr Simpson?

BILL PAVELIC: I would prefer to answer that question after the adjudication. And I think you may find it rather surprising.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: There have been many have been — who have felt that Mr Simp-son has been subjected to double jeopardy. Those who support him feel that he’s already been through this once, that in the civil trial, he is — has been — all this has been brought out against him again, we’re getting this new evi-dence. Do you feel the same way? Do you feel sympathetic that way?

BILL PAVELIC: Let me just make a comment that I don’t see the rage in America with regards to Mark Fuhrman making a living, who is a convicted perjurer. I don’t see groups demonstrating against him. He is given an opportunity to make a living. So if we’re talking about a double standards here, I think there are double standards with regards to the way they look at OJ versus Mark Fuhrman. And in this case, only one person was convicted, and that was Mark Fuhrman.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: You still have a good relationship with OJ Simpson. You still speak with him regularly.

BILL PAVELIC: Yes, I do.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: How is he holding up through this trial?

BILL PAVELIC: I’m sure it’s very difficult for him, but I think the fact that he has his children, he’s content with that, and he knows this is an uphill bat-tle. This is only round two in a 15-round fight. I’m sure that there will be some additional rulings.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Round two, that means it sounds like if he loses, he’ll ap-peal.

BILL PAVELIC: I expect the appeal to go. I don’t expect him to lose in this case.: ELIZABETH VARGAS: You expect him to win in the civil trial.

BILL PAVELIC: I think we’re going to have to wait for the jury, and we may be just as surprised here as we were in all the others.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: In the criminal trial, OJ Simpson repeatedly professed his innocence, repeatedly pledged to find the real killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. You were the man put in charge of that. What have you found about who might have killed these two people?

BILL PAVELIC: It’s interesting that you ask that question. I don’t recall any-body asking Mr Jewell, “If you didn’t plant the bomb in the — in Atlanta, who did?” In this particular case, Mr Simpson did authorize me to conduct an inves-tigation. I will not comment on the investigation. I want to maintain the integ-rity of the investigation. And unlike the prosecution in the criminal case, I’m not about to rush to judgment.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Bill Pavelic, thank you for coming in, interesting speaking with you this morning.

BILL PAVELIC: Thank you, have a good day.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Thanks, same to you.

LOAD-DATE: February 27, 1997
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
Transcript # 97013004-J01