Bill Pavelic Forum | Information on William Bill Pavelic

Los Angeles Times

February 12, 2006 Sunday 
Home Edition

Pellicano Case Shines Spotlight on Private Eyes

BYLINE: Peter Y. Hong, Times Staff Writer

SECTION: CALIFORNIA; Metro; Metro Desk; Part B; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 1257 words

The federal indictment of Hollywood private investigator Anthony J. Pellicano for allegedly using wiretaps and police bribes to dig up dirt on celebrities and business executives has cast a spotlight on the often murky but growing practice of commercial sleuthing.

America’s appetite for litigation, a rise in corporate snooping on employees, partners and rivals, and the trafficking of vast stores of private information on computer databases have fueled a boom in private investigations.

The burgeoning industry and its darker practitioners have alarmed privacy ad-vocates, federal regulators and legitimate investigators, who say the Pellicano case underscores the need for more public scrutiny of investigators and their employers.

California has nearly 10,000 licensed private investigators, up from about 6,000 in 1990. As their ranks multiply, “we’re unable to tell the good players from the bad players,” said Robert H. Townsend, a Dana Point private investiga-tor with 40 years’ experience.

Pellicano and six others were indicted last week on charges of conspiring to wiretap, blackmail and intimidate dozens of celebrities and other targets, in-cluding Sylvester Stallone and Garry Shandling. Prosecutors believe the private eye illegally obtained confidential information to gain advantage for clients in legal disputes.

Pellicano has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He remains in federal cus-tody.

Although the investigator’s alleged tactics might put him at the fringe of his trade, the demand for Pellicano’s services came straight from the main-stream. For years, private lawyers and government prosecutors paid for his work.

Whether in a criminal case or a messy divorce, personal information such as financial, criminal or even telephone records can help a lawyer build a case or destroy an opponent’s. “A lawyer without an investigator is like a gun without bullets,” said Zvonko “Bill” Pavelic, a Los Angeles investigator.

But Pavelic and others acknowledge that requests from clients can sink to the lowest depths.

In one instance, Pavelic said, a defense lawyer asked him to find nude pic-tures of a prosecutor who had once been a Las Vegas showgirl. Pavelic said he refused. “The sleaze is unbelievable” among private investigators, he said, add-ing that lawyers’ requests are often “the most sleazy of them all.”

The demand for confidential information coupled with the amount of money one can make obtaining it encourages rogue tactics, Pavelic said. According to the 110-count indictment, Pellicano is accused of paying a former Los Angeles police sergeant nearly $189,000 for scouring law enforcement databases for information and to help bug celebrities and business leaders.

“Are there people in the LAPD, the Sheriff’s Department, the courthouses selling information?” Pavelic asked. “There is no question the answer is yes.”
*
As a hired detective who often worked for the rich and famous, Pellicano evokes an image — whether intentionally or not — of investigators deeply rooted in Hollywood lore.

Hard-boiled private eyes navigating the city’s seamy underside are well es-tablished in the public’s imagination, from Raymond Chandler’s 1930s gumshoe Philip Marlowe to Jack Nicholson’s snooping Jake Gittes in the 1974 film “China-town.”

Indeed, the popular image endures. When Richard Riordan was mayor of Los An-geles, a private investigator worked out of a backroom of his famous old down-town steak-and-eggs restaurant, the Original Pantry Cafe. Riordan and the inves-tigator, Phillip Burruel, have never publicly commented on their relationship.

Unlike some others in the private eye business, authorities allege that Pel-licano had inside help. He is charged with paying former LAPD Sgt. Mark Arneson and veteran Beverly Hills Police Officer Craig Stevens to search for information in the National Crime Information Center, a secured FBI database. The NCIC con-tains information ranging from criminal histories to records of stolen vehicles.

Putting such police information into the hands of private parties “shows how vulnerable we all are,” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson. A for-mer federal prosecutor, Levenson said the Pellicano case raises “the question of, do we have a bad egg here or another systemic problem at the LAPD? It does indicate that police computer systems can be easily abused.”

Pavelic, who retired from the LAPD in 1992, said he often entered law en-forcement databases on behalf of private investigators when he was on the force. “That happens day in and day out,” he said. “I don’t believe there’s a cop on the beat who has not accessed a police computer for some type of personal rea-son.”

But not all private eyes operate that way.

“Most of your private investigators are very legitimate operators running small mom-and-pop businesses,” serving clients such as insurance firms and plaintiffs’ lawyers, said Townsend, who opened his business after serving as an investigator in the Marine Corps. He said his main clients are plaintiffs’ law-yers and a nonprofit group seeking to prevent boat injuries.

At the top of the industry’s food chain are multinational companies, such as Kroll Associates, serving mainly corporate clients. The firm has grown from a single office in New York in 1985 to a global practice with 63 offices and 3,000 professional staff members, including lawyers, accountants and journalists.

Henry Kupperman, a lawyer, heads Kroll’s Los Angeles office. The company’s business, he said, includes working for corporations investigating internal fraud and embezzlement or checking the financial condition of a potential acqui-sition.

“When you have prosecutions and investigations like the one involving Pelli-cano, it helps our business,” he said. “We pride ourselves on being legal and ethical.”

At the bottom rung of the sleuthing trade are fly-by-night operations on the Internet that for a fee offer to dig up copies of phone bills and Social Secu-rity numbers. Federal officials say such companies routinely engage in deceptive practices to obtain information, such as pretending to be an account-holder when requesting a copy of a phone bill, or paying an employee of a store to pass on customer information.

Chris Hoofnagle, a San Francisco-based lawyer for the Electronic Privacy In-formation Center, a group focused on privacy issues, said the lack of widespread licensing standards for private investigators was a problem, noting that six states do not require licenses.

One of those states, Colorado, was the site of the first Federal Trade Com-mission lawsuit against a private detective for “pretexting,” using deception to gain information. James J. Rapp and Ragena L. Rapp, whose Denver-area business obtained bank and phone records through various techniques, paid the government a $200,000 settlement in 2000. James Rapp also served a 75-day sentence for racketeering.

Rapp drew the attention of authorities when the LAPD suspected his firm of selling home addresses and phone numbers of organized-crime detectives to a re-puted mobster.

California’s licensing requirements are among the most stringent, requiring three years of paid work experience for an investigative agency such as a police department or insurance company, passing a written exam and undergoing a crimi-nal background check.

Yet Pellicano’s alleged transgressions occurred while he was a licensed in-vestigator. He obtained his license in 1983; it expired in 2004, while he served prison time for possessing hand grenades and plastic explosives.
*
Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this report.

LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2006

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved

Scripps Howard News Service
October 27, 2003, Monday

SOURCE: Modesto Bee
SECTION: DOMESTIC NEWS
LENGTH: 320 words

DATELINE: MODESTO, Calif.

For The Defense:

DR. HENRY LEE: Forensic authority who has testified in more than 1,000 legal proceedings, including for the defense in the O.J. Simpson double-murder case. Also consulted in JonBenet Ramsey murder and President Kennedy’s assassination.

DR. CYRIL WECHT: Nationally recognized forensic expert who examined remains of Modesto’s Chandra Levy; coroner of Allegheny County, Pa., which includes Pittsburgh.

BILL PAVELIC: Private investigator and former veteran Los Angeles police detective. Previously worked on O.J. Simpson’s defense team.

GARY ERMOIAN: Local private investigator retained when Modesto police began focusing on Scott Peterson. Authorities secretly monitored part of one of his calls to Peterson.

For The Prosecution:

STEVE JACOBSON: Investigator with the Stanislaus County district attorney’s office and former police officer. Supervised wiretaps on Peterson’s phones.

JON BUEHLER: Modesto police detective. Amber Frey, Peterson’s girlfriend, reported to Buehler after telephone conversations with Peterson, which continued at least a month after Frey went public with their romance.

CRAIG GROGAN: Modesto police detective and lead investigator in the Peterson case. Previously named in a federal lawsuit filed by the family of 11-year-old Alberto Sepulveda, who was killed by another officer during a raid.

AL BROCCHINI: Modesto police detective. Helped escort Peterson from San Diego to Modesto after his arrest in April. Defense lawyers say Brocchini mishandled a hair found in Peterson’s boat.

JAMES BRAZELTON: Stanislaus County district attorney since 1996 and a prosecutor since 1985. Previously worked as a policeman and in private practice.

JOHN GOOLD: Chief deputy district attorney since 1999 and former Bay Area policeman. Often serves as a spokesman for the Peterson prosecutors.

BYLINE: Daily News Wire Services

SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. 04

LENGTH: 766 words

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES

The murder trial of O.J. Simpson sputtered to a halt yesterday when the judge delayed the interrogation of Rosa Lopez, a key defense alibi witness, to give the prosecution extra time to prepare for cross-examination.

Testimony will resume tomorrow, with Lopez facing questioning on inconsisten-cies in her testimony.

The trial has been mired in a maze of side issues and bedeviled by arcane le-gal haggling since its inception. The latest delay came after Simpson’s attor-neys produced a previously undisclosed tape recording of an interview with Lopez conducted on July 29 that was not given to the prosecution, violating the state’s disclosure laws.

After listening to the tape, Prosecutor Marcia Clark complained that in the interview, private investigator Bill Pavelic also known as William Bill Pavelic and Zvonko Bill Pavelic “handed a script” to Lopez and “coached” her on what to say. Clark also said that what Lopez said on the tape is inconsistent with what she said in a subsequent discussion with Bill Pavelic on Aug. 18.

“I have never heard anything like it,” Clark told Judge Lance Ito. “I have never heard a witness basically coached and told what to say through every bend and turn.”

Clark convinced Ito that prosecutors needed extra time to prepare for cross-examination, because they had just received the tape.

But defense attorney Johnnie Cochran said he did not think experienced law-yers should need more time to examine a 12-minute tape recording.

Lopez’s testimony is crucial to defense claims that Simpson, 47, could not have killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, 35, and her friend Ronald Goldman, 25, on June 12.

Lopez, a maid for a neighbor of Simpson’s, said she was walking a dog “shortly after 10 p.m.” the night of the murders and saw Simpson’s white Ford Bronco parked in its usual place outside his Brentwood residence. Prosecutors contend Simpson used the Bronco to drive to his ex-wife’s townhouse, where he killed her and Goldman about 10:15 p.m.

Simpson has pleaded innocent.

The time that Lopez says she saw the Bronco is crucial, since the trip from Simpson’s estate to his wife’s home takes about six minutes.

But the tape highlighted contradictions in Lopez’s statements, including:
* She made no mention of seeing the Bronco around the time of the slayings on the July 29 tape - and she reported hearing Simpson’s voice at 10 p.m., Clark said.

* She made no mention of her friend, Sylvia Guerra, on the tape, in an Aug. 18 statement or on the stand Monday.

But in a July 29 defense report - purportedly based on the taped interview - Lopez said that Guerra came over for coffee around 9 p.m., stayed for 10 or 15 minutes and made a remark about seeing Simpson’s Bronco parked outside.

* In the July 29 report, Lopez said she saw Simpson and a passenger drive away in his black Bentley between 8:30 and 9 p.m. In her Aug. 18 statement and on the witness stand she put the time at 9 p.m.

In another wrinkle, Lopez’s testimony Monday that she saw the Bronco shortly after 10 p.m. leaves Simpson with a far from air-tight alibi.

Lopez’s testimony is in itself unusual, because it is coming in the middle of the prosecution’s case. Lopez, who wants to return to her native El Salvador, is considered a flight risk.

Ito on Monday decided to have Lopez testify outside the presence of the jury on videotape so she can leave the country. She reacted emotionally yesterday to the news that she will have to delay her trip for at least two more days.

“I came from very far to finish with this,” Lopez told Ito. “And today and on Thursday, I’m going to be told another day. And I am very sick, sir. I don’t eat during the day, sir. I’m not sleeping very well. And I’m going to tell you, this is not my fault to work close to Mr. Simpson, to have seen and to have heard.”

When Ito told Lopez he would like to finish with her direct examination yes-terday afternoon, Lopez responded: “I am very tired. I want to go rest, sir. I don’t want any more questions. Thank you.”

TRIAL RECAP

WHAT HAPPENED

With the jury again not present, a defense investigator handed over a tape of an interview with defense alibi witness Rosa Lopez the prosecution says could undermine her credibility. Prosecutors charged Lopez was “coached” during the interview, and the judge granted them a continuance until tomorrow to study it.

WHAT IT MEANS

The prosecution wins a tactical victory, but it may mean little because the jury is unaware of the developments.

TODAY

No testimony scheduled, but discovery matters will be discussed at noon EST.

TOMORROW

Videotaped examination of Lopez resumes.

LOAD-DATE: October 18, 2002

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

CNBC News Transcripts
July 14, 1997, Monday 10:43 AM

SHOW: RIVERA LIVE (9:00 PM ET)

O.J. Simpson’s Brentwood Estate Goes On The Auction Block; O.J. Gives Interview To CNN, Complaining About Financial Worries

ANCHORS: JOHN GIBSON
BYLINE: GEORGE LEWIS
LENGTH: 2351 words

JOHN GIBSON, Host:

Now it has five bedrooms, six bathrooms, a tennis court, waterfalls, a pool, a spacious guest house–a famous, spacious guest house. It was O.J. Simpson’s pride and joy for two decades. But today, his Rockingham estate went the way of his Heisman Trophy, his favorite golf clubs and his previous way of life. The Tudor-style mansion and surrounding grounds were auctioned off for $ 2.6 million and bought by the bank that foreclosed on the dream house. NBC’s George Lewis has the details.

GEORGE LEWIS Reporting:

The company that handled today’s foreclosure auction has run plenty of these proceedings, but never one quite like this.

Mr. PATRICK DOBIESZ (Foreclosure Agent): Well, most of the famous properties have not gathered this type of media attention. They go very quietly.

LEWIS: But in this case, the prize was the O.J. Simpson home, one of the most famous pieces of real estate ever.

This game was for serious bidders only. To get into the auction you had to have a cashier’s check in your pocket for $ 2,531,259.

It only took about three minutes to sell off the estate, the bidding starting at $ 1,875,000 and rapidly going past the $ 2 1/2 million mark.

Unidentified Auctioneer: Two million six hundred thirty-one thousand two hundred fifty-nine dollars–third call. Any further bids? Sold, $ 2,631,259.

LEWIS: The bank that foreclosed on Simpson’s mortgage was the winning bidder, paying about $ 100,000 more than Simpson owes.

Real estate experts say the bank can probably turn around and sell the house for $ 1/2 million to $ 1 million profit.

Tourists and news people outside the house today caught brief glimpses of Simpson as he departed to play golf. He had no comment. But over the weekend, at a 50th birthday party for Simpson, he talked to a local television station about leaving the place he’s called home for 20 years.

Mr. O.J. SIMPSON: I’ve had a lot of good times here. I’ve enjoyed them all. And, you know, I mean–looking forward to having good times wherever else I go.

LEWIS: The families of the murder victims in the Simpson case won’t get any money from today’s sale. One of Fred Goldman’s lawyers observed the auction, noting that other creditors are in line ahead of Goldman.

Mr. PETER GELBLUM (Fred Goldman’s Lawyer): This sale wipes off everybody’s liens, including Fred’s.

LEWIS: Simpson plans to leave the house by the end of summer, looking to rent in the same area. His neighbors, tired of all the attention, hope it’s not too close. George Lewis, NBC News, Los Angeles.

GIBSON: And it’s been a big media day for Simpson. Aside from the hoopla over the house, the acquitted killer gave an extended interview to CNN’s Greta Van Susteren. In the conversation, Simpson again said that the Bruno Magli shoes he’s seen wearing in many photographs were not his shoes. He denied that his ex-wife Nicole had ever kept a diary. He mentioned that people were making contributions to a fund for his mother, Eunice. And he asserted twice, in fact, that he loves his life. He also said, Hey, reopen this case.’

We’re going to get into the Simpson quotes with our guests right after this break. You’re watching RIVERA LIVE on CNBC.

(Announcements)

Mr. SIMPSON: I’m going to try to stay on this side of town. The problem is I have my kids going to school here, and they like their schools and then we have a terrific support group of neighbors and friends and–on the West Side. And as much as I can, I want to keep my kids in that, at least until my appeal is done. Unfortunately, at this point, the two places that I’ve looked at that I like and I think is suitable that has the protection and the rooms that I need aren’t on the West Side, but I’m hoping something shows up.

GIBSON: O.J. Simpson speaking out over the last few days said today on the diary, Nicole’s diary, Nicole never kept a diary.’ He also was asked–and there is the diary in the handwriting of one Nicole Brown Simpson: O.J. came to pick up the kids at 8:30. They wanted to stay home,’ etc., etc., etc. He was also asked about those Bruno Magli shoes and the photos of him wearing them. I didn’t expect to overcome it because they weren’t my shoes.’ There they are. I don’t suppose the issue was whether or not they were his shoes; the issue is whether they were on his feet, and they appear, in the photo, to be on his feet, in fact.

Bob Dunn. Last one. This is–wait a second here. This new subject: My biggest concern financially is that I don’t feel that the second trial was fair. My biggest financial problem at this point is trying to fund my appeal.’ And there are some more, but let’s go over those things right now.

Bob Dunn, Bruno Magli shoes, They weren’t my shoes.’

Mr. ROBERT DUNN (Criminal Defense Attorney): Well, I mean I–I think…

Mr. JAMES CURTIS (Deputy District Attorney, Riverside County, California): Go, Robert. Come on.

GIBSON: G–I got the laughing choir up there. We’ll get to you guys in a second, hang on.

Mr. DUNN: I think the picture speaks for itself, you know.

GIBSON: But it may be true they weren’t his shoes.

Mr. DUNN: Well, hey you’re right. The point of the matter is whether or not he ever wore Bruno Magli shoes. I just feel that that was like a real mistake on the part of O.J.’s defense team. Rather than getting into whether or not he ever wore Bruno Magli shoes, I think it would have been a better issue as to whether the prints were, indeed, Bruno Magli shoes.

GIBSON: Victoria Toensing, Nicole never kept a diary.’ Flat statement, not contradicted, not followed up on, just Nicole never kept a diary.’

Ms. VICTORIA TOENSING (Criminal Defense Attorney): Why shouldn’t he say things like that? He’s been saying lies for at least the last two or three years that we’ve been seeing him perform and nobody ever really calls him on it…

Mr. ALVIN MICHAELSON (Criminal Defense Attorney): That’s true.

Ms. TOENSING: …until he went to the civil trial. Huh, you know, he’s writing his own fiction right now. He–you say an ugly eye–al–an ugly lie enough and they–it sounds like the–sounds like the truth to some people.

GIBSON: Let’s go to the LA guys.

Mr. MICHAELSON: I agree with Victoria, and I must say that I haven’t agreed with her that often, but I do agree with you, Victoria.

Ms. TOENSING: Oh, it’s a special day, Alvin.

GIBSON: Well…

Mr. MICHAELSON: And I agree that he’s been–he was probably, as we can see lying all along and he even testified I don’t think I’d blame it on his defense team he was the one who said he never struck her. He was the one who said various things, not his defense team.

Mr. DUNN: No, I just meant–I just meant that issue.

GIBSON: I think I think before Bob Dunn interrupts, I should remind every-body that the person speaking to us about O.J.’s lies is Bob Kardashian’s lawyer, who, of course, sat in the courtroom for all that time, and Alvin Michael-son does, in fact–next to O.J.

Mr. MICHAELSON: Well, I didn’t sit there; Bob did.

GIBSON: Bob did; Alvin didn’t.

Mr. MICHAELSON: Right, yeah, right.

GIBSON: Alvin sat next to Bob Kardashian. What about this–as long as we’re on that subject, Alvin…
Mr. MICHAELSON: Yes.

GIBSON: My biggest concern financially is that I don’t feel the second trial was fair. My biggest financial problem at this point is trying to fund my appeal.’ Should he waste any money at all on his appeal?

Mr. MICHAELSON: I don’t think he should. By the time he gets done with that appeal, anyway, he’ll be alive–he’ll only have his unfortunate $ 25,000 a month left.

GIBSON: The IRS is taking $ 9,000, let’s be honest about this. He’s living on $ 16,000 a month.

Mr. MICHAELSON: All right. Now–now I think he can live on $ 16,000 a month. There are a lot of people in this country that can do it, and I don’t think he’s going to be living in a hovel, either.

GIBSON: So, James…

Ms. TOENSING: There’s a lot of people that live on that amount of money a year, for goodness sake. You know, where’s the och…

GIBSON: Victoria, since you spoke up, let me ask you: Is he being–is he doing the best he can or is he being a deadbeat? Should he be out there working for Fred Goldman or just enjoying life on the 16 grand a month and playing golf?

Ms. TOENSING: Oh, well, y–y–oh, let me–let me bat that softball. Let me bat that one out…

GIBSON: Well, do it quickly. I got more quotes for you to examine.

Mr. CURTIS: Stand back and enjoy life.

Ms. TOENSING: You know, I–my heart cries for him. Where is that show, “Queen for a Day” when we need it, to take care of O.J.?

GIBSON: Yeah, Jack–Jack Bailey.

Ms. TOENSING: Jack Bailey.

GIBSON: Jack Bailey.

Mr. CURTIS: He has no incentive to work, though. I mean, that’s the bottom line.

GIBSON: Well, right.

Mr. MICHAELSON: He’s the perennial victim.

Mr. CURTIS: I mean, I–well–well, it’s not even so much that, but, I mean, the purpose of this judgment was to make sure that he was penniless, that he would have no money, that he would not profit again. And whether he works and gives all that money away to Fred Goldman and the other plaintiffs, or whether he doesn’t work and doesn’t earn any money, it’s the same effect, so it doesn’t make any difference.

GIBSON: Well, I ha–you know, we’re calling this segment, Hey, Reopen This Case,’ and that–that quote doesn’t just come out of the blue; let’s put that up on the screen now. Simpson talking about what many people joke about, his continuing investigation to find the real killers. And he says–Bill Pavelic and Pat McKenna, these are two names that come at us, a blast from the past–They’re detectives that I hired I can’t afford to pay now. But from time to time when they have free time, they look into things from letters that we’ve gotten and information that we’ve gotten. And hopefully, one day I’ll be able to go to the DA’s office, put this on the desk, and say, “Hey, reopen this case.”‘

Mr. CURTIS: I think that’s exactly what should happen, under the sole condition that Mr. Simpson waive his rights regarding–not invoke his double jeopardy rights, allow himself to be a suspect again, and we’ll just start all over from square one.

GIBSON: Can you do that?

Mr. MICHAELSON: With different prosecutors.

Mr. CURTIS: Sure, you can waive any rights.

Mr. MICHAELSON: With different prosecutors.

GIBSON: Alvin, can you waive your double jeopardy rights?

Mr. DUNN: I don’t think you can. I don’t know anyone that’s tried it.

GIBSON: Has anybody ever done that before, James?

Mr. DUNN: I don’t think you can.

Mr. CURTIS: Sure, you can.

Mr. MICHAELSON: I don’t think–any right–any right can be waived if you don’t make a motion to dismiss the case based on double jeopardy grounds. I guess you can do that.

Mr. DUNN: A court can move sua sponte for the integrity of the court. No one would…

GIBSON: On its own? Is that what sua sponte means?

Mr. DUNN: Yeah, that’s what it means: on its own. No one would do that in the case of O.J. Simpson because of the thirst for–of O.J. Simpson’s blood.

Mr. MICHAELSON: Especially if he asked–especially if he asked for it.

Mr. DUNN: But beyond that, in any other context, I think the court would ad-here to the rule that it would be double jeopardy and it–and–on its own motion would not allow it to go forward.

GIBSON: Well, Alvin, as involved as you are in this…

Mr. MICHAELSON: Yes.

GIBSON: …can you testify to any accuracy–is O.J. having Bill Pavelic and Pat McKenna look into things from time to time? Is there a file building on his desk that he’ll be able to go down and give Gil Garcetti and say, Hey, reopen this case’?

Mr. MICHAELSON: Why are you asking me? I have no…

GIBSON: You’re the lawyer for his friend, Bob Kardashian.

Mr. MICHAELSON: But his friend, Bob Kardashian, if you’ve read some of the books…

GIBSON: I have read them, but you explain it.

Mr. MICHAELSON: And, you know, I mean, after all, they’re not like–I don’t think they’re that close anymore, and I haven’t seen Bob Kardashian in a very long period of time. So I don’t know if they’re compiling this dossier. But it’s a little late for them to be compiling. They could have compiled it for the civil lawsuit, I imagine. They could have been working on it all along.

GIBSON: Bob Dunn.

Mr. DUNN: Yeah, what’s really fascinating to me is I was watching “Cross-fire,” you know, before coming here. And whenever they have any program…

GIBSON: Never heard of it.

Mr. DUNN: …that deals with O.J. Simpson, it’s not crossfire. There’s not two opposing points of view that are going–you know, it’s just in the fire, you know what I’m saying, it’s just O.J. Simpson.

Mr. MICHAELSON: Should call it Crosshairs.’

Mr. DUNN: And have you ever heard of an auction being televised live? I mean, we’re not talking about that it’s newsworthy enough to say, Well, this is what happened with regard to the auction.’ They televised it live. What is this fascination with O.J. Simpson?

Ms. TOENSING: Does this mean that Kato is really homeless? Is Kato really homeless now?

GIBSON: Well, he’s lost his final resting place, unless he wants to go to the Hawthorne savings and loan and try to bail it out. Hey, Reopen This Case.’ More after this break. This is RIVERA LIVE on CNBC.

(Announcements)

GIBSON: Hawthorne savings and loan bought O.J. Simpson’s house today for $ 2.6 million. On the phone with us now is Elaine Young, the real estate agent who some time ago sold the house to O.J. Simpson.

Elaine, did Hawthorne savings and loan get a good deal?

Ms. ELAINE YOUNG (Simpson’s Former Realtor): They stole it. It’s probably the–I’ve been in real estate 40 years; it’s the best deal I’ve ever seen.

GIBSON: Well, what’s it going to retail for?

Ms. YOUNG: Well, I think because it’s O.J.’s house, it’s going to go in the high $ 3 million to $ 4 million, I really do.
Mr. DUNN: Why wasn’t anyone buying it, Elaine? Why wasn’t anyone there to buy it?

Mr. CURTIS: Yeah, how can you steal something at an open auction? I’m not clear on that concept.

Ms. YOUNG: No, no, no. I think the way it was handled, that a lot of people just wouldn’t show up, where it was and open and press, and I just don’t think people want to be exposed like that.

Mr. DUNN: Well, it’s where you…

GIBSON: Well, those who are willing to pay $ 3 million, it will be listed soon. Go buy it. Let’s switch subjects.
Ms. YOUNG: Oh, yeah, it’s going to be listed with somebody.

GIBSON: Thanks a lot, Elaine.

LOAD-DATE: July 16, 1997

LANGUAGE: English

TYPE: Analysis

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

Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, OK)
January 5, 1997, Sunday CITY EDITION

BYLINE: Ann DeFrange
SECTION: TRAVEL & ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. 4
LENGTH: 2396 words

The second surge of books following the O.J. Simpson murder trial includes four authors who have their own theories of Simpson’s guilt or innocence and variations on the phrase “They Framed a Guilty Man.”

Some parts are already outdated in the midst of the civil trial, but they won’t be the last Simpson books or the last word on the subject.

AMERICAN TRAGEDY: The Uncensored Story of the Simpson Defense by Lawrence Schiller and James Willwerth. Random House, $ 27.50.

Schiller’s credentials are among the most impressive of this group of Simpson reporters. A magazine writer, he collaborated with Norman Mailer on the Gary Gilmore and Lee Harvey Oswald books. But Schiller also assisted O.J. with the book he wrote from jail, and collaborated with the defense on other projects. Schiller includes himself in the book in the third person.

Therefore, other writers have found a tainted note in his Nonetheless, this is a staggering achievement in research.

Furthermore, the readable narrative flows like a gripping novel. Schiller has the inside stories and the drama behind the public scenes - yes, there were incidents that weren’t instantly publicized.

Told strictly from the view of the defense attorneys - the Dream Team - it unfolds day by day. Fascinating individuals, these
lawyers were an amazing team.

Robert Shapiro started out as lead attorney and put the team together. But while the staff scrambled to build a defense, Shapiro autographed pictures to mail to fans and attended Hollywood parties. The other attorneys viewed him as rude to themselves, and worst of all, Shapiro openly stated he didn’t believe in O.J.’s innocence. He pushed for a plea, kept proposing possible motive and modus operandus.

Unity on the team was elusive. There was jealousy,competition,power struggles even over who sat next to O.J. at the defense
table, who got to address the jury and who was getting paid more. They all held their own press conferences. They accused each other of leaking information.

Petty spats and professional standards drove the team to urge Cochran to take charge and encourage O.J. to fire Shapiro.
Bailey was the brilliant planner and, on good days, a masterful interrogator. On bad days, he drank.

Barry Scheck figured it all out, pulled it all together, explained the scientific evidence for the jury and the team - what
was missing, what might have been tampered with, what was mishandled by investigators.

Carl Douglas, says Schiller, was caught in a race situation and was used as a scapegoat for the famous lawyers.

Investigator Bill Pavelic suspected corruption among the police investigators and brought in the proof.

Robert Kardashian, who contributed much to Schiller’s interviews, describes Simpson’s suicide tendencies just before the Bronco ride and confirms the story that before the jury visited Rockingham, photos of white females were removed from Simpson’s bedroom and photocopies of black relatives and a Norman Rockwell were print put up.

His job was primarily to be O.J.’s friend. He took the most shifts sitting in the jail cell pampering the client, listening and consoling while O.J. made demands and raged and sobbed about his relationship with Nicole. Finally, a law firm staff member was assigned to this duty.

Schiller does an excellent job at following the stress as it built and the strategy as it worked.

THE RUN OF HIS LIFE: The People vs. O.J. Simpson by Jeffrey Toobin. Random House, $ 25.

Toobin covered the trial for The New Yorker magazine, and the tone of this book is a typical New Yorker style. As characters are introduced, Toobin contributes biographical and personality profiles; with the running narrative of the hearings are background and analysis of issues and environment.

His book is well written and good reading.

But Toobin strays far from the journalistic standards of objectivity. He firmly believes Simpson is guilty, and frequently
notes as much. And EVERYONE connected with the case on either side, he points out, was a sleazebag.

The defense attorneys believed, from beginning to the end, that their client was a murderer, Toobin says. Thus: the “race card.” They designed it and exploited it. They originated the conspiracy theory of planted evidence and framing, and the perception that Simpson himself was a victim.

Toobin contends that much of the trial, on both sides, was staged for “high drama.” But he agrees that the prosecution “botched” the case by merit of arrogance, ineptitude and being “drunk on virtue.”

He says that officials, from officers who investigated the crime to Judge Ito, were starstruck by celebrities, a condition which gave O.J. an advantage in the investigation and trial.

He does not agree with the common belief that O.J. contributed to the defense strategy, insisting O.J. isn’t intelligent enough for that. “Simpson’s attorneys manufactured this idea primarily as a gift to their client and as a way of remaining in his good graces.”

Most of his characterizations are negative.

He describes clever Shapiro out of his league in a homicide case, brilliant Cochran who understood the racial implications,
wily Bailey who became a dangerous loose cannon, Shapiro besotted with the glamorous fame but torn about the role assigned him on the team. The Bailey-Shapiro feud, he gathers, was waged between equally self-centered and self-promoting personalities. He rates Barry Scheck the best defense lawyer; Scheck constructed the plan of “undermining the integrity and competence of the LAPD,” of convincing the jury “that the mountain of forensic evidence against his client means nothing.”

Marcia Clark dismissed a jury consultant, believing a jury of black women would relate to her and the domestic violence issue; in fact, they were hostile. A defense jury consultant correctly concluded black women would be O.J.’s best chance for acquittal.

He labels Christopher Darden impetuous and immature … sulking because he couldn’t compete with his idol, veteran Johnnie

Ito, he says, “… conducted oral argument, as a sort of group therapy through collective stream of consciousness ….” He
constantly delayed the trial and let the jury sit idly in hotel rooms because “in moments of stress for the judge, he simply

He writes: “But in responding to the entreaties of their client - and to the needs of their own vanity - the defense lawyers forgot something very important: that their client was guilty. … And yet, incredibly, the prosecution’s arrogance and clumsiness during the course of the defense case managed even here to trump the folly
of O.J. Simpson’s lawyers.”

Toobin believes the sheer volume of evidence against Simpson overwhelmed the “exhausted” jury, but he recaps the evidence to
show a conspiracy was highly unlikely.

Toobin is a player in his own book, too; and his ego shines as big as those he criticizes. He claims his New Yorker articles had an influence on the proceedings, and he takes several digs at another author. His unflattering description of Lawrence Schiller’s physical appearance is petty. His conclusions on Schiller’s insider status with the defense is labeled as unethical and slimy.

A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE: How the Prosecution Freed O.J. Simpson Joseph Bosco. Morrow, $ 24.

Four book authors had permanent, daily seats in the courtroom: Joe McGinnis, Dominick Dunne, Toobin and Bosco. They enjoyed a
special status and formed a clique; some of their activities are described here.

Bosco may have been one of the more professional reporters in attendance. From his book, it is evident he listened, he hung
around the fringes and the back doors, he interviewed the principals and he managed to cut through the complicated

His personal opinions are significant in his account, but they appear to derive from observation rather than prejudice.

Bosco approaches some of the controversial questions and handles them with logic.

On Kardashian and the luggage, he asks why a murderer would bring his bloody clothes back home? He notes it is unlikely Simpson could have committed the crime by himself, according to the evidence presented, and certainly without substantial injuries to his own person.

Investigator Pat McKenna, whom Bosco interviewed extensively, presents the case for two assailants. McKenna also works out a
scenario that has Mark Fuhrman planting evidence.

“Interesting, isn’t it, that Detective Mark Fuhrman appears all over the latter years of the obviously sick relationship between O.J. and Nicole: two other narcissistic, totally self-absorbed, promiscuous, manipulative liars and emotional cheats who perpetually chose to live life in the passing lane of a two-lane highway. This was a bloody no accident’ waiting to happen.”

A veteran crime reporter, Bosco claims that Judge Ito stifled the media and First Amendment rights of the public to know what was going on in that courtroom. At the same time, Ito reveled in media attention to himself.

Ito was a law and order man, he labels him - married to a cop and prone to practice his cowboy quick draw with a loaded revolver in his office.

Bosco disdainfully makes much of Marcia Clark’s flirting, preening and giggling in the courtroom - even during delicate
autopsy exhibits.

He says Clark was leaderless during the proceedings; her communication with her boss Gil Garcetti was through Garcetti’s
press officer and also girlfriend. Garcetti viewed the case as a public relations problem, Bosco says.

In strong language, he names Mark Fuhrman “evil incarnate” and the controversial comparison with Hitler appropriate - both started out as “a thug in a uniform with a handful of nasty friends.”

He knocks a fellow writer, too - Vincent Bugliosi, who didn’t attend the trial but covered it for “Hard Copy.”

He introduces some characters not so familiar - a music promoter and a Mezzaluna waiter, friends of Nicole and Ron who were also murdered.

But he doubts the conspiracy theory as “… uncanny coincidences surrounding the Simpson case - of which the public knows very little - that when placed together have at least that tantalizing, beckoning aroma of CONSPIRACY irresistible to those so
inclined.”

Bosco relates the difficulty the prosecution had in securing a coroner to testify on the stand; they were loath to “try to tidy up such shoddy work.” And he debunks some sympathy for the Brown family, who continued, into the trial, to live on Simpson’s voluntary largesse.

He closes his book with a lapse in his objectivity. He comments that a criminal may have gotten away with a crime, but the more serious result was that an inept justice system let that happen.

The blame goes to Marcia Clark, the one responsible for the prosecution lying and cheating and, “in the zeal to win at any cost… abused almost all of the tenets that are the fabric of their sworn oaths as advocates for the people.”

He is outraged that Clark told the jury she represented the victims and the victims’ loved ones, “the murdered pair crying out
for justice … the grief-debilitated families ….” Bosco’s “innards roiled and boiled.”

At the risk of being politically incorrect, he warns, a public prosecutor is bound to seek truth, “wherever or whatever it might be … truth can have no agenda, no side to be on …” not a “legal representative of the victims or their families seeking vengeance.”

He quotes assistant DA Peter Bozanich, who provided interviews, saying that, in the long run, the system worked, the jury
followed instructions, there was a reasonable doubt.

Bosco’s book is the only one of these four with photographs, most of witnesses or trial figures in the courtroom.

KILLING TIME: The First Full Investigation by Donald Freed and Raymond P. Briggs. Macmillan, $ 24.95.

This duo of a historian-writer and a scientist re-open the case on the basis of the element of time on June 12, 1994, and who could have done what during that time frame.

They thoroughly - tediously, in fact - lay out evidence that didn’t get on the stand, stories that didn’t get investigated,
questions that didn’t get answered, witnesses not interviewed, trails not followed. They contend significant scientific evidence wasn’t aired.

The theme throughout is “You be the jury,” but it’s obvious the authors favor a not-guilty verdict.

Witness accounts, phone records and location of principals are listed in charts and graphs to pose possibilities of people’s
movements on that evening. Then, the authors reverse and act as their own devil’s advocates, postulating why the time line might not work.

The prosecution based its case on the estimated time of the murders and O.J.’s ability to travel to and from the crime scene
within that frame. When evidence cast doubt on that theory, the prosecutors were inflexible, the authors say.

With time charts as guides, they study whether:

- A possible second killer might have been Jason Simpson, son.

- The drug link and A.C. Cowlings’ Mafia connections staged the crime. Nicole was probably in deep debt to drug dealers, they say.

- O.J. may know that organized crime families committed the deed, but kept the code not to tell.

- A serial killer working in the neighborhood, stabbing may figure in the scene.

- Faye Resnick was the real target. It was well known she someone desperately.

- Mark Fuhrman had the time to plant evidence at Rockingham or Bundy.

In fact, they insist that Fuhrman and/or Resnick had bigger roles than the trial revealed.

But much of their information comes from a inside source called The Source and never otherwise identified. The information thus obtained is good, but less credible this way. Some theories are built on stories published in tabloid newspapers.

Calling O.J. once a “berserk Othello” and again a redeemed Agamemnon, the authors pose that the lifestyle of “the Simpson
pack” in Brentwood was a classic and fated setting for murder. These “beautiful people” indulged in conspicuous consumption,
greed, sex, unremitting narcissism - and, fatefully, narcotics …impulse-ridden, addictive, violently or masochistically sexist, as ruthless opportunists ….”

Briggs plans to market a virtual reality version of the book.

LOAD-DATE: March 18, 1998
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: Lawrence Schiller

The San Francisco Chronicle
 

AUGUST 27, 1996, TUESDAY, FINAL EDITION
 

PERSONALS
 

BYLINE: Leah Garchik
 

SECTION: DAILY DATEBOOK; Pg. B8; PERSONALS
 

LENGTH: 721 words
 

 AD CRITICIZES SLURS ON ATHLETES
An ad placed by Chinese groups and other organizations in tomorrow’s New York Times ‘’strongly'’ protests ‘’frequent and incendiary'’ remarks by NBC’s Bob Costas during the Olympics ‘’on alleged drug use by foreign athletes.'’
According to the notice, Costas’ comments, including those about the Chinese team, demonstrated ‘’arrogance and inhospitality . . . deeply offended the international community, and greatly embarrassed the American public.'’ The ad demands a public apology.
Among those signing the ad: Chinese Student and Scholars Associations at Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, University of California at Berkeley and UC San Francisco; Silicon Valley Chinese Engineers Association; Chinese American Business Association; Foundation for U.S.-China Relations Inc.; Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars in Canada; and ‘’about 80 other organizations and countless individuals worldwide.'’
.
 LIZA EXPLAINS: GIRLS WILL BE GIRLS
Liza Minnelli, rumored recently in the National Enquirer to have been ill and longing for death, explains it all in the latest issue of the Advocate:
‘’Good publicity is dull,'’ says Minnelli. ‘’Do you know that they took that awful picture they used of me in the Enquirer and ran it through a computer? You know how they can make you look beautiful? They can do the exact opposite, too. . . . Also, a few people should look up the word ‘menopause.’
‘’It gives you enormous mood swings, which nobody told me about. You start out loving somebody at the beginning of a sentence, and by the end you’re going, ‘You son-of-a-b– communist bastard!’ You really don’t know what’s happening to you!'’
.
 FLASH
* Billy Graham, whose tribute to Ronald Reagan was broadcast during the Republican Convention two weeks ago, is a registered Democrat, says the Hill.
* Boris Okolov, 15-year-old grandson of Boris Yeltsin, will begin his studies at Millfield School in Somerset, England, this fall. ‘’There have always been people from all sorts of extraordinary backgrounds in the school,'’ headmaster Christopher Martin said. Also registered there is the 12-year-old grandson of Deng Xiaoping.
* More on the Ballet Folklorico de Mexico: Its national tour begins with an appearance at the Concord Pavilion on September 10.
.
 NO TAKERS
ON O.J. OFFER
In response to reader Richard Kiiski’s inquiry about the May offer of Hal Lipset and five other private detectives to investigate O.J.  Simpson’s claims that the murderers of his late wife were in San Francisco:
About a week after the offer was made, says Lipset, he received a fax from Simpson’s investigator, Zvonko ‘’Bill'’ Pavelic, too strongly worded for a gentleman to read aloud.
‘’He could have just said he discussed this with his client and thanks, but no thanks, but his letter was very mean,'’ said Lipset.
P.S. Philip Vannatter and Tom Lange, lead detectives in the Simpson case, have signed with Pocket Books to write their version of the whole saga.
.
 – WHO SAID WHAT
‘’My performance could be more dynamic. I’m a perfectionist. . . . I can always hear places where I could play better. I’ve heard that in everything I’ve done. There’ve been a few times in my career where I find a performance and things are completely magical. One tries to make that happen all the time, even though the odds are against it. That’s where I’m coming from.'’
Saxophonist Sonny Rollins about his new album, ‘’+3,'’ in Musician magazine.
.
 FAMILY’S EFFECT ON SCHOLARSHIP
Almost half the parents of American schoolchildren are divorced, but at elite schools, says a study reported in Health magazine, the figure is only 10 percent.
Does divorce interfere with academic achievement? According to economists Jennifer Gerner and Dean Lillard of Cornell University, who studied data from 27,000 students, children whose parents are divorced or separated are half as likely as those whose parents are together to attend one of the 50 top colleges in the country.
‘’We knew that a divorce at home tends to lower a student’s grade point average and SAT scores, so we expected a difference,'’ Gerner told the magazine, ‘’but not one this large.'’
P.S. Publisher Dan Couvrette and editor Diana Shepherd of the new quarterly called Divorce used to work together at Wedding Bells magazine.
 

LOAD-DATE: August 27, 1996
 

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
 

GRAPHIC: PHOTO,Minnelli, blames hormones

The Chattanooga Times (Tennessee)

June 4, 1996, Tuesday

Nation/world news in brief

BYLINE: Wire services

SECTION: World, Pg. A2

LENGTH: 841 words
Beached

Strollers eye a ship that ran aground on Rio de Janeiro’s fashionable Leblon Beach during a storm Monday. Brazilian officials are pondering how to refloat the vessel but admit to being at a loss since they’ve never had this problem be-fore.

Searchers find another crater

MIAMI — Divers recovering wreckage from ValuJet Flight 592 discovered a large hole Monday at the southern tip of the murky crater, raising the possibil-ity that much more of the jet’s wreckage may lie below.
Half the airplane is still missing, including the cockpit section. Nothing from that part of the plane has been recovered yet, authorities said.

Divers hoped to enter the newly discovered crater today.

On Monday, divers also collected a “substantial amount of human remains,” in-cluding a skull.

Earlier in the day, a trucker who worked transporting the crash wreckage was charged with stealing parts of the aircraft, including a circuit breaker panel that could yield clues.

2 women found dead in park

LURAY, Va. — The deaths of two women hikers, whose bodies were found over the weekend at a campsite near the Appalachian Trail, are being investigated as homicides, authorities said Monday.

Two rangers found the bodies of Julianne Williams, 24, and Lollie Winans, 26, Saturday near the park’s Skyland Lodge, about 25 miles from Luray, said Ron Fankhauser of the Park Service.

Driver awarded $150 million

HANYNEVILLE, Ala. — A man whose Chevrolet Blazer flipped after he fell asleep at the wheel was awarded $150 million Monday for injuries suffered in the 1991 accident.

Alex Hardy claimed General Motors knowingly sold Blazers with defective door latches that opened in wrecks such as the one that left him paralyzed.

GM denies the allegations, arguing Hardy was at fault because he had been drinking and fell asleep. Witnesses for the automaker testified during trial that Hardy flew through a window because he was not wearing a seat belt.

Jewelry show boon for thieves

LAS VEGAS — An international jewelry show attended by 35,000 jewelers, has also attracted hundreds of professional thieves, trying their luck at lifting some of the estimated $8 billion in glittering gems.

The annual J.C. Kay Jewelry Show opened Thursday, and by Monday an estimated $1.8 million in gems had been stolen, police said. The show ends today.

Nine people have been arrested for theft, but most of the jewelry was already gone, police said.

5 are indicted in robbery ring

CONCORD, N.H. — Five men were indicted Monday after being linked to a string of bank and armored car robberies by a singular piece of evidence: a burning car containing bank bags, a bulletproof vest and a T-shirt emblazoned with a masked leprechaun and the words “Boston Bandits.”

The heists took place in five states across New England, including a brazen daylight holdup of an armored car in Hudson, N.Y., in which two guards were shot to death.

Stephen G. Burke, 40, Patrick J. McGonagle, 57, Michael K. O’Halloran, 38, Matthew McDonald, 34, and Anthony M. Shea, 33 all have criminal records. McDon-ald and Shea were already in prison when the federal indictment was handed down.

NATO getting an overhaul

BERLIN — Easing France’s re-entry into NATO, the United States and its al-lies approved historic changes in the 47-year-old European defense structure Monday to prepare for Bosnia-like crises in the next century.

Slow to respond to the ethnic bloodshed in Bosnia, the alliance will be re-vamped to be able to react more quickly to conflicts — perhaps even beyond Europe — with European commanders and using U.S. weapons and possibly troops, provided Washington concurs.

The revamping was the result of compromises between Europeans, led by France, seeking a larger role, and the United States, determined to make sure it re-tained a veto over use of American troops, intelligence or weapons.

Detectives’ offer draws rebuke

SAN FRANCISCO — OK, O.J., you lost your chance. Looks like you won’t be get-ting any free help from Bay Area gumshoes after all.

An offer by six San Francisco area private eyes to track down the “real” kil-ler of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was denounced by Simpson’s own private investigator last week as the work of publicity seekers trying to “pros-titute themselves.”

Bill Pavelic’s beef was the television and radio appearances San Francisco detective Hal Lipset and five local colleagues made to pursue Simpson’s alleged tips that the killer of his ex-wife and her friend could be in the city.

Pavelic said the offer was “designed for propaganda purposes and self- ag-grandizement” rather than genuine help.

Britain starts a gun turn-in

LONDON — British police forces hoped to collect hundreds of illegal firearms during a four-week gun amnesty that began Monday.

Anyone turning in an illegal weapon at a police station in England, Wales and Scotland through June 30 will not be prosecuted, unless police find that the firearm was used in a crime.

LOAD-DATE: September 26, 1996

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Orange County Register (California)
 

May 27, 1996 Monday MORNING EDITION
 

PEOPLE;
Sleuths make O.J. an offer, Jerry Seinfeld to change act, and John Mellencamp has new tune …
 

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A02; PEOPLE
 

LENGTH: 1143 words
 

A well-known San Francisco private eye and five fellow sleuths have
an offer for O.J. Simpson _ to help find Nicole Brown Simpson’s
killer for free.
The San Francisco Examiner reported Sunday that detective Hal
Lipset and fellow sleuths want to crack the case and would waive
their usual $ 100-an-hour fee to chase down any leads.
Lipset’s offer was a response to reports quoting Simpson as
saying there were leads in San Francisco but that he was running
out of money to fund his investigation, the Examiner reported.
Lipset said there could be major leads, and “maybe the man is
innocent,” but a thorough investigation was needed, the Examiner
reported.
“If there are leads in San Francisco that somebody is not
looking into, then I think they should be,” Lipset told the
Examiner.  “We’re serious.  But if I find something, I want the right
to tell the public and the San Francisco district attorney. ”
Simpson’s private investigator, Bill Pavelic, welcomed
Lipset’s offer, telling the Examiner he would discuss the
proposition with Simpson, who was acquitted in October of murdering
his ex-wife and her friend Ronald Goldman.
Lipset, who turns 77 today, is the legendary sleuth who
designed the olive bug _ a martini olive as transmitter with
toothpick as antenna, the Examiner reported.
New approach
Jerry Seinfeld says it’s time to sit down.
Come next season, the comedian will drop the stand-up bits that
have opened NBC’s long-running hit “Seinfeld. ”
He says there’s too much work to do because co-creator Larry
David is leaving the show.
“I have more responsibility with Larry gone, more writing to
do,” Seinfeld says in the June 1 issue of TV Guide.  “So we’re going
to have to come up with a different opening for the show.  It’s a
one-parent family now. ”
A close-knit family, from what Seinfeld says.  The cast of Jason
Alexander, Michael Richards, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Seinfeld get
along so well, there is talk of continuing the series past next
season despite hints that the eighth season will be the final one.
“We’re the same group of four people, the same personalities,”
Seinfeld said.  “When we’re not shooting, we sit around the set and
talk.  We know it’s not going to last forever, so we’re enjoying it. ”
Clapton’s home damaged
British rock star Eric Clapton’s luxurious London home was
damaged by fire Saturday night, police and firefighters said Sunday.
No one was injured in the fire, which was started by an
electrical fault, they said.
“Mr. Clapton is very well.  He discovered the fire himself and
called the fire brigade at 9:40 p.m. last night,” said Michael
Kelter of a west London fire station.
“Damage was extensive on the second floor of the house and to
a lesser extent on the first floor. ”
Kelter said the guitarist’s $ 1.5 million house in the Chelsea
district was full of valuable artifacts.
Rushdie on gods
Salman Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” forced him
into seclusion seven years ago, called on Bard College graduates to
“defy their gods. ”
In his first commencement address, the British author said in
Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y., that the 247 graduates will find
themselves up against “big and little gods, corporate and
incorporeal gods, all of them demanding to be worshipped and
obeyed. ”
“Defy them.  That’s my advice to you,” he said Saturday.  “For as
the myths tell us, it is by defying the gods that human beings have
best expressed their humanity. ”
Rushdie, 48, went into hiding in February 1989 after the late
Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a
“fatwa,” or death sentence, for the author and placed a $ 1 million
bounty on his head.  The ayatollah said “The Satanic Verses”
blasphemed Islam.
Recently, Rushdie has been more relaxed about appearing in
public.
New outlook
Songs from the heart have a whole new meaning for John
Mellencamp.
The Indiana rocker, whose new album is titled “Mr. Happy Go
Lucky,” says his heart attack in the summer of 1994 affected his
approach to work.
“There were many dark moments when you confront what heart
disease means,” Mellencamp says in the June 12 issue of Rolling
Stone.  “These songs come out of that. ”
Mellencamp, 44, who still smokes, said his brush with death
changed the way he views life.
“I felt I was bulletproof before the heart attack,” he says.
“And when I had the heart attack, I thought life was over.  Then I
realized there was life afterward; I realized destiny was in my own
hands. ”
Mellencamp says his new album isn’t totally morbid: “I want to
write songs that people will still dance     and throw a Frisbee to
years from now. ” The record is due in August.
Hollywood in Australia
Thousands lined Sydney’s main street Sunday to catch a glimpse
of Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and Jean-Claude Van Damme at
the opening of Australia’s first Planet Hollywood.
The crowd _ estimated by police at 5,000 to 10,000 _ screamed
as the celebrities made their way down the red carpet to a stage
set up in the middle of the street.
Actor Charlie Sheen and model Cindy Crawford also made an
appearance at the chain’s 32nd outlet.
To the accompaniment of the “Rocky” theme, Stallone bounded
onto the stage acknowledging the cheers of the 10- and 20-deep
crowd.
“Oh stop that, I’m not a god,” Stallone said.  “I thought we saw
enthusiasm in Las Vegas, I thought we saw enthusiasm in New York,
in Rome _ but you bury them. ”
Today’s birthdays
Novelist Herman Wouk is 81.  Actor Christopher Lee is 74.  Former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is 73.  Actress Lee Meriwether is
61.  Musician Ramsey Lewis is 61.  Actor Louis Gossett Jr. is 60.
Actor Bruce Weitz is 53.   Singer Siouxsie Sioux is 39.  Actor Todd
Bridges is 31.  Rock musician Sean Kinney is 30.  Singer Left Eye is
25.  Rapper Andre is 22.
Edited by Steve Burns from Associated Press and Reuters reports. 
 

LOAD-DATE: March 07, 1997
 

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
 

GRAPHIC: BLACK & WHITE PHOTO; CLAPTON; SEINFELD; Rushdie talks; Author Salman Rushdie, whose novel ‘The Satanic Verses’ forced him into seclusion seven years ago, talks with Bard College (N.Y.) professors before commencement exercises Saturday. See accompanying story.
 

Copyright 1996 Orange County Register

CNBC News Transcripts

February 22, 1996, Thursday 11:15 AM

SHOW: RIVERA LIVE (9:00 PM ET) 

Panel Discussion On The O.J.  Simpson Civil Trial

ANCHORS: Geraldo Rivera

BYLINE: CONAN NOLAN

LENGTH: 6325 words

HOST: Geraldo Rivera

EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Andy Friendly

GERALDO RIVERA: Hi, everybody.  I’m Geraldo Rivera.  For the last two days we have been reporting exclusively on the information we’ve discovered on the West Los Angeles’ psychotherapist Jennifer Ameli.  The headline has been the revela-tion that Nicole Brown was seeing the therapist because she was desperately frightened by her ex-husband, O.J. Simpson, and seeking help.  In fact, accord-ing to Dr.  Ameli’s notes, three days before she was murdered Nicole was, quote, “extremely upset about her relationship with her husband,” and had a, quote, “fear of confrontation and getting hurt.”

Now as provocative as that information may be, as our experts have been indi-cating all week, most of it is hearsay, and, therefore, probably inadmissible in court.  There is, however, more information that we can reveal to you tonight.  According to our sources, two eyewitnesses saw Nicole leave Dr.  Ameli’s office, quote, “A black man came up and shook her shoulders and her arms and made her very upset, saying she shouldn’t be around there,” end quote.  When asked about the incident which took place a week before the murders, Nicole said, according to our very reliable source, quote, “This is my husband.  I’m used to crazy things like this.  It is no big deal,” end quote.

In addition, I can report that in the days and weeks before the killings, Nicole apparently begged Simpson to accompany her to this therapist for joint counseling at the ca–at the suggestion of the therapist.  When Nicole told her ex-husband how much she liked and trusted Dr.  Ameli, Simpson said–again, ac-cording to our source–quote, “You like her because she’s another hole like you,” end quote.  Nicole apologized for the obscenity when relating Simpson’s response, adding, quote, “This is the way he talks,” end quote.

As I’ve said before, ladies and gentlemen–trust me on this–there’s much more information, including other eyewitness accounts that are relevant to this situation.  We’ll be reporting those as soon as we are able.

Meanwhile, as you may have heard, Simpson returned to court today to resume his deposition, and as he left his Rockingham home, he held up a sign with the 800 number for his made-for-profit video.  KNBC reporter Conan Nolan has the latest on the tape and the legal developments.  Conan.

Mr.  O.J.  SIMPSON: (From video) …thousand people outside of my house…

CONAN NOLAN reporting:

It’s the most controversial comment of the entire two-hour video–O.J. Simp-son’s declaration that he, not the families of the murder victims, had suffered the most.

Mr.  SIMPSON: (From video) I lost more than he lost.  I lost someone I loved just as much as he loved, and I lost my life.
NOLAN: The father of murder victim Ron Goldman called the remark outrageous.

Mr.  FRED GOLDMAN (Father of Ron Goldman): I think it’s the most disgusting piece of garbage that I’ve heard come out of him.

NOLAN: O.J.  Simpson today resumed his deposition in the wrongful death civil suit.  For the first time his former father-in-law, Lou Brown, was present.  At-torneys say Simpson, on several occasions, became visibly agitated with the questioning, which dealt with domestic violence.

Mr.  MICHAEL BREWER (Attorney for Ron Goldman’s Mother): As I said before, it’s a touch subject matter for Mr.  Simpson, so, you know, I think that it’s reflected in the demeanor that we see today.

NOLAN: Simpson claims he never beat his ex-wife and that Nicole Brown had no reason to fear him.  But there may be new evidence to the contrary. Documents obtained by CNBC’s RIVERA LIVE program show that Nicole Brown visited a Santa Monica therapist June 9th, 1994, three days before the murders.  After the ses-sion, Dr.  Jennifer Ameli wrote that, quote, “The patient was extremely upset about relationship with husband.  Fears confrontation and getting hurt.  Wants to work on getting stronger in order to leave.” The documents were never made available to the prosecution in the criminal trial.  Fred Goldman believes the therapist isn’t the only one who may have new information.

Mr.  GOLDMAN: …and that I would implore them, plead with them on Ron’s be-half, on Nicole’s behalf, to come forward.
NOLAN: In Los Angeles, Conan Nolan for RIVERA LIVE.

RIVERA: In that same exchange with the–the news media today, Fred Goldman referred to our reports on Dr.  Ameli.

Mr.  GOLDMAN: In light of the fact that there is this videotape out there now for sale, out for the world to see, with his spin on what I will loosely refer to as the truth, and in light of the fact that there has been a woman that has come forth in the past several days with some information that had not been available before, that it reminds me that there are, without a doubt, probably a–a substantial number of people out there with pertinent information to this case, and that I would implore them, plead with them on Ron’s behalf, on Nicole’s behalf, to come forward, stand up and be counted, and help us, once and for all, have some justice in this case.

RIVERA: Stand Up and Be Counted.  Before I introduce our fine panel, let me just suggest that, as you may know, the National Enquirer this week reported on the–the existence of Dr.  Ameli and said that they were basing their story on her stolen file, somehow obtained–or at least the information contained therein–obtained by the National Enquirer.  We know from our sources that, in-deed, there was allegedly–there was complained about, a burglary–or several–at the offices of Dr.  Ameli contemporaneous to the trial.

Jay Monahan, when exactly did the trial start?

Mr.  JAY MONAHAN (Criminal Defense Attorney): Now you got me.  The trial started the end of January, about–I–I believe it was in September of ‘94.

RIVERA: The burglary was.

Mr.  MONAHAN: So…

RIVERA: Right.

Mr.  MONAHAN: …actually they weren’t contemporaneous.

RIVERA: OK.  So police reports reviewed by the Associated Press show that on September 15th, 1994, Ameli reported a burglary at her office.

Mr.  MONAHAN: That’s prior to the trial.

RIVERA: Right.  Prior to the trial.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Exactly.

RIVERA: But that on September 15th, 1994, she reported a burglary at her of-fice, telling police that files, a calendar book and other papers were taken.  Again, according to the Associated Press, there was no mention in the police re-port that the material pertained to either Ronald Goldman or Ms.  Simpson, al-though the National Enquirer, as I suggested, is claiming exactly that.  Ameli, again, according to the Associated Press, filed a second police report a short time later which also has been reviewed by the AP claiming that somebody fol-lowed her to her office and threatened her from behind.  In the report she quoted the person as saying, Don’t turn around.  Keep walking.  You’ve been talking about Goldman.  You better keep your mouth shut, if you know what’s good for you.’

OK.  That and much more.  Let me introduce the panel–Jay Monahan, the civil and criminal attorney who provides that fine legal commentary for Fox TV; Paul Callan, becoming a familiar face around these parts, another civil and criminal trial attorney, former deputy chief of homicide at Brooklyn DA’s office; in Washington, the fine attorney William Moffitt, one of the directors of the Na-tional Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.  And shortly we’ll be joined by our old pal Manny Medrano out in LA to get his take on all this.

Let me go–well, I’ll start right here–Jay…

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

RIVERA: …what, if any, impact do you believe the revelation of the thera-pist, her existence, the pattern of treatment with first Ron and later Nicole, the documents, the eyewitnesses who allegedly saw Simpson on the same…

Mr.  MONAHAN: Well, you know so much more than I do, Geraldo.  But just look-ing at the notes, which is what we’ve–what we can touch and feel, I don’t find them definitive about anything.  I find them very ambiguous. They can be actu-ally construed to help O.J.’s story a little bit.  When O.J.  met with Vannatter and Lange the day after the–the murders, he said that he and Nicole had been dating up until three weeks before the murder.  That roughly coincides with the first entry that you had on the–on the bill.

RIVERA: May 26th.

Mr.  MONAHAN: OK.  That’s about the same time frame.  And, actually, what the–what the–what the document says–Dr.  Ameli’s document–Patient extremely upset about her relationship with husband, fear of c-o-n-f.’ It does not say confrontation…
RIVERA: Our–our sources say…

Mr.  MONAHAN: …but you may know more than I do.

RIVERA: Yeah.

Mr.  MONAHAN: …and getting hurt; needs to become stronger to leave.’ And then we apparently have a witness who says that–somebody said O.J. begged–that Nicole begged O.J.  to go with her for joint counseling.  So what does all that mean?  Does that–if we take what O.J.’s been saying, that they tried to get back together, there was a period of time after the divorce that Nicole was pur-suing him.  Are we talking about emotional hurt?  Are we talking about two peo-ple who have been having a love and hate relationship for a long time, and the breakup is a hard thing and she wants joint counseling; he doesn’t?  Or are we talking about physical harm?

RIVERA: Paul, you have a different spin?

Mr.  PAUL CALLAN (Trial Attorney): I disagree totally with Jay.  I mean, this adds substantial evidence to the fact that there was domestic violence and do-mestic abuse prior to this homicide.  It’s very important on the issue of mo-tive.  There’s also a link here with Goldman for the first time.  There’s talk that possibly Goldman and Nicole Brown were seeing the same therapist and that O.J.  was aware of a link between the two.  That would give motive–that motive of rage that everyone thought he felt as he committed the homicides.  I think it’s important evidence that will be very helpful in the civil trial.

Mr.  MONAHAN: But you’re still going to need the witnesses you alluded to, who saw O.J.–or “a black man” shaking her as she came out of the office.

RIVERA: Right.

Mr.  CALLAN: There’s a wa–there’s a way in a side door on this.  I mean, we’re talking about hearsay and lawyers don’t say…

RIVERA: Wait, let me just say, is that a live shot?

Unidentified Man #1: Just happened.

RIVERA: Just happened.  OK.  We’ll get to it then.

Mr.  CALLAN: There’s a way…

RIVERA: They have Michael Brewer just breaking from the depo.  It’s on tape, though, so we’ll get it in a second.

Mr.  CALLAN: There’s a way that the civil lawyers can develop this evidence without the hearsay rule, and that is, if O.J.  Simpson testifies in the civil case–and he has to–he can be asked about his knowledge of this therapist.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.  Mm-hmm.

Mr.  CALLAN: He can be asked about the knowledge of Goldman’s relationship with the therapist and the doors will be opened in a way that they never were in the criminal case.

Mr.  MONAHAN: And I th–I think Paul’s right in some ways about getting some of this hearsay–getting around the hearsay thing.  I mean, I think this doctor, if she’s going to testify, can say, for example, Nicole came to see me.’ Maybe they can’t get into what they discussed, but, She came to see me shortly before then,’ and then put another witness on saying…

RIVERA: Or how–how ab…

Mr.  MONAHAN: I saw O.J., or somebody who looked like O.J., shaking her…

RIVERA: …or how about this–Nicole…’

Mr.  MONAHAN: …as he left the office.

RIVERA: Nicole came to see me?’ What’s your specialty, Doctor?’

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

RIVERA: I’m a specialist in domestic violence.’

Mr.  MONAHAN: Right.  I think maybe you can get that far.

RIVERA: OK.  Bill Moffitt, ke–ke…

Mr.  MONAHAN: He’s laughing.  I hear Bill giggling.

RIVERA: Let me–Bill’s–Bill’s about to give us–he’s about to weigh in. But I tell you, Bill, I–so we can get the entire impact of the fine William Moffitt, let me take the break right now, and then we’ll–when we come back, the second segment won’t be quite as short as it normally is. Stand Up and Be Counted, said Fred Goldman.  We’ll be right back.  Stay tuned.

(Announcements)

Mr.  BREWER: I–I think that this whole area is a difficult topic for Mr. Simpson.  At some points it doesn’t appear to be too much of a problem. At other times, he appears to be a little bit agitated.  I–I don’t want to say agitated–I would say animated is a better description, in terms of–of talking about these issues.  And certainly, when you–when there is discussion or questions relative to the ‘89 incident, that seems to be one of the areas that he–he has a great deal of difficulty discussing. He has acknowledged in the ‘89 incident that they wrastled.  I think today I heard a different term, tussled.’ But in terms of actually physically striking her with his hand or his fist, he has never acknowledged that he’s done that.

RIVERA: That’s Mike Brewer just minutes ago outside the offices–is that Pet-rocelli’s office where the depo was happening in–in Los Angeles?

Mr.  MONAHAN: Yes.

RIVERA: Yes.  OK.  William Moffitt, I’ll give you–you want a specific ques-tion, or you want to give me your overview first?  I’ll tell you, do that first.

Mr.  WILLIAM MOFFITT (Criminal Defense Attorney): Well, I–I–I think–let’s–let’s start with…

RIVERA: On recent developments.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Le–let’s start inversely.  This identification of–of this black man–O.J.  Simpson probably was one of the most recognizable black men in this country.

RIVERA: He certainly is today.

Mr.  MOFFITT: If–if–i–if–i–if people can’t identify him–and I–I recog-nize that there are a lot of rumors about how–how many black–how black people lo–all look a lot alike.

RIVERA: They say that about Puerto Ricans, too.

Mr.  MOFFITT: An–and–but–but it seems to me that if we’re–all we’re going to hear is that some black man walked up to Nicole and they can’t do any better than that in terms of a–in terms of an identification of this particular indi-vidual, that really doesn’t amount to anything, and I certainly would love to cross-examine that.

RIVERA: But here’s my follow-up question: Would Nicole’s alleged subsequent telephone conversation with Dr.  Ameli, saying that, That was just my husband O.J., and he always acts like that’–would that be admissible?

Mr.  MOFFITT: Why w–it’s hearsay.  I–i–i–it’s hearsay.  It is not admis-sible.  I mean, it’s not any–it’s not any better a quality of evidence than all the other stuff that–that’s hearsay.  I–presumably, however, they’re going to depose Dr.  Ameli now, since she’s released this information, and we’re probably going to learn a lot more about what was said, what she meant by what’s in the notes, and–and all of those kinds of things.

RIVERA: I did not suggest that the source for the confrontation was Dr. Ameli.  Paul, do you agree on the hearsay?
Mr.  CALLAN: Yes, he’s correct on the hearsay.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

Mr.  CALLAN: But what we don’t know at this point–if we depose Dr. Ameli, for instance, did she have contact with O.J.  Simpson?  Many times in a thera-peutic relationship, the therapist contacts the ex-husband, tries to arrange a meeting.  There may be a lot more information that’s out there that we haven’t even developed yet.  Plus, we have the specter of O.J.  Simpson on the witness stand being asked specifically about what Nicole told him about the therapist, and it opens the whole door.  I say a good civil attorney will get this informa-tion out.

Mr.  MONAHAN: I think that Paul’s right, that you can nibble away a–at this type of stuff.

RIVERA: At the hearsay …(unintelligible).

Mr.  MONAHAN: You can have sort of a witness say that Nicole came for the ap-pointment and she left from the appointment, and there could, maybe–and I–I have t–the more I think about it, the more I think Bill’s right.  If you just have someone saying there’s a generic black man there, maybe that’s not going to ring the bell.  I have to point out, though, that Paul and I are both Irish Catholic…

Mr.  CALLAN: We all look alike.  Don’t say it.

Mr.  MONAHAN: But I don’t think anyone would say that we look alike.  I’m not …(unintelligible).

Mr.  CALLAN: That’s right.  I know.

RIVERA: That’s right.  That’s just–you–you were–tha–that Irish reference totally threw me off.  I want to…
Mr.  MONAHAN: It frequently does that.  We–we’re approaching St. Patrick’s Day.

RIVERA: Me and Arenella look alike.  That’s what they say.

Mr.  MONAHAN: You’ll have to forgive me.

RIVERA: That’s right.  Well, that’ll be a party that night.

Mr.  MONAHAN: We’ll be more lucid that night.

RIVERA: I’ll have you both on that day.

Mr.  MONAHAN: OK.

RIVERA: We’ll be the–the slurring lawyers.  OK.  Play–pl–play the bite I indicated.  We’ll go to the–the break.  Stand Up and Be Counted, and certainly that is what Fred Goldman would like us to do, and here’s Fred Goldman.

Mr.  GOLDMAN: I think it’s the most disgusting piece of garbage that I’ve heard come out of him.  I think he has a lot of colossal gall to say something like that.  He equates his money to human life.  He ought to be ashamed of him-self, but then, again, he’s not ashamed of himself.  He’s committed two murders.

RIVERA: There is–of course, Fred was referring to Simpson’s statement that he’s suffered as much as the family.  Bill Pavelic, an investigator for Simpson during the criminal trial is the only reaction to Ameli we see.  He’s calling her a fraud.

(Announcements)

(Excerpt from video, courtesy H&K, LLC)

Mr.  SIMPSON: I’m sorry.  I’m getting a little pissed.

Mr.  ROSS BECKER: That’s OK.  You’re speaking your mind, I assume.

Mr.  SIMPSON: Yeah.  Well, you know, I–it’s–I’d–I’ve never accepted ex-cuses in my day.  Every person–when you talk about these incidents in my life, the 911 call, whatever, no one–no–the police officer ever walked up to me, didn’t say, Hey, he’s made no excuses.  He accepted the responsibility.’ I’ve done that my entire life, and I’m watching people here trying to judge me who won’t take the responsibility, who won’t listen to facts, who’ll–who’ll get these skewered opinions that they get on TV, who made up their mind before any evidence was in this case.  And then they’re going to criticize people.  I hear Goldman, who I have a lot of compassion for…

Mr.  BECKER: Mm-hmm.

Mr.  SIMPSON: …because I know how he feels.

Mr.  BECKER: Mm-hmm.

Mr.  SIMPSON: I lost more than he lost.  I lost someone I love just as much as he loved.  And I lost my life.

(End of excerpt)

Unidentified Reporter #1: Is there w–is there reason to believe that Simpson was lying when he said never met Ron Goldman, never saw Ron Goldman?

Mr.  JOHN QUINLAN KELLY (Attorney for Brown Family): Well, I tell you, we question his credibility on a number of things right now, and I can’t get spe-cific, but, yeah, there are credibility issues on–on several things.

Unidentified Reporter #2: What are your…

Unidentified Reporter #3: On the videotape, Mr.  Simpson says that he lost more than the families.  Would you like to respond to that?

Mr.  KELLY: Well, I’ll tell you, Mr.  Simpson has never failed to disappoint me with his attacks on the victims in this case, or his commercial exploitation of these murders.  That’s all.  I’ll see you later.

Unidentified Reporter #4: John, Lou Brown is here.  Is that against your ad-vice?

Mr.  KELLY: Not at all.

RIVERA: In Los Angeles–he has come in from his day job, came–this is Manuel Medrano, the former assistant US attorney who has taught law and done it well at several LA universities.

Rank hearsay, hey, Man?

Mr.  MANUEL MEDRANO (KNBC-TV Legal Affairs Analyst): Oh, rank hearsay, in-credible hearsay.  And I have some–some profound question as to whether or not a lot of that stuff is going to get in.  I know you’ve alluded to it repeatedly on your show already, Geraldo, about the therapist notes, etc.; and let me tell you, unless there is some creative legal analysis by plaintiffs’ counsel for the Goldman and the Brown family, etc., tha–that stuff is ju–tha–that ain’t com-ing in, and–no how, no way.

RIVERA: No how, no way.  N–no way to nibble around it, as we are–you know, we’re being cute here and suggesting ways that you might get it in.

Mr.  MEDRANO: Well, let me–let me give you a–a go–good way to–to really go to the heart of the matter here.  The prosecution team, I’m sure, had analo-gous type of–of information or evidence that they desired to use in that case, but Judge Ito cut back a lot of it if and when it encroached into the arena of hearsay.  And that’s why Judge Ito, for example, in the first criminal case only allowed evidence where you had, for example, a person who saw something or–or the words coming from O.J.’s mouth.  But when you have Nicole Brown saying some-thing to X person, and that somehow then coming here before a trier of fact, Judge Ito wouldn’t let it in, because–because of the–of the hearsay rules. And the hearsay rules don’t change overnight by virtue of the fact that we’re now in the civil arena.  So…

Mr.  CALLAN: Civil judges, though, Geraldo, are a lot more flexible in their application of the rules, because it’s only money that’s at stake in a civil case.  And you’ll find that most judges will be a lot freer in allowing more evidence to be considered by a jury in a civil case than in a criminal case, where you have strict constitutional guidelines to prevent certain things from going into evidence.  So I think better shot that this evidence will get in in the civil case than in the criminal.

Mr.  MOFFITT: What–what piece of this evidence will get in?  That–that’s an interesting question because it’s a lo–it’s a lot of different things, and–and–and–and I wonder what particular piece you are suggesting is going to come in.

Mr.  CALLAN: Well, with respect, for instance, to the therapist notes, if O.J.  Simpson is asked whether he knew that Nicole was seeing a therapist, I think you can develop a line of questioning there that would eventually open the door to even putting the therapist on the stand to testify about aspects of her relationship.  So as of what we know right now, I agree with you.  It looks troublesome, but certainly, there’s a way that a clever and resourceful lawyer can get some of this material in.

RIVERA: Let me also add, by note of semi-e–editorial comment, the rest of it is historical recollection.  Bill Pavelic, you recall, the investigator who’s now saying that Ameli is a fraud, is the same guy who vouched for the credibil-ity of Rosa Lopez.  Where is Rosa Lopez?

Mr.  MONAHAN: I don’t know.  I think he was also the guy who passed the phone to F.  Lee Bailey from the Marine sergeant, if I recall.  You remember that in-cident.

RIVERA: I do.

Mr.  MONAHAN: OK.

RIVERA: I do.  Yeah, I do.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mano a mano.

RIVERA: Man—mano a mano, yeah.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Marine to–Marine to Marine.

RIVERA: Right.  Run tape G.  It’s the last one I’m going to run from–from Brewer and the lawyers today, then I want to move on to another area.  OK.  Roll it.

Unidentified Reporter #5: …the information that–th–that Simpson knew Ron Goldman and may have even threatened him at some point?

Mr.  BREWER: That hasn’t come up yet.

(Unintelligible comments from reporters)

Unidentified Reporter #6: Are you going to start today or is it going to be tomorrow?

Mr.  BREWER: No comments on the therapist or any of those discussions.

Unidentified Reporter #7: But are there indications that Simpson had lied in his deposition when he said he’d never met, never knew Ron Goldman, either through Faye Resnick or from anyone else?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, that’s what he testified to–that he had never even seen Mr.  Goldman or met him or knew of him.
Reporter #7: And didn’t Faye Resnick say that that’s not true?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, she said that there was a–an episode at Starbucks where Mr.  Goldman was present while Mr.  Simpson was present.

Unidentified Reporter #8: Did she meet with Nicole on June 9th?–Dr. Ameli?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, that’s what the records indicate.

Reporter #8: And what happened on that day?  Do you know?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, only what the records reflect, so…

Unidentified Reporter #9: What did the records reflect?

Unidentified Reporter #10: So, that–that being…

Mr.  BREWER: Well, they speak for themselves.  I think you-all have seen them and the entries that she made.

Unidentified Reporter #11: That she was afraid for her life?

Mr.  BREWER: Well, you’ve seen the entries.  The records speak for them-selves.

Unidentified Reporter #12: What entries?  We haven’t seen them.

Mr.  BREWER: Well, you’ve seen the–I’m certain you’ve all seen the entries.  They’ve been on national television relative to that particular day.

RIVERA: They all should be watching.  Let me go to Bill Moffitt.  Is this–all of this going to hopelessly taint the jury pool in exactly the opposite way that, perhaps, they were tainted in the last time?

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well, I–I think it’s going to be a major problem. I–y–y–you know, this is all being lived out on television every night and–and–and every day, and we have videotapes that people are selling and various other things.  I–I–the voir dire in this particular case is–is–i–is going to be trouble-some, and a judge is going to have a difficult time finding a jury in this case.  And one–one of the other problems is that you, ultimately, are going to end up with a jury that people are contesting–or contending that they know very little about, because they didn’t watch it on television, they haven’t read about it in the newspapers.  And–and that kind of a jury is going to be very difficult for an–e–either side to persuade one way or another.

RIVERA: Manny Medrano…

Mr.  MEDRANO: Geraldo?

RIVERA: …I know you’ve reflected on that.

Mr.  MEDRANO: Yes, Geraldo.  I–I’ve got two cents to add to this.  Let me tell you, the first criminal case in O.J.  Simpson was truly an incredible th–thing for all of us to perceive and–and watch and observe, but I personally, as a lawyer, and frankly, just as a citizen of the state of California–the thing that troubled me the most out of the entire O.J.  Simpson criminal case is the fact that you had jurors–a good quantity of jurors who either affirmatively lied to get on the jury. And, ultimately, when they were busted by Judge Ito, he started kicking them off right and left.  And to me, personally, that is so pro-foundly disturbing because I think we’re going to have to–to deal with the identical problem in the selection of the jury or the voir dire process, in the civil context, because you’re going to have people who are going to die to get on this jury.  And God knows, look at how jurors have fared after the first criminal case…
RIVERA: Really.

Mr.  MEDRANO: …making dollars right and left.  So I’m very, very concerned about that, and I hope that the judge at the trial level in the civil case and the lawyers for both sides work very diligently to weed out the bad apples, be-cause they’re there, I can assure you.

RIVERA: Can you get a change of venue in a civil case?

Mr.  MONAHAN: Sure.

Mr.  CALLAN: Sure.

Mr.  MEDRANO: Sure, why not?  But where you going to go?

RIVERA: Where you going to go?

Mr.  MOFFITT: Where you going to ch–where you–where you going to change this week?

RIVERA: Denver.  Why not?  Denver’s really in this week.  Right back. Stay tuned.

Mr.  MOFFITT: We–we–we…

RIVERA: Sorry, Bill.  Right there.

(Announcements)

(Excerpt from courtroom proceedings one year ago today)

Mr.  JOHNNIE COCHRAN (Defense Attorney): You said in your testimony you saw some blood spots on the back–on the rear gate there at Bundy on June 13th, 1994.  Is that correct?

Detective TOM LANGE (Los Angeles Police Detective): Yes.

Mr.  COCHRAN: Those spots had been pointed out to you by Detective Phillips?

Det.  LANGE: That’s correct.

Mr.  COCHRAN: You, in turn, pointed them out to Mr.  Fung?

Det.  LANGE: That’s correct.

Mr.  COCHRAN: Did you direct Mr.  Fung to collect those particular blood spots?

Det.  LANGE: I directed him to do that, and I believe I mentioned to check the entire gate.

Mr.  COCHRAN: All right.  And you expected that to be done, isn’t that cor-rect?

Det.  LANGE: Yes.

Mr.  COCHRAN: Now it was not done on June 13th, was it?

Det.  LANGE: No.

Mr.  COCHRAN: In fact, it wasn’t done on June 14th, was it?

Det.  LANGE: That’s correct.

Mr.  COCHRAN: In fact, it was not done until July 3rd, three weeks later. Is that right?’

Det.  LANGE: That’s correct.

(End of excerpt)

RIVERA: A year ago today.  I remember how frustrated Christopher Darden was when he called into this program and talked about how specifically Detective Lange was not being very–he was not–certainly not waxing eloquent.  He wasn’t being very glib.  He wasn’t…

Mr.  MONAHAN: He wasn’t being aggressive.

RIVERA: He wasn’t being aggressive as a witness either.  And there you saw Johnnie Cochran just beating the hell out of him.
Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm.

RIVERA: Some quick news, again, from the Associated Press.  Four of Simpson’s scientific evidences ex–I’ll start again. 

Four of Simpson’s scientific experts during the trial distanced themselves from the proceedings in the civil trial.  Dr.  Henry Lee, the defense’s star witness, said he would not testify without a subpoena.  Forensic chemist Herbert MacDonell also said he didn’t plan to tes-tify.  But former New Yorker coroner Michael Baden said there was a possibility he would return.  Forensic toxicologist Fredric Rieders, though, was the only one who said he could possibly testify but only if he has the time.  So Dr. Lee out unless he is subpoenaed.

What I want to do now is–OK.  Let’s–as we stand today–you know, we–we litigated this in the makeup room prior to getting out.  Manny suggests that the jury pool–hopelessly tainted.  Wa–I say change of venue.  You say it is possi-ble in the civil case.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

RIVERA: But where–where would they go?  How would they find–what would the voir dire be like in this case?  Wh–are we going to see a real circus in the–in the prelim here?

Mr.  MONAHAN: I would–I would think…

RIVERA: I mean…

Mr.  MONAHAN: I would think that the…

RIVERA: …is that–post-deposition pre-trial.

Mr.  MONAHAN: I would think that in the–the voir dire, which is what we call it east of the Mississippi–I think that’s.  Right, Paul?

Mr.  CALLAN: Right.  That’s right.

Mr.  MONAHAN: I would think it would be very extensive and I don’t know what you could do.  I think it’s–it’s–it’s–in a way, it’s a good thing that the actual plaintiffs’ lawyers are be–being kind of circumspect about this because they don’t want to blow the whistle and tell everybody about everything going on in every deposition so that they can be accused of trying to taint a jury pool.  On the other hand, I think people like Leonard Marks, who represents Faye Res-nick, has become a shield for the plaintiff.  He comes running out on the street, knowing that 98 percent of what Faye Resnick says will never be admissi-ble, but he can sort of, from a PR aspect, do a lot of damage to O.J.  and a po-tential jury pool because everyone’s reporting all over the place exactly what Faye Resnick’s saying Nicole told her about her relationship with O.J.
Mr.  CALLAN: You know, the reality of the situation, though–O.J.–Geraldo, is that O.J…

RIVERA: More people do that.  That’s like the fourth time.

Mr.  MONAHAN: I thought he was saying that to me.

RIVERA: Is there…

Mr.  CALLAN: I know.  Every time–you’re getting associated…

RIVERA: Is there any more unlikely–oxymoron then, huh?

Mr.  CALLAN: You’re getting very associated with those initials.  But when you think about the first jury selection process…

RIVERA: Oh, God forbid.

Mr.  CALLAN: …everybody in the country knew about the case.  Everybody in Los Angeles knew about the case.  They had watched the preliminary hearing and we all said, How can you pick an untainted jury?’ Well, what happened was jurors came in and said, Yes, I’ve heard about the case, but I can be fair and impar-tial.  I’ll keep an open mind.’ And I guarantee you in the civil case there will be hundreds of people willing to say that.  You will get a jury in Los Angeles County…
Mr.  MOFFITT: The question is…

Mr.  CALLAN: …that will be able to sit on this case.

Mr.  MOFFITT: The ques…

Mr.  MONAHAN: And you’ll probably have a couple bounced.

Mr.  MOFFITT: The q–the question is…

RIVERA: Go ahead, Bill.

Mr.  MOFFITT: …whether peop–anybody will be telling the truth…

Mr.  MONAHAN: Mm-hmm.

Mr.  MOFFITT: …when they say that.  We have now had a–the criminal trial.  We have had a verdict.  And we have had the reaction to that verdict that we all have observed and talked about.  And now we’re going to try to pick a second jury in this case?  W–don’t you think some of the people who might want to sit on that jury want to vindicate, as Mr. Goldman has–has said, want what–their form of justice to be done?  And how are we going to elicit that?  How are we going to find that out?  How are we…

Mr.  CALLAN: You know, ironically, the fairest thing to do in this situation would be to waive a jury and let a judge try this case.

RIVERA: How interesting.  How…

Mr.  CALLAN: And, you know, both sides could decide to waive a jury. They’re waived in civil cases.  Plaintiffs usually don’t like to do it because juries award huge amounts of money.  But who knows the way the publicity plays out by the summertime in this case?

RIVERA: All right.  Manny, do you see this as a battle for the hearts and minds then of the prospective jurors?

Mr.  MEDRANO: Well, very much so.  And just to clarify something because per-haps I wasn’t as–as cogent as I’d have like to have been earlier.  I’m not say-ing that the jury pool is hopelessly tainted.  I’m saying that there are 12 ju-rors out there, but you got to work long and hard to find the honest jurors.  And I’ll tell you what.  I have a solution to this entire problem because I–every time I see it, it just absolutely appalls me.  A good example is the first state criminal case for Heidi Fleiss, where after her conviction, jurors come out and said, Oh, we ignored the judge’s admonition to not discuss the case.’ So that was almost grounds for a new trial.  Here’s my suggestion…
RIVERA: It should have been in that case.

Mr.  MEDRANO: Well, here’s what should happen in the state of California, be-cause I’m a strong advocate for this.  When you’re picking that jury in the civil case, I want the trial judge to tell those prospective jurors, Folks, there’s a penal code felony statute on the books that says if any of you lie during this process and we discover that after the fact, you will be prose-cuted.’ I can assure you, if you brought such a case in the state of California one or t–once or twice, you–it would do away with this kind of ridiculous problem.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well–but–but you also have a fundamental problem here that in the midst of a trial process, you’re going to get jurors to the point where they’re–they feel like they’re being investigated.  And the question of juror privacy and various other kinds of things are raised by all of these kinds of things…

Mr.  MONAHAN: Well, that…

Mr.  MOFFITT: …because–if–if we–if we’re suddenly going to investigate jurors, the side that has the ability to do the most investigation gains an ad-vantage under those circumstances.

Mr.  MONAHAN: Well, that raises another question, Bill, because what are you going–are you going to sequester this jury?  I can’t imagine that…

Mr.  CALLAN: No way.  No.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well, I mean–I mean…

Mr.  MONAHAN: …they would ever go for sequestration.  And how do you handle that problem with all the reporting, even though the cameras won’t be in the courtroom?

Mr.  MOFFITT: But–but–but…

RIVERA: Will the cameras absolutely not be in the courtroom?

Mr.  MONAHAN: I don’t know.  The judge–Judge Haber…

RIVERA: Every time there’s a motion before him…

Mr.  MONAHAN: …has let them in on occasion and maybe it hasn’t been defi-nitely decided…

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well, but–but–you know…

Mr.  MONAHAN: …but it raises another problem.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Well, yeah, but what…

Mr.  MONAHAN: You know, how are you going to keep this jury at night from watching all the news programs…

RIVERA: Right.

Mr.  MOFFITT: Absolutely.

Mr.  MONAHAN: …and all the commentators?

Mr.  MOFFITT: It really doesn’t make that much difference be–whether there–there’s a camera there because there are going to be hundreds of news reports about it, and it’s going to be written about all over. There’s a real problem in–in–in–in picking a jury in this case.  It is a real live problem.

RIVERA: Well, I–I sided with Dominick Dunne yesterday.  It is unbelievable the fascination people still have with this still-unconcluded kind of real-life–I was going to say soap opera.  That would be demeaning to the two victims in the brutal double homicide.  But this saga goes on and on and on.

Manny, have you heard–I want to get on to Warren Moon and this execution that’s scheduled to take place later tonight.
Mr.  MOFFITT: Warren Moon’s not going to be executed, is he?

RIVERA: No.  God, no.  Please.  Warren Moon has–is exactly the opposite. He has…

Mr.  MEDRANO: Well, there are tough laws in Texas, but I don’t think they’re that tough.

RIVERA: OK.  Right.  What about cameras in the courtroom in the Simpson civil matter?

Mr.  MEDRANO: Where it stands now on that issue–an–and this is as far as I know, that has not ultimately been decided yet.  As you know, the judge in that case currently allows the cameras sort of after the fact. The camera’s in there, but it’s taped delayed before we can actually use it on the air here and else-where.  But that ultimate issue is yet to be decided.  So I think there’s still a good chance that the camera will be permitted in the courtroom.

Mr.  CALLAN: And, you know, the most persuasive argument on that is the Me-nendez brothers are on trial in California, in their second case now. The judge banned cameras in the courtroom.  And the second Menendez case with no cameras has taken longer than the first one.  So there’s a good argument there…

Mr.  MONAHAN: With one jury.

Mr.  CALLAN: That’s right.

Mr.  MONAHAN: With one jury.

RIVERA: And with a lot of the evidence excluded, a lot of the character evi-dence …(unintelligible)

Mr.  CALLAN: With a lot of the evidence excluded.  With the judge trying to–to streamline the process, it’s a longer trial.  So the cameras had nothing to do with the length of the O.J.  Simpson case.

Mr.  MONAHAN: And–and with one jury this time.

RIVERA: And with one jury instead of two.

LOAD-DATE: February 22, 1996

LANGUAGE: English

TYPE: Interview