Ever since prosecutors charged O.J. Simpson with the brutal murder of his ex-wife and her friend,they had known there was one gaping problem in proving him guilty. They had, in their own phrase, “a mountain” of circumstantial evidence – incriminating bloodstains and 45 minutes of unalibied time on the night of the murders. But how could they convince a jury that someone as likable, as famous, as charming as O.J. could possibly commit such a horrendous crime? Why would he have butchered the mother of his children? Why?
Last week, in yet another sensational beat in a sensational case, the state laid out its most finely tuned picture yet of O.J. – and it wasn’t pretty. Over a period of 17 years, the state argued, an obsessed and jealous Simpson had inflicted a litany of physical and psychological abuse on Nicole Brown Simpson. It culminated last June 12, the state contends, in classic batterer fashion – the slashing death of Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman. A deputy Los Angeles district attorney, Lydia Bodin, offered the state’s clearest statement yetof what it believed happened: “When he finally couldn’t control her, when she was finally breaking away from him, when she had finally estranged herself from him and tried to distance herself from him, it is the people’s contention that he killed her.”
It’s the stuff of cheap mystery novels – O.J., just another jealous man with homicidal tendencies. But this case has always had that allure. Opening arguments areexpected this week in the most widely watched murder trial in American history. But last week the prosecution made public a full outline of the case it wants to present to the jury. Once Judge Lance Ito disposes of final pretrial matters – including whether he will allow the jury to hear evidence of the abuse – lead prosecutor Marcia Clark will spin out the case in her opening statement. She will spell out the Nicole strategy: that means portraying Nicole as a battered wife so that she comes alive in the minds of the jurors. Clark will then lay out a bundle of physical evidence, compelling though circumstantial, that will key on the DNA fingerprints from the victims’ blood. Speculation has long surrounded what those tests show, but Newsweek has learned that the DNA of Nicole, Goldman and O.J. – mixed together – was found in Simpson’s white Ford Bronco. The prosecution will also say that Nicole’s blood was found on a sock, retrieved from O.J.’s bedroom.
This will hurt but not surprise the defense, which last week also filled in some holes in its strategy. Johnnie Cochran, Simpson’s unflappable lawyer, will tellthe jury that Simpson simply couldn’thave committed the double murders in the time frame the prosecution contends. He will also argue that the police fingered him too quickly in a “rush to judgment.” The defense will also assert, Newsweek has learned, that not one but two sets of bloody footprints led away from the bodies – neither of which they believe match O.J.’s shoe size. As for the blood on the sock, thedefense will argue that it was planted. Battered Wife Syndrome? No way, said defense lawyer Gerald Uelmen last week: “This is a classic case of whodunit. We will contend it was done by persons other than Mr. Simpson.”
The defense is also prepared to get ugly. Last week it signaled that Nicole’s reputation was now in play. Some of her friends were drug abusers. She wanted to cheat on her taxes. She performed an act of oral sex on a male friend while her children slept in the house and her estranged husband – poor, lovesick O.J. – came to the door armed with a bouquet of proposed reconciliation. This is standard stuff for defense teams: put the victim on trial.
The courtroom trench warfare promises to dominate the popular imagination for the next fortnight – and possibly beyond. According to a new Newsweek Poll, fully 82 percent of Americans expect to pay attention to the O.J. trial, and if TV executives have their way, viewers will have little choice. CNN and Court TV promise near-gavel-to-gavel coverage. ABC, CBS and NBC will air the opening statements live.
If last week was any indication, the trial will be an extraordinary show. With the jury out of sight, both sides fought, emotionally and with a tinge of personal animosity, to get Ito’s approval to admit potentially damaging evidence into trial. The prosecution pressed for allowing the jury to hear the incidents listed in an 85-page document that details the abuse Simpson allegedly inflicted on Nicole. The defense called it prejudicial and irrelevant. Two days later the defense sought to introduce evidence that a key police investigator, Detective Mark Fuhrman, exhibited racist behavior, sparking a heated exchange over what was called the “N word.”
Even for this case, the Fuhrman skirmishing last Friday was amazing. First, Christopher Darden, the young black assistant prosecutor, stood before Ito, contending that the slur “nigger” – which he refused to use – would inflame and distract the jury. He predicted that the jurors would have to choose between siding “with “the man’ or “the brothers’,” and the murder trial would become “a race case.” Then Cochran immediately responded, apologizing to the black community for Darden’s remarks and accusing him of becoming “an apologist” for Fuhrman. He blasted Darden for suggesting that Simpson had a “fetish” for “blond-haired white women.” Hearings seldom get this personal. The subtext could not have been clearer: to Darden, Cochran had become a race baiter; to Cochran, Darden had become a house Negro.
Amid all this passion, Ito had a technical decision to make: what would the jury hear? At play were the arcane rules ofevidence, the code that is usually of interest only to trial lawyers. In the Fuhrman matter, the question for Ito was whether the defense could use the cop’s old allegedly racist remarks to “impeach” his testimony. He must weigh the value to the defense against the possibility of prejudicingthe jury. Much of the spouse-abuse evidence was hearsay – technically, out-of-court statements. The courts typically exclude hearsay because the person being quoted isn’t available to be cross-examined. But there are exceptions to that ban, such as when someone gives a statement on his deathbed. Ito promised to rule on the hearsay issues before the opening statements.
The prosecution won the public-relations war last week with its riveting – if sometimes overwrought – allegations detailing Nicole and O.J.’s stormy relationship. Eyewitnesses interviewed by the state, from limo drivers to friends, described some of the harrowing incidents, but the most sordid came from Nicole herself, who emerged as an avenger from the grave. She had chronicled the tale of abuse to help in her divorce case two years before her death. Investigators who drilled into her safe-deposit box also found pictures of her bruised face and letters of apology from Simpson. In one, replete with bad spelling, Simpson tells Nicole: “Let me start by expressing to you how wrong I was for hurting you. There is no exceptible [sic] excuse for what I did.” One of the cruelest incidents Nicole wrote about occurred in 1988 after she, daughter Sydney and her mother and sister saw “Disney on Ice.” A drunken O.J., accusing her of leaving him out of the family outing, attacked the two-month-pregnant Nicole as a “fat pig.” He added, “You’re a slob . . . I want you out of my f—ing house.” He allegedly then said: “I want you to have an abortion with the baby.” Nicole asked: “Do I have to go tonight? Sydney’s sleeping. It’s late.” He responded: “Let me tell you how serious I am. I have a gun in my hand right now. Get the f— out of here.” Nicole gathered Sydney and some clothes and left.
Other episodes allegedly involved beatings and other physical abuse. In 1986, Nicole said that O.J. “beat me up so bad at home, tore my blue sweater and blue slacks completely off me.” Three years later, in an incident witnessed by Nicole’s sister Denise Brown and a friend, Simpson allegedly grabbed his wife’s crotch in a Los Angeles-area bar and shouted, “This belongs to me. This is where my children come from.” Later that evening, the prosecution said, Simpson became enraged and slapped her after she asked a friend to drive them home in O.J.’s Rolls-Royce. As the car began to move, Simpson pushed Nicole out to the pavement.
The defense was outraged by the listof allegations. “Character assassination,” charged lawyer Robert Shapiro. But if Ito allowed only a portion of the incidents, Simpson’s defense would be badly damaged. “We got the s— kicked out of us,” one defense lawyer allowed after the first day. With the trial soon to begin, it didn’t come at a good time. The “Dream Team” of defense lawyers was squabbling (page 51), to the point where key members weren’t speaking to each other. And Simpson himself seemed as if he needed to work on his trial face; on Wednesday he acted contemptuous and laughed inappropriately, playing into the prosecution’s portrait of a menacing man. Cochran and Shapiro reprimanded him, and his demeanor softened a day later. On Friday he appeared to weep after the Darden-Cochran firefight.
The good news for the defense, though, was that the jury hadn’t heard any of the damning statements. Ito had wisely sequestered the 12 jurors and 12 alternates earlier, specifically to avoid the sensationalistic accounts he knew were coming. (Still, by some news accounts he had decided to dismiss two jurors on Saturday – one, a former abuse victim, the other, like O.J., an ex-Hertz employee.) The defense had its moments, too. The prosecutors, an otherwise well-oiled, if not as highly paid, team as their competitors (page 48), earned a black eye when they set aside for the time being 17 of the 62 incidents of abuse listed in court documents. Among the deleted incidents: that Simpson had threatened to behead any boyfriend of Nicole’s who drove one of O.J.’s cars. The prosecution said it was obligated to disclose every incident.
Ito’s ruling on the abuse list was critical to the prosecution. The betting was that he would throw out the bulk of the incidents but allow enough to help the state buildits O.J.-as-wife-batterer case. The state, sources believe, wants to start the case with O.J. and Nicole’s relationship – not with the crime itself. While the DNA testimony on blood has received the bulk of attention – and it remains crucial – the jealousy motive constitutes the emotional core of the case against Simpson. Said former Los Angeles district attorney Ira Reiner: “The jury will almost never convict unless they think they understand why somebody did it.”
To get the evidence in, though, the prosecution must get over both the hearsay hurdle and what’s known in the trade as evidence of “character” or “prior bad acts.” The idea is grounded in simple fairness: just because you robbed someone five years ago doesn’t mean you robbed someone yesterday. But appellate rulings suggest that California has a lower threshold for such evidence, particularly when the players involved in the past incidents are the same as those in the crime at hand.
The defense team seemed resigned to losing a few. Sources expect Ito to admit the 1989 New Year’s Day incident in which Simpson pleaded no contest to striking Nicole. The defense also speculated that Ito would allow the notorious 911 tapes – though only in written transcript form – on which Nicole cried for help when a rampaging Simpson burst into her house in October 1993.
The spousal-abuse incidents carry a certain amount of risk for the prosecution. The defense will tryto flip them to portray Simpson not as obsessed but as being in love with Nicole – and Nicole as the naughty, high-living provocateur. The prosecution contends, for instance, that in Hawaii Simpson once beat Nicole because she let a gay man kiss her baby son Justin. But Uelmen maintained that Nicole and O.J. argued only after Nicole called O.J.’s gay father a “fag.”
And that is just one part of an expected defense attack on Nicole. Last week Uelmen said the killing did not resemble domestic abuse but a drug-related murder. Newsweek has learned that at trial the defense will go further, attempting to offer evidence that Nicole had used drugs, and that her friend, Faye Resnick, maintained a freebasing addiction while staying in Nicole’s condo in the weeks before the murder. This is a risky strategy, as it might offend some jurors.
Once Clark finishes the motive arguments, she will turn to the physical evidence against Simpson. On its face it is daunting: a trail of blood from his Bronco to his mansion; bloody gloves; a sock; a dark watch cap. But the prosecution lacks a murder weapon or eyewitness, so it must place O.J. at the crime scene, using the blood splatterings found at the various sites and on clothing. At hearings last year prosecutors said that both conventional testing and DNA analysis indicated that O.J.’s blood was found at the crime scene at Nicole’s South Bundy Drive condo, adjacent to bloody footprints leading away from the bodies. Prosecutors will argue that Simpson cut himself during the assault.
Equally important for the state is to show the jury that Simpson somehow dragged home droplets of the victims’ blood after the struggle. According to a knowledgeable source, DNA analysis shows that virtually all of the blood found in the Bronco matches Simpson’s, with the exception of one spot – and that one spot shows a mixture of blood from Simpson, Nicole and Goldman. The Los Angeles Times has further reported that preliminary DNA tests of blood on the glove found at Simpson’s house matched the blood of both victims, and possibly Simpson’s. The prosecution’s theory: Simpson dropped one glove at the crime scene and the other while climbing over a wall at his compound after the murders. Simpson’s explanation is that a cut on his hand had left the blood on his Bronco.
These revelations would obviously hurt Simpson. But his lawyers are preparing to attack them on what it calls the three C’s: “confusion, contamination, corruption.” The defense will argue that DNA tests cannot adequately distinguish between individuals in the mixture of blood found in the Bronco. It will also continue hammering at sloppy police work. Corruption? The defense will suggest that Nicole’s blood on a sock, found in Simpson’s bedroom, was planted. “That blood wasn’t there for two months,” says a defense source, who alleges that no blood was noticed when police first confiscated the sock. Several weeks passed, the defense said, before the state even reported the blood.
The defense will also contend that, given the violent nature of the murders, relatively little blood wasrecovered from the Bronco and O.J.’s house and surroundings. Defense sources told Newsweek that less than 10 nanograms of DNA were collected by police investigators. No victims’ blood, other than on the sock,was found in Simpson’s Rockingham Drive house. “The absence of blood is what is going to carry the day,” says a defense source.
The paucity of blood fits the defense’s argument that Simpson simply didn’t have enough time – roughly from 9:45 p.m. to 11 p.m. – to commit the murders, clean up and be ready for the limo driver to take him to the airport for a flight to Chicago. This argument is crucial for Simpson since he has a largely uncorroborated alibi for the period he contends he was at home. “We’ve got to hit the time line hard in the opening [arguments],” says one defense attorney.
Blood, race, celebrity, lust, love, sex, brutality: this case has had it all. But as Marcia Clark said last week, it was, at last, time for the lawyers to put up or shut up in the place where it counted – the courtroom. Everyone else, rev up your TV sets.
The prosecution claims that O.J. was a man scorned. Nicole was finally rid of him and he couldn’t stand it. The defense will contend that the killings were a drug-related hit.
Nicole left behind a list of alleged attacks by O.J. He beat her, cursed her and threw her out of the house pregnant. He wrote letters apologizing. Not all will be admissible in court.
A stain found in O.J.’s Bronco show traces of DNA from Nicole, O.J. and Ron Goldman. Her blood also turned up on a sock in O.J.’s house. The defense will challenge both.
More than 100 pieces of evidence were taken from the crime scene outside Nicole Brown Simpson’s condo, and from O.J. Simpson’s Brentwood mansion and white Ford Bronco. The evidence most likely to be introduced at the trial:
discovered on walkway outside guest wing. Human hairs dyed blond-and animal hairs, probably a dog’s, found on glove.
on the driveway leading from Simpson’s parked Bronco to the front door of the house.
Police seized several articles of Simpson’s _B_clothing b inside the mansion. Nicole Brown Simpson’s blood was found on one _B_sock,b sources say. Investigators also found small _B_bloodstains _b_in the foyer, master bedroom and bathroom of the mansion, and a _B_note b from Nicole breaking off relations with Simpson.
also found on mansion grounds.
lying at front gate, with throat slashed and multiple stab wounds.
stabbed repeatedly and showing signs of a violent struggle. Found near his body were a _B_key ring, a beeper _b_and an envelope containing _B_eyeglasses.b One hair, with African-American characteristics, was also found on Goldman’s body.
found at Goldman’s feet.
found leading away from the bodies toward the alley.
found with African-American, dyed-blond and animal hairs.
Parked outside O.J.’s estate.
on the driver’s door, on the carpet and upholstery. One spot contains a mixture of Simpson’s and both of the victims’ blood, sources say.
may be in the ‘mystery envelope,’ along with the receipt from the L.A. cutlery shop where Simpson bought it on May 3.
purchased by Simpson from a theatrical company and discovered in Al Cowlings’s Bronco, along with almost $10,000 in cash.
included color photos of her bruised face after the 1989 New Year’s Eve fight with O.J.
of frantic calls to police made by Nicole on Oct. 25, 1993.
The story had a brutal first chapter outside Nicole Brown Simpson’s town house in Brentwood. Since then, it’s been sad, explosive and absurd. Here’s a short history of the mayhem after the murders.
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman are murdered.
Some 93 million TV viewers tune in to O.J.’s flight.
Simpson pleads not guilty.
Nicole Brown Simpson’s 911 tapes are released.
Preliminary hearing begins.
Defense attorneys give presiding Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell a sealed manila envelope believed to contain the knife O.J. purchased five weeks before the murders.
Fox TV announces plans for made-for-TV Simpson movie.
Preliminary hearing ends.
Simpson lawyers announce an 800 number for those with information on the murders. A $500,000 reward is offered.
Ronald Goldman’s mother sues Simpson for wrongful death of her son.
Simpson completes signing of 2,500 trading cards, fulfilling requirements of a prior contract.
Simpson is taken to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where a biopsy is performed on his swollen lymph nodes. Biopsy is negative.
Fox announces delay of movie until jury selection is completed.
800 line is discontinued due to lack of information; 250,000 calls logged in.
Nicole’s parents and sisters make appearance on “PrimeTime Live” with Diane Sawyer.
Ronald Goldman’s family interviewed by Barbara Walters on “20/20.”
Jason and Arnelle Simpson, O.J.’s children from first marriage, give interview to Katie Couric on “Dateline”
Connie Chung interviews O.J.’s mother, Eunice, and sister Shirley.
Judge Ito denounces media for releasing inaccurate information on murder scene.
Jury selection starts.
Paula Barbieri, Simpson’s current girlfriend, appears in Playboy.
Judge Ito proposes courtroom ban on cameras and audio equipment.
Faye Resnick’s tell-all book, “The Private Diary of a Life Interrupted,” hits bookstores. Ito halts jury selection.
Simpson’s video released: “Minimum Maintenance Fitness for Men” ($14.95).
jury is selected.
Judge Ito rules: single camera is allowed in court.
Nicole’s condo is put on the market for $795,000.
Ito begins six -part interview with KCBS-TV.
Announcing plans for foundation for abused women in Nicole’s name, the Brown family accepts $50,000 check from No Excuses jeans.
Simpson supporters set up 1-900-RESPECT, a $1.95per-minute phone line to leave O.J. messages.
National Enquirer issue appears with computer-generated picture of a bruised Nicole.
Plans announced for a tell-all book by Simpson.
Prosecution introduces detailed documents asserting 17 years of domestic violence.
The Simpson case has gotton mighty crowded–and confusing. How about a little order in the court? Here’s a primer on the cast, from the stars to the bit players. Meet 50-odd characters in search of a verdict.
Lance A. Ito
L.A. County district attorney
lead prosecutor
prosecutor
prosecutor
prosecutor, appellate specialist
prosecutor, DNA specialist
LAPD detective, found key evidence
a lead investigator
lead investigator with Lange
deputy medical examiner
LAPD blood analyst
criminalist
lead defense lawyer
chief trial lawyer
Cochran’s chief associate
adviser, law professor
defense lawyer
lawyer, DNA expert
defense adviser, appellate specialist Michael Baden, forensic adviser
forensic scientist specializing in crime-scene reconstruction
O.J.’s mother
O.J.’s son and daughter by first wife
Nicole’s father and mother
Nicole’s sisters
Ronald’s father
Ronald’s mother
Ronald’s sister
O.J.’s lifelong friend
model, O.J.’s current girlfriend
Nicole’s neighbor, fellow jogger and club-hopper
exfootball player, now a minister
Nicole’s friend, ex-wife of Robert Kardashian and current wife of former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner
longtime friend, was with O.J. for the few days prior to his arrest
friend of the Simpsons’; lived in the guest house on O.J.’s estate
Nicole’s friend and confidante, author of sensationalist tell-all book
husband and wife who discovered the bodies
on phone with Kato when he heard three thumps outside guest house
limo chauffeur who drove O.J. to the airport the night of the murders
Chicago attorney, spoke to Simpson on flight back to L.A.
O.J.’s administrative assistant, who allegedly shredded documents at O.J.’s office
neighbor who discovered Nicole’s stray and bloodied Akita the night of the murders
Nicole’s former boyfriend, alleged that O.J. stalked him and Nicole
Nicole’s neighbor, who heard her dog’s “plaintive wail” at 10:15 p.m. on the night of the murders
Ronald’s boss at Mezzaluna
