William Bill Pavelic | Robert Shapiro on Bill Pavelic

Always something new;Latest in never-ending O.J. saga full of surprises

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS

September 15, 1996, Sunday, HOME FINAL EDITION

BYLINE: David Walton

SECTION: SUNDAY READER; BOOKS; Pg. 8J

LENGTH: 704 words

THE RUN OF HIS LIFE
By Jeffrey Toobin (Random House, $ 25)
New Yorker reporter Jeffrey Toobin interviewed more than 200 people for this definitive account of the O.J. Simpson trial. But the last word belongs to Mr. Toobin's two young children, quoted in the afterword on their reaction to their father's two-year immersion in this case.
"I think O.J. Simpson should be in time-out for a long time!"
says 4-year-old Ellen. And Adam, aged 3: "No O.J., Daddy!"
Fat chance. Mr. Toobin's is probably the best of the many "full" and "de-finitive" accounts now arriving in bookstores. But the book phase of O.J. cov-erage, like the TV and tabloid phases that preceded it, looks to be tidal, and about as edifying.
Mr. Toobin's book is literate, well-researched, penetrating and evenhanded, laying blame where it belongs, offering a reasonable perspective on this shabby and ultimately open-and-shut case. Mr. Toobin examines the facts of the case, as opposed to the facts of the murders themselves, revealing who did what, why, and at what cost as the case worked its way through the legal system. Not sur-prisingly, there's plenty of blame to lay, plenty of places to point a finger.
If you've been following this week's news, you know that Mr. Toobin's book offers several new revelations: that Mr. Simpson learned the verdict before it was announced in the courtroom, that he flunked a lie-detector test, that de-fense attorneys Johnnie Cochran and Robert Shapiro stated privately on several occasions that they believed their client was guilty.
The matter of The People vs. O.J. Simpson, whatever else it may or may not be in the annals of jurisprudence, is a grand American spectacle, awful and re-vealing, stupefying and sad. Mr. Toobin, second only perhaps to Vanity Fair columnist Dominick Dunne, understands "the crucible of the Simpson trial," and how much the intense public scrutiny affected the behavior of all who came into it.
Mr.Toobin comes down particularly hard on Robert Shapiro, Marcia Clark and Lance Ito, but almost nobody is spared here.
Judge Ito, he says, suffered "from an undue eagerness to please, an unwill-ingness to offend - and a fatal lack of gravitas."
"Proximity to murder can harden a conscience, and so it is with Lee Bailey," he says in possibly his harshest condemnation.
"He is a consummately cynical man, with an eye only for the bottom line - le-gal and financial. The guilt or innocence of his clients means little to him."
Mr. Toobin's portrait of Mr. Simpson himself, and "the banality, self-pity and narcissism that are the touchstones of his character," is limited but mas-terly, written entirely from the outside, without benefit of any personal con-tact.
Unexpectedly, Rosa Lopez and Barry Scheck, who I thought were the most dubi-ous figures in the trial, come off sympathetically here. Ms. Lopez, especially, emerges not as a buffoon, but as one of the trial's most touching victims.
If you followed this trial on the nightly news, you know four-fifths of what's in this book already. What The Run of His Life offers, along with a com-pelling summation of the evidence of Mr. Simpson's guilt, is its view into the culture of celebrity and power that shaped the trial, and its verdict.
E.L. Doctorow in The Book of Daniel portrays these high-profile trials as a collaborative event, rather than any adversarial struggle - something summed up memorably in the Rolling Stones line, "Judge and jury walked out hand in hand."
Everyone in the O.J. case seems to have known and worked for everyone else. Mark Fuhrman once worked for Judge Ito's wife, and Mr. Fuhrman's name first rang a bell for Shapiro investigator Bill Pavelic when Mr. Pavelic remembered the two of them once moonlighted as bodyguards for Johnny Carson.
Both Judge Ito and current District Attorney Gil Garcetti had been supervised by Johnny Cochran during Mr. Cochran's stint with the prosecutor's office.
Only Marcia Clark seems to have come into the case with a clear slate.
"Who's that?" she said, when told the suspect in the case she was being handed was O.J. Simpson.
Oh, don't you wish we could all say that now?
David Walton is a free-lance reviewer who lives in Pittsburgh.

LOAD-DATE: September 16, 1996

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

SLEUTHS SET TO TRY ANY LEADS O.J. HAS

Daily News (New York)

May 27, 1996, Monday

BYLINE: By JERE HESTER

SECTION: News; Pg. 7

LENGTH: 399 words

A team of sleuths from the land of Sam Spade has offered to probe the slay-ings of O.J. Simpson's ex-wife and her pal for free but said yesterday they'll need the athlete's full cooperation.
The crack crew of six, led by legendary private eye Hal Lipset, was spurred by Simpson's recent comments that there were leads in San Francisco the football great's hometown but that he couldn't afford to follow them up.
"We want to get to the bottom of it," Joel Michel, a San Francisco investiga-tor and a vice president of the World Association of Detectives, told the Daily News.
"We're not here to judge anyone, just to seek the truth," he said, adding that the detectives were willing to forgo their usual $ 100-per-hour fees.
The gumshoes hatched the idea over lunch recently with the renowned Lipset a former Watergate investigator famed for designing a bug that looked like a mar-tini olive.
"We've talked about it, and we feel very good about what our offer is," Sam Webster, WAD executive director, told The News. "We don't think anyone has ever done this."
Lipset, who turns 77 today, told the San Franciso Examiner, "If there are leads in San Francisco that somebody is not looking into, then I think they should be.
"We're serious," he added. "But if I find something, I want the right to tell the public and the San Francisco district attorney."
Bill Pavelic, a former LAPD detective who worked for Simpson, 48, during his successful defense of double-murder charges, told The Examiner he welcomed the offer and would discuss it with the gridiron star.
He confirmed there were investigative leads in San Francisco, but declined to offer details.
Simpson is going to have to come clean with the San Francisco supersnoops if they are to determine whether the leads in the June 12, 1994, murders are real or just stuff that dreams are made of.
"We can't get started until he gives us something to go on," said Michel. "But so far, we haven't heard diddly from him."
The football star was widely mocked for his vow to devote his life to hunting down the "real" killer following his Oct. 3 acquittal in the slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.
During his publicity tour of England earlier this month, he cryptically re-ferred to the San Francisco leads in a speech at Oxford University, where he complained he was virtually broke.

LOAD-DATE: May 27, 1996

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

O.J. Simpson Arraignment Special, Part 3

CNN

July 22, 1994

SHOW: NEWS 1:11 pm ET

BYLINE: ART HARRIS

SECTION: News; Domestic

LENGTH: 587 words

HIGHLIGHT: The Simpson defense team plans to prove their client couldn't have had time to murder Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, clean himself up annd make his plane to Chicago. They'll also point out police errors.

JIM MORET, Anchor: CNN's Special Assignment Correspondent Art Harris has been delving behind the scenes into the O.J. Simpson case, and he's uncovered a num-ber of interesting tidbits.

Art joins us now with what he knows about the defense team's own investigation into the killings. Art?

ART HARRIS, Correspondent: Jim, the new chief investigator for the defense, John McNally, is already on the job out here. Last night, he met with other investi-gators to plan the strategy. We talked with Bill Pavelic, one of McNally's troops.

Bill Pavelic was once a detective with the LAPD and is an expert on police procedure. He comes across as a Colombo without the cigar.

BILL PAVELIC, Defense Investigator: Nothing is in, and nothing is out. This case is like an Agatha Christie play, Murder, She Wrote. We have only seen the opening scenes; we haven't even begun to look at the other real issues.

HARRIS: So there could be other killers?

Mr. PAVELIC: There is no question in my mind that there are other killers.

HARRIS: As bizarre as that may sound, investigators for the Simpson side will also try and close the window of time in which the murders could have been com-mitted to show Simpson couldn't possibly have had the time to do the crime.

It's a three-pronged attack - that our guy couldn't have done it; someone else did; and the police have mishandled evidence in the case. Jim?

MORET: Art, what are you hearing about how the defense team will try to do that?

HARRIS: Jim, defense sources tell us they've been looking at TV news coverage of the crime scene, looking for errors in police procedure. They're also going to try to show that Simpson couldn't possibly have had the time to drive to Nicole Simpson's house, kill two people, drive home, clean up and make his flight to Chicago.

So they'll be trying to show Ron Goldman got to Nicole Simpson's house later than police believe. They plan to interview Goldman's friends to track his movements and also suggest that he may have been the killer's target, not Nicole Simpson.

But one thing that's been haunting the defense is what O.J. Simpson told police when he agreed to talk to them the day after the murders. Sources close to the case tell CNN Simpson contradicted himself about his activities, and that's a trump card the prosecution has yet to play. Jim?

MORET: Now Art, how will the defense team try to deal with that?

HARRIS: One defense source tells us any inconsistencies will be explained away by Simpson's condition - that he was exhausted during the interview, traumatized by the tragedy and on medication. The strategy is to put everyone on trial, ex-cept O.J. Simpson.

So we can expect to hear more about the private lives of the police officers on the case and the people around Nicole Simpson. But that's dicey, because if they trot out too much trash, it could spill over on the victim, who, after all, was the mother of O.J. Simpson's two young children. Jim?

MORET: Thank you Art. When we come back, we'll have more on what the defense team has been doing this week. We will examine court motions they've filed and get opinions of our experts when we return, right after this. Stay with us.

The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distri-bution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.

LOAD-DATE: July 22, 1994

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Transcript # 363-3

TYPE: Package

A LOOK AT CHARGES AGAINST 3 RIVALS FOR CHIEF

Los Angeles Times

March 18, 1992, Wednesday, Home Edition

BYLINE: By RICH CONNELL, TIMES STAFF WRITER

SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Column 2; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 1850 words

The long and bumpy road to naming a new chief for the troubled Los Angeles Police Department took a sharp detour two weeks ago when the Police Commission ordered a probe of alleged misconduct by three finalists who hope to succeed Daryl F. Gates.
A Latino business and community group, called NEWS for America, alleged that the finalists engaged in such misconduct as obstruction of justice, favoritism toward family members and an improper romantic relationship.
Demanding an investigation, the group cited internal police reports and infor-mation from LAPD officers, whose names it has refused to disclose. The group also has not named the candidates, but sources and records show that the allega-tions centered on Assistant Chief David D. Dotson and Deputy Chiefs Bernard C. Parks and Matthew V. Hunt.
Police Commission President Stanley K. Sheinbaum has promised a "careful and painstaking" probe because of the intense public interest in choosing Gates' successor.
In a series of recent interviews, police officials involved in the cases have denied any improprieties, saying the allegations are based on misinforma-tion and rumors. Here is closer look at the key allegations by NEWS for America and the most detailed responses to date from the candidates themselves.
* Dotson, who oversees the administrative side of the department, allegedly engaged in an improper on-duty relationships with a subordinate female officer. It also has been alleged that the female officer's estranged husband -- an LAPD sergeant -- has been retaliated against.
Dotson acknowledges that after he and LAPD Officer Leticia Martinez separated from their spouses last November, they developed a romantic relationship. He said they both complied with LAPD rules requiring the disclosure of relation-ships between superiors and subordinates, rules aimed at avoiding appearances of favoritism and conflicts of interest.
The relationship began when Martinez, who declined to comment, worked in the department's training section under Dotson's command, according to interviews.
Dotson said that while he and Martinez had become good friends before their separations, they were not having an extramarital affair. It was only in Novem-ber, he said, that they made a "commitment" to each other and notified the de-partment. They have never, he said, flaunted their relationship.
"I do not deny and will never deny we were friends and very good friends, and I assisted her and supplied her with materials, and self-help to get ahead in the job," Dotson said. "But I've done that for a lot officers in my career."
But he said there is "no substance to the allegations . . . because there was no extramarital affair, certainly none of the blatant activity reported."
Martinez's estranged husband, Sgt. Gus Martinez of the Northeast Division, alleged in an interview with The Times that his career has been ruined as a re-sult of Dotson's relationship with his wife.
"I can't go anywhere," he said. "I'm trying to promote and no one will touch me because they're all afraid of David Dotson."
But he added that he does not believe Dotson directed any efforts to stymie his career.
Dotson suggested that the investigation, initially based on anonymous let-ters, began just days after it was disclosed that he had sharply criticized Gates' leadership in testimony to the Christopher Commission.
* Hunt, who oversees operations in South Los Angeles, allegedly discouraged subordinates from freeing a suspected rapist they believed may have been inno-cent, a fact later confirmed by DNA tests.
Late last year, Southwest Division detectives arrested Richard Lee Nichols in connection with a series of rapes that occurred last September and October near the USC and El Camino College campuses. A vehicle allegedly used in the attacks was traced to Nichols, 25. Three victims identified him as their assailant from photographs and in lineups, according to investigators and the prosecutors.
Authorities acknowledge that questions were raised internally about whether Nichols was the right man. Among other things, there were discrepancies in the victims' descriptions of the suspect, who had proclaimed his innocence. More-over, additional rapes occurred in the same area after the arrest.
Despite their concerns, authorities say, the arrest was justified -- as was keeping a possible serial rapist in custody until the questions were resolved. Nichols was freed in February after DNA tests established his innocence. He spent four months in jail.
Deputy Chief Hunt strongly disputes the allegation that he played a role in ordering Nichol's arrest and his subsequent detention.
"No one came and said, 'We got this guy in custody and (there is) some con-cern (he is innocent),' " Hunt said. "Never."
"I never entered into this case . . . to any significant degree," he said. "And specifically never entered into any discussion on whether (Nichols) should be incarcerated." Although Hunt initially told The Times he had not been briefed on the case, he later acknowledged that he may have received some information. He confirmed that he commended detectives on the case in a report that noted there was "a conflict" in whether Nichols was "the perpetrator" and that indi-cated efforts were under way to ensure justice was done.
Key detectives and prosecutors on the case agreed with Hunt's denial of in-volvement.
"I made all of the decisions (regarding the arrest and the filing of charges) in consultation with my . . . supervisors," said Deputy Dist. Atty. Marc Deb-bauldt, who attended the lineups. "I did not know Hunt existed on this planet" until news reports surfaced about Hunt's alleged intervention.
Still, NEWS for America Chairman Xavier Hermosillo said the group believes there is substance to the allegations. "We have more than one police officer," he said, "who is willing to swear before a grand jury that these allegations are true."
One of those apparently is Southwest Division Detective Bill Pavelic, who had some early involvement in the case.
In a recent taped interview with KCBS-TV Channel 2, Pavelic said he warned superiors they may have the wrong man because of conflicting physical descrip-tions. He alleged that Hunt went along with delays in releasing Nichols because the department may have been under pressure from USC to solve the case -- an ar-gument rejected by others in the department, who dismiss Pavelic as disgruntled.
* Parks, who oversees police operations in the city's central section, alleg-edly intervened with subordinates to gain the release of his daughter's boy-friend, who was arrested on attempted murder charges.
In his first detailed comments on the allegations, Parks said he never inter-vened or sought favorable treatment for his daughter or her boyfriend, Nathan E. Thomas. Parks said he received calls from the Southwest Division station, where the boyfriend was being held, but never placed any.
"All I did," Parks said, "was respond to two phone calls."
The events leading up to those December calls began when his daughter, Trudy Jackson, reported to Southwest Division officers that her estranged husband had stolen her car. After his arrest, the estranged husband told police he had been loaned the car.
He also alleged that as he was driving in the Crenshaw District later that evening, Jackson's boyfriend chased him and fired shots, wounding two bystand-ers. Investigators later found that there had been a report of two drive-by shooting victims in the same area at about the same time.
Questioned by officers, Parks' daughter acknowledged that she filed a false police report. She also said her boyfriend "admitted the shooting to her," ac-cording to a police report obtained by The Times.
The boyfriend learned that officers were looking for him and voluntarily came to the station, where he was briefly arrested for attempted murder and held without bail. Three hours later, he was released and his arrest was downgraded to a detention.
NEWS for America alleged that Parks had intervened on the boyfriend's behalf. LAPD sources interviewed by The Times said a lieutenant at Southwest station in-dicated that the deputy chief had "vouched" for the boyfriend.
But Parks said he never vouched for Thomas in the two conversations he had with Southwest officers, who initiated the calls.
The first call, he said, was from a detective who said: "We have your daugh-ter's (stolen car) report. We are investigating.' I said, 'Fine.' "
The same detective supervisor called back, Parks said, but this time brought an investigator on the line. According to Parks, they said there were discrepan-cies in his daughter's story. Although the estranged husband was in custody, the detectives said he insisted Park's daughter had loaned him the car.
Parks said he told the detectives he would have his daughter "come to the station to clear this up" by telling the truth. Parks said that when the detec-tives began to tell him about possible shots fired in the case, he responded: "Whoa! I'm not interested. I don't need to know anything about this case."
"I told the detective I didn't want to know what (he was) going to do with the boyfriend or the ex-husband."
Parks said his only interest in the matter was knowing whether "there's any-thing that negatively impacts" his daughter, so he could get her a lawyer, if necessary.
After speaking with the detective, Parks said, he contacted his daughter and told her to return to the station and tell what actually occurred.
His only other contact on the case came about a week later, Parks said, when Capt. Garrett Zimmon called to warn him that there were "personnel in (South-west) division who will go to any extent to make an assertion that this case is improperly handled."
Zimmon and the detective declined to comment, citing the current investiga-tion of the incident.
Again, Hermosillo said his activist group has spoken to "more than one offi-cer" who claims to have "first-hand knowledge" of intervention by the deputy chief. "Something's fishy here," he said.
Kenneth Hickman, a Cal State Los Angeles professor, said he recently spoke with Lt. Alan Kerstein, who told him that he ordered the boyfriend's release be-cause there was insufficient evidence for the arrest. Kerstein insisted that the deputy chief did not intervene, according to Hickman, a former LAPD commander. Although Kerstein declined to be interviewed for this report, he has been quoted in the Daily News of Los Angeles as saying he ordered Thomas' release because the two reported bystander shooting victims could not be located to identify the suspect.
Thomas' attempted murder case and a possible misdemeanor case against Parks' daughter for filing a false police report were forwarded to prosecutors two weeks ago. Both have been sent back to the LAPD for further investigation.
When contacted by The Times, Thomas said he was falsely arrested but refused to discuss details of the case. Efforts to reach Parks' daughter have been un-successful.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

5 ATTEMPTS TO CONFINE AIDS PATIENT TOLD

238 of 244 DOCUMENTS

Los Angeles Times

July 1, 1987, Wednesday, Home Edition

BYLINE: By TERRY PRISTIN, Times Staff Writer

SECTION: Part 1; Page 1; Column 3; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 959 words

Joseph Markowski, the AIDS-infected prostitute accused of attempted murder for allegedly selling his blood as well as sexual favors, was "a time bomb just ready to explode," a police detective said Tuesday.
Five times in the past five months, authorities tried to have Markowski confined in a mental hospital because of apparent psychiatric problems.
But each time, Markowski, who has a history of drug and alcohol problems as well as a criminal record, was quickly released from the hospital, said Detective Bill Pavelic of the Los Angeles Police Department's mental evaluation unit.
"He was a time bomb just ready to explode," said Bill Pavelic. "We're very disappointed he was not held. . . . There's something drastically wrong here."
Last Thursday, one day after his most recent release from County-USC Medical Center, he was intercepted and arrested just as he was about to sell blood to a private blood bank for the second time in a week, authorities said.
Neither county officials nor the psychiatrists who treated the 29-year-old Markowski would discuss the case.
"First, there's the matter of confidentiality," said county Health Services Department spokesman Steven C. Stewart. "Second of all, there's an ongoing investigation by the district attorney's office."
In another development Tuesday, representatives of AIDS prevention organizations and the gay community, while condemning Markowski's alleged actions, criticized Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner for filing attempted murder charges against him.
Peter McDermott, acting executive director of AIDS Project Los Angeles, called the attention given the case "sensationalism that creates fear."
"We're gravely concerned that the general population will be misled to think it's panic time again. . . . What we have is a recalcitrant individual who emotionally is having difficulty coping with his disease. There have got to be better resources in the community for treatment than prosecution for attempted murder."
Markowski's attorney, said, "This is the first time I've ever seen a (defendant charged with) attempting to murder John Doe. My question is, who was hurt?"
Blood sold to proprietary centers in California is never transfused directly into patients, and people familiar with the blood-screening process have said there are a number of safeguards to prevent contaminated plasma from reaching patients.
Bill Pavelic said Los Angeles police first learned that Markowski had acquired immune deficiency syndrome when they detained him last Feb. 3 after he was spotted on Sunset Boulevard walking against the traffic.
On May 31, Bill Pavelic said, police again picked up Markowski after finding him "crying, breaking down emotionally and stating that he would kill himself."
On both occasions, Markowski was sent to either the County-USC Medical Center psychiatric ward or another county facility, but was not even held for 72 hours, as permitted by law, Bill Pavelic said.
A patient can be put on a 14-day hold if a judge determines there is probable cause that he or she is dangerous to himself or others, and hospital confinement can be extended after further court proceedings, if certain standards are met. Changes in the mental health laws in recent years have imposed strict rules for involuntary commitment to mental hospitals.
On two other occasions, the detective said, West Hollywood sheriff's deputies picked up Markowski and sent him to a county hospital. Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Merlyn Poppleton refused to confirm these referrals.
Markowski's most recent visit to County-USC occurred June 23. Police sent him there after he created a disturbance in a bank and pleaded with a security guard to kill him because he has AIDS.
Finding a receipt in Markowski's pockets from Plasma Production Associates, a blood donation center in Los Angeles, police wrote a letter to County-USC officials urging that he be detained.
"We said that he had AIDS, that he was highly irrational, that he donated blood to various agencies and that he possibly had hepatitis," Pavelic said.
Even so, Markowski was released the next day. Dr. Daniel Funderburk, the County-USC psychiatrist who authorized the release, declined to discuss the case, citing state confidentiality laws.
Markowski, who was charged Monday with four counts of attempted murder and six other felony counts, was being held in lieu of $1-million bail.
Police and others have described him as a transient who came to California less than three years ago from Flint, Mich. Ellwyn Bloemers, assistant Kent County, Mich., prosecuting attorney, said Markowski was charged with burglary in 1983 and placed on three years' probation.
At Markowski's request, he was allowed to move to San Francisco, where he enrolled in Acceptance Place, a 15-bed residential treatment program for homosexual drug and alcohol abusers. The program's senior counselor, Jim Ferguson, declined to release any information.
Sometime within the last two years, Markowski moved to Los Angeles, where he was arrested several times for such petty crimes as shoplifting, vandalism and drunkenness, records show.
Pavelic said Markowski occasionally worked at odd jobs and lived in a series of shelters for alcoholics.
In interviews Tuesday, spokesmen for the gay community and AIDS prevention groups said the case illustrates the need for better services for afflicted patients.
"We need more services for people who are prostitutes and find themselves in a situation with no money and nowhere else to turn. . . ," said Thomas West, director of Aid for AIDS. He suggested that Markowski should have been charged instead with violations of public health laws.
Times staff writers Cathleen Decker and Marita Hernandez contributed to this story.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Copyright 1987 The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved

CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY GERRY SPENCE

CNBC News Transcripts

March 3, 1995, Friday 11:15 AM

SHOW: RIVERA LIVE (9:00 PM ET)

ANCHORS: John Gibson

BYLINE: DAVID GREGORY

LENGTH: 8390 words

HOST: John Gibson
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Andy Friendly
JOHN GIBSON: Good evening. I'm John Gibson filling in for Geraldo Rivera. Rosa Lopez has concluded her stroll down memory lane. The beleaguered house-keeper today testified she was never specific about when she saw O.J. Simpson's Bronco parked outside his house. Here's David Gregory with the latest.
DAVID GREGORY reporting:
The latest word from the court is the defense will be punished and punished hard for withholding evidence from prosecutors in the case. As for Rosa Lopez, to the very end, she denied selling her story for money and today was again ada-mant about supporting O.J. Simpson's alibi, saying that she did see his white Bronco parked outside his estate the night of the murders. But also today, prosecutors produced a tape that came back to haunt Rosa Lopez.
(Excerpt from tape)
Mr. WILLIAM PAVELIC (Defense Investigator): Did you still see the Bronco outside?
Ms. ROSA LOPEZ (Maid of Simpson Neighbor): Yes. Yes.
(End of excerpt)
GREGORY: Today Rosa Lopez was confronted by her own words on tape. Prosecu-tors played a recording of the first statement she gave to defense investigator Bill Pavelic. She's telling Pavelic when she saw the Bronco, but prosecutors say the sound of shuffling papers you hear is Pavelic feeding her the answers.
Ms. LOPEZ: (From tape) I took out the dog 10--10:20.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN (Prosecutor): Did Mr. Bill show you a time written on a piece of paper at that point?
Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) No, sir.
GREGORY: But earlier, Lopez insisted she doesn't remember exactly when she saw the car.
Unidentified Reporter: And you have admitted that she impeached herself in some ways.
Mr. ROBERT SHAPIRO (Defense Attorney): Clearly. Clearly.
GREGORY: Johnnie Cochran tried to undo the damage this afternoon and resur-rect Lopez as a credible witness.
Mr. JOHNNIE COCHRAN (Defense Attorney): Are you receiving any compensation for testifying here today?
Mr. DARDEN: Objection.
Judge LANCE ITO (Los Angeles Superior Court): Overruled.
You can answer the question.
Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) No, sir.
GREGORY: Under Cochran's questioning, Lopez denied telling a former boss she would say anything on the stand for O.J. and stuck by the centerpiece of her testimony.
Mr. COCHRAN: She saw this Bronco out there after 10:00 on June 12th, 1994. Now what are you all going to say about that? That's what she says. And if a jury believes that or if two jurors believe that, that's the end of this case for them.
GREGORY: And, again, late today the judge--Judge Ito punished the Simpson de-fense team for withholding evidence relating to Rosa Lopez. The judge fined both Johnnie Cochran and defense attorney Carl Douglas $ 950 each and suggested they may have lied when they told the court that a recording of a lopace--Lopez statement existed. Live in Los Angeles, I'm David Gregory. Now back to you.
GIBSON: David, we've--we've got this sanction thing with us tonight. There was sort of a story about it. It was issued and then pulled back. Wh--what hap-pened up in the pressroom?
GREGORY: Well, John, evidently, when they actually released the sanction rul-ing, reporters were going through it and then they came back--officials of the court--and ripped it out of their hands. And what they were doing was changing the amount of the sanction in terms of the fine. It was originally $ 1,000 and then was changed to $ 950--again, both for Carl Douglas and Johnnie Cochran.
GIBSON: All right, David. Thanks a lot. Come back at the end. We'll talk to you about what's happening later.
Joining me tonight are three of our favorite guests here on RIVERA LIVE. NBC News consultant Gerry Spence is an author, teacher, former prosecutor and one of the country's best-known criminal defense attorneys. Alongside Gerry is former history Professor Leo Terrell, for many years one of this city's top civil rights and criminal defense lawyers, and Professor Stan Goldman teaches law at Loyola University and we should mention has been writing a column on the Simpson case for the New York Daily News.
Gentlemen, these sanctions first. The show tonight is Truth or Co--and Con-sequences. There hasn't always been a lot of truth, but there certainly, as of today, is some--are some consequences. You've looked at the sanctions--first of all, this fine, $ 950. Stan, I understand that at $ 1,000--if the judge had im-posed $ 1,000 fine, it would have to be reported to the state bar. Is--is that true and--and if he--if he had first fined them $ 1,000 and then lowered it to $ 950 so it didn't have to be reported, what's going on?
Professor STAN GOLDMAN (Loyola University Law School): Well, obviously, he decided it wasn't worth actually sanctioning them so they'd have to be investi-gated by the state bar and something in their file. Personally, I'd rather see that, given the circumstances, than an admonition read to the jury--at least possibly read to the jury, which is one of the possible sanctions in this case. I'd rather see the lawyers punished in this case than O.J. Simpson, guilty or innocent, have the potential of a fair trial obscured.
GIBSON: How--how se--how serious is that admonition if--if it is read to the jury?
Prof. GOLDMAN: Well, the--we've already had an admonition...
GIBSON: First, explain what is the admonition that he's going to inst--instruct?
Prof. GOLDMAN: If they ever play the videotape of this conditional examina-tion of Rosa Lopez, he is going to tell the jury about the failure to provide the discovery and that was a violation of the law. When you think about the bookends of this, the trial beginning with him admonishing the jury about the lawyers for the defense violating the law by not turning over information at opening statements and then near the end of the trial, in the middle of the de-fense case, telling them the same thing, I think that's a fairly heavy sanction against O.J. Simpson.
GIBSON: Leo, is it--this business of lowering the fine just enough that they don't have to go to the state bar--but the--the e--the--the sanction does appear to say, in the judge's own words--and I'll read them here, that--that--that the--the defense counsel essentially lied. That, I think this--the false represen-tations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recording existed lends credence to a finding that this was at the very least a representation made with re--reckless disregard for the truth, if not a deliberate attempt to mislead both the prosecution and the court.'
In plain language, a lie, right?
Mr. LEO TERRELL (Civil Rights Attorney): Apparently, the language is very harsh. And you know what? Judge Ito doesn't state in that ruling the factual finding why he concluded it may have been reckless disregard. Because both Doug-las and Cochran stated that they were unaware of the existence of that tape. And that was a fair representation, and Ito doesn't sti--cite in that ruling why he concluded that Cochran and Douglas were lying about that fact.
But, more importantly, what's being missed here is that, you know, the prose-cution has been sanctioned, and they're currently under a discovery sanction. Why hasn't Marcia Clark and Chris Darden been sanctioned monetarily and repri-manded?
GIBSON: Well, they don't make nearly as much money as the defense team, for one thing.
Gerry, is the--is--did the judge let them off easy? I mean, here they--they got nailed and--and caught, and--and we saw them quite repentant in court the other day.
Mr. GERRY SPENCE (Criminal Defense Attorney): Well, you have--John, you have to remember, this case has got to go forward. This judge gets too tough and too heavy, the case comes to an end. And everybody's got too much invested in this case. If you begin to put lawyers in jail, you begin to hold them in contempt and have contempt hearings, in which case you have a whole side issue that be-gins to develop and they've already had side issues develop in this case al-ready. Pretty soon, the case comes to a screeching halt.
GIBSON: But...
Mr. SPENCE: So there's only so much that this judge can do at this time, John.
GIBSON: But he can--but he does--he is sitting at the bench watching every-body at one time or another misrepresent, hide...
Mr. SPENCE: Well, but...
GIBSON: ...allude and...
Mr. SPENCE: ...John--and look at...
GIBSON: ...in our plain language, lie.
Mr. SPENCE: Let's turn this thing around. Let us suppose that you get sanc-tioned on public television for having lied or the same as having lied to your audience. We find that John...'
GIBSON: We've never, ever, ever, ever lied.
Mr. SPENCE: ...Gibson has lied in his reckless disregard of the truth.'
GIBSON: Never.
Mr. SPENCE: If--and if not a deliberate attempt to mislead'--now that is a frighteningly, horrid thing to have said about you across the land, across the world. And, to me, that would be the worst sanction of all. I would give every penny I have, every--anything that I have to erase that kind of thing from the statements to the--to my friends and the people that respect me.
GIBSON: We're going to--we're going to take a quick break. It's Truth or Consequences. We'll be right back. Stick with us.
(Announcements)
(Excerpt from tape)
Mr. PAVELIC: How long after that did you take the dog for a walk?
Ms. LOPEZ: I took the dog 10--10:20, 10:15, I...
Mr. PAVELIC: So...
Ms. LOPEZ: ...took my dog for a walk.
Mr. PAVELIC: So do you do that every night?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes--when my boss not at home, yes. That was the last time I take it out.
Mr. PAVELIC: So you take your dog for a walk about 10:15...
Ms. LOPEZ: Ten-15, 10:20.
Mr. PAVELIC: ...to 10:30.
Ms. LOPEZ: Yeah.
Mr. PAVELIC: Now when you took your dog for a walk, could you still see the Bronco outside?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes. Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: Was the Bronco in the same position as before?
Ms. LOPEZ: Same position, si.
Mr. PAVELIC: So that...
Ms. LOPEZ: ...(unintelligible)
Mr. PAVELIC: Yeah. OK.
Ms. LOPEZ: Yeah.
Mr. PAVELIC: So you saw the car parked there the whole time.
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: Let's say from 8:30 all the way up until 11:00.
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
(End of excerpt)
GIBSON: I'm John Gibson sitting in for Geraldo Rivera. That was Bill Pavelic, the defense investigator, talking to Rosa Lopez on July 29th. That was the tape that the defense, in fact, hid from the prosecution and did not reveal to the judge that it existed. And that is a key issue in the--in this--in this contretemps today, is what was--what was it that Rosa Lopez really saw? Did she see O.J. Simpson's Bronco in front of his house at that crucial time, 10:15? And this was clearly Bill Pavelic trying to get her to say that--the issue's Truth of Consequences. Who was telling the truth on that tape, if anybody? And what are the consequences of--of the jury--if the jury ever does--hearing that tape? If they ever hear Bill Pavelic leading Rosa Lopez like that, what will be the consequences? Let's start with Gerry.
Mr. SPENCE: Well, you know, first of all, I want to s--can I--can--you just have to kind of envision how this tape came into being.
GIBSON: Well, sure...
Mr. SPENCE: Now...
GIBSON: ...he walked in, he sat down a microrecorder, he...
Mr. SPENCE: No.
GIBSON: ...started talking...
Mr.-SPENCE: That ain't quite the way it happened. He did what al--the police always do: They sit down the witness and they talk to her, get her at ease, lead her through this, get her to say this, get her--get it all--and say, Now I'm go-ing to tape you and, you know, be sure and--we're going to hit this or that.' Thi--this is what the police do. Now...
GIBSON: You're saying that he prepped her before he turned the recorder on?
Mr. SPENCE: I just--that's a good word. I was looking for that word. That's a good word. He prepped her. But everybody gets prepped nowadays. You go into the operating room, you get prepped. You go into a lawyer's office, you get prepped. They turn the cap--tape recorder on after you've been prepped.
GIBSON: But was that legitimate prepping? Stan.
Prof. GOLDMAN: Well, he certainly is leading her. Now if--if, in advance, he's talked to her and she said exactly those same things and they're having trouble because of the language problem and he suggests, you know--the things that he s--that she said to him before...
GIBSON: Yes.
Prof. GOLDMAN: ...it's maybe not as big a problem, but it certainly sounds it when all you hear is that tape, because he's clearly leading her c--to con-clusions.
GIBSON: You hear one more thing. As he's getting around to saying, You saw that Bronco at 10:15,' you hear, (rustles a paper).
Prof. GOLDMAN: Yeah.
GIBSON: And you hear that rustle and the implication that Chris Darden made of it was that he passed her a note and on that note is said, Say 10:15.'
Mr. TERRELL: No proof to that whatsoever. And Gerry's absolutely right. Po-lice officers investigate witnesses in that manner. They investigate witnesses in a manner in which they obtain evidence that they want to hear. That is nor-mal police practice. Bill Pavelic...
GIBSON: But is it legit?
Mr. TERRELL: Well, it's the way police investigations are done in the city of LA. This is a--this is a former police detective. This is a matter of course and scope in how they obtained evidence...
Mr. SPENCE: They've been doing that all the time.
Mr. TERRELL: They do it all the time.
Mr. SPENCE: They've been doing it all this time.
Mr. TERRELL: So, if anything, he's just showing how the LAPD investigates witnesses.
GIBSON: But how's the--how is a jury going to take it when they hear that's how the information came about? When they hear this 10:15 that the Bronco was seen in front of his house--that it came about in that manner?
Mr. TERRELL: Let me tell you--let me point out something. There's two things that Rosa Lopez did that she stuck by. One, she kept saying over and over again that she saw the Bronco after 10:00. She--she--and in--secondly, she pointed out that she talked to Mark Fuhrman the following day. Those are the only two issues that are key to Rosa Lopez's testimony.
Prof. GOLDMAN: And how much--how much does she help the defense, though...
Mr. TERRELL: An...
Prof. GOLDMAN: ...with either of them?
Mr. TERRELL: We--I'll tell you right now. If it takes--if she can convince one juror--that's all--then she has accomplished her mission.
GIBSON: Well, the truth i--once again, we're talking about Truth and Conse-quences, and the question is: Is there truth in anything that Rosa Lopez said on the stand? And do--do the mistruths or half-truths or oddities in her testimony undermine whatever truth is there? Stan.
Prof. GOLDMAN: Well, of course, it does. I mean, this is a--this is a real question mark as to whether the jury will ever hear this. I--I don't doubt that there's probably a real split on the defense team right now. I mean, the rumor is that Robert Shapiro and some of the other people on the team would rather this never be played, but that Johnnie Cochran might very well feel it's--part of his prestige lies in playing this tape.
Mr. TERRELL: You know--you know...
GIBSON: Leo is about to come unglued. Go ahead, Leo.
Mr. TERRELL: ...what I find amazing is that we have forgotten Detective Phillips' testimony, Detective Lange's testimony. Don't we recall these offi-cers--trained officers use the term, I don't recall'? Don't we realize how--how free-flow their information was on direct, how limited their information was on cross? The public just has to go back to the detectives to remember they used that magical statement, I don't recall.'
GIBSON: Yeah, but, Leo, we've--you know, we have heard people like that using those phrases since Watergate. We hardly expect Rosa Lopez to say, I don't re-call,' or, I'--or, I've--I never had that information.'
Mr. TERRELL: Oh!
Mr. SPENCE: Oh, yeah. You know, but listen, can--tell me--tell me, John, what did you have for breakfast on Sunday?
GIBSON: Skipped it, Ger.
Mr. SPENCE: And how about--and how about lunch? What'd you...
GIBSON: He's trying to make a point on me.
Mr. SPENCE: But, see, it is--this is what they did to Rosa Lopez, and--and--and not only that, but if you've got--you've got a--a little lady faced--look at the--imagine sitting in the chair, and out--you look out there and the whole room is filled with...
GIBSON: But the truth is...
Mr. SPENCE: ...the great reporters in this country.
GIBSON: The truth is, we've got to go to break and I'll let you finish that...
Mr. SPENCE: You promise?
GIBSON: ...in just a second. We'll be right back. Truth or Consequences.
(Announcements)
(Excerpt from courtroom proceedings)
Mr. COCHRAN: While you were at the loft, was--at any time, did I ever tell you what to say when you came to court to testify on Monday?
Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) No, sir.
Mr. COCHRAN: Did I ever, at any time, tell you what I thought you should say or respond to any particular question?
Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) Only to tell the truth.
Mr. COCHRAN: Did I ever give you any signals or hand signals between the two of us?
Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) No, sir.
Mr. COCHRAN: Have you ever, at any time--ever tried to sell the information which you've told us in court here? Have you ever tried to sell what you've had to say for money to anyone?
Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) No, sir.
Mr. COCHRAN: Have you been offered any money by any lawyer in this case at all?
Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) No, sir.
Mr. COCHRAN: In the course of your testimony over the last several days, have you told us the truth?
Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) Yes, sir.
(End of excerpt)
GIBSON: Truth or Consequences--si, signor.
That was Rosa Lopez on redirect from Johnnie Cochran this afternoon, and the--and the context of that was that Chris Darden had made--had made the threat that Sylvia Guerra is going to be brought in and testify that Rosa Lopez did, in fact, tell Sylvia that she was being paid $ 5,000 to testify about this Bronco in front of O.J. Simpson's house.
And when we left, Gerry, you were just about to...
Mr. SPENCE: See, you--you weren't...
GIBSON: ...to tell us something--tell us something about Rosa, but, you know, does it fit in with--there? We're seeing a woman who is being pressed about...
Mr. SPENCE: Well...
GIBSON: ...not--not only the truth, but bribery, at this point.
Mr. SPENCE: Yeah. Well, we're seeing--what we're seeing is a contest that really isn't fair. I mean, can you imagine how it would be if you were a little Spanish-speaking woman sitting in a chair with the national television on you and the judge looking down at you in his robe with his beard and--and all of those fancy lawyers out there asking your questions, and--and now you--and you've got a fourth-grade education, you can't read English and you can't read Spanish very well, and now you're supposed to defend yourself against the world. And then we all gather around and we gloat that Rosa--Rosa Lopez has been de-stroyed. Well, I agree that she ought not to be called as a witness, that maybe she--maybe she doesn't qualify as a witness. But--but we ought not to...
GIBSON: But she has to be on trial, same as Simpson.
Mr. SPENCE: We ought--but--but we--but we ought not to judge her on the same level that we judge everybody else.
GIBSON: Well, but she will be. She is on trial; the jury is going to judge her as to whether her credibility holds up. And did Darden effectively estab-lish a motivation for her not telling the truth in threatening the bribery charge and in--in bringing out the information that she--she did not like Nicole...
Mr. SPENCE: We don't...
GIBSON: ...and she would s--and she would say almost anything to testify for O.J. Simpson?
Mr. SPENCE: Well, I'm wanting--I'm wanting to de--I'm wanting to defend this wo--little woman. You understand me?
GIBSON: Well, we all want to de...
Mr. SPENCE: Because--because it really isn't--wasn't a fair contest and we all c--tend to d--to defend people that are the underdog. That doesn't mean she makes a good witness. It doesn't mean--and there's another thing it doesn--that this doesn't mean: that your tes--your--your suggestion doesn't mean. It does-n't mean that Chris Darden has the--has the goods on her with another impeaching witness. He has claimed it through his testimony, and he'd better have it, be-cause if he doesn't...
GIBSON: However--however...
Mr. SPENCE: ...his little fanny's going to be in trouble, too.
GIBSON: ...my understanding is--and I'll ask Stan and Leo this--my under-standing is, is if he didn't have good cause...
Mr. SPENCE: Yeah.
GIBSON: ...to ask those questions, the defense table...
Prof. GOLDMAN: He'd be in trouble.
GIBSON: ...would have gone off like rockets and they did not.
Prof. GOLDMAN: He'd be in trouble. He'd be, probably, in trouble...
Mr. SPENCE: Yeah, he would.
Prof. GOLDMAN: ...with the bar, because you can't make those kinds of claims in a court without having some basis for that questioning.
GIBSON: So what are we left to assume from the fact that he did make those claims?
Prof. GOLDMAN: Well, he may have somebody out there, like this Sylvia Guerra, who made some statements. Whether she's telling the truth or not--I mean, for example, one has to remember, just because Rosa Lopez may not be tell-ing the absolute truth doesn't mean she's lying. She may have a faulty memory; she may have thought it was 10:15; it might have been 10:00; it might have been 10:30. To tell you the truth, I don't think the prosecution did all that won-derful a job showing her a liar, but they did cast some doubt on the believabil-ity of her testimony.
GIBSON: Right. Right. A--as a matter of fact, I'll sh--the--the concluding statements from Rosa Lopez today were, she saw that Bronco sometime after 10. She has backed off any precision of 10:15. And, in part--in shock, when she saw herself on television--or being referred to on television as the one who saw it there. But, Leo, you seem to stick up for her credibility on the issue of when she saw the Bronco.
Mr. TERRELL: And...
GIBSON: How does it square, then, with all of the other soft, waffly, squig-gly little things about her testimony?
Mr. TERRELL: Well, I don't know if all the soft, squiggly little things--all of that will get into the court if she testifies. I believe she'll testify af-ter--during the determination on the credibility of Mark Fuhrman, and I think she'll testify live, but let's not forget the jury--those 12 individuals with different experiences and all those people who are reporting on the credibility of Rosa Lopez today will determine whether or not Rosa Lopez is a credible wit-ness.
GIBSON: Well, that's the--that's the question. Is anybody ever going to see Rosa Lopez?
Mr. SPENCE: No. No. No.
GIBSON: Or did this--did this session convince the defense she should go to El Salvador and the tape should stay in the can?
Mr. SPENCE: I--I--I guarantee you, everybody, including the prosecution--including the prosecution, wants Rosa to get out of Dodge. Get out of Dodge. Even the judge...
GIBSON: Even the judge?
Mr. SPENCE: Even the judge says, I'm not going to put her under an order to stay here.' Even the judge is saying, Honey, go home. Go home.' Everybody wants her to go home.
Prof. GOLDMAN: But the defense will play--the defense will play this tape--the defense will play this tape if they really feel they're behind--if they're losing. I mean, this is--this...
GIBSON: It's the only alibi witness.
Prof. GOLDMAN: Is--if--and--and especially if O.J. Simpson doesn't testify. If O.J. Simpson doesn't testify, they need something. So they're either--if they're behind in this case--I mean, I hate to use a bad fo--if they're behind, they will put that tape on, because what else have they got to...
Mr. TERRELL: Wait to see what Mark Fuhrman says. That will determine whether Rosa Lopez will reappear.
Prof. GOLDMAN: Well, that means whether they're ahead or not or behind.
Mr. TERRELL: No, not necessarily.
GIBSON: Well, there--there's one more thing. The--Rosa Lopez te--has now testified for I don't know how many hours--eight, 10, something like that--on videotape. Is it possible that they're going to play that tape in--even near its entirety or i--are we going to watch four days' worth of hearings about what is going to be in the tape that the jury is later going to see?
Mr. SPENCE: Yes. If it comes up, we'll have four more days of hearing be-cause everybody wants to talk about talking and talk about having a trial more than they want to have a trial.
Prof. GOLDMAN: And the judge was very lenient about what he allowed, espe-cially on cross-examination. There were some things that were quite objection-able, but the judge said in advance he was going to be very lenient. So there will be arguments about what, in fact, the jury will get to hear and what they won't.
GIBSON: Did--did--was there anything about Rosa Lopez that was sterling that you--if you were the defense, that you...
Mr. SPENCE: Yes.
GIBSON: ...would want to...
Mr. SPENCE: Yes, yes, yes. Do you know what she said? And when she said it, I just, you know, g--I--just touched me.
GIBSON: Say it quick, Gerry...
Mr. SPENCE: All right.
GIBSON: ...because we're going to a break.
Mr. SPENCE: She said--she said, We work for our living by the sweat of our brows,' and I loved that.
GIBSON: All right. That was good.
We're going to go to a break. It's Truth and Co--Truth and Consequences. Stick with us. We'll be right back.
(Announcements)
(Excerpts from February 24, 1995, courtroom proceedings)
Ms. CLARK: Your Honor, I just--I can't be here, and if the court had in-formed me...
Judge ITO: Miss--Miss Clark--no. Miss Clark, I'm--I'm sorry. I--I apologize to you. I had forgotten that problem and that's my fault for having forgotten about that.
(End of excerpt; excerpt from February 27, 1995, courtroom proceedings)
Mr. COCHRAN: It's beyond disingenuous for somebody to come into this court at 6:30, after you brought all these jurors over here and we're ready to proceed and--and--and the witness makes a promise to you she'll come back. And they say, Well, I--we can't do it tonight, Judge, because I got to pick up my chil-dren.' And the court is sensitive to that and this is--only was a ploy for them to go and try to cry and moan over the weekend and come up with some other docu-ment.
Ms. CLARK: I'm offended as a woman, as a single parent and as a prosecutor and an officer of the court to hear an argument posed by counsel like that of Mr. Cochran today. Some of us have child-care issues, and they are serious and they are paramount. Obviously, Mr. Cochran cannot understand that, but he should not come before this court and impugn the integrity of someone who does have those considerations.
(End of excerpt)
GIBSON: Truth and Consequences. That was Marcia Clark and Johnnie Cochran last Friday as the judge was about the bring the jury in to hear Rosa Lopez's testimony live. It was going to go late--that was about 6:00 on a Friday night. Marcia Clark was saying that she had child-care problems and the judge did not take the testimony that Friday night. In fact, then on Monday, he changed his mind, decides the testimony would go on videotape and we've now come to the end of that.
I'm John Gibson, filling in for Geraldo Rivera. With me, the legendary Gerry Spence and the soon-to-be legendary Leo Terrell and Stan Goldman.
Joining us on the phone from New York is Jeanine Ferris Pirro, the district attorney of Westchester. That's a county just north of New York City. Ms. Pirro is a former criminal court and family court judge. She's also the mother of two young children.
And, Jeanine, I know you wanted to support Marcia Clark in what was a time of trial for her personally last week. And, of course, it--in the time of trial now, that her ex-husband--or, soon-to-be ex-husband Gordon Clark is suing for permanent custody of the children based on the fact that she is working so much on this trial. What did you think of--of what Marcia had to say to Johnnie Cochran last week?
Ms. JEANINE FERRIS PIRRO (District Attorney, Westchester, New York): (On the telephone) Well, first of all, I think this is all very fascinating. The fact is that if her name were Marshall and not Marcia Clark, we wouldn't be talking about any of this. How many of us know whether Johnnie Cochran or Robert Shapiro or Chris Darden have young children?
GIBSON: We don't know about Darden, but we do know about Johnnie Cochran and--and--and Robert Shapiro.
Ms. PIRRO: Well, the--but the truth is that their child-care problems and issues...
GIBSON: Right.
Ms. PIRRO: ...are not brought into the courtroom.
GIBSON: No, it's a serious issue and--and she is facing a serious problem next week. Her children could be taken away from her.
Ms. PIRRO: And--and I think that it's a sad commentary, John, on--on the world that we live in, that we do not concern ourselves with judges and lawyers--male lawyers working 14 hours a day, but we're--all of a sudden, we take on this sense of responsibility that if there's a woman professional in the court-room, we have to worry about the number of hours she's with her children. And I think that--no, I think that it reflects a--a--a great deal of discrimination. You know, 20 years ago in New York, it was not a crime to beat your wife, and what we have now is a society that's just...
GIBSON: We...
Ms. PIRRO: ...coming to grips...
GIBSON: Right.
Ms. PIRRO: ...with women in positions like Marcia Clark.
GIBSON: Well, listen, I--I've--I've--I can't let you go on any longer without telling you about this filing on February 28th from Gordon Clark, and this is a supplemental declaration to the petition asking for custody of the children.
Ms. PIRRO: Mm-hmm.
GIBSON: And in it, Gordon Clark, Marcia Clark's soon-to-be ex-husband, I gather, is--is alleging that Marcia Clark was not forthcoming with the judge on that Friday night when she claimed to have child-care problems. And, in fact, that night, it was his night to watch the children and he was all set to pick them up at 6:00. This plays into the--the allegation from Mr. Cochran that it was a ploy to stall that evening.
Let me read a little bit from it. He was supposed to pick her--pick up the children at 6:00. He says that instead she called and said she wanted to drop them off at 7:30--called on that day. And then later on, he said--this is Gordon Clark--To use me and our children to serve her own objectives, which had nothing to do with the welfare of our children, is very upsetting to me.' He also said, The petitioner'--that is, Marcia Clark--knows that if she had ever had a problem, she could ask me to immediately pick up our children and I would leave work anytime. And clearly, the petitioner'--Marcia Clark--does not have any child-care problems. Any such implication is not accurate, misrech--misrepresents the actual facts and does a disservice to me and our children.'
Now, I realize we're not hearing from Marcia Clark in this matter.
Ms. PIRRO: Right.
GIBSON: She has said that she thinks it's inappropriate for her to comment on her d--domestic dispute with her husband through the media and she has not said anything. But you have worked both sides of this--you've been a family judge. How would you regard these statements from Gordon Clark, first on the issue of the child-care problem; and secondly, on the representation that she made to the judge that the court could not go late on Friday night and could not hear Rosa Lopez live because of--of her child-care problems?
Ms. PIRRO: Well, John, there are a couple of things. Having been a--a fam-ily court judge and having determined issues such as custody and visitation, and being a professional with two children myself, what I could tell you is that whenever you have a matrimonial or a custody dispute, I mean, the--the allega-tions are--are sometimes out of this world in terms of, you know, the serious-ness of them. There is no way to tell where the truth lies here and I--I would-n't dare to say it because I don't know any of the facts.
But if Marcia Clark were entitled to be with her children that day and it was the only time that she could see her children, then maybe, you know, bringing them to her husband for visitation wouldn't be such a big deal. But what I find curious is the fact that all this is coming out within days of her making a rep-resentation to the court. Why is it that her husband--or--or, soon-to-be ex-husband feels that the timing is so crucial to tie it in with the defense argu-ment?
GIBSON: Well, yeah. He--I mean, he--he clearly...
Ms. PIRRO: And that's ...(unintelligible) itself.
GIBSON: He--he said--and he was clearly upset to hear her say that, and he said he didn't learn about it until later. I know, we--Jeanine, I'd like to call in some of the other guests here...
Ms. PIRRO: Mm-hmm.
GIBSON: ...for reaction to this because this is Truth and Consequences. And what if the judge decides to delve into this and determine if Marcia was telling him the truth on Friday?
Mr. TERRELL: You know, I--I'm really bothered by this, and I don't want to sound like I'm not s--concerned about Marcia Clark's child-care situation. But here's a husband who was just as equally concerned and he's hearing this infor-mation where Marcia Clark is basically--if his declaration is true--is misrepre-senting the court...
GIBSON: Says under the penalty of perjury.
Mr. TERRELL: Right, under penalty of perjury. So she was using those kids to buy tactical time. And what I find--and what I find offending in Ms. M--Clark is when she sits there and talk about Rosa Lopez, who is living the best--in life. You know, she's living--a hotel--a woman who makes, like, $ 8,000 or $ 9,000 a year, where Marcia Clark's--makes $ 100,000 a year. How many...
GIBSON: She makes $ 96,000, Leo.
Mr. TERRELL: How many people make that much money? My point here is this: If she used those children as an excuse to buy time, she should be sanctioned.
GIBSON: Let me ask Jeanine. It--Leo thinks she should be sanctioned if that is what ha--has happened. Now, as a prosecutor and as an attorney and as a judge, would you be suspicious about these circumstances and this declaration that has come from Gordon Clark about what went on Friday when Marcia Clark stood up and stopped what was otherwise going to be a--a live witness before that jury that the prosecution did not want to have happen on Friday night?
Ms. PIRRO: Well, I think, John, that a judge always has to be concerned when an attorney makes a representation that changes the circumstances of a trial, so I think the issue is certainly an important one. But what we don't know is what the circumstances of visitation are as it relates to Marcia Clark and her es-tranged husband. Who was to bring them to whom? What time is that to happen? You know, there are so many facts that have yet to be determined, but is it relevant? Yes. When you bring it in as a basis for changing something that will happen in court, then it becomes relevant.
GIBSON: I've got to stop you. We're going to go to a break. It's Truth and Consequences. Stick with us. We'll be right back.
(Announcements)
(Excerpts from press conference footage)
Mr. COCHRAN: I think that the jurors can more nearly relate to Rosa Lopez than can reporters. Now, who among you can say that I'm not right? And that's the difference. That's why you guys are so often wrong on cases, because you look at things through your silk-stocking attitudes. And I'm telling you, the jurors will be much more--relate to Rosa Lopez. This is a lady who just was here trying to tell a story and tell the truth.
It was interesting. If you listen to the tape, she--even through there was some lead-in on the tape, because that generally means that he's talked to some-body before--before they turned the tape on. Police do this all the time, as Pavelic is an ex-LAPD officer, so I imagine that's why he learned this. But it's interesting that when she was talking about it, this lady, to everybody, has said from day one that she saw this Bronco out there after 10:00 on June 12th, 1994. Now, what are you-all going to say about that? That's what she says. And if a jury believes that or if two jurors believe that, that's the end of this case for them.
(End of excerpts)
GIBSON: That was Johnnie Cochran talking about why Rosa Lopez is a good wit-ness for O.J. Simpson.
I'm John Gibson, sitting in for Geraldo Rivera. I've got Gerry Spence, Leo Terrell and Stan Goldman. What do we actually have? Do--do we have the out--outlook of cotton socks or silk stockings? Do we really? Do we so misunder-stand what Rosa Lopez is saying? And I want to ask Leo first.
Mr. TERRELL: Yes. The--the media does not represent the opinions or the mind-set of the 12 jurors that were...
GIBSON: Or the perceptions.
Mr. TERRELL: Or the perception or the life experiences. And I keep saying this over and over again. And they're misjudging the impact of Rosa Lopez. Johnnie Cochran is absolutely on point that the jurors will look at Rosa Lopez in a totally different light than the mass media.
GIBSON: Stan.
Prof. GOLDMAN: Well, I--I--I didn't think she did very well, but I was sur-prised yesterday when I was in the courtroom...
GIBSON: What kind of stockings you got on?
Prof. GOLDMAN: Well, they're not--never--I don't want to show them. But the--the reporter--a reporter came up to me yesterday in the courtroom during the break and said, When's the judge going to stop this? How can he allow that pack of lies to come through?' And I would hear her say, I don't remember,' and I'd hear reporters around me sort of almost gasping, Oh, my gosh. How can she'--I mean, I didn't think she was doing very well. I didn't think she was doing nearly as poorly as the media was thinking she was doing. And I don't know if maybe the jurors might look at her and be a little more sympathetic, especially--they might see part of what Mr. Darden was doing, although softer than he's been before--nonetheless, bullying her.
GIBSON: So we may have it all wrong; she may be back as a live witness. If Leo is right, that the--that there's control of this witness by the defense, she may be back. We may never see this tape again.
Mr. SPENCE: Watch my lips. Sh--Rosa Lopez will never be back. I--I...
GIBSON: Why not?
Mr. SPENCE: The reason she won't be back is simply because not only is her testimony going to be incredible, even to the jury that's there--and I agree with Leo that they're going to see it considerably--with mo--with considerably more love than--than is shown by the media. But when he puts her on the stand, in comes all of the rebuttal evidence that the prosecution has...
GIBSON: Wait a minute.
Mr. SPENCE: ...the people that will call her a liar; people that will talk about the bribery issues and all of those things, which are too--in other words, you've got a truckload of evidence here and you've got a kernel here of--that's Rosa Lopez. And to get in the kernel of evidence, the whole...
GIBSON: You got to bring the truck.
Mr. SPENCE: ...truckload comes in.
GIBSON: Comes in. But you--you...
Mr. SPENCE: And if you're the pro--if you're the defense...
GIBSON: You saw Johnnie Cochran on that screen a moment ago saying, You guys don't understand. You are wrong. People will believe her.' It sounded to me like say--She's coming. Get ready.'
Mr. SPENCE: Get out. No. No.
Prof. GOLDMAN: Oh, I--I was--I think he's got some of his prestige on the line. He made a decision to do something that criminal defense lawyers never do: give a very detailed opening statement naming the...
Mr. SPENCE: Yes.
Prof. GOLDMAN: ...witnesses you're going to be calling.
Mr. SPENCE: Yes.
Prof. GOLDMAN: And he is on the line a little bit here, and I still think he would like to see her called or at least use that testimony that's already in the can because he's the one who made this decision.
GIBSON: But then what are we talking about? Johnnie's...
Mr. TERRELL: But see, the first...
Prof. GOLDMAN: But I don't think he'll do it. I think he'll think better of it.
Mr. TERRELL: See--see, for--for Rosa Lopez not to appear means that no juror would believe her. And I don't think anyone can sit here and say that not one juror would buy into Rosa Lopez--even if the other 11 think she's the biggest...
GIBSON: Wait a minute. Let me get--let me poll the jury. You say she's showing up or not?
Prof. GOLDMAN: No, I don't think she's showing up.
GIBSON: You say she's showing up or not?
Mr. TERRELL: She'll be there.
GIBSON: You say she's not.
Mr. SPENCE: My lips. Read them.
GIBSON: Read them. Well, all right. Let's go back to the guy who thinks she will be there.
Mr. TERRELL: Right.
GIBSON: All right. You're--you're bringing her into court. You know the truckload of stuff that Gerry's talked about that will come with her; you know the kernel of truth that's buried in there, at least in Cochran's opinion. Why is it worth the gamble?
Mr. SPENCE: Yes.
Mr. TERRELL: Because she puts--she gives Simpson a strong alibi. The Bronco is an instrument of this murder scene. The Bronco is key and is going to add to the Mark Fuhrman issue relating to Mark Fuhrman in this situation: suppression of evidence.
Prof. GOLDMAN: No, she didn't say that, though.
Mr. TERRELL: She did.
Prof. GOLDMAN: That's the problem. It's no--it's not as good as the defense wanted it to be. She didn't say, I told Mark Fuhrman I saw the Bronco out there at 10:15.'
Mr. TERRELL: No. It's not what she told Mark Fuhrman; it's what Mark Fuhr-man failed to tell his superiors.
Prof. GOLDMAN: But she didn't tell hi--if she didn't tell him that, then it's not that big a deal that he didn't mentioned it. Now you've got a witness outside who--next door who may have said something, but it's not very signifi-cant.
GIBSON: You know what--you know what this illustrates? And we've talked about this before. We're--we're talking about Mark Fuhrman and Rosa Lopez, and it's hard to get O.J. Simpson into this conversation every once in a while. The...
Mr. TERRELL: Who?
GIBSON: ...subject is Truth and Consequences. We'll be back after this quick break. Stick with us.
(Announcements)
(Excerpt from audiotape of courtroom proceedings)
Mr. PAVELIC: The next morning, did somebody knock on your door?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes, some detective.
Mr. PAVELIC: Some detective.
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: Do you recognize--did you recognize that detective?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: Who--who is he?
Ms. LOPEZ: I don't know his name, but I know--I'd recognize him.
Mr. PAVELIC: He was the guy that you saw on TV testifying?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes. Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: Would that be Detective Fuhrman?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes. Yes, it is.
Mr. PAVELIC: Is it Fuhrman--Mark Fuhrman?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes. Mark Fuhrman, yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: Now, when he knocked on your door, what time was that?
Ms. LOPEZ: Eight o'clock or 8:15.
Mr. PAVELIC: Eight, 8:15?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yeah.
Mr. PAVELIC: Did he identify himself as police?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: Did he show you a badge?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: OK. And what did he ask you?
Ms. LOPEZ: He ask that--me permission to po--to--to supervise him in the--the--the--the job in the back of the house.
Mr. PAVELIC: Oh. So he wanted to look where the fence is?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: He wanted your permission...
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: ...so that he could look out?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
Mr. PAVELIC: Is that by the garage?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes, by the garage.
Mr. PAVELIC: Did you give him that permission?
Ms. LOPEZ: Yes.
(End of excerpt)
GIBSON: The show is Truth and Consequences, and that was Bill Pavelic lead-ing, waltzing, dancing with Rosa Lopez through that taped interview that the de-fense tried to hide on July 29th and which they ultimately had to turn over at great pain. Now the sanctions have been imposed.
She was talking about the arrival of Mark Fuhrman at her door the night or the early morning after the murder. What is it--what do you make of it, Leo? There was Fuhrman talking to Rosa Lopez--or at least Pavelic getting Rosa Lopez to say Fuhrman was there. What's unusual about that?
Mr. TERRELL: What's unusual is that if that is true--if you believe Rosa Lo-pez, Mark Fuhrman had an affirmative obligation to tell his superiors of his conversation with Rosa Lopez. There is no evidence that Mark Fuhrman told any-one. That's why it's called suppression of evidence.
GIBSON: Is--is Mark Fuhrman's problem in not telling anyone about talking to Rosa Lopez any worse than the defense not telling everyone they'd talked to Rosa Lopez?
Prof. GOLDMAN: No. No. I--I mean, if it's--if it's true that he had, as the defense has suggested, known from Rosa Lopez that she had seen the Bronco out there at 10:15 or 10:20 and didn't tell anybody, it plays into the defense hands because it sounds exactly like he's part of a cover-up and he's setting all of this up, either alone or with the police. But the reality is she didn't say that. She didn't tell him, according to her testimony today, that there was a Bronco out there at 10:15 or 10:20. So her...
GIBSON: She said he didn't ask.
Mr. TERRELL: He didn't ask.
Prof. GOLDMAN: He didn't ask. He didn't ask. And--and, therefore--I mean...
GIBSON: She didn't...
Prof. GOLDMAN: ...maybe that's not good police work, but it's not a cover-up.
GIBSON: He didn't te--she didn't tell him other things because he didn't ask, either, but she didn't volunteer it. And yesterday, when she was asked, Why didn't you go tell the police that you saw this Bronco?' she said, They didn't ask, so I didn't tell them.' And--and they said, Did you know it was important?' She said, Well, I knew it was dangerous.'
Prof. GOLDMAN: Well, yeah. You know...
Mr. TERRELL: Fuhrman told her that he was going to bring someone back to in-vestigate or to interview her and she said she was still waiting for that person to come by.
GIBSON: All right. We're going to go to the Prodigy poll. We do this every week. Today's Prodigy poll is available to subscribers on the Prodigy computer network. Our first question, as always: Do you think O.J. Simpson is guilty or not? Guilty, 64 percent; not guilty, 15 percent; undecided, 21. Only two weeks ago, the same: guilty, 64 percent; however, not guilty and undecided had a two-point swing, so there is some change there. Do you think Rosa Lopez is a credi-ble alibi witness? Yes, 26 percent; no, 74 percent. Do you think the defense's failure to give the prosecution all notes and tapes on their Rosa Lopez inter-views: intentional misconduct, 79 percent; an honest mistake, only 21 percent. And how would you rate Judge Lance Ito's performance in recent weeks? Providing decisive leadership, 25 percent; struggling to maintain control, 55 percent; has lost control of the courtroom, 20 percent. That means that 75 percent of the people who responded to the Prodigy poll say that Judge Ito is either not con-trolling or barely controlling his own courtroom.
And before we go back to the other questions, Gerry, does it strike you that that is a fair judgment of those Prodigy voters?
Mr. SPENCE: Well, that's what they voted. I don't agree--I agree with all of them, except...
GIBSON: Well, I asked you because you looked like you didn't think that it was...
Mr. SPENCE: Well, I had my brow wrinkled, and when I get my brow wrinkled, well, then you...
GIBSON: Then that's a signal to me to ask you about it.
Mr. SPENCE: Yeah. Yeah, right. Right.
GIBSON: So--yeah, so...
Mr. SPENCE: So here's--here's what I think. I think Judge--the--I think the question on Judge Ito is the word decisive.' Is he giving decisive leadership? Well, I'm--I would like to try a case in Judge Ito's court because he let's law-yers try their cases, and he's patient and he's listening. And maybe they want a judge that sits up there like you see in the movies and on television raising hell and pounding the court and ma--and putting lawyers in--in trouble. But I--a judge like Judge Ito will give both sides enough room...
GIBSON: Plenty of room to get some sanctions.
Mr. SPENCE: Enough room to hang themselves.
GIBSON: Yeah, that's right. And we've seen that happen a couple of times.
Mr. SPENCE: And--and--and, John, to try their case.
GIBSON: Well, of course. I understand. But they've had plenty of rope. The other day, when he--when Carl Douglas confessed to this tape--I saw the tran-script. Judge Ito did not get excited. He said, What a'--he said to Carl Doug-las, What are we going to do when we tell the prosecution about this? They're going to go ballistic.'
Leo, let me ask you about this Prodigy response that o--that only 26 percent of those respondents thought that Rosa Lopez was a credible alibi witness. Is--that mean that Prodigy voters are wearing their silk stockings when they sit down and watch TV?
Mr. TERRELL: Well, I'll tell y--I think Johnnie Cochran will take one-fourth of the jury.
GIBSON: Oh, that's a good result.
Mr. TERRELL: Th--that's a great result. That's three jurors thinking that, Hey, she's credible.' There's your--there's your acquittal.
GIBSON: Stan.
Prof. GOLDMAN: If you're behind, you call her. I mean, that's what I've been saying. If you're behind and you don't have anything else going for you, you put her on because you might convince one or two jurors that there's a doubt that this woman creates.
Mr. SPENCE: Right.
Prof. GOLDMAN: But if I was ahead in this and felt strong about the case, I wouldn't.
GIBSON: Let's take a call. Carlene from Connecticut. Oh, David Gregory--we got to go to David Gregory? All right. D--David, what's coming up?
GREGORY: Well, John, when court resumes on Monday, it's back to the LAPD on trial. We're going to have lead homicide investigator Tom Lange back on the stand; cross-examination continues, of course, by Johnnie Cochran; and then we expect to hear from "Kato" Kaelin, Simpson's houseguest.
GIBSON: All right. Well, we will--I will be down there at the courthouse. Looking forward to all that fun.
Good night. I'm John Gibson, filling in for Geraldo Rivera. And the great "Charles Grodin" is next.
LOAD-DATE: March 3, 1995
LANGUAGE: English
TYPE: Interview

DOMINICK DUNNE OF VANITY FAIR DISCUSSES THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE O. J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

CBS News Transcripts

March 03, 1995, Friday

SHOW: CBS EVENING NEWS (6:30 PM ET)

ANCHORS: DAN RATHER

LENGTH: 397 words

DAN RATHER, anchor:
This was the week the murder trial of O.J. Simpson turned into the credibil-ity trial of Rosa Lopez, the woman Simpson is counting on to provide him with an alibi. Writer Dominick Dunne of Vanity Fair magazine tells us Simpson was not at all pleased with the performance of his d--defense team this week. Dunne has a full-time seat in the courtroom. He joins us now as he does every Friday, our expert witness in the O.J. Simpson case.
Dominick, let's talk about Rosa Lopez's testimony. What do you make of it?
Mr. DOMINICK DUNNE (Vanity Fair): Well, I think Rosa Lopez has been an ut-terly fascinating character to--to watch. I mean, she has held this jur--this courtroom in the palm of her hand for over a week now. She's been calling the shots. Judge Ito has--has--has been very deferential to her. What we have seen is a woman who took the stand and told lie after lie, or what appeared to be lie after lie. And it has caused a total breakdown, I understand, in the defense.
The other night, after it came out about the tape that Bill Pavelic said he had, after Carl Douglas said there was no tape--it is my understanding from someone on the defense team that O.J. Simpson went ballistic and he wanted to call the entire defense team together to read the riot act. He was furious that they had looked so bad by first saying that they didn't have a tape and then later saying that they did have a tape.
RATHER: I want to talk about this investigator, Bill Pavelic. What do we know about him, the defense investigator who found the alibi provided, alleg-edly, supposedly, reportedly, by Ms. Lopez?
Mr. DUNNE: Well, he is a--a former member of the LAPD. And it's my under-standing he has many, many gripes against the police department.
RATHER: What can we expect next week?
Mr. DUNNE: Well, next week, we still have to finish off with Detective Lange, and then we go into, finally, America's most famous house guest, "Kato" Kaelin. And I think that could be very, very interesting. There's all these stories about--in which Kato has told friends, elsewhere, that--a ti--a differ-ent version of the facts than what he told at the preliminary hearing.
RATHER: Interesting stuff.
Mr. DUNNE: OK.
RATHER: Thanks.
Coming up next on the CBS EVENING NEWS, the troupe of Russian ice dancers, now starring in Oklahoma?

LOAD-DATE: March 03, 1995, Friday

LANGUAGE: English

TYPE: Analysis

LAPD RETALIATING FOR CRITICISM

Los Angeles Times

July 22, 1991, Monday, Home Edition

BYLINE: By ANDREA FORD and RICHARD A. SERRANO, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Column 3; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 1768 words

A number of Los Angeles police officers, some of whom testified before the Christopher Commission, contend they are being punished for publicly criticizing their department and commanding officers after the Rodney G. King beating.
The officers include a veteran detective who said he has been reassigned to answer phones in a station house after publicly criticizing Police Chief Daryl F. Gates; a patrol officer who said she was suddenly and inexplicably ordered back to work from medical leave after a news report on her Christopher Commis-sion testimony was published, and another patrol officer who said he was the victim of a racist prank after he testified.
The allegations came after Assistant Chief David D. Dotson was stripped of a key command after his criticisms of Gates to the Christopher Commission were made public. A week later, a deputy chief who also criticized the department found that Gates had ordered audits of the units under his command.
There has also been speculation that some police officials have been rewarded for defending Gates in public.
Los Angeles Police Commissioner Stanley Sheinbaum said his panel, which over-sees Police Department operations, has been contacted by several officers who believe they have become the targets of retaliation for speaking out about prob-lems within the department.
"It raises a concern that people are being treated better for being pro-Gates and being retaliated against for being critical of Gates," Sheinbaum said. "If it's true, then it seems that decisions are made by the chief on a personal ba-sis rather than on what's good for the department."
Sheinbaum said it is often difficult to prove that an officer is being pun-ished for criticizing the department or police administrators. "The evidence is-n't always convincing, and some officers are unable to substantiate their alle-gations," he said.
He added, however, that "one will always be concerned about retaliation, just as one would always be concerned about anything that would endorse a code of si-lence. People in the department are afraid to speak out, and that speaks right to the problem of morale."
The speculation that officers who supported Gates have been rewarded arose after it was disclosed that Lt. George Aliano, longtime president of the Police Protective League, the city's largest police union, is likely to be returned to police work with a promotion to the position of adjutant for a deputy chief.
Long an adversary of Gates, Aliano quickly came to the chief's defense during the public furor for Gates' ouster over the King incident.
In a second instance, Lt. Lyman Doster, who also publicly supported Gates, was transferred to what he described as the "coveted position" of City Council liaison for the Police Department.
In April, Doster wrote a letter to the editor that was published in The Times in his capacity as president of the Assn. of Black Law Enforcement Executives. He decried the King beating, but defended the chief.
"Chief Gates has provided leadership for this organization in all functions of management, including retraining and the administration of discipline," Dos-ter wrote.
Last week, Doster strongly denied that he was being rewarded, saying that he was encouraged to apply for the job as long ago 18 months ago.
"There's no deal here," Doster said. "If it is, no one told me."
He said the liaison job was coveted because it would prepare him for taking the examination to become a captain. But he said that his former job, as a nar-cotics lieutenant, also provided that expertise.
"It really was not a promotion at all," he said. "It was a lateral."
Cmdr. George Morrison, the Police Department's chief of staff, said Doster's public position on Gates "had nothing to do at all with his selection."
"He was selected on the basis of merit, in competition with several other of-ficers," Morrison said. "He stacked up good against his competition and he got the nod. There was nothing sinister about it."
The rumors of retaliation and rewards were fueled last Thursday when Gates, at a staff meeting, twice advised his top commanders that "a meticulous review" would be made of the entire department in light of the Christopher Commission's findings.
"The impression I got was that 'meticulous review' means cover your butt and the message there is that everybody better watch what they do," said the source, who asked not to be identified.
Shortly after the release of the Christopher Commission report on July 9, Gates relieved Dotson of his duties supervising the department's Internal Af-fairs Division, which investigates complaints against officers.
The move by Gates caused outrage, both at City Hall and in the Police Commis-sion, prompting cries that Gates was punishing Dotson for sharply critical tes-timony he gave the Christopher Commission. Dotson told the panel that the Police Department has "failed miserably" to hold supervisors accountable for excessive force by officers under their command.
The Police Commission subsequently ordered Gates to transfer the Internal Af-fairs Division back to Dotson's jurisdiction.
Gates also ordered an audit of Deputy Chief Glenn A. Levant's command after learning that he told the Christopher Commission that officers were discouraging citizens from filing misconduct complaints against fellow officers.
Lower-level officers say they also have been targeted for audits.
Detective Bill Pavelic, a former supervisor in the Southwest Division, said the audits are a favorite tool of some commanders who are looking for reasons to discipline officers who are critical of the department.
Bill Pavelic, a 17-year veteran and longtime critic of the Police Department's leadership, said his commanders began repeatedly auditing his work earlier this year after he began talking with reporters about what he perceived as department favoritism toward students and administrators at USC after a rape and two beat-ings that allegedly involved fraternity members and the sons of key alumni.
Bill Pavelic said he became a target of direct retaliation after he delivered a scathing 45-minute, public condemnation of Gates last month at the so-called "People's Grand Jury on Police Abuses," an unofficial tribunal that organizers billed as an alternative to the Christopher Commission.
Two weeks later, while he was on leave, Pavelic said he received a phone call informing him that he was being reassigned from the Crimes Against Persons unit to a desk job that is usually reserved for officers on light duty.
"This is all retaliatory,"Bill Pavelic said. "I predicted at the People's Grand Jury that this is what would happen. This is another form of discipline. This is what we do with the dissidents."
Bill Pavelic said the reassignment can be seen no other way because he is not on light duty and had received at least 80 commendations as a detective supervisor.
"I have worked numerous assignments, am considered an expert interrogator," he said. "My partner and I have highest clearance and filing rates with the dis-trict attorney in the city on rape and sexual cases."
Police Department spokesman Lt. Fred Nixon would not confirm or deny Bill Pavelic's characterization of his service record or discuss his current or past assignments, saying such matters were part of an officer's personnel record and thus considered confidential.
Nor would Nixon discuss allegations of retaliation by Janine Bouey, a four-year veteran who said she is now listed as absent without leave because she would not return to work against her physician's orders.
Bouey, who had been on medical leave since mid-March as the result of inju-ries she received in an on-duty car accident, said the order to return to work came last month, the same day an article appeared in the Los Angeles Sentinel recounting her testimony before a public hearing of the Christopher Commission.
"My doctor is a city physician who was treating me privately," Bouey said. "They made me go to another city physician who said I was fine."
Later, Bouey said a Police Department employee at the Harbor Division, where she was last assigned, told her he overheard a police supervisor saying she would "get hurt" if she returned to work.
Bouey first went public with her complaints immediately after the King beat-ing. At a press conference of the 30-member African-American Peace Officers Assn. and in other interviews, she told of Ku Klux Klan business cards being left on her car in the police parking lot at the Foothill Division.
She said she began receiving telephoned death threats -- from fellow offi-cers, she believes -- after she was shown in a newspaper photo wearing a T-shirt with the logo of the long-defunct Black Panther Party.
Bouey said she bought the shirt last year at the funeral in Oakland of former Panther Party leader Huey P. Newton. The photo "was taken in my back yard on my time," Bouey said. "I really didn't think anything of it."
In still another case of alleged retaliation, Bob Marshall, an 11-year Police Department veteran, contends that he has been harassed by fellow officers since being interviewed in private for two hours by Christopher Commission staffers.
Marshall said that when he went to use a phone at the Southwest Division a few days after his testimony, he found a hangman's noose on the receiver. The commission made note of the incident in its landmark report on the Police De-partment.
Later, Marshall said, his shift was suddenly changed from days to the over-night watch.
In addition, he said, the department launched Internal Affairs investigations of his conduct both on and off duty. In one of the investigations, Marshall said, he was accused of improperly using a personal tape recorder while on duty.
The department has not yet resolved the inquiries, Marshall said.
Garland Hardeman, an Inglewood City Councilman and a nine-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department who also testified before the Christopher Commis-sion, said some officers may be bringing problems on themselves by being too strident in their condemnation of the department.
"When you jump out there and put yourself in harm's way you can't leave your-self open for department violations," Hardeman said. "They will use them against you."
Hardeman said he has been harassed in the past for speaking out against ra-cial discrimination in the Police Department, but has not had any trouble since his commission testimony.
"I think (that is) only because I've been out there longer than anyone" mak-ing public statements, Hardeman said. "I know how to protect myself and not make mistakes."
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR

CNBC News Transcripts

May 29, 1996, Wednesday 11:15 AM

SHOW: RIVERA LIVE (9:00 PM ET)

ANCHORS: JOHN GIBSON

LENGTH: 481 words

JOHN GIBSON, host:
We are back. And we have the San Francisco detective on the phone who is go-ing to help O.J. Simpson track down this intriguing lead that Simpson mentioned while he was in Eng--in England, that he believes was in San Francisco. He threw it off sort of off-handedly, but on the phone with us is Hal Lipset, a legendary figure in the private eye business.
Hal Lipset, do you have any idea what O.J. Simpson was talking about--what lead could there possibly be in the San Francisco area?
Mr. HAL LIPSET (Private Investigator): The only thing I can see out there is all the dimensions of Faye Resnick and the drug culture in San Francisco.
GIBSON: Do you have a...
Mr. LIPSET: I assume it's got some connection with that.
GIBSON: Yeah, but you don't know of any connection. You don't know of any connection with Faye in San Francisco or any particular people or any Colombian necktie assassinations up there?
Mr. LIPSET: No. Obviously--he says he has major investigative leads.
GIBSON: Well, Hal, why are you doing this?
Mr. LIPSET: Well, San Francisco is my base. It's been a--a--a wonderful place to me. And, you know, as far as I'm concerned, if somebody was involved in this heinous crime is in here in San Francisco, I think you--the leads should be checked out. I don't feel that I'm doing it for Simpson. I feel I'm doing it to--to bring this major case to some end.
GIBSON: Well...
Mr. LIPSET: I don't think you can just go--if--if you just throw it out the--the leads were in New Orleans or Chicago or Philadelphia, you wouldn't have had my offer.
GIBSON: That's right. Now--now my understanding is that you've made an offer to Simpson to follow up on his leads, and if he doesn't--if you don't get a re-sponse, you're going to withdraw the offer in--What?--three weeks?
Mr. LIPSET: Three weeks.
GIBSON: So have you heard anything yet?
Mr. LIPSET: Not a word. The only contact we had was the--William Pavelic asked that we fax him our offer, and I did that.
GIBSON: And you--and you sent an offer to Bill Pavelic, and you have not heard...
Mr. LIPSET: On Friday--last Friday.
GIBSON: ...any--anything further. Well, Hal Lipset, I hope that we can keep in touch with you, because if you dig something up, we're going to want to hear about it, and we appreciate you coming on the phone tonight.
Mr. LIPSET: I've had about six other calls from people who say they're the leads, but all I'm doing is logging them in.
GIBSON: All right. Log them in. Thanks a lot, Hal. We appreciate it.
Jay Monahan, what do you think of the chances that supersleuth Hal Lipset can find anything in San Francisco?
Mr. JAY MONAHAN (Criminal Defense Attorney): Well, he's only taking messages on his answering machine. I don't see what kind of good he's really doing. I do have to say that I met with Pat McKenna--this is about a month ago--and Pat says that he is still investigating the case. I don't know if he's being paid, but when you look Pat in the eye, you--you take him as a very sincere person.
GIBSON: All right. We have been talking about the Simpson case in Chicago, calling it Chicago Bull question mark and now we're going to change gears and go over to Whitewater Woes.

LOAD-DATE: May 29, 1996

LANGUAGE: English

TYPE: Interview

Judge Turns Down Simpson Defense Again on War-rantless Search

The Associated Press

October 5, 1994, Wednesday, PM cycle

BYLINE: By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

SECTION: Domestic News

LENGTH: 894 words

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES

The judge in the O.J. Simpson case said today it was too late for defense attorneys to explore whether the lead detective lied about why police entered Simpson's estate without a warrant.
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Lance Ito was a serious blow to defense efforts to suppress evidence seized at Simpson's estate the day after the slay-ings.
Ito said the defense had a chance during the preliminary hearing this summer to find out if Detective Philip Vannatter lied when he said officers tried to call Simpson before entering his estate without a search warrant.
"I find that the burden of reasonable diligence (by the defense) has not been carried," Ito said.
The ruling increased the likelihood that some of the most important evidence in the case may be admitted at trial. The evidence includes a bloody glove found behind a guest house at Simpson's estate and blood drops on the driveway.
In another ruling against the defense, Ito upheld the testing of blood found on Simpson's driveway. The defense said the tests invaded Simpson's privacy and that police should have first obtained a search warrant.
Ito said the argument was "rather interesting and novel" but has "no support" in case law.
One issue Ito left unresolved was whether the defense knew during the pre-liminary hearing about allegations that another detective, Mark Fuhrman, had moved evidence in an unrelated case.
The prosecution contended the defense did know about this because one of the top defense investigators, Bill Pavelic, was also an investigator in the earlier case. But Ito put the matter aside for now because that a retrial is pending in the earlier case.
Simpson, 47, is being tried for the June 12 slayings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Jury selection started Sept. 26, but opening statements aren't expected until November.
Today's hearing was a continuation of an evidence hearing that started before trial began.
Attorney Gerald Uelmen said a transcript of communications between police and a security company the morning after the murders showed officers were at Simp-son's front door - not outside the estate's gate - when they attempted to con-tact him.
During this summer's preliminary hearing, Vannatter said officers entered the estate without a warrant because they couldn't reach Simpson by phone and were concerned about his safety. The hearing judge relied on this testimony in order-ing Simpson bound over for trial, Uelmen said.
"Detective Vannatter's testimony that they placed this call to the inside of the residence before they went over the wall was false," said Uelmen. "That call was made after they went over the wall, and after they went to the front door."
He called the preliminary hearing testimony "a well-orchestrated tissue of lies."
The prosecution argued that the transcript was unclear on just exactly where police were and that at any rate, the defense should have argued the issue dur-ing the preliminary hearing.
"They did nothing," said Deputy District Attorney Marcia Clark. "They had the opportunity and they failed to do so."
Clark also criticized the tone of the defense argument, saying the defense was making accusations of lying "very irresponsibly." A few minutes later, though, Clark denounced as a liar a woman who provided the defense with unflat-tering information about one of the detectives.
That prompted Ito to chastized both sides for saying people were lying with-out offering proof.
The defense today also objected to several searches of Simpson's Ford Bronco, contending the evidence could have been tainted by a burglary of the vehicle while it was parked at a police tow yard.
Uelmen said one of the items missing from the Bronco was a gasoline receipt bearing the signature of Ms. Simpson. Uelmen called this evidence "extremely ex-culpatory."
On Tuesday, Ito escalated his battle with the media by revoking a newspaper's trial seat pass as punishment for a leaked story. The Daily News of Los Angeles - the city's second-largest paper - published details of a jury questionnaire it obtained a day before it was officially made public.
The Daily News filed court papers objecting to the action as unconstitu-tional.
Ito has harshly criticized the media for using leaked information, but the action against the Daily News was the most severe so far. The passes are highly valued because so many reporters are covering the trial.
Ito will consider whether to impose a ban on cameras and microphones at a Nov. 7 hearing.
Other developments:
- Ito has ordered police and prosecutors to turn over volumes of documents and other items, according to court papers released Tuesday. The items include photographs of shoes worn by investigators at the murder scene - where bloody shoe prints were found - and reports by Detective Mark Fuhrman about responding to a domestic disturbance call at Simpson's home in 1985. The defense has been trying to portray Fuhrman - who found the bloody glove outside Simpson's mansion - as a racist who may have planted evidence.
- Simpson's defense team attacked the validity of glow-in-the-dark Luminol tests for blood in Simpson's Bronco. The motion released Tuesday argues that tests with the chemical are unreliable and unaccepted in the scientific commu-nity, and that its use has led to reversals in other cases.

LOAD-DATE: October 5, 1994

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH