Bill Pavelic Blog | William Bill Pavelic

Los Angeles Times

February 28, 1995, Tuesday, Home Edition

Housekeeper tells of seeing simpson’s car;
trial: rosa lopez testifies on tape without jury present after prosecutors complain. defense re-veals statement it took from her in july.

BYLINE: By ANDREA FORD and JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

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

LENGTH: 2192 words

A Salvadoran housekeeper who has emerged as a central witness on behalf of murder defendant O.J. Simpson testified Monday that she saw Simpson’s car in front of his house about the time prosecutors believe he was two miles away killing his ex-wife and her friend.

Rosa Lopez said she took her employer’s dog for a walk shortly after 10 p.m. on June 12, the night that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman were knifed to death in Brentwood. Simpson has pleaded not guilty to the crimes, which prosecutors believe were committed about 10:15 p.m.

Testifying without the jury present but with a videotape recorder capturing the event, Lopez described what she said she saw outside Simpson’s Rockingham Avenue home on that cool June evening. Lopez said she glanced at a clock in her room and saw that it was 10 p.m. before she put on some water for tea, grabbed the dog’s leash and headed outside. Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., Simpson’s lead trial attorney, asked what she saw outside.

“Were you able to see any cars parked out there?” he asked.

“Yes,” Lopez responded.

“What cars were you able to see, if any?” Cochran continued.

“The Bronco,” Lopez answered.

Lopez’s testimony is potentially of huge significance to Simpson, because it bolsters his alibi on the night of the killings. Simpson’s lawyers have said their client was home chipping golf balls in his front yard and possibly napping during the period that prosecutors allege the crimes were committed.

With so much possibly at stake in the Lopez testimony, the two sides have fought furiously over her appearance. They debated how and when she would take the stand, and before she was allowed to testify Monday, another disagreement erupted over whether prosecutors had been provided with statements of hers in the possession of the defense team.

At first, defense lawyers said they had only one statement, given in August. Then, after being pressed by prosecutors, they admitted there was an earlier statement, taken July 29 but never shared with government lawyers. Then, at the end of the court day, defense investigator Bill Pavelic said he had tape-recorded the July 29 session, despite assurances earlier in the day by defense attorneys that Lopez had never given a taped statement. No tape ever has been provided to the prosecution.

Those revelations stoked an already intense debate over evidence-sharing. Even before learning that there might be a tape of Lopez describing her observa-tions, Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark asked that defense lawyers be severely sanctioned for what she said was an “effort to sandbag the prosecution, to blindside us.”

The revelation of a tape recording or notes of the July 29 session only re-doubled the prosecution’s complaints.

Smiling in disbelief and staring intently at the judge, Clark stood off to one side as Pavelic acknowledged that he might have notes and a tape recording of his July 29 interview with Lopez. Clark did not get a chance to respond to that admission, but Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito promised her that there would be a chance to discuss that issue first thing today.

At a news conference after the court day ended, Clark said Pavelic’s comments about the existence of the tape would strengthen the prosecution’s request that the defense be punished for its behavior, an argument that the government law-yers plan to make in court today.

“That’s going to make the request (for sanctions) even more strident,” Clark said. “I think the judge will be even more upset.”

Ito, who had been promised that all materials already had been shared with the prosecution, gruffly responded to the latest revelation.

“Tomorrow morning, I’m going to order you to come to court with those items,” Ito said to Pavelic, a former Los Angeles Police Department detective who was brought into the Simpson case by attorney Robert L. Shapiro just two days after the murders and who has worked on it since.

“I shall do my best to get those items,” Pavelic responded.

“No,” Ito said. “Don’t do your best. Have them here tomorrow.”

“I shall have them here tomorrow,” a chastened Pavelic answered.

Lopez, who struggled on the stand last week and was caught in several contra-dictions by prosecutors, appeared far more collected during her questioning Mon-day by Cochran. She smiled slightly as the questioning got under way, and was cooperative with Cochran as he politely elicited her account of her observations June 12.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden often objected during Lopez’s testi-mony, and Ito often sustained the objections.

Simpson’s lawyers have not produced anyone other than Lopez to bolster her account about spotting Simpson’s car in the street that night, but if the jury believes her, it would strongly support Simpson’s contention that he could not be the murderer.

But Lopez’s credibility is certain to come under attack by prosecutors, who are expected to cross-examine her at length today. Before Monday’s hearing be-gan, Clark referred to Lopez as a liar, and during a session Friday, Darden ag-gressively ferreted out contradictions in Lopez’s explanation regarding her al-leged plans to leave the country.

By the time Friday’s session had ended, even Ito, who rarely ventures opin-ions about witnesses, had noted that her testimony contained a number of contra-dictions.

Nevertheless, the judge had ruled that she would testify out of order, ap-pearing before the jury this morning to tell her story so Simpson would not be denied her account in the event that she leaves for her native El Salvador and refuses to return if called to the stand during the defense case.

Ito arrived Monday expecting that the questioning would be conducted, but prosecutors lodged a last-minute objection, saying that calling her to the stand in the midst of their case would disrupt their presentation and deny them a fair trial. They filed a motion protesting the plan to have Lopez testify before the jury Monday, and they convinced Ito that he should employ the videotape tech-nique instead.

Cochran was furious, asking Ito not to let himself be “snookered” by the prosecution. The lawyer accused Clark of saying Friday that she needed to care for her two young children that night — and thus could not be present for pro-posed evening testimony by Lopez — as a ruse to delay the housekeeper’s appear-ance on the stand. An indignant Clark retorted that she was “offended as a woman, as a single parent, as a prosecutor and as an officer of the court.”

Ito ruled in her favor, as he generally does when the defense and prosecution clash.

Defense attorneys fumed about Ito’s change of mind, but some legal experts praised him.

“It’s to his credit that he made a reasoned decision,” said Gigi Gordon, a Santa Monica criminal defense lawyer, “rather than being worried about people criticizing him for changing his mind.” As a result of that last-minute switch, Lopez’s testimony was recorded on videotape — to be used only if she flees to El Salvador. Defense attorneys were concerned that if a special examination were not held and she failed to return, they would forever lose her testimony.

That account’s most obvious benefit for Simpson is Lopez’s alleged 10:15 p.m. sighting of the car on the evening of June 12. But other elements of her testi-mony also are potentially valuable to the defense.

She said Monday, for instance, that she had seen Simpson’s car about 8 p.m. and again the following morning, and that it appeared to be parked in the same, slightly haphazard way both times. That suggested that it was not moved between those times, again bolstering Simpson’s contention that he did not drive to the murder scene in that vehicle, as prosecutors allege.

Moreover, Lopez said she heard voices on Simpson’s property sometime around midnight. By then, Simpson was en route to Chicago. Defense attorneys have al-leged that Simpson may have been framed for the murders, and the presence of unidentified people on his estate after he left might strengthen that argument.

Testifying Monday, Lopez said she heard Simpson’s dog barking and crying shortly before 1 a.m. on June 13. That was about the same time she recalled hearing the voices, which she said she could hear for “a long time” that night.

But Lopez has not always given precisely the same version of what she saw and heard that night, according to prosecutors. Clark said that in the July 29 statement prepared by Pavelic, for instance, there is no mention of Lopez seeing Simpson’s car outside his house about 10:15 p.m., arguably the single most im-portant element of her account for Simpson. That is the report not given to prosecutors until Monday.

The information about Lopez spotting the car at that key time first surfaces in a report taken several weeks later, Clark said. That was the only report pro-vided to the government team, which has repeatedly and sometimes successfully argued that defense attorneys are violating the law by not sharing information with their counterparts.

Carl Douglas, one of Simpson’s defense lawyers, acknowledged that the defense had failed to turn over the earlier statement but said that he too was surprised to discover the report and stressed that defense lawyers had brought it to the court’s attention.

“This was not intentional,” Douglas said. “It was not willful.”

The July 29 report was taken just one week after Cochran and Douglas joined the defense team, and Douglas suggested that part of the reason for the lapse might have been a breakdown in communications among the lawyers.

The second report also is notable for a piece of information that it does not include, lawyers on both sides said. Lopez allegedly told the defense investiga-tor that another housekeeper, whom she named only as Sylvia, could back up her version of events, but that housekeeper’s name does not appear in the later re-port.

Douglas said it had been omitted because Sylvia was in the country illegally and Lopez wanted to protect her. But Clark accused the defense of deleting her name because she would not corroborate Lopez’s version of events. As the court day ended Monday, Darden introduced a witness named Sylvia Guerra and asked Ito to order her to appear in court today.

Ito did. Darden also asked that Lopez be directed not to contact Guerra over-night. Ito declined to make that order, but he did remind Lopez before she left the stand that she was not allowed to discuss her testimony with anyone other than her lawyers.

While the attorneys wrangled over Lopez’s testimony, defense attorneys con-tinued to lay the groundwork for one of their main lines of assault on the prosecution case: the anticipated testimony of Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman, who could take the stand as early as this week.

Fuhrman was only assigned to the Simpson case briefly, but he testified dur-ing last summer’s preliminary hearing that he found a bloody glove outside Simp-son’s estate. That glove is a potentially key piece of prosecution evidence: It matches one found at the murder scene, and DNA tests of blood on the glove sug-gest that the stains could have come from the two victims and the defendant.

In a motion filed Monday, Simpson’s team sought access to LAPD records that might relate to Fuhrman. They want to know if Fuhrman made comments suggesting that he knew Nicole Simpson and if he ever possessed a swastika or other symbol that might suggest racism. They also want to see any Police Department files re-flecting the LAPD’s efforts to determine whether Fuhrman could have removed a bloody glove from the crime scene and taken it to Simpson’s house.

Ito already has reviewed Fuhrman’s Police Department records and ruled that nothing in them is relevant to the case. Before he did that, the LAPD had com-pleted its interviews with police officers who were at the crime scene the night of the murders about whether Fuhrman could have planted evidence.

As The Times reported last fall, LAPD officials concluded that it would have been all but impossible for Fuhrman to have carried out such a deception.

The other allegations against Fuhrman — that he possessed fascist parapher-nalia and that he boasted of a relationship with Nicole Simpson — long have been rumored and have been investigated by the defense and others. But so far, at least, no evidence has surfaced to support either allegation.

Robert Tourtelot, Fuhrman’s lawyer, repeatedly has denied that his client is a racist and has said Fuhrman met Nicole Simpson only once, when the officer re-sponded to a 1985 domestic-abuse call at Simpson’s home.

The next time Fuhrman saw her, according to Tourtelot, was when he saw her body in the early morning of June 13, after he and other detectives were called to the murder scene.

Assuming she obeys Ito’s order not to leave the country, Lopez will return to the witness stand today . Before court adjourned Monday, she told Ito that she had a ticket to fly to El Salvador this morning, but the judge ordered her not to leave, telling her that his clerk would coordinate the change in travel plans.

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this article.

LOAD-DATE: March 1, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Photo, COLOR, O.J. Simpson greets Brentwood neighbors in the courtroom where he is being tried for murder. ; Photo, COLOR, Rosa Lopez during testimony.  KEN LUBAS / Los Angeles Times

CNBC News Transcripts

February 27, 1995, Monday 11:15 AM

SHOW: RIVERA LIVE (9:00 PM ET)

Former Judge Burton Katz and attorneys, Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Raymond Brown and Michael Nasatir discuss Rosa Lopez’s testimony at the Simpson trial and a Newsweek magazine article regarding Mark Fuhrman

ANCHORS: Geraldo Rivera

BYLINE: JOHN GIBSON

LENGTH: 8432 words

HOST: Geraldo Rivera

EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Andy Friendly

GERALDO RIVERA: Hi, everybody. I’m Geraldo Rivera. Alibi witness Rosa Lopez finally said it today, O.J. Simpson’s Bronco was at his house while the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were being committed.’ But she said it on tape and not to the jury. And the prosecutors said they can’t wait to cross-examine her. Here at the courthouse with the very latest details is John Gib-son. John, what have you got?

JOHN GIBSON reporting:

The Rosa Lopez story is now twisted up like a salted pretzel. She’s expected to say that she saw O.J. Simpson’s Bronco at his house at the time of the mur-ders. But the prosecution has found an acquaintance of hers who is expected to come to court and testify that Rosa is lying.

Ms. ROSA LOPEZ (Maid of Simpson Neighbor): (Excerpt from courtroom proceed-ings) …Rockingham.
GIBSON: Rosa Lopez on the stand testifying that she saw Simpson’s Bronco at his house at the time the prosecution says he was committing the murders. Lopez is Simpson’s main witness to back his alibi.
(Excerpt from courtroom proceedings)

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) There was a white–there was a white car–a Bronco.

Mr. JOHNNIE COCHRAN (Simpson Attorney): All right. And where was this white Bronco parked at the time you saw it?

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) At 360 Rockingham.
(End of excerpt)

GIBSON: The problem for the defense is this woman, Sylvia Guerra, a friend of Lopez, whose testimony is expected to be that Lopez is lying in order to sell her story to the tabloids. Worse: a Simpson defense investigator came to court and told the judge about tapes he’d made of the first interview with Lopez. De-fense attorneys had just sworn to the judge those tapes did not exist.

Mr. CARL DOUGLAS (Simpson Attorney): (Excerpt from courtroom proceedings) There are no notes that have not been turned over. There are no tape recorded statements of Miss Lopez.

GIBSON: Judge Ito is now pondering how to punish the defense for a continuing pattern of deception on turning this information over to the prosecution as re-quired by law.

Meanwhile, more on Mark Fuhrman expected to testify soon. The defense is asking for records of an internal police investigation of allegations that De-tective Fuhrman had planted evidence against Simpson. Also, the defense wants information on a police investigation of an alleged statement by Fuhrman about Nicole Brown Simpson, that he knew her personally and quote, “had intimate knowledge of her anatomy.”

And Newsweek magazine is reporting that a black female police detective is reporting to her superiors that she believes Mark Fuhrman is a racist because of things she–he said to her when she first started on the force. He told her he–she should quit as a cop and become a secretary or a dancer on the television show, “Soul Train.” John Gibson, NBC News, Los Angeles. Now back to you.

RIVERA: John, I’ve often contemplated becoming a dancer on “Soul Train” my–myself but–seriously, before I get to the ugly allegations concerning Mark Fuhrman, let me–let me deal with what happened. This remarkable specter of the defense being caught in yet another–another lie, apparently. Is Carl Douglas the designated liar or the fate–or the fellow fated to fall on his sword when-ever they get caught in this misconduct?

GIBSON: Well, you know, in–in the courtroom, lie is a strong word, so let’s just say they are either very confused and do not know the organization of their own defense effort, or they are misconstruing the facts to themselves. But yeah, this was twice in a day. Douglas first had to confess that he had not turned over this first statement from Rosa Lopez which, by the way, is a state-ment she does not mention seeing the Bronco in and…

RIVERA: So the first statement, which is not turned over, Rosa says nothing about the Bronco.

GIBSON: Not a word.

RIVERA: Let’s be clear on that. OK.

GIBSON: Ye–not a word about the Bronco, but she also mentions this acquaint-ance Sylvia.

RIVERA: Mm-hmm.

GIBSON: On the second statement, which they do turn over, now all of sudden the Bronco is in there and Sylvia is omitted. And the prosecution claims that’s because the defense is now gone–has now gone out and talked to Sylvia and they know she’s not going to back up Rosa’s story, so they omit her from the state-ment. Well, today, Douglas says, Ah, gee. I have this statement. Here it is. A little late. Sorry about that.’ This is the second time they’ve been caught in that one. And then Pavelic comes in, the defense investigator–and once he gets in the courtroom, before the judge and the judge swears him in and the judge says, Do you have any tapes?’ He said, Well, yeah, I do.’ Or Pavelic vol-unteers that there is this tape. And–and Douglas had just finished saying there wasn’t any. So–yeah, this was a day for the defense being on the skids in the–in the truthfulness or forthcomingness department in the courtroom.

RIVERA: Marcia Clark has literally minutes ago given a press conference out-side the courtroom, John.

GIBSON: Right.

RIVERA: Before I get to it, let me just ask you: Where has Rosa been since Friday?

GIBSON: Rosa has been ensconced in some hotel at defense expense, reportedly being coached all weekend by the defense
attorneys for this expected grueling testimony and cross-examination. And you can see signs of it today. Where did you see the white Bronco? Well, instead of saying in front of O.J.’s house, she said, 360 North Rockingham.’ It was the kind of answer that y–you know, you could just see this going on all weekend. Or perhaps I’m being a little cyni-cal.

RIVERA: Perhaps. Perhaps.

GIBSON: Probably.

RIVERA: What about the hotel? Who paid for it?

GIBSON: Undoubtedly, the defense. The judge said…

RIVERA: What about her new blue dress?

GIBSON: I–I must say the judge, Friday, said that she would be put up at–at court expense. So I’m not quite sure who paid
for the hotel. The new blue dress, the new shoes–there appeared to be some business with her glasses today. I think, at this point, it’s quite clear she is being taken care of by the de-fense. But I–I must say, I–honestly th–we don’t know that for a fact. It just appears that way.

RIVERA: What did she call Shapiro? She called him mister–Mr. Johnnie.

GIBSON: Mr. Johnnie–yes, that’s…

RIVERA: Mr. Johnnie.

GIBSON: …Mr. Johnnie.

RIVERA: John Gibson, thanks very much. Let me–oh, I’ll tell you what, stand by. Let me–let me run this clip. I have not seen it, ladies and gentlemen. I have no idea what Marcia Clark has just said minutes ago outside the courthouse. Let’s roll this. John, stand by. We’ll comment on it.

Ms. MARCIA CLARK (Prosecutor): This morning, as–and previous occasions, Mr. Darden has been–made direct requests of the court for any tapes, any notes made by the investigators in the interviews of Rosa Lopez. Every time we got the same statement back from the defense stating, There are no such things. We have nothing like that.’ And even this morning, Mr. Darden said it again. He re-quested that any notes or any tapes made of the interviews be produced. And Mr. Douglas stood up before the court and said, There are no such things. We have no such notes.’

If we do not receive the discovery, if we do not receive the information, than the People’s right to a fair trial is being–is being harmed, is being dam-aged. And in order to seek the truth, we need to have the information to cross-examine the witnesses.

If on an earlier statement, she has failed to state that she saw the Bronco, which she did in the July 29th statement, she’s failed to state that she saw the Bronco at 10:15 to 10:20 parked on Rockingham. And then miraculously comes up with that observation on August 18th, obviously, that’s a very germane inconsis-tency.
RIVERA: Marcia Clark, John, has not been giving many post-game interviews, unlike the defense. She must know that she’s got them.

GIBSON: Yeah. And–and look, in this case, this is, you know, lawyer war-fare. I–I mean, I’m not sure how…

RIVERA: Oh, man. Both sides are hitting each other.

GIBSON: They’re just flogging each other. What–the reason that she and Dar-den came before the media today is this is a lawyer issur–a discovery issue and they’ve caught the other side in yet another one of these things and they feel free to comment on–on this. This isn’t, you know, the issues of the case so much. It’s–it’s the issues of the way the case is conducted. So, yeah, they came out tonight to say, Look. Look, at what they’re doing.’ And–and by the way, I think that the–the departure tape today of–of the defense lawyers shows not much comment on that subject.

RIVERA: And yet in fairness, ladies and gentlemen, if the–if the prosecution has scored heavily in undermining the credibility of this vital alibi witness, what the defense has dug up on Mark Fuhrman is just as ugly. And I’ll be–I’ll be dealing with this after I introduce–John, join us later.

GIBSON: I will.

RIVERA: We’ll talk about what’s coming up.

Let me introduce them right now. Jeanine Ferris Pirro is the former judge and expert on domestic violence. As you know, she is currently serving the peo-ple of Westchester County, New York, as their fine district attorney. Ray Brown, one of the directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Law-yers, known around the country for his many speeches and articles on various le-gal and racial issues. On the coast, we welc–we welcome back Burton Katz, the retired Superior Court judge who has presided over a number of high-profile cases. Earlier in his career, Judge Katz–serving in the LA district attorney’s office with Robert Shapiro, by the way–prosecuted some of the members of the Manson family. Alongside Judge Katz, another former prosecutor, Michael Nasa-tir, who worked in the US attorney’s office. He is now one of LA’s best known and most effective criminal defense attorneys representing, among many others, O.J.’s friend, Paula Barbieri.
OK, we’ll get to all of them on this very event-filled, but very strange, bi-zarre day in court in the Simpson matter. Give us two minutes and come back. It is the war of the witnesses. And we are live.
(Announcements)
(Excerpt from courtroom proceedings)

Mr. COCHRAN: I don’t want to see this court snookered by this. I mean this stuff about a fair trial. I mean, it works both ways, Judge. They have–they have the power of the state. They have the entire police department, the DA’s investigators. They’ve got everything. They’ve known about this witness since last summer and for them to come in here now and say now, We’re not ready, Judge.’ I mean we–we hear this time and time and time again. And I just think it’s unfair because the defendant’s entitled to a fair trial also. And–and the court had made it’s decision; we’ve lived with that decision and, as usual, they’ve come back and begged and moaned and asked you to do something else. And you rightfully consider those things, Judge, but it seems to me in this in-stance, given this record and what you said, it may affect your credibility. We tell the jurors–we would have done this Friday night. You tell the jurors, We’re going to take this witness out of order. Come back Monday morning. We’re going to do it.’ Miss Lopez, who stays over says, I’ll do that for you, Judge,’ and you say to her, Judge–you say to her, I’ll get you on. You can testify be-fore the jury and it’ll be over with Monday morning and you can leave.’

Judge LANCE ITO (Los Angeles Superior Court): Well, what–what she antici-pated was coming here and having her testimony tape recorded which is what we’re going to do.
(End of excerpt)

RIVERA: War of the witnesses: two witnesses really under extreme scrutiny and–and–and passionate attack. The defense preparing to–to bear its fangs and devour Mark Fuhrman. On the other hand, Rosa Lopez seemingly disintegrating before our very eyes. Jeanine, what say you? Rosa Lopez–let’s deal with that first and then we’ll get to Fuhrman. Has she been effectively impeached yet or do you think the shoe has yet to drop?

Ms. JEANINE FERRIS PIRRO (District Attorney, Westchester, New York): I don’t think she’s been effectively impeached yet. I think the real impeachment comes when cross-examination comes. I think it’s quite interesting, though, her tes-timony today seemed very prepared, very organized. She talks about what she was doing from hour to hour wh–and she seems like a totally different person from the person that we saw on Friday. So over the weekend, she clearly was re-hearsed. She seems concise. She seems to be cohesive in what’s she saying.

Mr. RAYMOND BROWN (Criminal Defense Attorney): The rehears…

RIVERA: And yet, Ray, the rehearsal is no big deal. Don’t you rehearse your friendly witnesses all the time.

Mr. BROWN: But you have–any–any lawyer, including I’m sure the ones that work for Miss Pirro, that does not spend time with a witness, learning about the witness, asking the witness questions, is not doing the job. John Gibson is normally very circumspect. He used the word coached.’ Those were loaded terms. A lawyer’s job is to spend as much time with a witness as possible.

Ms. PIRRO: There’s no question about it. What will–what will be most tell-ing is when she’s cross-examined. The issue will be: Will she be as consistent and as clear and as concise on cross-examination as she was on direct. That’s when we’ll know whether the other shoe fell.

RIVERA: Judge Katz, certainly Rosa is now fair game. Don’t you expect when that shoe falls it will fall hard and perhaps squash more credibility out of this witness?

Judge BURTON KATZ (Former Superior Court Judge): Well, I th–I think if–if they’re able to do that, of course, then it–it portends even something worse. What it portends is that the Mary Gerghas phenomenon will–will–will just some-how go away and the credibility of Johnnie Cochran will be in issue. But the thing about th–this Rosa Lopez situation is–I agree that she did very well to-day. She was a different witness. And even though there was some window of op-portunity, even on direct, where 10 or 15 minutes makes a real difference during which O.J. could have driven seven minutes from Rockingham to Bundy Drive and done what he needed to do and still get within the parameters of the barking dog between 10:15 and 10:25. So I’m not even disturbed with the direct testimony. But in answer to your question, with reference to the bombshell that’s going to drop, I think she’s going to be destroyed on cross-examination…

RIVERA: So…

Judge KATZ: …because of the ammunition that they have.

RIVERA: …you think she–she will–it’s your words, Judge Katz, you believe that Rosa Lopez will be destroyed’ on cross.
Judge KATZ: I believe so, especially in light of–is it?–Bill Pavelic.

RIVERA: Yeah, Pavelic.

Judge KATZ: Yes. In th–the July statement which omits the reference to see-ing the–the Br–the Bronco at around 10:15 or te–a little bit after 10 is really damaging in light of the fact that it now is present in the August state-ment and the–the defense failed to turn over that very critical tape and–and raw notes of Pavelic’s. So I think we’re going to see a lot of fireworks.

RIVERA: Michael Nasatir, a k–kind of a three-tiered question for you. First of all, do you think, in Johnnie Cochran’s words, that the judge was snookered’ by Marcia Clark and her whole protestation that she lacked adequate childcare so she couldn’t do it Friday night? All right, deal with it one at a time. That’s first.

Mr. MICHAEL NASATIR (Criminal Defense Attorney): No. I–I–I don’t believe Marcia Clark would ever misrepresent any facts to the court. I do think that–that her childcare was used to buy the prosecution time to consider their strat-egy. I don’t think they knew whether they wanted a tape-recorded statement. I think Judge Ito kind of surprised everyone, including the prosecution, when he said, Let’s go before the jury right now,’ Friday night. I know he surprised me.

RIVERA: Mi–I’m sorry, Michael. Let me take this break. I must. It’s com-puter generated. We’ll be right back. We’re live.
(Announcements)
(Excerpts from courtroom proceedings)

Ms. CLARK: I think that the People’s right to a fair trial is substantially endangered by this procedure. Number one, by allowing the witness to be called out of order in the–in the context of the middle of the People’s case in chief. This highlights the witness’ testimony, affords her undue importance–highlighting her above all other witnesses, which is unfair to the People’s case.

But it also prevents the People from conducting the thorough kind of investi-gation that we’re entitled to conduct with respect to this witness’ credibility which, as the court is already aware, is substantially in question.

Mr. COCHRAN: It’s beyond disingenuous for somebody to come into this court at 6:30 after you’ve brought all these jurors over here. We’re ready to proceed and–and–and the witness makes a promise to you that she’ll come back and they say, Well, I–we can’t do it tonight, Judge, because I’ve got to pick up my children.’ And the court is sensitive to that. And it was only–it was a ploy for them to go and try to cry and moan over the weekend and come up with some other document.

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 childcare 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)

RIVERA: Comment, DA Pirro.

Ms. PIRRO: Well, I think it’s outrageous the comment that he made that it was a ploy of–for Marcia Clark to say that she had children that she had to pick up. The reality is it was 6:30 at night. She’s been working on this case for nine months. She’s a single parent. And for her to have to be prepared on a moment’s notice, we all know–all of who have children–that sometimes you just can’t get a baby-sitter. It’s as simple as that. This is not a regularly scheduled court date.

Mr. BROWN: I–I don’t think it was outrageous. It’s probably unfair to say it was a ploy. But as committed as she is to this case, if it was to the prose-cution’s advantage to have sat late Friday, I think she would have made alter-nate childcare arrangements. The other thing to remember is, normally when you sit with a sequestered jury, a judge will go 8:00 or 9:00, work Saturdays. This judge has been pretty lenient with all the lawyers on that score…

Ms. PIRRO: But with notice.

Mr. BROWN: …and without…

Ms. PIRRO: The reality is that there was absolutely no notice. They work every day till five. All of a sudden, within an hour, they’re supposed to work from 6:30 until 9:30.

Mr. BROWN: If it had served to their strategic advantage, she’s sufficiently committed to that case, she would have made other arrangements.

Ms. PIRRO: Well…

RIVERA: I have to–I lean Ray–Ray’s way, with all due respect, Jeanine. I–I think that if it would have worked for her…

Ms. PIRRO: Well…

RIVERA: …she would have found a baby-sitter.

Ms. PIRRO: …I don’t know.

RIVERA: She could have called me, borrowed mine. OK. I want bite six right now because I want Judge Katz and Michael Nasatir both to comment on it. It really is at the heart of–of this fierce dispute today. Let’s see this. Watch this tape, folks.
(Excerpts from courtroom proceedings)

Mr. DOUGLAS: This morning when we were looking at the documents that we turned over to the prosecution, learned for the first time that, in fact to our surprise, the July 29th statement was not the one that had been turned over, but it was this August 18th statement and that was then the reason for the added de-lay while we brought that up to the court and then voluntarily turned that docu-ment over to the prosecution.

Ms. CLARK: This is a material misrepresentation, in and of itself, and as officers of the court they should be ashamed. They should be embarrassed. In fact, their bar tickets should be hanging in jeopardy at this point for this kind of misconduct. And this is misconduct! There’s no question about it. The question is: What the court wants to do about it–it’s another issue. But–but I am appalled. I am appalled as an officer of this court that these kind of misrepresentations would be propounded in the manner that they are with the sanctimonious denials and–and claims of being–of being fair-minded and open-handed and forgetting–Forgetting? Forgetting that there was supposedly a wit-ness who would corroborate at least some aspect of Rosa Lopez’s statement? Obvi-ously, Rosa Lopez put this person into her July 29th statement for the express purpose of showing how credible she was. And when the defense found out that Sylvia was not only not going to corroborate with Miss Lopez, but was going to say that, She’s a liar,’ and no such thing ever happened,’ and I wasn’t at her house,’ and I did not m–make a–an observation of the Bronco,’ she conveniently disappeared from the statement. That’s the truth.
(End of excerpts)

RIVERA: That’s Marcia Clark at her best. You know, people who are–are look-ing at the prosecution and wondering why they seem so effective, Marcia Clark, before the judge, was extremely effective. However, there was no jury there. Don’t forget that, folks, so in a sense, she’s–she’s preaching to the choir. But let me ask Judge Katz–she says their bar tickets should hang in the bal-ance, Judge.’ In other words, this misconduct is so egregious in Marcia Clark’s, perhaps, rhetorical flourish that she thinks these lawyers should be disciplined to the profoundest extent of the–of the rules and regulations.
Judge KATZ: I–I would–I–I have to take into consideration the human frail-ties involved in a trial of this kind. I mean, this is almost circus atmosphere and I don’t think we’ve ever seen a trial that has received such penetrating analysis–microanalysis on a daily basis, as this case. Sure there was miscon-duct, but I have to tell you, when I was trying cases as a prosecutor and I’ll now probably give you my age by that, there was no reciprocal discovery as such, other than notice of alibi defense.

Constantly we–we would be besieged at the last minute with–with evidence of an alibi witness or–or at least some other information that would almost take apart the prosecution case and we would have two or three hours to get our in-vestigators out, try and find out–run a record on the person and–and try and build our case. And you know what? We somehow survived and we somehow secured convictions. And I think that we’re seeing some of the old school with–Johnnie’s been around for a long time, Bobby Shapiro, Lee Bailey, Carl Douglas. They’ve been around for a while. So it–it doesn’t excuse it, but I don’t think it rises to the dignity of what Marcia Clark is saying. And if I were the judge, I think I would try and calm things down, certain–there are certain sanctions they–they can take, but what they have to be careful not to do is to take sanctions that will in–somehow impair J–O.J. Simpson’s right to a fair trial and to present the evidence.

RIVERA: I don’t know how you do that, Judge. I don’t know how you can sanc-tion the attorneys without hurting the rights of the defendant and m–fine them? What do you do? Get a mortgage out on their house? I don’t know. But Michael Nasatir–let me ask, Michael. Is this gross misconduct or is this merely, as the judge suggests–and I don’t mean to–to–to belittle the judge’s characteri-zation: Is this the old-fashioned bare knuckle brawling, Come on, this is a fight to the finish. A man’s life’s at stake. We’re going to do whatever is possible. We’re going to push the envelope and–and that’s all there is to it.’

Mr. NASATIR: No, I don’t think so, Geraldo, because w–look at how embar-rassing it is for them to come up with these statements lately. It’s not that they’re not coming up with them, they’re coming up with them. Nobody’s catching them. They’re not hiding anything. The statements are coming out. They’re just coming out late. And then they have to eat the kind of crow that poor Carl Douglas had to eat today. So they must be making some mistakes and overlooking some things. And it–it…

RIVERA: Well, Mike, wa–wait, I want to ask you–all right. You’ve got two statements from this witness. She’s the key alibi witness. One’s in July, the other’s in August. Doesn’t it–just as Fuhrman’s excuse for leaping the wall at Rockingham strains credulity and credibility, doesn’t this also?

Mr. NASATIR: No. Because Fuhrman never came back and admitted, Yeah, I went over that wall to see what evidence I could see on the suspect who’s in that house.’ He never came–came forward with the truth. The defense said, Hey, we have these statements. We have these tapes. We’re turning them over late,’ and they knew what was coming right back. The judge–an angry judge and a–a prose-cutor who can embarrass them in front of 50 million or 500 million people.

RIVERA: Five hundred million people, but 12 didn’t see it–the jurors. We’ll be right back, folks. Stay tuned.
(Announcements)
(Excerpts from courtroom proceedings)

Mr. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN (Prosecutor): We understand, Your Honor, that over the weekend Mr. Schiller, who is apparently Mr. Simpson’s personal biographer, spent some time with Miss Lopez and I’d like to inquire of Mr. Schiller if he has notes–if he interviewed Miss Lopez, I’d like those notes, Your Honor.

Mr. COCHRAN: Is he kidding, Your Honor? That’s how bad their information is, Your Honor. I–I …(unintelligible) a denial

Mr. DARDEN: …(unintelligible) if that’s–if that’s a denial, Your Honor.

Judge ITO: Wait, wait, wait.

Mr. COCHRAN: …(unintelligible) I want to talk to Mr. Schiller, Your Honor.

Judge ITO: Are you indicating, Mr. Cochran, that that’s not true?

Mr. COCHRAN: Of course, I know that’s not true. Well, we’ve got to talk to him?
Judge ITO: Mr. Darden?

Mr. DARDEN: That’s fine.
(End of excerpt)

RIVERA: Schiller, of course, the author of “I Want To Tell You,” or at least the editor/compiler–whatever you call him. And I think Chris Darden was, in Johnnie Cochran’s words, being disingenuous or sarcastic, to use my word. And did you see Simpson’s response to it and Cochran–both. They almost flew out of their–out of their chairs. OK, let’s talk sanctions, Madame District Attorney. What would you do to punish the defense, assuming you feel the defense should be punished?

Ms. PIRRO: I think the defense should be punished here. I think there are too many willful failures to disclose. The reality is that when the prosecution doesn’t disclose, we ultimately lose the case. I mean the case is reversed. In this situation, there’s a very fine balance and that is making sure that the at-torneys are adequately punished for what happened, but at the same time, the de-fendant cannot be hurt so badly that it interferes with his right to a fair trial. Sanctions…
RIVERA: That seems like King Solomon now.

Ms. PIRRO: Yeah, but the sanctions should be a fine. And just as Judge Ito told the jury that when Cochran opened, he said some things that he shouldn’t have, maybe there’s got to be another discussion. I think Cochran is losing his credibility.
Judge KATZ: You can go…

Mr. BROWN: I think this is…

RIVERA: Let me get Ray first, then we’ll go right to the judge and Michael.

Mr. BROWN: Well, w–we’ve talked a lot about the media impact on this trial and I think one of the areas where it’s been significant is in the escalation of rhetoric about what happens. If every time a lawyer in America failed to turn over a statement until just before the witness testified, but was late, was dis-barred, there’d be three prosecutors and 20 defense lawyers left in the country. And certainly the judge cannot say…

RIVERA: I hope you’d still be amongst them, Ray.

Mr. BROWN: I–of course, I would and…

RIVERA: OK. Of course.

Mr. BROWN: I’m sure Jeanine would, too, but the fact is that I think there’s a great deal of hy–hyperbole and exaggeration on both sides. But in this in-stance, on Miss Clark’s about being appalled and shocked when I think…
RIVERA: A rebuttal and then we’ll go…

Mr. BROWN: And one other point.

Ms. PIRRO: Well…

Mr. BROWN: I think it has to be carefully structured so that if there’s a sanction, it falls on the lawyers and not the defendant.

Ms. PIRRO: Exactly. But what’s important about the–the statement that they didn’t turn over is that that was the first statement of Rosa Lopez that did not include any mention of the Bronco.

Mr. BROWN: But they–but as Mike points out, they did turn it over.

Ms. PIRRO: So when you look at the whole–well, they…

Mr. BROWN: If there was–if they were going to bury it, the tape would be buried and the document could be burned.

Ms. PIRRO: But there’s always the fear that it would be found. They can’t bury it.

RIVERA: Michael or the judge. Judge got–you’ve got the judge on the camera. Go.

Judge KATZ: Well, I–the–my point is that I’m not making light of the fail-ure to disclose. And I think it’s deserving of sanctions. But I’m only con-cerned with the affect it’ll have on the defendant’s ability to continue to pre-sent evidence. So therefore, y–you have other options. And one option could even be at the end of a trial to refer them out of the state bar and that’s a very serious sanction that can be taken. There are, of course, fines that you can give. There could be even possible contempt and jail time following a–a formal finding of contempt. This would be indirect possibly…
RIVERA: But that seems very unrealistic.

Judge KATZ: Well, no, no. You don’t do it during the trial. You wait. But you’re saying it’s unrealistic, but if justice is being denied and we’re–and we’re not seeking the truth here, perhaps, this is the only way we can rectify the situation. It’s time that the judge takes effective action.

RIVERA: What do you think, Michael?

Mr. NASATIR: Well, you don’t think l–let–allowing the prosecution to come on for rebuttal to the defense attorney’s opening statement was effective ac-tion? I think it’s one of the most effective sanctions I’ve…

RIVERA: Oh, I totally agree.

Mr. NASATIR: …I’ve ever seen in my life.

RIVERA: I don’t see how you can do that and–I don’t see an analogous remedy in this situation.

Mr. BROWN: There’s an advantage to waiting on this, because I think at the end of a six-month trial, this incident will pale to insignificance…

Mr. NASATIR: Oh, I do, too.

RIVERA: I agree.

Mr. BROWN: …and there’ll be a small pile in front of each table.
RIVERA: OK.

Mr. NASATIR: He’s absolutely right.

Mr. BROWN: The prosecution’s and defense’s side.

Mr. NASATIR: Geraldo, let me–let me–let me say one thing.

RIVERA: Go ahead, Michael.

Mr. NASATIR: Let me say one other thing. I–I think Marcia Clark–she’s been appalled now about 20 or 25 times, you know?
RIVERA: Yeah, she’s been appalled often. She’s often appalled.

Mr. NASATIR: And she’s been hurt to the quick. And I mean, you know, these are things that happen in a trial. They happen all the time and every trial lawyer ca–will tell you.

RIVERA: Marcia’s appalled and Johnnie says that she’s being disingenuous. Those are…

Mr. NASATIR: Well, Johnnie went a little too far. I’ll be honest with you. And you know, I–I’m–I’m putting my–my bent i–is on the defense.

RIVERA: Right.

Mr. NASATIR: Johnnie went a little too far…

RIVERA: Your bent is your bet.

Mr. NASATIR: I think what Johnnie meant to say is they used the childcare issue. They used the time they gained from that to change their position, to rethink their position and come in and make that motion today to videotape it rather than have it on live. I think that’s what he really meant.
RIVERA: OK.

Mr. NASATIR: I don’t think that he meant that she didn’t have two children that needed care. But I’ll tell you this, Geraldo, Ray Brown is absolutely right. If this was important enough, childcare would have been obtained or Marcia Clark would have left it to the other three district attorneys that were sitting there to go ahead and cross-examine Lopez.
Judge KATZ: You know, there’s one other comment, Geraldo, about…
RIVERA: Go ahead, Judge.

Judge KATZ: …about this–and that is on Friday, if–if they–if the DA would have thought it through, seeing how badly Rosa Lopez was doing with that interpreter and how effective Darden was getting to her, they should have gone on with the conditional examination that would have the benefit of destroying her, probably impeaching her even more. Then they could have said at the very end, and said, We want to be very magnanimous. We’re concerned that the–that the defense won’t have the opportunity to have this witness live. We’re going to agree now on Monday, and we’ll yield our position in the case in chief, put her on.’ And then now you have a deposition, a video deposition that they can use for impeachment.

RIVERA: On–one thing I’m…

Judge KATZ: It would have been a wonderful strategy.

RIVERA: …unclear of and I don’t know if anyone can help me with this–but this is a Newsweek article that has a devastating article about Mark Fuhrman. I’m going to get to Mark. I have one more video on Rosa I want to deal with first, though. Is there, Judge, any requirement that the defense now allow this videotape to be presented to the jury? Must they? Are they now committed to allowing this videotape to be run to the jury?

Judge KATZ: No. Absolutely not. Remember, they always have the option of bringing a live witness in, and then if there is some impeachment, of course, then the judge will determine what part, if any, of the tape can be used for im-peachment.
RIVERA: Well, in that case…

Judge KATZ: It’s just like a transcript.

RIVERA: …I agree with you, Judge Katz, and I don’t know–feel free, ladies and gentlemen, to–lady and gentlemen, to disagree with me, but I–I believe that the judge is right. I believe that the defense may have ultimately been the victor in all of this because if the jury had seen what we saw today, what we saw Friday and what we will definitely be seeing tomorrow, I don’t think they could hold Miss Lopez in very high regard when it comes to her ability to–to–to ad–adequately place that Bronco at the neighbor’s house at precisely that time. Remember, she doesn’t wear a watch. They–they asked her about that. I’ve been mentioning it for a week. They asked her about that on direct. Let’s roll that tape. We’ll deal with this–the end of Rosa and we’ll get to–to Mark. Here we go. Here is tape seven.
(Excerpt from courtroom proceedings)

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) I went outside to the street between 8 and 8:15, approximately.

Mr. COCHRAN: All right. When you say, approximately,’ were you wearing a watch that–that particular evening, if you recall?

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) Because I saw the clock that I have on my night table…

Mr. COCHRAN: All right.

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) …by my bed.

Mr. COCHRAN: At what–when y–when you saw that clock, do you remember what time it had?

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) 8:05, 8:10, something like that.

Mr. COCHRAN: And do you recall, Miss Lopez, how long you remained out at that location, out in front of the Salinger’s home on Rockingham? How long you stood there?

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) About five minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN: All right. And while you were out there, out on Rockingham, did you ever have occasion to see any cars parked on Rockingham?

Mr. DARDEN: Objection. That’s leading, Your Honor.

Mr. COCHRAN: That’s not leading.
Judge ITO: Overruled.

Mr. COCHRAN: See any cars parked? That’s not leading.

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) There was a white–there was a white car–a Bronco.

Mr. COCHRAN: All right. And where was this white Bronco parked at the time you saw it?

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) At 360 Rockingham.
(End of excerpt)

RIVERA: …see a car–not only did she see a car, she saw the white Ford Bronco. Not only did she see it next door, she saw it at 360 North Rockingham–very precise answers. But in this situation, something developed as the final blow or not the final blow, the final blow today to her credibility. It turns out that if she saw that nightside–that bedside clock, she saw it without bene-fit of glasses because she has a hard time seeing the monitor. There were all kinds of murmurings and mumbles in the court today when it became clear that Rosa needed glasses to–to see a clock. If she needed glasses to see the moni-tor. So another potential blow to her credibility. OK, any more about Rosa?

Ms. PIRRO: You know what I think is interesting? When Rosa testified, she talked about 5:00, 7:00, 8:00, 9:00…
RIVERA: 8:05, 8:10.

Ms. PIRRO: …10:15. And then when she gets to midnight and they ask her questions about what happens when the police are there, she has no recollection of the time. So it’s almost as though she is prepared for the defense presenta-tion, but then when someone can corroborate or disagree with her in terms of the actual facts of what was going on, she doesn’t know.
RIVERA: Quick rebuttal.

Mr. BROWN: I think the prosecution–the prosecution won apparent victory to-day on this structure because I think she’s–the–the defense is as well posi-tioned as they could be to buttress a witness who otherwise is vulnerable and critical to them.

RIVERA: OK. Let me take this break. When we come back, it is in the words of this week’s news magazine–I mean Newsweek, Fuhrman in the Cross Hairs.’ Stay tuned.

(Announcements)
(Excerpt from courtroom proceedings)
Judge ITO: Mrs. Lopez, when this police officer identified himself to you, can you tell me what name he gave you?
Ms. LOPEZ: Mark Framan.

(Through translator) And then he said to me, Tell the gardeners that it–anything strange that they find in the yard or in–not to touch.

Call the police.
(Through translator) Call the police. Because last night, very late I heard voices. I heard men that were talking in the back of the yard.

Mr. COCHRAN: You told–you told this detective that?

Ms. LOPEZ: Si, senor.

(Through translator) And after that he told me, We are going to send the po-lice so that you can give testimony to the police.’

Mr. COCHRAN: And after he told you that, did any police officer from the Los Angeles Police Department ever come out to interview you after that?

Ms. LOPEZ: (Through translator) No. I’m still waiting for them, tell him.
(End of excerpt)

RIVERA: Rosa’s still waiting for Mark Fuhrman to come by. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the least serious, if you believe it, of the impeachment testimony or evidence against Mark Fuhrman to be revealed today. It’s not evidence, but in Newsweek they talk about how there was a police complaint against Mark Fuhr-man back in, let’s see, 19–between 1984 and 1988, four individuals, three of them African-Americans, filed disciplinary complaints against Fuhrman. One of them a black kid named Jer–Jarvis Bowers said that Fuhrman stopped him for jay-walking and put him in a choke hold and Bowers told Newsweek that Fuhrman threatened to kill this kid over a jaywalking ticket.

A black detective named Tia Morris also in that 1984 to ‘85 period, a detec-tive incidentally now outranks Fuhrman, testified that Fuhrman told her she did-n’t belong on the force. He suggested–and John Gibson said this earlier in the program–he suggested that this Tia Morris retire from the police force and said, Become a secretary or a dancer on “Soul Train.”‘ Newsweek’s only part of it.

In the defense motion today to discover the contents of an internal police investigation–we have it. The defense has made it public. They talk about Fuhrman having in his possession swastika or other Nazi-like symbols in the po-lice station. Information indicating that Fuhrman is associated with a hate group. Also, Fuhrman has made statements suggesting his personal acquaintance with Nicole Brown Simpson. Surely the relevance of this allegation is plain. If Fuhrman knew Mrs. Simpson well enough to have commented on some aspect of her anatomy’–What the hell does that mean?–he would have harbored personal animosity toward any potential suspect of her death.’

Michael Nasatir, it also–let me tell you this–not only was Fuhrman a member of Men Against Women, this sexist group, he was also, apparently, according to this article, a member of a group called WASP, which is White Anglo Saxon Po-licemen. Ugly allegations–Michael Nasatir, I’ve taken up a lot of time in re-lating them, what impact, if any–how many of these ugly allegations get before that jury? In 45 seconds or less.

Mr. NASATIR: I think every ugly allegation should get before the jury and I’ll tell you why. The prosecution has to prove a murder case. That’s their murder case. They have to move–prove motive and opportunity as part of their case. The defense has to prove the case. That’s rush to judgment. Rushing to convict one suspect. They have to do motive and opportunity.

Mark Fuhrman had both the motive and opportunity. If you believe it, then they’ve created rea-sonable doubt. But they’ve got to be allowed to put on their case. And these allegations are the motive. That is the motive. He doesn’t like black people and he doesn’t like interracial marriages. And they’ve got to be able to put that on to be able to put on a–put on an effective case from their point of view.

RIVERA: OK.

Judge KATZ: Geraldo?

RIVERA: The question–Judge, I’m running out of time, but I’ll go to you next for a rebuttal. How much of that stuff actually gets to the jury is the ques-tion. We’ll be right back.
(Announcements)

RIVERA: OK. We now have allegations from an African-American detective, from an African-American teen-ager. We have comments allegedly made by Mark Fuhrman concerning Nicole Brown’s anatomy. We have other evidence seemingly, a swastika apparently displayed by Furhman–or allegedly displayed by Fuhrman in his of-fice. Judge Katz, we start with you. Do you believe that these alleged events, all of which took place between ‘84 to ‘88, with an emphasis on ‘84 to ‘85, do you think they are relevant? Do you think the judge will admit them in the Mark Fuhrman cross-examination?

Judge KATZ: I–I think most of them would not be admissible. You have–there’s a qualitative difference between someone who says, you know, I can’t stand mixed couples’ and that if I ever found them together I’m going to plant evidence,’ which is the basis of–of one of the witnesses who will be testify-ing. Clearly admissible statement of present intent to do a future act. And it shows a motive to fabricate.

When you’re talking about these other egregious organizations, like the Nazi party or something, that may or may not be relevant, depending upon the posture of the evidence. Let me just take you down, quickly, the scenario. Number one, what the People were able to do was foreclose at every avenue the fact that–that Fuhrman had the opportunity to plant or to secrete evidence or to do any-thing because there was always another officer with him. And he was–he was al–never alone really.

Secondly, and most importantly, people have never mentioned this–and I don’t know why–Penal Code, Section 128 says that anybody who suborns perjury result-ing in the conviction and execution of another individual w–shall suffer the death penalty. Anyone who aids and abets under California law is likewise guilty of a capital offense. When this case was being investigated, this was a double execution slaying and a capital offense.

So is Fuhrman–are we saying that Fuhrman, for all of thes–these machina-tions and reasons, is going to risk his life, he’s going to involve other offi-cers and they’re going to possibly be subject to death penalty because he hates O.J.? I mean, I just–it’s incredible.

Mr. BROWN: That–I–I’m appalled the judge made that argument. That goes to weight. The fact is that the defense has taken on the burden of proving rush to judgment and conspiracy. It’s entitled to develop this stuff and despite the fact that the prosecution will be standing on the table screaming Objection!’ skillful cross-examination can develop this.
For example, this guy has got to be able to say, in light of the other attack that’s permissible, that he enforces the law evenhandedly and fairly against all persons without regard to race, prejudice, etc. How does he withstand cross-examination on that subject without this–rest coming in?

Ms. PIRRO: There’s no question that Mark Fuhrman’s bias or hostility is relevant to his credibility, and some of these issues will definitely come be-fore the jury. But I think we have to kind of put this in perspective again. This trial is about O.J. Simpson; it’s not about Mark Fuhrman. And to say that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, we would then have to go back and say, And by the way, he put O.J.’s blood at Bundy. He put O.J.’s blood on the socks in the bedroom. He put O.J.’s blood on the Bronco.’ I mean, we would have to have him do everything that’s connected with this crime. And there’s far too much evi-dence to say Mark Fuhrman plotted it all out.

Mr. BROWN: For this stuff to be admissible, the defense doesn’t have to es-tablish that Mark Fuhrman by himself framed the defendant. All they’ve got to do is say that–show that they have a plausible argument to say that his testi-mony about evidence is tainted and these are reasons that would explain his …(unintelligible).

RIVERA: I would ask Michael the tougher question. You understand, we all un-derstand Ray’s–his feelings that on skillful cross many of these items will be admitted to that–to that jury’s ears. Do you agree, Michael, and h–if so how would you do it? Give me an example of a question you would ask that would get in one of these damning past–alleged past acts about racism. All right?

Mr. NASATIR: You see the O.J. Shimp–Simpson is an African-American si–sitting at the defense table, is that correct? How do you feel about African-Americans in general, Mr. Fuhrman? That’s…

RIVERA: I feel they’re just like everyone else, counsel.

Mr. NASATIR: Well, isn’t it a fact, Mr. Fuhrman, that in Jan–in 1988, you said to a detective on your own force that, You should be a dancer for Don Cor-nelius on “Soul Train?”–one of my favorite programs, by the way.
RIVERA: Don Cornelius is a good friend of mine. Objection! Objection! Ir-relevant, Your Honor.

Mr. NASATIR: Well, we…

RIVERA: I move that it be stricken from the record. It has nothing to do with what he did that night in–in Brentwood, California.

Mr. NASATIR: Your Honor, we have–we have a defense. We have a defense and we’re trying to establish it by circumstantial evidence, just like the prosecu-tion is establishing this very crime by circumstantial evidence. What…

RIVERA: Judge Katz, how do you rule?

Judge KATZ: I–I would–on–on that particular thing, I’d sustain the objec-tion but move to strike if the answer came in.

RIVERA: Sorry, Michael.

Judge KATZ: But I–I want to say one thing.

RIVERA: Julie, from Texas, you’re–OK. Go ahead, Michael.

Mr. NASATIR: …judge in the this case.

Judge KATZ: One–one thing…

RIVERA: One sec–Mike?

Mr. NASATIR: Thank God he’s not the judge in this case.

RIVERA: OK. All right.

Judge KATZ: Well…

RIVERA: Julie, from Texas. You’re on the air. Julie. I’m sorry, folks, I’ve waited so long to take your calls. Thank you, Julie, Tim and Dave, for your patience. Go ahead, Julie.

JULIE (Caller): Well, as a Spanish-speaking American, I am incensed beyond outrage at the way the–the media has been–and the prosecution–have been treating Rosa Lopez. I mean, this lady is a housekeeper who can’t even speak English. Isn’t there something fundamentally unfair about prosecutors pitting their 19-plus years of exper–of formal education and all their experience in the courtroom against this little housekeeper? And you, Geraldo, as a Spanish speaker yourself, don’t you feel for this lady? I mean, it doesn’t take much to confuse her. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist. If anyone has nothing to gain…

RIVERA: I have–I have…

JULIE: …it’s this lady.

RIVERA: …searched my soul over this issue, Julie. I’m so happy that you brought this up. I don’t even know if I’m going to have time to deal with all my feelings on this now. I’ve got a minute and a half to go. But let me say that even a Spanish-speaking person cannot–can be guilty of not telling the truth or can be led by someone else. I’m not saying she is. But enough has happened that we should be very suspicious of her testimony regardless of her race, color, creed and religion. And I wish race wasn’t an issue at all in this case. But anyway…

Mr. BROWN: But there’s a response to that in part…

RIVERA: Yes, Ray, quickly. This is Ray Brown who has written so much on race.

Mr. BROWN: If you wa–if you watch the testimony, the judge let Cochran do a lot of testimony about her background, which would ordinarily probably not come in. So the jury can understand when it sees this tape that there are linguistic problems, cultural problems which may have a lot to do with why she might be afraid of the media and the judicial system.
Ms. PIRRO: But at the other end, is the fact that there were two people who were killed here and we have to get to the truth.

Mr. BROWN: …(unintelligible) truth.
RIVERA: Everybody–everybody involved in this case is getting the hell beat out of them. Let’s face it, folks, on both sides.

Mr. BROWN: We’re…

RIVERA: Let me go right now–I’m sorry, Ray–I think–I had a great panel. I got to go to big John. Come on, Spike, what’s going on tomorrow. Quick.

GIBSON: Well, what’s going on–I just remind you of what we saw on Friday when the prosecution just tore Rosa Lopez apart on her testimony about her travel plans. Now we’re down to the nubs–the real issue. This al–this alibi, and it is clear now they’ve discovered these discrepancies. These guys are sharpening their nails and teeth to get at her.

RIVERA: They’re sharpening nails and teeth. That will be the focus, the nexus, of tomorrow night’s report. I’m sure you won’t want to miss it. Thank you for watching. “Charles Grodin” is next. See you tomorrow.

LOAD-DATE: February 27, 1995

LANGUAGE: English

TYPE: Interview

Probe bungled, cop admits

BYLINE: AP)

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A4

LENGTH: 596 words

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES

One of the detectives in charge of the O. J. Simpson case conceded yesterday the investigation was marred by failures to collect blood from a gate, preserve the contents of Nicole Simpson’s stomach and test blood splattered on her back.

Testifying for the third day, Detective Tom Lange told the jury in the former football star’s double murder trial that blood spots on Nicole Simpson’s back were washed off by coroner’s assistants even though he had asked for them to be analyzed.

In addition, he said, the contents of her stomach, which could have helped establish the time of death, were destroyed instead of being preserved.

Lange made his statements under cross-examination as Simpson’s lawyers pressed their theory that the investigation into the murders of Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman was slipshod and inadequate.

Simpson has pleaded not guilty to stabbing his ex-wife and Goldman to death last June 12 outside her condominium.

Meanwhile, in a setback for the defence, the only witness Simpson’s lawyers can use to portray Detective Mark Fuhrman as a racist doesn’t want to testify because of heavy publicity surrounding the case, prosecutors said in court pa-pers.

The defence has suggested Fuhrman planted a bloody glove on Simpson’s prop-erty.

The development involving the witness, Kathleen Bell, raises doubts as to whether the defence will ever be allowed to question Fuhrman about allegations of racism.

According to the defence, the Los Angeles-area woman contends Fuhrman ex-pressed hatred of mixed-race couples and used the word “nigger.”

Judge Lance Ito has disallowed other allegations of racism on Fuhrman’s part.

But Bell’s lawyer, Taylor Daigneault, said later Bell would testify if sub-poenaed.

During Lange’s cross- examination, defence attorney Johnnie Cochran suggested a photo of a cup of melting Ben & Jerry’s ice cream might have helped establish the time Nicole and Goldman were killed.

But Lange said he doubted a picture of the ice cream, found on a banister in Nicole’s home, would have helped, and he saw no reason to have it photographed.

Likewise, he said he did not order photographs to be taken of some nine can-dles found burning in her living room, bedroom and bathroom.

“Did it ever occur to you that by taking pictures of the candles and their state of burning we could extrapolate backwards to the time of death?” Cochran asked.

“No. I know of no way to do that,” Lange said.

He acknowledged, however, that he asked forensic technician Dennis Fung on June 13 to collect blood from a rear gate of the condo and found out that it was not done until three weeks after the slayings - long after the police crime-scene tape had come down.

“If you had known that Fung had not collected blood spots on the back fence, you wouldn’t have released that crime scene, would you?” Cochran asked.

“No,” Lange said.

Lange acknowledged no test was performed to determine if Nicole had been raped, but defended his decision.

“Sex was the last thing on the mind of this attacker,” he said. “It was an overkill. It was a brutal murder.”

It also came to light today that a sealed envelope, possibly containing a stiletto knife Simpson bought weeks before the murders, will not be part of the trial.

Newsday reports that transcripts of discussions Jan. 25 - out of the hearing of the jury or the public - Deputy District Attorney William Hodgman argued that the knife was a moot point. “Your honor . . . we don’t intend to introduce any-thing about the knife or anything,” he told Judge Lance Ito.

LOAD-DATE: February 24, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: AP PHOTO: Members of O.J. Simpson’s legal “dream team” examine a docu-ment in court yesterday. Fron left, Robert Shapiro, private investigator Bill Pavelic also known as William Bill Pavelic and Zvonko Bill Pavelic, Johnnie Cochran and F. Lee Bailey. PHOTO: Tom Lange: Detective testi-fied that crucial evidence was destroyed.