What Petrocelli Faces

And in anticipation of that, the Court will order both sides to prepare further briefings on that issue.

The following is a possible first draft of defense OPENING ARGUMENTS in the Simpson/Goldman/Brown Civil action currently due to begin in September 1996.

It is the expectation of this author that the proceedings will be dismissed before ever coming to trial.

Daniel Petrocelli, representing Fred Goldman, wil inform the jury that he shall seek to prove -- to a reasonable certainty -- not "beyond a reasonable doubt", only to reasonable certainty -- that Orenthal James Simpson murdered Ronald Lyle Goldman, and Nicole Brown Simpson. He will stress that the "burden of proof" is in a civil trial is far more reasonable than that of a criminal proceeding. At some point, he will outline his theory of the events which transpired on the night of Sunday, June 12th, 1994, which resulted in the death of a heroic young man -- Ronald Lyle Goldman.

As he recites the sequence of events, Petrocelli will highlite certain times, and witnesses to those times. He will enmuerate certain key witnesses. Among these will be Brian "Kato" Kaelin -- whose wall shook at a time which Petrocelli will seek to substantiate; he will mention Charles Cales, the dog walker who didn't see the Bronco between 9:25 and 9:45; he will also mention the limousine driver, Alan Park, who didn't see the Bronco outside Rockingham at 10:25 PM, 10:40 PM and 11:05 PM. The one witness he will NOT include in his enumeration will be Detective Mark Fuhrman -- who invoked his Fifth Amendment Rights during the deposition stage of the proceedings, who will also invoke those rights if he is called. The jury might be informed that Detective Fuhrman is "legally unavailable".

Petrocelli will conclude with an impassioned plea for justice -- justice for the young life take, for the promising future unrealized. And there will be a plea for compassion -- for justice -- on behalf of the children who no longer have a mother.

If his oration is properly scripted, rehearsed and delivered, passions will run wild; emotion will flood the courtroom; jurors will be on the verge of tears. The Court will call a luncheon recess.

Recognizing the power of the emotions invoked by the prosecution, Baker will roll with it -- a surfer rides in the curl of "the big one". He will concede all the emotions and loss, and then, with the skill the aikito master, move the jury back in to the world of rational thought -- by revisiting the list of potential witnesses.

Now, Members of the Jury, the prosecution is asking for revenge. They will, during the course of this trial, ask you to take revenge for the gruesome murder of Ron and Nicole. They ask you to do so, and to hold Mr Simpson liable. They are asking you to let your emotions rule your mind. To set aside decency, to set aside honor -- the honor that comes with your role as arbitors of truth. The prosecution will ask you to set aside logic, and common sense. They have already asked you to set aside your basic common sense. In their opening remarks, they have outlined the irrationality of their case.

Consider, if you will, three witnesses they will call. Three honorable men who have already testified -- under oath they have testified -- as much as four seperate times. At a Grand Jury hearing; at pre-Trial Hearing; at a Criminal Trial -- where, as you know, the defendant was acquited; and in Deposition Hearings, prior to this trial. Four times, under oath -- facing perjury charges, if they were to lie. And now, you will personally hear them state for a fifth time -- under penalty of perjury -- state that the Ford Bronco, which contained the victim's blood, was NOT at Rockingham the evening and night of June 12th, 1994.

{He'll pause to allow that FACT to be digested.}

You will hear "Kato" Kaelin tell you -- as he has stated many times before -- that the Bronco was not in its usual place, outside the Ashford Gate, when he came home from playing basketball and went into the kitchen and gossiped with Mr. Simpson about the recital. You will hear Mr. Kaelin - Kato - tell you that the Bronco was not in the Driveway at 9:12 PM, when he and Mr. Simpson drove in the Bentley to McDonald's; further, he will tell you that the Bronco was NOT parked outside to the north of the Rockingham Gate when they left; he will also tell you -- as he has sworn on numerous prior occasions -- the Bronco was still not outside the Ashford Gate. As it had not been outside at around 7:00 PM.

You will hear Charles Cale -- a neighbor, an attorney, a private investigator -- state that the Bronco was not on Rockingham during the period, 9:25 to 9:45. During half of that period, Mr. Simpson was in the company of Mr. Kaelin.

You will hear Alan Park -- the Limousine driver who took Mr. Simpson to the airport. He will tell you that at 10:25 the Ford Bronco was not outside the Rockingham Gate; the Ford Bronco was not outside the Ashford Gate. He will further relate -- as he has on numerous prior occasions -- that the Bronco was not outside either gate at 10:40. He will then affirm that the Bronco was neither outside, or inside, from 10:54 -- when he first sees Mr. Simpson -- to the time when both men leave Rockingham for LAX.

Three solid witnesses -- presented by the prosecution -- who have previously stated, and will now state under oath that the Ford Bronco was not at Rockingham on the night of June 12th, 1994. Having presented these witnesses, the prosecution will ask you to arbitrarily brand them all liars. The prosecution will argue that the Bronco was at Rockingham. That it was used by Mr. Simpson for transportation to the scene of the murders. And they will so, based on the testimony of three witnesses who will tell you the Bronco was not there when we know that Mr. Simpson was there. And they will ask you to do this -- to brand three men liars -- simply to get money from Mr. Simpson.

Now, how will the prosecution seek to impeach this unimpeachable testimony? They will ask you to disregard your common sense; they will ask to to disregard all logic; they will ask you to predetermine guilt -- then find a way, to explain away, the iron clad alibi which they have provided Mr. Simpson. That alibi being, the Bronco was not at Rockingham from 7:00 PM -- when Mr. Simpson arrived home, in his Bentley, from his daughter's recital -- right through and beyond the time when Mr. Simpson departed for LAX -- seated in the back seat of the Limousine driven by Alan Park. They would have you determine -- devoid of any factual, or testimony basis -- reasons to declare these three gentlemen... LIARS.

Failing to convince you to disregard your common sense; failing -- as we know they will -- to convince yopu to set aside all reason and logic, they will then seek to convince you that Mr. Simpson is a paragon of honesty; that his word is more reliable than that of these three unimpeachable eyewitnesses. The prosecution will then ask Mr. Simpson to impeach these witnesses. That is, they will expect the man they are charging with a double homicide, to impeach the three men who provide him with an iron clad alibi.

Think about that. Think about the logic -- or lack of logic, associated with that expectation. In that connection, let's examine the prosecution's attitude toward Mr. Simpson.

On the one hand, he is a dispicible double murderer. A cold blooded killer who could slit the throats of two defenseless young people,... then calmly walk away. A man so vile, that nothing he says can be trusted. A mnan so corrupt, that he will say anything, do anything, pay anything to escape justice.

On the other hand, they will lead you to believe that Mr Simpson is so honest, so trustworthy, so beyond reproach, that he can serve to impeach three unimpeachable witnesses, who four times have given testimony -- under oath -- under penalty of perjury -- that the Bronco wasn't at Rockingham on the night of June 12th.

And they don't think you'll see the contradiction. They don't believe you have the COMMON SENSE, or INNATE INTELLIGENCE to see the contridiction.

They might argue that Mr. Simpson has said the Bronco was there. Yet they produce three unimpeachable witnesses who say it wasn't. No, what did OJ say? when? and to whom?

On the 13th of June 1994, in shock, confused and tired from lack of sleep -- his days and events running together without sequence -- he told Detectives Vannatter and Lange he had parked the Bronco on Rockingham, "7:00, 8:00, 9 o'clock -- eight-something, probably." That would be perfectly consistant with Kato not seeing the Bronco outside the Ashford Gate. This was unsworn testimony; and we can tell from the obvious errors -- such as those associated with the sequence of events at the recital -- that he was in shock and confused. Prior to his acquital, this constituted the sum total of statements which place the Bronco at Rockingham after seven PM on the night of June 12th. We have independent sworn testimony, which states that the Bronco was available for use by numerous individuals. We have testimony, and could provide testimony, to support the fact that other individuals did, in fact, use the Bronco. Clearly, OJ didn't need the Bronco that night -- he had, and was using, the Bentley. So we know, and could assert, that anyone who had normal access to the Bronco could have had it that night. And since it was known that he would be away on business, he would not necessarily have been informed that someone had selected to use the Bronco. That being the case, once the verdict was rendered, a guilty man would have simply gone with the flow... and said, "two witnesses, who attested to the fact that I was with them at Rockingham, also attested to the fact that the Bronco wasn't there when I was. I have no idea where the Bronco was." Were he not as honest and forthright as he is, he certainly could have said that. Had he, we wouldn't be here. Were he not as honest, forthright, and beyond reproach as he is -- as he always has been -- Petrocelli wouldn't for a moment even dream of using him to impeach three unimpeachable witnesses. How little the prosecution must think of you -- your intelligence -- your common sense -- your sense of honor -- to even suggest that you would not realize the glaring inconsistancy in their assertions. Logic, common sense, even morality dictate that only an innocent man would hold truth above convience. Only an innocent man would hold truth above an airtight prosecution provided alibi... based on mistaken recollection. Only an innocent man would place himself at risk for the sake of honesty. Mr Simpson is such a man.

{He'll pause to allow REALITY to be assimilated.}

Let us turn our attention to those who have sought to accuse Mr. Simpson. Those whose testimony you will be asked to believe.

Detective Phillip Vannatter. During the criminal trial, we learned that he perjured himself. He lied to the Court in a sworn statement -- under penalty of perjury. Mr. Simpson was found innocent, and thus lie was not material to the outcome of the case. Vannatter was allowed to simply retire, and is no longer a threat to the freedom of innocent people. In addition to perjury, Detective Vannatter violated every rule of evidence, and -- after the forensic collected at Bundy was completed -- he brought a sample of Mr. Simpson's to the murder scene at Bundy. Suddenly, an incriminating blood sample appeared where the criminologists testified there had been none. Also of interest, as the lead detective from Robbery-Homocide, Vannatter kept no notes and did no "detecting".

Then there is Detective Mark Fuhrman. Detective Fuhrman was the first detective to arrive at Bundy; he formulated the theory that the killer had been injured; he lied when he denied being alone with the victims and the gloves which the killer had left behind. The killer had left the gloves at the crime scene specifically because they had no association to him. Detective Fuhrman was the one who associated blood with the Bronco. Prior to his finding the single glove at Rockingham, Detective Fuhrman was the only detective who knew Kato had heard a noise behind his room the previous night. With the exception of Officer Riske, Fuhrman was also the only one who knew the murders had been committed sometime immediately prior to 10:50 PM. Officer Fuhrman was the only detective to keep notes -- all the reports maintained by the Robbery Homocide Division are based upon those notes. All the investigative reports associated with the murder scene at Bundy are based on, derived from, Mark Fuhrman. Everything investigative factor associated with this case is derived from Detective Mark Fuhrman. Despite that, the Chief Prosecutor for the County of Los Angeles, Marcia Clark, stated he was unfit to be a police officer. A whole case built on the work of a man "unfit to be a police officer."

Detective Fuhrman was, and is, a critical witness in this case. But we will not be hearing from him. The prosecution will not be calling him to testify -- he is "legally unavailable". To understand why, let me read from a Transcript dated, September 6th, 1995. Mark Fuhrman, having given his testimony under direct examination, has been called by the defense.

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?
DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.

Because of detective Mark Fuhrman, the murderer of Nicole Brown Simpson; the murderer of Ronald Lyle Goldman; has never been brought to trial -- will never be brought to trial. Detective Fuhrman used a glove, collected at Bundy, to plant blood in the Bronco. He then deposited that glove in a location roughly coinciding to that associated with Kato's noise. Fuhrman will not be here -- Daniel Petrocelli will not call him here. To appear here, would mean once again invoking the Fifth Amendment; or, facing felony charges related to the previous perjury in a capital case, and an additional perjury charge in relation to anything that might transpire here.

Mr Orenthal James Simpson has never taken a human life -- much less Ron or Nicole. And, by the time these proceding end, you will have no doubt about that. We will expect that you will therefore render a verdict favorable to Mr. Simpson -- at which point, the LAPD and LADA will have no alternative but to locate and prosecute the man who murdered Nicole and deprived OJ's children of their mother's love.

• FIRST: The Bronco
  The prosecution used smoke and mirrors for it's assertion that the Bronco was used in the Murders. There are many in the public who take for granted the fact that the Bronco was at Rockingham. But the jury never heard testimony making the Bronco available. Kato Kaelin and Allan Park have repeatedly testified that they did NOT see the Bronco the night of the 12th. In the majority of instances, they testified that was in their view at the same time that they should have, but didn't, see the Bronco.
  This is Petrocelli's FIRST Dilemma: How to establish that the Bronco was at Rockingham without destroying the credibility of Kaelin and Park to establish that it was gone.

  SECOND: The Co-prosecution

  Joining Petrocelli in the prosecution are Brewer {representing Rufo, Goldman's mother} and Kelly {representing the Simpson children & the Brown's}. To date, Brewer and Kelly have elicited, or introduced, facts that case a serious question on the character and habits of Nicole Brown Simpson. They have also inquired into areas which support Simpson's innocence -- and have done so in a manner indicative of a defense.

  This is Petrocelli's SECOND Dilemma: The co-prosecution appears to be seeking vindication for Simpson.

  
  Objectively -- this makes sense.
  • The Brown's have no interest in short term gain -- they are acting on behalf of Justin and Sydney. For the children, certainty about whether their father killed their mother takes precedence.
    Of secondary consideration, the children derive greater economic benefit from a fully restored Simpson earning capacity -- as would occur if he were vindicated.
    Finally, their social status would be enhanced if it were established their father was wrongly accused.
  • Sharon Rufo, Ronald Goldman's mother, has little to gain if Simpson is held accountable for her son's death -- She's at the end of the line, behind the Simpson children and her former husband, Fred Goldman.
    However, an innocent Simpson offers the potential for enormous reward.
    Should her attorney establish that Simpson was the victim of wrongful prosecution, she could then prosecute Los Angeles County and access the unlimited depths of taxpayer pockets -- where, even being fourth in line could make her a multi-millionaire.

  THIRD: Mark Fuhrman

  So long as former Detective Mark Fuhrman can hide behind the "nigger" denial, he can invoke the Fifth Amendment without direct inference that it is the tampering charge he's afraid of. And the Los Angeles County District Attorney will maintain that threat as long as the public and media allow.
  The District Attorney can not grant immunity to Fuhrman so that he can testify, for the same reasons they couldn't do it in the Criminal Trial. Under a one time grant of immunity, Fuhrman could provide sufficeient evidence of his guilt to forestall a tampering prosecution, while insuring a popularist Simpson vindication.
  While Fuhrman could not be prosecuted, Garcetti, Clark and the County of Los Angeles could be. Given the international focus of this case, that would probably result in disbarment for both Garcetti and Clark. Of course, if our assessment is in error, Garcetti can be prevailed upon to grant immunity. And will do so, "in the interest of JUSTICE".

  FOURTH: Goldman's Mental State

  Fred Goldman is emotionally attached to Simpson's prosecution, and guilt. A failed prosecution could be emotionally devestating -- it might even lead to his attempting to murder Simpson.
  Regardless of the facts, for the sake of his client's mental stability, Petrocelli must carry the prosecution forward. However, if Goldman understands that justice is derived from establishing if, and what, evidence might have been tampered with, Petrocelli's Second Dilemma is lessened.

© 1995/6 William Lawrence Schreck Jr.	© 1995/6 Source Interactive Network, LLC.

All rights reserved
CapitolHill 1400 block     BHI's CapitolHill

Visitors and Counting