Speaker 1: Okay, round two.
Speaker 2: Name something that's not boring.
Speaker 3: Laundry, a book club, computer solitaire.
Speaker 2: Huh oh, sorry, we were looking for chumbu Casino.
Speaker 1: Chum.
Speaker 2: That's right, chumbucasino dot com as over one hundred casino
Speaker 2: style games joined today and play for free for your
Speaker 2: chance to redeem some serious prizes. Chum chumbacasino dot com.
Speaker 2: No process, We're located by the lock eighty plus trs
Speaker 2: conditions of blue website details.
Speaker 4: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 3: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today.
Speaker 1: Has anyone seen the bride and groom?
Speaker 5: Ri?
Speaker 3: Sorry we're here. We were getting lucky in the limo
Speaker 3: and we lost track of time.
Speaker 2: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 2: quicker than a guess registry.
Speaker 3: In that case, I pronounce you lucky.
Speaker 4: Thanks for free Lucky Landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting.
Speaker 4: No purchase necessary board. We're prohibited by lock eighteen plus
Speaker 4: terms and conditions applack see website for health.
Speaker 6: Hell.
Speaker 2: Hello, it is Ryan and I was on a flight
Speaker 2: the other day playing one of my favorite social spin
Speaker 2: slot games on Chumpacasino dot com. I looked over at
Speaker 2: the person sitting next to me, and you know what
Speaker 2: they were doing. They were also playing Chumpa Casino. Coincidence,
Speaker 2: I think not everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumpa
Speaker 2: Casino's home to hundreds at casino style games. You can
Speaker 2: play for free anytime, anywhere, even at thirty thousand feet.
Speaker 2: So sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com to
Speaker 2: claim you're free. Welcome bonus, that's Chumbucasino dot com and
Speaker 2: live the Chumber line. No proce necessary DL you repod
Speaker 2: where everybody lost in terms of conditions eating plus.
Speaker 3: Step into the world of power, loyalty and luck. I'm
Speaker 3: gonna make him an offer he can't refuse. With family,
Speaker 3: canoli's and spins mean everything. Now you want to get
Speaker 3: mixed up in the family business, Introducing the Godfather at
Speaker 3: Champacasino dot com. Test your luck in the shadowy world
Speaker 3: of the Godfather slot. Someday I will call upon you
Speaker 3: to do a service for me. Play the Godfather now
Speaker 3: at Chumpa Casino.
Speaker 4: Welcome to the family vdW group. Now perch is necessary
Speaker 4: if we were privateed by loss, he terms and conditions eighteen plus.
Speaker 1: You are now listening to True Murder, the most shocking
Speaker 1: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 1: written about them, Gasey, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker BTK. Every week,
Speaker 1: another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and infamous
Speaker 1: killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host,
Speaker 1: journalist and author Dan Zufanski. Good Evening, Legacy of Deception
Speaker 1: crashes through the wall of silence constructed by the Los
Speaker 1: Angeles Police Department and exposes facts that prove the case
Speaker 1: was far more sinister than meets the eye. In presenting
Speaker 1: a scenario what really happened late one night on Bundy Avenue,
Speaker 1: Stephen Singular proves that no one was truly innocent in
Speaker 1: this horrible crime. This is a behind the scenes look
Speaker 1: at the oj Simpson case that explains why the blood
Speaker 1: evidence fell apart at trial. Veteran true crime writer Stephen Singular,
Speaker 1: two time New York Times bestselling author, details his involvement
Speaker 1: with the Simpsons defense team and updates his nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: six book about one of America's most notorious crimes. The
Speaker 1: book that we're featuring this evening is Legacy of Deception,
Speaker 1: an investigation of Mark Furman and racism in the Los
Speaker 1: Angeles Police Department with my special guest journalist and author,
Speaker 1: Stephen Singular. Welcome back to the program, and thank you
Speaker 1: very much for agreeing this interview. Stephen Singulardo, Thank you
Speaker 1: for having me.
Speaker 6: Dan, Thank you very much. This is incredible timing to
Speaker 6: be doing a story about OJ And for all those
Speaker 6: people that don't know about this book, it's time to
Speaker 6: find out this incredible book that you first wrote in
Speaker 6: nineteen ninety or first published in nineteen ninety six. So
Speaker 6: in that vein, tell us who how you came to
Speaker 6: be the author in this book and where you were
Speaker 6: at the time when you got the call to be
Speaker 6: able to cover this case. So tell us what your
Speaker 6: background is. We alluded to the introduction, but what is
Speaker 6: your background that had you be the person to do
Speaker 6: this book, Legacy of Deception? How'd you come to do this?
Speaker 5: Well, I'll tell you this story, and I think it's
Speaker 5: particularly relevant for people listening to think about what I'm
Speaker 5: going to say in the context of the police shootings
Speaker 5: that we've had this past year, the killing of civilians
Speaker 5: as well as the killing of police, often around racial issues,
Speaker 5: and how that's gone on Black Lives Matter movement and
Speaker 5: all of that. So in nineteen ninety four, nineteen eighty four,
Speaker 5: there was a talk show host in Denver named Alan Berg.
Speaker 5: He was gunned down by a group of neo Nazis
Speaker 5: from the northwest of America called the Order. Some people
Speaker 5: might be familiar with this case. The Oliver Stone movie
Speaker 5: Talk Radio came out in nineteen eighty nine and was
Speaker 5: based loosely on my first book about the Burg assassination,
Speaker 5: called Talk to Death. So that's nineteen eighty four. I
Speaker 5: was writing about race, anti Semitism, all of these issues
Speaker 5: that are in that book. Fast forward ten years and
Speaker 5: it's nineteen ninety four, it's August. It's actually August second,
Speaker 5: which is twenty two years ago yesterday. And I was
Speaker 5: contacted by somebody that I'd worked with on the Burg book,
Speaker 5: someone LA's legal system who they had their own neo
Speaker 5: Nazi far right groups out there in southern californ And
Speaker 5: so I interacted with a number of people, and I
Speaker 5: was told or asked if I wanted to be involved
Speaker 5: in the O. J. Simpson case. And you know, my
Speaker 5: immediate reaction was no. I mean, I'd watched the Bronco
Speaker 5: Chase on television. I assumed he was guilty like so
Speaker 5: many other people. And this source said, do you know,
Speaker 5: do you remember writing about neo Nazis and all of
Speaker 5: that ten years earlier? And I said yeah, and I
Speaker 5: was done with all of that. And he said, well,
Speaker 5: not all acts of terrorism involved, you know, assassinating people
Speaker 5: using guns and all of that. And I didn't really
Speaker 5: know what I was being told or what he was
Speaker 5: talking about, but effectively it was about, there are elements
Speaker 5: in law enforcement that have somewhat the same beliefs as
Speaker 5: the people you were writing about ten years ago. And
Speaker 5: the sentence that really stuck with me was your neonot
Speaker 5: he is now wearing a much more respectable face, and
Speaker 5: that has resonated through me for the past twenty two years.
Speaker 5: So we began to talk. I was very resistant to this.
Speaker 5: I didn't want to be involved in it, but I
Speaker 5: was given at that time four pieces of information. That
Speaker 5: was August second, nineteen ninety four, and I was told
Speaker 5: I should try to convey them to Simpson's defense team,
Speaker 5: which at that time primarily was Robert Shapiro, but Johnny
Speaker 5: Cochran was also coming on. So I called Shapiro's eight
Speaker 5: hundred number, knowing that that was a totally feudal thing
Speaker 5: to do, but I tried. It didn't get anywhere, and
Speaker 5: then I wrote out of facts and Senator Cochrane's office
Speaker 5: that same week, and for a day nothing happened. And
Speaker 5: then I called out there again and I said, would
Speaker 5: you please put this in the hand of Cochrane's second
Speaker 5: in command, a lawyer named Carl Douglas, And the woman
Speaker 5: was I didn't want to do it, but she said, okay,
Speaker 5: I'll do it. She walked on and she laid it
Speaker 5: on Carl's desk, and fifteen minutes later he called me
Speaker 5: and he said, where did you get this information? And
Speaker 5: what else do you know? And this was again early August,
Speaker 5: about six to seven weeks after the crime, and I said, well,
Speaker 5: I can't tell you who the source is, but there
Speaker 5: is more information and I wanted to meet with them
Speaker 5: and talk face to face. It was a dicey situation.
Speaker 5: Obviously they didn't know who I was or where I
Speaker 5: was coming from, so they resisted. Charle was this at that,
Speaker 5: But I said, you know, no more information unless we
Speaker 5: can meet face to face. So he worked it out.
Speaker 5: I flew to Los Angeles the week of August eighth,
Speaker 5: nineteen ninety four, and I met with Carl and with
Speaker 5: his lead private investigator, a Bill x LAPD officer named
Speaker 5: Bill Pavlick, and two other lawyers, and I told them
Speaker 5: four pieces of information, the initial four things, and they
Speaker 5: were this that Furman's relationship with Nicole Simpson went beyond
Speaker 5: the fact that he had been over at Ojy's and
Speaker 5: Nicole's place in nineteen eighty seven. I think it was
Speaker 5: for a domestic dispute, that he had some sort of
Speaker 5: relationship with her that went beyond that, and that that
Speaker 5: was a critical piece of sort of understanding what unfolded
Speaker 5: in this case. I was told that that was totally wrong,
Speaker 5: that did not exist. Pavlic again, an XLAPD guy, private,
Speaker 5: very high level private investigator, really did not like the
Speaker 5: idea some guy flying in from Denver, which is where
Speaker 5: I am was and where I am and telling him
Speaker 5: something that he didn't think was true. I told them
Speaker 5: that there was a broken piece of stick, a freshly
Speaker 5: broken piece of stick, that could be found in evidence
Speaker 5: if they looked for it. And I told them that
Speaker 5: there was a blue place plastic evidence bag that homicide
Speaker 5: detectives take with them to crime scenes, and that it
Speaker 5: was in evidence, and that if they looked for it
Speaker 5: they would find it. And they both told me, there's
Speaker 5: no stick, there's no bag. Your source is using you
Speaker 5: for some strange reason, and we can't trust you. Or
Speaker 5: even more provocatively, I think the District Attorney's office sent
Speaker 5: you over here to mislead us. That was their main
Speaker 5: line of attack at the start. The fourth piece of information,
Speaker 5: which was by far the most important, was that when
Speaker 5: a criminal defendant is taken into custody, as oj Simpson
Speaker 5: was on the afternoon of June thirteenth, nineteen ninety four,
Speaker 5: he voluntarily went to the police station. He was voluntarily
Speaker 5: interviewed by Tom Lang and Phil then Adder, the senior detectives.
Speaker 5: He voluntarily gave his blood. None of this with a
Speaker 5: lawyer present. He was questioned at length, and I was
Speaker 5: told that when a defendant's blood is drawn, it is
Speaker 5: placed in a purple capped vial for a very specific reason,
Speaker 5: and the vile contains something at the bottom called EDTA,
Speaker 5: which is a chemical compound and anicoagulant. And the reason
Speaker 5: this is done is because that blood will likely be
Speaker 5: tested in a number of different ways into the future,
Speaker 5: and you can't have it coagulating. In other words, you
Speaker 5: can't have it hardening or becoming unusable. So the compound
Speaker 5: goes up into the blood and keeps it from doing that.
Speaker 5: And I was told that if you, if someone would
Speaker 5: test the blood, that Simpson's blood in this case, they
Speaker 5: would find that compound in the blood samples. And as
Speaker 5: everybody I think listening to this is very well aware
Speaker 5: of the strong evidence against though J. Simpson was the blood.
Speaker 5: There's no murder weapon, there's no other actual strong physical evidence,
Speaker 5: but the blood evidence is strong. So I was told
Speaker 5: that if those samples that would hold Simpson's DNA were tested,
Speaker 5: they would be found to have this compound. That means
Speaker 5: that the blood came out of the vile after the crime,
Speaker 5: not out of his body during the murders. It's a
Speaker 5: critical piece of information to understand about this case. And
Speaker 5: if it had died right there, no one would have
Speaker 5: ever heard of this and it wouldn't have played any
Speaker 5: significant role in the trial. But exactly the opposite happened.
Speaker 5: So Carl Douglas told me on that occasion and many
Speaker 5: times after it, he said well, it's a nice theory.
Speaker 5: Nobody else has talked about this. But in fact, when
Speaker 5: the blood is drawn from a defendant, the blood is sealed,
Speaker 5: and the sealed vial in Los Angeles is taken to
Speaker 5: a place called Parker Center where evidence is stored. So
Speaker 5: if the seal had been broken, we would know that
Speaker 5: your theory doesn't hold up. Have a nice light. Back
Speaker 5: to Denver, and I was a little taken aback because,
Speaker 5: you know, I had gone out there with the intention
Speaker 5: of trying to convey what, at the very least could
Speaker 5: have been useful information. It could have been a lot
Speaker 5: more than that, but there was tremendous resistance to listening
Speaker 5: to a journalist. You know, I was part of the media.
Speaker 5: The media was all over this. They didn't like the
Speaker 5: press all of that. However, as I was leaving that
Speaker 5: first meeting, everybody dispersed and Carl grabbed my arm and said,
Speaker 5: get me some more information. So I knew that the
Speaker 5: door was umping a little bit at that time, and
Speaker 5: I decided to keep, you know, getting information and trying
Speaker 5: to convey it to them. Time went on about six
Speaker 5: weeks or so, and they got their hands on the
Speaker 5: evidence book in the case, and they looked through all
Speaker 5: of the photographs and guess what. There's a picture of
Speaker 5: a freshly broken stick in the evidence book, and there
Speaker 5: is a blue plastic bag that was discarded. If those
Speaker 5: listening think about the case, what we know is that
Speaker 5: Mark Furman reported finding this bloody glove on Simpson's property
Speaker 5: on the morning of June thirteenth, and it is an
Speaker 5: event of profound significance in the whole case, which maybe
Speaker 5: will become clear as this goes on. But there's a
Speaker 5: chain link fence that separates the walkway where the glove
Speaker 5: was found from Simpson's property. The next house over on
Speaker 5: the other side of the chain link fence was this
Speaker 5: blue plastic bag and retrieved by the police. So two
Speaker 5: of the four items that I had told them about
Speaker 5: were now shown to be real. That started to get
Speaker 5: their attention. Carl started to listen. He called from time
Speaker 5: to time. I called him. The relationship developed. They about again.
Speaker 5: I would say sometime in September, the criminalist LAPD criminalist
Speaker 5: Dennis Fung testified in open court and what he had
Speaker 5: to say was this that the blood was drawn from
Speaker 5: Simpson eight milliliters of blood. A very important figure to
Speaker 5: think about in this case. And the blood was put
Speaker 5: in the vile with purple cap and thedta, but the
Speaker 5: blood was not checked in the Parker Center. The blood
Speaker 5: was given to Philip van Atterer, one of the senior detectives.
Speaker 5: He put it in his pocket. He went back to
Speaker 5: the crime scene and for three to four hours on
Speaker 5: that afternoon the blood was unaccounted for. Beyond that, when
Speaker 5: the vial was returned to actually be entered into evidence,
Speaker 5: it held six point five millileterers of blood. There was
Speaker 5: missing blood. Where was it? What happened to it? When
Speaker 5: this came out in court, Douglas and I talked and
Speaker 5: for the first time the bells started to go off
Speaker 5: in his head that there may be something to this
Speaker 5: and they had to look into it. I wanted them
Speaker 5: to test the blood. You know, as we all know,
Speaker 5: this was the most covered case. The media was all
Speaker 5: over them. They getting the blood and testing it was
Speaker 5: a very difficult thing for them to do, just because
Speaker 5: of the way the law works. The prosecution usually does that,
Speaker 5: and secondly, they didn't want anybody to know their strategy,
Speaker 5: which they were actually thinking about doing. So I kept
Speaker 5: saying to Carl, you know, test the blood test the blood.
Speaker 5: You've got to test the blood, because if this stuff
Speaker 5: is in that blood, then it didn't come out of
Speaker 5: OJ's body on the night of the crime. The core
Speaker 5: evidence against him, which you know, let's look at it
Speaker 5: for a minute. The glove doesn't fit his hand, there's
Speaker 5: no murder weapon. The cap that they wanted to say
Speaker 5: he wore during the crime doesn't fit his head. The
Speaker 5: timeline is an absolute disaster in this case, because their
Speaker 5: witness is walking by the crime scene at ten thirty
Speaker 5: to ten thirty five, and if five till eleven and
Speaker 5: there's no body, no blood, no barking dogs, no nothing.
Speaker 5: And if five till eleven, which is twenty minutes later,
Speaker 5: Simpson his home cleaned up, ready to go to the airport.
Speaker 5: Very difficult thing to kill two people in that period
Speaker 5: of time, clean up, get rid of all the evidence,
Speaker 5: and be ready to take a flight to Chicago. That's
Speaker 5: not really what my book is about. It's really about
Speaker 5: these pieces of evidence that I'm laying out for people now.
Speaker 5: So by October, the defense had started to pay a
Speaker 5: lot more attention to what I was telling them, and
Speaker 5: they asked me to come to Los Angeles and go
Speaker 5: find somebody in the crime lab and try to get
Speaker 5: this person to talk about what had actually gone on
Speaker 5: with the blood samples in the crime lab. There's one
Speaker 5: piece of the story I failed to mention, and that
Speaker 5: is that Vanatter had Simpson's blood vile for a number
Speaker 5: of hours on the afternoon of June thirteenth, nineteen ninety four.
Speaker 5: Two years later, there was a civil case against Simpson
Speaker 5: and another lab technician testified that Vanatter also had the
Speaker 5: blood of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown with him for
Speaker 5: a certain unspecified period of time, so he was walking
Speaker 5: around Los Angeles. Now we know this comes from people
Speaker 5: inside the criminal justice system with the three principles blood samples.
Speaker 5: So this is far beyond the standard operating procedure and
Speaker 5: an important part of the narrative that I'm trying to
Speaker 5: lay out for people.
Speaker 6: So and excuse me even to go on or go
Speaker 6: Jevin White, I got, I got one question, and again
Speaker 6: you answer it later. But I think by this time
Speaker 6: this is a question, if you have evidence, and you
Speaker 6: think you do have evidence, why didn't you go to
Speaker 6: the prosecution? What was it? What was the reason why why?
Speaker 5: The first thing I said with this source was I
Speaker 5: said two things, Why don't Why wouldn't you go to
Speaker 5: the prosecution? And I was told, point blank, they will
Speaker 5: never listen to anything you have to say. And I
Speaker 5: think this sort of plays out in the story I'm
Speaker 5: going to continue telling. The second thing was I said, well,
Speaker 5: if you have this information, you're in the criminal justice system,
Speaker 5: a part of them. Why don't you Well, I mean,
Speaker 5: they're never going to listen to a journalist from Denver.
Speaker 5: You know, I'm wasting my time. And I was told,
Speaker 5: you know, only an outsider. They're not going to listen
Speaker 5: to anybody within the system or in the prosecution itself.
Speaker 5: So the only hope for getting this kind of information
Speaker 5: out is through going to the defense and seeing what
Speaker 5: they will do. Is the very first question I asked,
Speaker 5: and I was just shot down totally is I said, okay,
Speaker 5: I'm not going to go down that road, but it's
Speaker 5: a totally legitimate question. So I went to Los Angeles.
Speaker 5: I approached somebody in the crime lab and I tried
Speaker 5: to get this person to sort of tell me what
Speaker 5: became of the blood swatches that were ultimately sent off
Speaker 5: to the DNA lab for testing, and it was not
Speaker 5: It was a virtually impossible thing to do, but I
Speaker 5: was now sort of a part of the case and
Speaker 5: I wanted to get closer to it, and I tried,
Speaker 5: and I wasn't able to accomplish that. But what I
Speaker 5: did when I was in Los Angeles is me with
Speaker 5: Johnny Cochrane and Carl Douglas and basically tell them that
Speaker 5: I had given them three pieces of information now that
Speaker 5: looked pretty solid, the stick, the bag, and the blood,
Speaker 5: and that I wanted to be able to communicate with
Speaker 5: them more freely and you know, ultimately I might have
Speaker 5: written something about this, and they were Carl Douglas in particular,
Speaker 5: was very, very nasty and very tough to deal with
Speaker 5: and constantly shooting me down. And he said, you know,
Speaker 5: I'm not going to work with you, and that's never
Speaker 5: going to happen. If any of this ever comes out,
Speaker 5: will totally disown you and you're on your own. And
Speaker 5: it was a pretty harsh thing to say. After three
Speaker 5: months of working together, having them information and having a
Speaker 5: pretty good give and take, so I was kind of
Speaker 5: at a crossroads. I came back to Denver and I said, Okay,
Speaker 5: I'm just going to return to being a journalist now.
Speaker 5: I've tried to work with these lawyers. It's very difficult.
Speaker 5: And I'm going to write do what I do, and
Speaker 5: I'm going to write a book proposal. So at the
Speaker 5: end of October of nineteen ninety four, I took some
Speaker 5: of what I'm saying now and I put it in
Speaker 5: a twenty two page book proposal, and I sent it
Speaker 5: to a publisher in Los Angeles, and I wrote strictly
Speaker 5: confidential across the front of that the cover page, and
Speaker 5: I said, this absolutely stops here because there was some
Speaker 5: pretty explosive information in there. Well about a week later,
Speaker 5: I called Carl Douglas to ask him a question, and
Speaker 5: he said, I'll never speak with you again, and he
Speaker 5: slammed down the phone and he was enraged. So what
Speaker 5: happened was the publisher had given the proposal without any
Speaker 5: without my knowledge whatsoever, to the District Attorney's office. Is
Speaker 5: very significant in how the case will unfold. This is
Speaker 5: early November nineteen ninety four, four months before the trial,
Speaker 5: three months before the trial will begin. So what that
Speaker 5: means is that the prosecution has on their disc all
Speaker 5: of this information about a stick, a bag and about
Speaker 5: the blood preservative in the critical blood samples. Then the
Speaker 5: defense had to give it to the prosecution had to
Speaker 5: give it to the defense. That's how it ended up
Speaker 5: on Carl Douglas's disc they felt betrayed. They didn't want
Speaker 5: to talk to me anymore. You know, it was a
Speaker 5: bad ending. I mean, that's you know, there aren't any
Speaker 5: heroes here in my view in the legal system. I
Speaker 5: didn't think they behaved terribly well, and I think the
Speaker 5: story of the prosecution will make that point as this
Speaker 5: goes on. So the point is is that three months
Speaker 5: ahead of the start of the trial, you have what
Speaker 5: in the law is called Brady material. If you were
Speaker 5: to read Christopher Darden's New York Times best selling book
Speaker 5: about this case, he devotes five pages to myself, to
Speaker 5: the book proposal and to the issue of DTA. So
Speaker 5: they have on the table in front of them what
Speaker 5: he calls Brady material, meaning that if it's substantive, it
Speaker 5: should derail the trial and it should launch an investigation
Speaker 5: and do what the truth is behind the allegation about
Speaker 5: the blood. So, just to be clear so everybody understands
Speaker 5: what I'm saying, the contention is that the blood that
Speaker 5: Simpson is the blood evidence that's going to be used
Speaker 5: against oj Simpson. The contention is that it has not
Speaker 5: come out of his body on the night of the crime,
Speaker 5: meaning he could not have committed the crime, but came
Speaker 5: out of a blood vile that he voluntarily gave to
Speaker 5: the police without a lawyer present the next day. So
Speaker 5: my relationship with the defense was essentially over. And so
Speaker 5: what happened was the trial starts in late January, and
Speaker 5: in February, one of the prosecuting attorneys stands up in
Speaker 5: front of Judge Edo in open court and says, there's
Speaker 5: this absurd contention going around that the blood in this
Speaker 5: case was planted and that it holds this anticoagulant, And
Speaker 5: in order to disprove this once and for all, we're
Speaker 5: going to call in the FBI and we'd like them
Speaker 5: to run a test and it will show that none
Speaker 5: of this substance is in any of the blood evidence.
Speaker 5: And Judge Edo agreed to that, and the FBI was
Speaker 5: called in and they ran their test, and guess what
Speaker 5: they could not call.
Speaker 4: With Lucky Lancelot, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 3: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 3: the bride and groom or sorry, we're here. We were
Speaker 3: getting lucky in the limo and we lost track of time.
Speaker 2: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 2: quicker than a guess registrate.
Speaker 3: In that case, I pronounce you Lucky.
Speaker 4: Thanks for free Lucky Land Slots dot com. Daily bonuses
Speaker 4: are waiting. No purchase necessary board. We're prohibited by Lockey
Speaker 4: Team plus terms and conditions applying. See website for details.
Speaker 5: The special agent Roger Martz, who did the testing on
Speaker 5: the blood. The prosecutors could not call him to testify
Speaker 5: because he'd found this in the blood samples that were tested. Now,
Speaker 5: not all of the blood evidence in this case was tested.
Speaker 5: They only picked out a few examples. But in those
Speaker 5: examples it was present. Anyone really interested in this could
Speaker 5: go back and look at the testimony of Martz under
Speaker 5: oath talking about this issue. So now we have number
Speaker 5: three of the four original things is on the record.
Speaker 5: In February of nineteen ninety five, during the trial, Johnny
Speaker 5: Cochrane entered into evidence the broken stick and the blue
Speaker 5: plastic bag. And the allegation here, and I'm using the
Speaker 5: word allegation, is that when Furman arrived at the scene
Speaker 5: in the middle of the night. There were other police
Speaker 5: officers president President, but he was the first detective on
Speaker 5: the scene, and he went into the crime scene and
Speaker 5: looked around. Another thing I was told, this would be
Speaker 5: number five in the original meeting, was that the official
Speaker 5: story of the police in this case is that they
Speaker 5: all went over to Simpsons about five to five point
Speaker 5: thirty that morning as the sun was coming up, and
Speaker 5: Furman sort of placed the other officers in the house
Speaker 5: and went out and walked around and found the glove.
Speaker 5: That's the official story. What I was told was that
Speaker 5: Furman did not make one trip to Simpsons that night,
Speaker 5: but he made two trips, and the first trip occurred
Speaker 5: around three am, and that he and his partner left
Speaker 5: the crime scene went over to Simpsons to look for
Speaker 5: evidence because Furman was absolutely convinced they would find it there.
Speaker 5: And they looked around, they found nothing. They got into
Speaker 5: a loud argument and they had and they went back
Speaker 5: to the crime scene empty handed. If you will recall,
Speaker 5: during the course of the trial, the next door neighbor
Speaker 5: to the Simpson property held an employee called Rose Lopez.
Speaker 5: Ros Lopez told the police and testified in court that
Speaker 5: she heard men arguing on the property adjacent at about
Speaker 5: three in the morning that night, that there was a
Speaker 5: loud argument that woke her up and she was disturbed
Speaker 5: by it. That's another piece of information. So the allegation
Speaker 5: was that there were initially two gloves at the crime scene,
Speaker 5: and that a stick and a bag were used to
Speaker 5: transport one of them to Simpson's place, and that they
Speaker 5: were both discarded on the property. That was the allegation.
Speaker 5: Those are the pieces of evidence. The argument was heard
Speaker 5: at three am. What we know is that at five
Speaker 5: or five point thirty, Simpson and the three other detectives
Speaker 5: went over there. Rman jumped the fence, went inside and
Speaker 5: told the story of finding the glove. So fast forward
Speaker 5: to the spring of nineteen ninety five. By this point,
Speaker 5: a number of people in the LAPD criminal justice system
Speaker 5: have come come forward and told the authorities, not the press,
Speaker 5: not the defense, but the authorities in the District Attorney's
Speaker 5: office that Furman was poison and that he couldn't be trusted,
Speaker 5: and that he had severe racial attitudes and they had
Speaker 5: to be very careful. There were two women in particular
Speaker 5: who did this, named Lucy Ane Coleman and Julie Sergosian.
Speaker 5: It was disturbing enough so that by the winner Late
Speaker 5: Winner of nineteen ninety five, as the trial is unfolding,
Speaker 5: the LAPP launched an internal affairs investigation of Mark Furman,
Speaker 5: and it included and concluded with information from these two women.
Speaker 5: If we backtrack a little bit in the story that
Speaker 5: I'm telling you, it begins with me writing a book
Speaker 5: about the assassination of Allenberg in Denver in nineteen eighty
Speaker 5: four by a group of neo Nazis from the north West,
Speaker 5: people with viciously virulently anti Semitic and other racial prejudices
Speaker 5: who were violent. What the women told, the story that
Speaker 5: they told, and this is in an internal affairs investigation,
Speaker 5: its open knowledge was that Furman they had been told
Speaker 5: by police officers that he had put swastikas in the
Speaker 5: locker of a fellow police officer whose wife was Jewishy.
Speaker 5: This happened simultaneously with a woman named Kathleen Bell coming
Speaker 5: forward and telling the authorities that Furman had said something
Speaker 5: to the effect if he wanted to round up all
Speaker 5: the African Americans and burn them to death. You could
Speaker 5: not have created a more direct parallel between what I
Speaker 5: wrote in my first book, and what began to come
Speaker 5: out in the IA investigation and would come out much
Speaker 5: more strongly in the Furment tapes that surfaced in the
Speaker 5: summer of nineteen ninety five. So I was told at
Speaker 5: the beginning of the case that there were connections between
Speaker 5: my first book and what had happened here, and I
Speaker 5: frankly couldn't see any connections. I didn't believe it. I
Speaker 5: didn't see how that could be possible. And six eight
Speaker 5: months later, what was surfacing about Furman was a direct
Speaker 5: parallel with the neo Nazi beliefs and activities that I
Speaker 5: had documented in my first book. So it was starting
Speaker 5: to make sense why I had been contacted and why
Speaker 5: the person who told me this felt that it was important.
Speaker 5: And the real larger reason that I was given this information.
Speaker 5: We're talking about lot of beats here that played out
Speaker 5: in the trial, but the real reason I was contacted
Speaker 5: was I was essentially told this kind of activity is
Speaker 5: not confined to Mark Furman, It's not confined to one
Speaker 5: or two officers. It is more widespread than people would
Speaker 5: like to believe. The fabrication of evidence, the racial attitudes,
Speaker 5: the violence against minority communities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 5: And I was told this case will have enough of
Speaker 5: a spotlight put on it that if this kind of
Speaker 5: information could come out, it might actually help in understanding
Speaker 5: why there's such bad blood between the minority communities, the police,
Speaker 5: et cetera, et cetera. And it's that's the larger and
Speaker 5: more important story. I was told that I should try
Speaker 5: to write, and so I essentially believed that that was
Speaker 5: an story, and that's why I got involved in this,
Speaker 5: and that's why I pursued it. So, what the Internal
Speaker 5: Affairs investigation turned up, other than the fact that Furman
Speaker 5: puts allegedly puts swastikas and a fellow police officer's locker,
Speaker 5: was that he had bragged to numerous people at numerous
Speaker 5: venues that he had seen Nicole Simpson's boob job up
Speaker 5: close and personal. So we think back to the fourth
Speaker 5: piece of information that I gave Bill Pavlick and Carl
Speaker 5: Douglas in August of nineteen ninety four. That was it
Speaker 5: that some kind of personal relationship between them existed, and
Speaker 5: the IA report that this. So you can interpret that
Speaker 5: as you will. I don't interpret his meaning they were lovers.
Speaker 5: I interpret his meaning he was around her at other
Speaker 5: times and other venues enough that he could brag about
Speaker 5: seeing her boob job. So that's the fourth piece of information.
Speaker 5: As the trial unfolded, and as the EDTA things came out,
Speaker 5: and as the stick in the bag came out, and
Speaker 5: as the Firman tapes came out, and as Rosa Lopez
Speaker 5: testified about hearing that argument at three am that morning
Speaker 5: came out, it began to seem fairly evident that the
Speaker 5: source that I was working with was pretty credible. And
Speaker 5: so essentially, you know, that's the arc of the story
Speaker 5: that I write about in the book. And I think
Speaker 5: what's interesting about it, apart from what I've said, is
Speaker 5: that I don't think it's a well known story, and
Speaker 5: I've left out a couple of things in the course
Speaker 5: of telling. At Number one is that my book Proposal,
Speaker 5: which went to the defense and went to the prosecution
Speaker 5: in November of nineteen ninety four, eventually made its way
Speaker 5: into the courtroom in April of nineteen ninety five, and
Speaker 5: it was written about Invanity Fair that month, and it
Speaker 5: was distributed to multiple multiple people in the media. And
Speaker 5: this is extremely important.
Speaker 6: Let me let me ask a question here, because I
Speaker 6: think we're missing part of a little bit of important
Speaker 6: part of this is that the person when you did
Speaker 6: this proposal, you gave it to Michael Viner, and you
Speaker 6: talk about Michael Viner and some of the motivation why
Speaker 6: he gave it to the district attorney. And then also
Speaker 6: the internal affairs report that you speak about is super
Speaker 6: damaging to Furman. How did you get the internal affairs report?
Speaker 6: You write in the book, So tell us how you
Speaker 6: got the internal affairs report. Tell us a little bit
Speaker 6: more about Michael Viner and his motivations for doing what
Speaker 6: he did, which in.
Speaker 5: It he is You have to understand that he was
Speaker 5: a somewhat small publisher in Los Angeles. I floated these
Speaker 5: ideas and what I'm saying here to other publishers, and
Speaker 5: as I think you can draw from what I'm saying,
Speaker 5: this is very contradictory to the standard narrative of the
Speaker 5: OJ Simpson case, and they weren't interested. I mean that
Speaker 5: the people have made fabulous careers on the back of
Speaker 5: preaching about OJ Simpson's guilt. And we all know that
Speaker 5: this was coming at it from an entirely different direction,
Speaker 5: and it was not very acceptable. Wiener was interested, and
Speaker 5: what happened is that he is now dead, and so
Speaker 5: I can tell more of this story than I could
Speaker 5: back then. But he, like most people with white people anyway,
Speaker 5: thought that Simpson was guilty, and he thought that my
Speaker 5: participation was novel and somewhat interesting. And I was communication
Speaker 5: with him throughout nineteen ninety five. But he believed without
Speaker 5: any doubt that Simpson would be found guilty and my
Speaker 5: little story would hang out somewhere to the side, and
Speaker 5: so he had agreed to publish the book on October third,
Speaker 5: nineteen ninety five. As we all know, after about three
Speaker 5: hours of the deliberation, Simpson was very easily acquitted. The
Speaker 5: jurors subsequent to the verdict came out and talked about
Speaker 5: a number of issues. One of the issues they talked
Speaker 5: about was Edta and Planet Blood. So it sank in.
Speaker 5: It had an impact, and it was a struggle to
Speaker 5: get it into the trial and to get it in
Speaker 5: front of the jury. But that happened and there was
Speaker 5: a result. Wiener, like many others, was outraged and how
Speaker 5: could Simpson be acquitted? So we clashed and he said
Speaker 5: I will not publish your book now that he has
Speaker 5: been set free. And I said, no, we have signed
Speaker 5: contract and you're going to publish my book. And I'm
Speaker 5: going to be in your office from Denver tomorrow morning
Speaker 5: at nine thirty and that's that. And I flew out
Speaker 5: there and I got in his face and I said,
Speaker 5: you know, this is what happened. And like many bullies,
Speaker 5: he backed down. When you got in his face, he folded.
Speaker 5: So he was a very unpredictable man. He did some
Speaker 5: very good things during that time, and he did some
Speaker 5: very questionable things. But he agreed to publish the book.
Speaker 5: And what I didn't know at the time was that
Speaker 5: he was also working with Mark Furman's first lawyer, a
Speaker 5: man named Robert Turtelhau. Robert Tortoloau represented Mark Furman right
Speaker 5: up to the point that the Furman tapes came out.
Speaker 5: And then when he heard Furman bragging and you know,
Speaker 5: going on and on with his virulent racism, he could
Speaker 5: not stomach it anymore and he quit and he wanted
Speaker 5: write something, so Vener said, you know, show me what
Speaker 5: you got, or something to that effect, and Tortelo gave
Speaker 5: him the Internal Affairs Investigation Report. I didn't know any
Speaker 5: of this at the time. I didn't know anything about it.
Speaker 5: And then Veener slipped it under the table to me,
Speaker 5: and he didn't say where it came from or anything
Speaker 5: about it. He said, put this in your book. And
Speaker 5: so I went through the whole thing and I pulled
Speaker 5: out the relevant portions which I've talked about here, and
Speaker 5: I put in the book. It is an incredibly damning document.
Speaker 5: And when you get to the end of the IA report,
Speaker 5: unless review it for a minute, district attorneys coming forward,
Speaker 5: Deputy district attorneys who worked in that office coming forward
Speaker 5: and saying, you can't trust Furman. He's a racist. You
Speaker 5: can't trust anything he says about the evidence. He put
Speaker 5: swastika's allegedly in the lockers of people. All of it
Speaker 5: is in the report, and you get to the end
Speaker 5: of the report and it says, oh, well, there's nothing
Speaker 5: here forget about. That was the attitude of the Los
Speaker 5: Angeles Police Department, the District Attorney's office throughout this trial.
Speaker 5: It is an exact parallel to putting a glove on
Speaker 5: OJ Simpson's hand that doesn't fit. It is exactly the
Speaker 5: same thing. Well, let's just disregard that because it doesn't
Speaker 5: fit our theory of what happened in this case, just
Speaker 5: like Furman has one bad apple and that's all he is.
Speaker 5: So they I was given the IA report, I put
Speaker 5: it in the book. I showed how it squared up
Speaker 5: with what I had been told almost a year earlier,
Speaker 5: and I documented how these pieces of evidence played through
Speaker 5: the trial. And when my book proposal was handed to
Speaker 5: the media in April of nineteen ninety five, Youdo talked
Speaker 5: about it in open court. It was distributed to every
Speaker 5: major news organization out there, The New York Times, the
Speaker 5: Chicago Papers, the LA Times, the network's cable TV, all
Speaker 5: of it. What does that mean? That means that they
Speaker 5: had this in front of them. What would that be
Speaker 5: four or five months before the end of the trial.
Speaker 5: They knew what the defense this is, before the defense
Speaker 5: put on its case. They knew what the defense was
Speaker 5: going to do. They knew what the case would be.
Speaker 5: They knew what the attack on the blood evidence would be.
Speaker 5: They knew all of it. And for about forty eight hours,
Speaker 5: I was called by every major news organization in the
Speaker 5: United States and I laid out some version of what
Speaker 5: I'm telling you, and I said, this is important. Watch
Speaker 5: how this goes through the trial. It went through the trial,
Speaker 5: Simpson was easily acquitted. The jurors came out of the
Speaker 5: courthouse for the last time and said, this is one
Speaker 5: of the factors. I'm not saying it. There weren't a
Speaker 5: lot of others. This is a factor in how we
Speaker 5: came to this conclusion that the evidence in this case
Speaker 5: absolutely could not be trusted. And I thought naively that
Speaker 5: someone in the in the American media might call back
Speaker 5: and might say, this is how this got into the case.
Speaker 5: This is how the FBI was brought in, this is
Speaker 5: what the FBI found, this is what the FBI tests
Speaker 5: fight in court, and this is how the evidence fell apart.
Speaker 5: No one, nobody, not one, not one person ever connected
Speaker 5: the dots of what actually happened with the evidence in
Speaker 5: this case. And you know, I went on with my
Speaker 5: life and occasionally was interviewed by you know, certain people
Speaker 5: about it and and kind of put it to bed.
Speaker 5: But this last winter, you know, we we've had this
Speaker 5: FX series on the Simpson case, and we've had an
Speaker 5: extensive ESPN documentary on the Simpson case five hours, and
Speaker 5: you know, you'd be very hard pressed to hear this
Speaker 5: kind of information in any of these venues. So I
Speaker 5: think that if we look at the really big picture here,
Speaker 5: which is a twenty two year cycle for myself anyway,
Speaker 5: you know, my original intention was to pick up from
Speaker 5: my first book to write about racism, to write about
Speaker 5: anti Semitism, to write about the terrible effects of these
Speaker 5: things in our society and how it led to the
Speaker 5: assassination of a man here in Denver, and by the way,
Speaker 5: these people committed two hundred and forty other crimes as
Speaker 5: well and killed four other people, and to sort of document,
Speaker 5: how so to speak, the you know, the wolves had moved,
Speaker 5: you know, into the hen house, and you weren't talking
Speaker 5: about neo Nazis sitting out in the woods beating on
Speaker 5: their drums. You were talking about people inside the legal
Speaker 5: system doing very damaging and destructive things, and that this
Speaker 5: has an effect on the communities that they say that
Speaker 5: they are sworn to pooh, protect and serve. And so
Speaker 5: my story never made it out there. A lot of
Speaker 5: other peoples did. Most of those stories will tell you
Speaker 5: unequivocally that OJ Simpson committed these murders. And that's the
Speaker 5: end of the story and anything contradicts that we don't
Speaker 5: want to hear it. I was contacted by a CNN producer.
Speaker 5: I contacted an CNN producer about two months ago. They're
Speaker 5: doing something on the case, and they were looking for
Speaker 5: untold stories of the OJ Simpson saga, and I called them.
Speaker 5: I said, well, here's an untold story, and I think
Speaker 5: if you track it from beginning to end, you're going
Speaker 5: to find out that there's some important information here that
Speaker 5: the public really doesn't know anything about, and it might
Speaker 5: just serve a useful purpose if they did understand it more.
Speaker 5: And it might even have some effect on racial relations
Speaker 5: in the United States because minority people to some degree
Speaker 5: at least were able to accept some of what I
Speaker 5: was saying, whereas the white mainstream they know what had happened,
Speaker 5: that was the truth in the end of the story.
Speaker 5: So if you fast forward to twenty sixteen, you know
Speaker 5: we've had a year of police violence, black white violence,
Speaker 5: minority violence against the police, vice versa. I would suggest
Speaker 5: that the problem is not going away. I would suggest
Speaker 5: it's a very important aspect of our culture and politics
Speaker 5: right now. And I find it absolutely astounding that when
Speaker 5: it has become much more acceptable or understandable that police
Speaker 5: officers would hold racist attitudes in certain cases, or that
Speaker 5: they might manufacture evidence in certain cases, or that these
Speaker 5: kinds of things actually do go on. And we had
Speaker 5: a classic example of it twenty two years ago. We
Speaker 5: have a police officer on tape talking about creating probable cause,
Speaker 5: talking about being god on the street, talking about beating
Speaker 5: black suspects so badly that his on pants are soaked
Speaker 5: with their blood. We have it on tape, we have
Speaker 5: it on the record, But somehow none of that has
Speaker 5: any connection to what we're seeing today. That's the irony,
Speaker 5: that's the difficulty of all this. And I just think
Speaker 5: that someday, you know, somebody is going to make a
Speaker 5: documentary that gets to a major media platform that talks
Speaker 5: about the evidence in the case and why it fell
Speaker 5: apart as opposed to what you know. As the guy
Speaker 5: who made the ESPN documentary put it, that O. J.
Speaker 5: Simpson is a monster. I never got involved in this
Speaker 5: to defend O. J. Simpson. Some of his behavior in
Speaker 5: the past was very bad, and after the acquittal was
Speaker 5: very bad as well. It's not the point. The point
Speaker 5: is that when when these kinds of things happen. They
Speaker 5: damaged the entire community, and they damaged the entire criminal
Speaker 5: justice system, and we're not anywhere near to having had
Speaker 5: an honest discussion about this and trying to make progress
Speaker 5: with it. And so that's essentially the story. I'm sorry
Speaker 5: for being so long winded, but it's a highly complex story,
Speaker 5: and it's a shame that it isn't more well known,
Speaker 5: not because I wrote it or was involved in it,
Speaker 5: but because it was an important piece of this whole
Speaker 5: saga and it's been left out. It simply didn't fit
Speaker 5: the paradigm that the mainstream media wanted out there, and
Speaker 5: it was brushed aside. So I still hope I would.
Speaker 5: I would if people are interested in this story. If
Speaker 5: you're interested, why I'm saying I would. The book has
Speaker 5: just been reput up on Kindle. Legacy of Deception is
Speaker 5: the name of it, and it is updated with a
Speaker 5: lot of new information about things that have happened subsequent
Speaker 5: to the equittal and the release of that book seven
Speaker 5: ninety nine on Amazon. I think you can get a
Speaker 5: much different view of this case from somebody who was
Speaker 5: not coming in with an ax to grind about it,
Speaker 5: but trying to be a journalist, just simply trying to
Speaker 5: be a journalist and find out what happened, and that
Speaker 5: that was what I tried to do, and that was
Speaker 5: what I tried to write.
Speaker 6: Now, Stephen, let's talk about because not only did you
Speaker 6: talk about Mark Furman and these internal affairs reports, but
Speaker 6: you talked to a more insidious topic when you talk
Speaker 6: about the Turner Diaries and the Order, and also the
Speaker 6: fact that Mark Furman, when he retires, goes to Idaho.
Speaker 6: So tell us about this on klav and Idaho and
Speaker 6: the Turner Diaries.
Speaker 5: Again, to go back to the start of the story.
Speaker 5: You know, I was told on day one this has
Speaker 5: some connection to the first book he wrote about Neo
Speaker 5: Nazis violence against minorities. So the Order, the people who
Speaker 5: committed those crimes killed Allenberg. One of them in particular,
Speaker 5: was stationed. They all came from the northwest, from northern
Speaker 5: Idaho and around there. But they were basically gathered congregated
Speaker 5: around a town called Sand Point, Idaho, and way up
Speaker 5: in the northwest, and that's where they came together, and
Speaker 5: that's where they made their plans and they wanted to
Speaker 5: start their white power revolution. So when Simpson, when Furman
Speaker 5: was driven out of the LAPD finally in disgrace when
Speaker 5: he became too toxic for even them to coddle anymore.
Speaker 5: I heard a news report one morning. He says Mark
Speaker 5: Furman has decided to leave the Los Angeles area and
Speaker 5: he's resettling in Sandpoint, Idaho. And I subsequently learned that
Speaker 5: it is essentially a haven for retired LAPD officers with
Speaker 5: a certain set of beliefs, and that he was one
Speaker 5: of those people. But there were numerous people up there
Speaker 5: like so again it goes to the point that these
Speaker 5: were not wild eyed fanatics in the wood. These are
Speaker 5: people who had been in law enforcement. The murder weapon
Speaker 5: that killed Alan Berg was a mac ten automatic pistol,
Speaker 5: and it was found in the hum of one of
Speaker 5: the core members of the Order, man named Gary Yarborough,
Speaker 5: who was arrested on October eighteenth, nineteen eighty four, four
Speaker 5: months of the day after Berg was assassinated, and they
Speaker 5: found the gun in a room that held all kinds
Speaker 5: of ammunition and weaponry and a shrine built to Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 5: The story was that Furman collected Nazi memorabilia, that he
Speaker 5: was very drawn to that sort of thing, and obviously
Speaker 5: his views on this subject were very clearly expressed. So
Speaker 5: I just find it incredible that in the wake of
Speaker 5: this case and these things, that first Fox hires him
Speaker 5: as a commentator on criminal cases. He's even commentated more
Speaker 5: recently on some of the racial things that have come up,
Speaker 5: with the Freddie Gray killing in Baltimore and other things.
Speaker 5: And then Oprah had him on. He wrote a book
Speaker 5: and he tried to rehabilitate himself, and Oprah had him on,
Speaker 5: and you know, it was nice to him. So I'm sorry, folks,
Speaker 5: I don't get it. I'm just here's the most powerful
Speaker 5: black women in the United States having on a guest
Speaker 5: who's said that his desire was to round up all
Speaker 5: the African Americans and burn them. So we had not
Speaker 5: cracked the facade of any of this. And it's a
Speaker 5: very painful part for me to me of American of
Speaker 5: the American experience over the last twenty five years, because
Speaker 5: it's not about O. J. Simpson. It's not about one
Speaker 5: guy if you think he got away with murder or
Speaker 5: something like that. It's about the profound pain and divisions
Speaker 5: that exist between minority communities and police. And we see
Speaker 5: it acted out again and again and again in violence,
Speaker 5: and this case was the starting point for it. We
Speaker 5: had an opportunity to learn more about why there is
Speaker 5: such animosity there and why the minority community would be
Speaker 5: so affected by bad police behavior. And this is not
Speaker 5: the man, you know we should have embraced and turned
Speaker 5: into a matinee idol on Oprah and given a job
Speaker 5: on Fox News. I'm sorry. There are people who have
Speaker 5: something significant to say about these issues, and I just
Speaker 5: would strongly encourage you to pay a little more attention
Speaker 5: to them. So so, I'm sorry to be on a soapbus,
Speaker 5: but I've had twenty two years of not being able
Speaker 5: to as Dan has done here to provide an opportunity
Speaker 5: to present a truly alternative point of view that's based
Speaker 5: upon journalism and facts. I'm not telling you, I'm not
Speaker 5: speculating about who killed these people or who else might
Speaker 5: be responsible. That's not my job. But I tracked this
Speaker 5: evidence through the criminal justice system and it all checked out,
Speaker 5: and that has as much right to be reported on
Speaker 5: as someone's opinion about this case.
Speaker 6: Now, you do theorize that for those people that say, listen,
Speaker 6: there's no way that the LAPD and prosecutors in the
Speaker 6: crime La Blood Lab all conspired. But you do present
Speaker 6: again again you said you don't speculate, but you did
Speaker 6: put forth at a scenario where Furman and Van Natter
Speaker 6: tell us about this theory that you have that of
Speaker 6: a possibility anyway, of a small What.
Speaker 5: We know is that there is no evidence. If you
Speaker 5: take apart the blood evidence in the case, there's only
Speaker 5: one thing left and that's the glove. Okay. So what
Speaker 5: I'm saying is that what the story that was presented
Speaker 5: to me was that the glove was moved over there
Speaker 5: through the use of these two objects. And the reason
Speaker 5: it was done was because Furman, I believe I am
Speaker 5: speculating here, genuinely truly believed that Simpson committed these murders
Speaker 5: and then he had the resources to probably fight the
Speaker 5: system and without good, strong evidence, you know, they would
Speaker 5: have a difficult time. He came back to the crime scene,
Speaker 5: and when he went back the second time with the
Speaker 5: senior officers in tow they he had to find something.
Speaker 5: I mean, at that point, you know, in order to
Speaker 5: go on with the they had to have something. So
Speaker 5: I'm yes, that's the story that I was told was
Speaker 5: that the glove was moved using these objects and that
Speaker 5: the blood would contain this substance. And that's the story
Speaker 5: that I wrote, and that Furman had some sort of
Speaker 5: relationship with Nicole Simpson. So when people talk about a conspiracy,
Speaker 5: it always comes down to that. It's always, well, how
Speaker 5: could hundreds of people put their heads together and do
Speaker 5: all this. I'm talking about three people. I'm talking about Furman.
Speaker 5: I'm talking about the natter. We know for a fact
Speaker 5: he had the blood samples of all three principles. We
Speaker 5: know it from the system itself, and someone in the
Speaker 5: crime lab who this is the Murkier area. But when
Speaker 5: doctor Lee testified in the case, and he made a
Speaker 5: famous pronouncement about something wrong, and what he was saying
Speaker 5: was that the samples that were sent to the DNA
Speaker 5: lab for testing were not the age samples. That someone
Speaker 5: had doctored samples in the lab and sent them off,
Speaker 5: and therefore they had to hold Simpsons DNA. So you're
Speaker 5: talking about the activities of three different individuals, and everybody
Speaker 5: else just does their job, as is usually the case
Speaker 5: in these kinds of situations. And I like to focus
Speaker 5: on the evidence that can be tracked through the system
Speaker 5: because when people the easiest thing for people to do
Speaker 5: is to say, well, that's a conspiracy and that's all
Speaker 5: it is. And that's what has essentially dismissed all of
Speaker 5: this for twenty two years. And what I'm suggesting is
Speaker 5: that if you read the book, or if you track
Speaker 5: this in a real way, it holds up quite well.
Speaker 5: And you know, that's the story that I've tried to
Speaker 5: lay out here. It's not a vast conspiracy involving a
Speaker 5: lot of people. So I would suggest I mean, you know,
Speaker 5: obviously I'm not telling people what to think. They could
Speaker 5: read the book and very clearly disagree with me and say, oh,
Speaker 5: Jay's guilty, and that's that. What I'm suggesting is if
Speaker 5: you expose yourself to an alternative set of ideas, it
Speaker 5: might come to a different conclusion. I'm not telling you
Speaker 5: who committed the crime. I'm not telling you you have
Speaker 5: to agree with me. The issues here are all bigger.
Speaker 5: Why wouldn't all of the major media outlets track this
Speaker 5: kind of information through the most covered trial in American history?
Speaker 5: Why would the story effectively not be known. I've talked
Speaker 5: to countless people who think they know everything about the case.
Speaker 5: They've never heard of DTA. They don't know what it is.
Speaker 5: That's what I'm really suggesting. You know, we've had the
Speaker 5: FX series, we've had ESPN, but it is effectively people
Speaker 5: speculating on the nature of oj Simpson, at least what
Speaker 5: I've seen, or it's about lawyers arguing or something like that.
Speaker 5: Criminal cases, as you know, Dan, and as I know
Speaker 5: from writing fifteen books about that, they're about evidence. They
Speaker 5: are essentially about evidence, and if that is this case
Speaker 5: has been about everything but evidence, and so this book
Speaker 5: is an effort to offer a different perspective on the evidence.
Speaker 6: What's incredible in this book is that you include all
Speaker 6: of that Donte or that all that frustration with journalists
Speaker 6: that don't call back with Chris Darden that doesn't call back,
Speaker 6: with Marcia Clark and her treatment, Johnny Cochrane, Carl Doug Bliss,
Speaker 6: the Bill Pavlick, sort of the guy with a certain
Speaker 6: technique that you're not used to, and you chronicle all
Speaker 6: those personal relationships that seemed that you're going to get
Speaker 6: to get your point to these people, but in the
Speaker 6: end you don't. And in that frustration when you see
Speaker 6: them using those points that you again have to hammer
Speaker 6: home so that they would use them, that they would
Speaker 6: understand them, comprehend them. You'd have to prove to them.
Speaker 6: And yet you still don't get that credit. That's incredible.
Speaker 6: Part of this book is that that testimony in that
Speaker 6: fight for you just to have this evidence looked at.
Speaker 6: As you say, if it was a real murder investigation,
Speaker 6: an actual proper murder investigation, at least all of the
Speaker 6: stuff would have been looked at. And in that case
Speaker 6: there could have been a different direction for suspects could.
Speaker 5: Nerve well, if the glove is not found on Simpson's
Speaker 5: property at six o'clock that morning, then their hat that
Speaker 5: you know, the yellow tape went up around his property
Speaker 5: and that was the end of the investigation. That was it.
Speaker 5: I mean, Tom Lang, the senior detectives said on a
Speaker 5: lot of those shows, there was never any reason to
Speaker 5: look at anybody else. Well, is that really true? You know,
Speaker 5: most people don't know that Ron Goldman, for example, had
Speaker 5: a friend in nineteen ninety three named Brett Cantor who
Speaker 5: ran a nightclub in la and he goes throat slit
Speaker 5: from ear to ear in the summer of nineteen ninety three.
Speaker 5: Most people don't know that Ron Goldman had another friend
Speaker 5: named Michael Nigg who got shot to death in the
Speaker 5: parking lot of the Coyote Restaurant in Los Angeles in
Speaker 5: the summer in nineteen ninety five. So you got nineteen
Speaker 5: ninety three, nineteen ninety four, nineteen ninety three is candor
Speaker 5: nineteen ninety four is Goldman in nineteen ninety five is
Speaker 5: nig But nexus for all of these people is the
Speaker 5: Medsaline restaurant and that subculture around it. Where would any
Speaker 5: murder of investigation have gone if the glove isn't there,
Speaker 5: if you have two victims in the case rather than one,
Speaker 5: if you have a drug culture around the case that
Speaker 5: all of these people had involvement with, starting with oj
Speaker 5: and a. C. Cowings and the other people, and Nicole
Speaker 5: and her best Van fe Resnik, who was in cocaine
Speaker 5: rehab the night of the murder, Where would the investigation
Speaker 5: have gone if it had actually been opened up to
Speaker 5: look at it as a true double murder? You know,
Speaker 5: where would the seventeen fingerprints at the crime scene have
Speaker 5: gone if they've been investigated, or the other blood types
Speaker 5: that don't belong to any of the three principles, or
Speaker 5: the blood on the back gate that isn't there the
Speaker 5: night of the murder, that isn't there for three more weeks,
Speaker 5: but mysteriously shows up in it's OJ's blood. Where would
Speaker 5: the investigation have gone? That's what isn't explored in any
Speaker 5: of these shows. You know, these people had backgrounds, you know,
Speaker 5: they had lives, They had all of these things. And
Speaker 5: there was a culture of violence around the case that
Speaker 5: is much larger than Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. There
Speaker 5: were three people murdered in Florida who were a loose
Speaker 5: part of that circle in two weeks after this crime.
Speaker 5: What was their connection to it? That none of these
Speaker 5: questions have been explored. None of it's been explored. And
Speaker 5: you know when I was told repeatedly by Dominic Dunn,
Speaker 5: you know, the writer for Vanity Fair in nineteen ninety five,
Speaker 5: that Chris Darden wanted to talk to me. So I
Speaker 5: called him up and I tried to talk to it,
Speaker 5: and I tried to you know, convey information, and you know,
Speaker 5: he wouldn't talk. And then when Simpson was acquitted, I
Speaker 5: got him on the phone and he blamed me, among others,
Speaker 5: and he said, how do you sleep at night? How
Speaker 5: do you sleep at night. It's like, hey, man, you
Speaker 5: know I didn't put the glove on this guy in
Speaker 5: front of the entire world, make a fool of myself.
Speaker 5: You know, I'm not in denial about the evidence in
Speaker 5: this case. So you know, that's the story of the case.
Speaker 5: I mean, they all went on, they wrote multimillion dollar books,
Speaker 5: they hardened their position, they refused to consider anything outside
Speaker 5: of their point of view. Then here we are, twenty
Speaker 5: two years later, you know, dealing with exactly the same
Speaker 5: issues and exactly the same rage and exactly the same violence.
Speaker 5: And you know it's it's not going to change without
Speaker 5: some larger discussion of this. And I'm not taking sides
Speaker 5: in it and saying that. I'm saying here was the
Speaker 5: classic example to look at what vicious racism on the
Speaker 5: record does to a community when it's led by police
Speaker 5: officers and nobody wanted to look at it. Nobody. And
Speaker 5: here's what happens if the evidence in a case can't
Speaker 5: be trusted and nobody wanted to look at they, you know,
Speaker 5: think about what I'm saying. They had this information three
Speaker 5: months before the trial began, and when Rodney Harmon wrote
Speaker 5: to the FBI to have the blood test. This is
Speaker 5: a direct quote. What he wrote to the FBI is
Speaker 5: run your tests to refute the possibility that this happened.
Speaker 5: Not run your test to find out what was in
Speaker 5: the blood. Not run the test to find out what
Speaker 5: actually happened here, but run it to disprove something. And
Speaker 5: even with those in stress, they lost. And when the
Speaker 5: case was over and the book came out, I got
Speaker 5: a call from Rockey Harmon and he chewed me up
Speaker 5: one side and down the other. It was my fault.
Speaker 5: It was my fault that this happened.
Speaker 6: So let me ask this question. Let me ask this
Speaker 6: question because you bring it up in the book and
Speaker 6: again alone it doesn't mean anything. But it's just such
Speaker 6: a fascinating fact that I did not know anything about
Speaker 6: you talk about Goldman's throat was not immediately slashed like
Speaker 6: you talked about that other victim, But in fact it
Speaker 6: was a threatening cutting. And again it would it would
Speaker 6: speak to possible more than one perpetrator. Tell us a
Speaker 6: little bit about what you found with this this threat.
Speaker 5: I mean, the the entire set of assumptions from day
Speaker 5: one until today is that Nicole Simpson was the primary
Speaker 5: target of the crime. But in fact, in the in
Speaker 5: the autopsy report, there there and case up in court
Speaker 5: and the defense used it and they talk about what
Speaker 5: were superficial parallel lines that were what were defined as
Speaker 5: threat cuts made on somebody. In other words, if you
Speaker 5: don't do something, I'm going to threaten you and I'm
Speaker 5: going to hurt you a little bit, and I'm going
Speaker 5: to give you a chance to do what I want
Speaker 5: you to do. This is not a wild, violent, vicious attack.
Speaker 5: This is a controlled situation. So you have to think
Speaker 5: about a little bit. You know, you have to pull
Speaker 5: back and you have to think about it a little bit.
Speaker 5: How could if there are two victims standing there, I mean,
Speaker 5: how is it that nobody's making any noise, nobody hears anything?
Speaker 5: And who is being threatened? And why are they being threatened?
Speaker 5: It stands the whole paradigm of the case on its head.
Speaker 5: It suggests that Nicole Simpson may not have been the
Speaker 5: primary target of the crime. It suggests that great threats
Speaker 5: were being made before the crime went down. It suggests
Speaker 5: that people were being controlled, because you have to control
Speaker 5: people to do that. It suggests that there was more
Speaker 5: than one assailant. The first coroner who testified in the
Speaker 5: case is named doctor Golden, and he testified in court that,
Speaker 5: in his professional opinion, after decades of doing this, there
Speaker 5: were two murder weapons, implying two assailants. The prosecution treated
Speaker 5: him the way they treated me, the way they treated
Speaker 5: the two assistant district attorneys who came forward in nineteen
Speaker 5: ninety four and said Furman's a vicious racist, the same
Speaker 5: way they treated everybody else. And they said, well, we're
Speaker 5: going to get rid of that guy. That guy is
Speaker 5: saying something that doesn't fit our view of the crime.
Speaker 5: So they got rid of doctor Golden and he was
Speaker 5: never heard from again. And they brought in a man
Speaker 5: with a long Indian name, and he told the court
Speaker 5: what the prosecution wanted the jurists to hear. Think about
Speaker 5: it that the man who did the autopsy in the
Speaker 5: original climber board which anybody can go read, talked about
Speaker 5: where who got the threat wins, not Nicole Simpson, Ron Goldman,
Speaker 5: And they talk about the initial report from Lang was
Speaker 5: that JUDITHA. Brown, the last conversation she had with her
Speaker 5: daughter was at eleven o'clock at night. That's the freshest
Speaker 5: memory anybody has. Well, that's when Ojay was an alemo
Speaker 5: on the way to Chicago. So there are a countless
Speaker 5: number of questions, you know, that could be raised here.
Speaker 5: But when people get a mindset that is absolutely shut down,
Speaker 5: you can't possibly find out what happened. You can't do it.
Speaker 5: And you know, we had a chance here. I think
Speaker 5: we've had a chance to society as a culture, as
Speaker 5: a media, as a legal system to sort of pull
Speaker 5: back and look at this and say, you know, let's
Speaker 5: go below the surface and see what happened. And we
Speaker 5: haven't done yet. And I don't know that we'll ever
Speaker 5: do it. I don't know that that's ever possible. But
Speaker 5: the but you know, again, the irony is that the
Speaker 5: information's out there. It's been out there for decades. People
Speaker 5: have documented it in a handful of, you know, books
Speaker 5: that are not written by the principles in that case
Speaker 5: who were getting three and four and five million dollar advances.
Speaker 5: It occurred, it's on the margins. It's out there. You
Speaker 5: can read about the timeline in Donald Fried's absolutely excellent
Speaker 5: book called Killing Time. You can read about a problem
Speaker 5: of evidence by Joe Bosco. You can read about why
Speaker 5: the case fell apart in my book legacy of deception
Speaker 5: and in a handful of other places. And I just
Speaker 5: I think we have a great educational opportunity here that
Speaker 5: goes to the heart of our whole politics, racial relations,
Speaker 5: these you know, minority communities, all of these things. You know,
Speaker 5: this is not a story that sits in the past.
Speaker 5: It's a story that's unfolding all over the place right now.
Speaker 5: And this isn't an attack on the police and saying
Speaker 5: they're always right and he always wrong. It's not what
Speaker 5: it's about. We were given an opportunity to look at
Speaker 5: what really happened here and thus far basically that narrative.
Speaker 5: People don't see it as sailable, so they won't dig
Speaker 5: into it. And that's wrong, that's just plain wrong. You
Speaker 5: know that the investigative journalisms is on its deathbid. It's
Speaker 5: dying for all of these reasons because it's so hard
Speaker 5: to get people to pay attention to it. But it
Speaker 5: still has value. And I just would strongly suggest I
Speaker 5: was told from the very beginning of this case. I said,
Speaker 5: why was I given this information? I clearly thought O
Speaker 5: Jay was guilty. I didn't want to think much about it,
Speaker 5: and I was told because if you do this you'll
Speaker 5: get an education. You will learn a lot more about
Speaker 5: how your society works, you know. And I thought, well,
Speaker 5: I was almost forty years old. I was forty three
Speaker 5: years old, and I'd written several books, and I thought
Speaker 5: I was reasonably smart. And I was wrong. You know,
Speaker 5: I got an education, and as a non minority person,
Speaker 5: I got an education about something that really wasn't a
Speaker 5: part of my world. That much is invaluable because the
Speaker 5: pain of all of this racial hatred and racial violence
Speaker 5: is everybody's pain, everybody's and we can all be struck
Speaker 5: down by it. So it's just, you know, we need
Speaker 5: to do what we've never done. And even a show
Speaker 5: like this, I mean, Dan has given me an opportunity
Speaker 5: to talk and to talk freely and openly and to
Speaker 5: try to just get people to think a little bit
Speaker 5: more deeply about this. This is not just a late
Speaker 5: night comedian's you know, gagline. There's more at stake than
Speaker 5: that they go on TV every night, Oh J Skelly,
Speaker 5: O J Scale, the OJ Skilly. Well, that kind of
Speaker 5: complacency doesn't get us anywhere. So anyway, obviously, you you know,
Speaker 5: there is some frustration here, and I'm sorry if it
Speaker 5: comes across as you know too much. But this is
Speaker 5: this is a turning point in our history as far
Speaker 5: as I'm concerned, and we haven't gotten over it yet.
Speaker 6: Well, it's it's certainly testament to that that the same
Speaker 6: when you a lot of the book, whether we're not
Speaker 6: talking about what you wrote added to this book, but
Speaker 6: it really is spookily, eerily parallel that these lessons that
Speaker 6: we didn't learn twenty two years ago are lessons that
Speaker 6: we are going to learn or again we will continue
Speaker 6: for as you say, you talk about America, the tormented America,
Speaker 6: don't you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Well yeah, I mean it's it's in the street.
Speaker 5: You know, it's it's five police officers being shot in Dallas.
Speaker 5: You know, it's it's Ferguson, It's it's you know, the
Speaker 5: case in New York on Staten Island. I mean, it's
Speaker 5: all of it. It's this. You know, we're all a
Speaker 5: part of this community. And it just if people would
Speaker 5: read the book, you know, they will see from the
Speaker 5: very start that I was contacted and given information for
Speaker 5: a very specific purpose, and it was to sort of
Speaker 5: take the smaller story that I'd written and talked to
Speaker 5: death about really a group of nine men who decided
Speaker 5: to start a white power revolution and and did end
Speaker 5: up committing a lot of crimes, but it was still
Speaker 5: a relatively small story. And to sort of look at
Speaker 5: it in what happens when this mindset enters the system.
Speaker 5: What happens when people in authority start to think this way.
Speaker 5: That's a big story. And you know, I was told,
Speaker 5: you know, there are thousands of OJ's out there, you know,
Speaker 5: that are in these circumstances. They just don't have the
Speaker 5: resources to fight the system. And because the resources are
Speaker 5: here and the spotlight is here, this is the opportunity
Speaker 5: to really go below the surface of this thing and
Speaker 5: look at it. And again, no one's defending Simpson before
Speaker 5: or after the trial. I mean, that's not the point.
Speaker 5: But you know, accusing somebody of murder, you know, you
Speaker 5: better have the evidence. That's the way our system works.
Speaker 5: And the evidence fell apart, and we as a society
Speaker 5: just don't want to consider that. We don't want to
Speaker 5: think about it, which is be fine. The same story
Speaker 5: keep surfacing. So I would just strongly encourage people to
Speaker 5: sort of do what I did, you know, be willing
Speaker 5: to sort of humble yourself before the fact that you know,
Speaker 5: watching something on television doesn't tell you everything you need
Speaker 5: to know about it, because I was dead wrong here.
Speaker 5: I mean, I I don't know. There's no way to
Speaker 5: rationalize that I was wrong in what I was looking at.
Speaker 5: So if you have an interest in the subject, or
Speaker 5: an investigative journalism, or in the way the sort of
Speaker 5: modern media function and all of those things, it's right
Speaker 5: there in front of you, and it's not it's not
Speaker 5: in these series that you're seeing on television. I mean,
Speaker 5: Jeffrey Tuban wrote the book that they based the Fax series,
Speaker 5: and he says, you know, and I thought he was guilty,
Speaker 5: and I assumed everybody else thought he was guilty too. Journalism,
Speaker 5: you know, that's that's not it doesn't work. Other people
Speaker 5: have a different life experience from you, and theirs is
Speaker 5: just as valid as yours is. And that's what the
Speaker 5: jury told the United States of America.
Speaker 6: Well, what you find is that very much like documentaries,
Speaker 6: of course, they're going to go into it with a
Speaker 6: certain perspective already predetermined. And so even if it were
Speaker 6: an ongoing investigation, they still have their perspective already lined up,
Speaker 6: just like the defense in this case, and the prosecution
Speaker 6: in this case. And my point is that it's the
Speaker 6: media society as a result, and these powers to be
Speaker 6: believed because we can't don't seem to have much of
Speaker 6: attention spand that we're going to keep everything simple and
Speaker 6: overly simple and when things are complex, and I know
Speaker 6: this audience listens to a sixty to ninety minute interview
Speaker 6: with an author about one subject, about one case, and
Speaker 6: so we have an audience I think that does listen
Speaker 6: to that. In fact, it realizes that just when you
Speaker 6: think you have that guilty person, you've made that emotional
Speaker 6: decision that they must be guilty. I think we're all
Speaker 6: learning the power of a documentary to display its bias
Speaker 6: and without us seeing that that emotionality, that power of
Speaker 6: that documentary doesn't do us any good. And the best
Speaker 6: thing that we can do is look at things unemotionally
Speaker 6: in a book where they're laid out and less dramaticism
Speaker 6: to influence us from this predetermined perspective. So again it's
Speaker 6: very valuable for people to listen to this explanation legacy
Speaker 6: of deception about a completely different perspective on something that
Speaker 6: most people have had their minds made up as a
Speaker 6: result of these documentaries and even watching the news coverage itself,
Speaker 6: they really, this is something they need to look at
Speaker 6: to at least consider that the story that they thought
Speaker 6: they knew, the narrative that was it seems to be
Speaker 6: so clear and so simple. Again, is very complex and
Speaker 6: would be surprising for people to read this and hear
Speaker 6: a completely different story.
Speaker 5: And I and my whole way of writing the book
Speaker 5: was to say, I've been given this information. I'm coming
Speaker 5: to you, the defense, to see if this can actually
Speaker 5: be tested. Is this I didn't say this is true.
Speaker 5: I had no idea it was true or not. But
Speaker 5: the only way to determine the truth of it was
Speaker 5: to put it through the legal system. And you know
Speaker 5: so that's and that's why I've tried to tell the
Speaker 5: story here. I mean, there's a checklist. Is there a stick, yes?
Speaker 5: Is there a bag? Yes? Is there edta and the
Speaker 5: blood that was tested? Yes? Did Firman have a relationship
Speaker 5: with this woman of some kind? Yes? Did Rosa Lopez
Speaker 5: here in our three am on Simpson's property is I
Speaker 5: didn't begin with any conclusion about any of that. I
Speaker 5: could have been set up for some other purpose. And
Speaker 5: that's the whole way the book is written, it tested
Speaker 5: out through the course of our legal system, which relies
Speaker 5: on testimony, evidence, across examination, scientific testing, all of those things.
Speaker 5: So it's not a conspiracy theory. It's not a theory,
Speaker 5: it's it's here's evidence that effectively was extremely important in
Speaker 5: the trial, was extremely important to the jury, but never
Speaker 5: made it into the public consciousness because the commentary on
Speaker 5: it just destroyed it. It couldn't be true, or the
Speaker 5: whole narrative would have to be questioned. And that's a
Speaker 5: really strange thing to think about. I mean, if you
Speaker 5: really ponder that for a moment, that jurors, you know
Speaker 5: that their job is to study the evidence and come
Speaker 5: to a conclusion, and they spent nine months doing that,
Speaker 5: also questered, and they had no difficulty whatsoever. A mixed
Speaker 5: race theory seeing this does not hold up. And they've
Speaker 5: been maligned from the day they reach their verdict and
Speaker 5: they've been called every bad thing you can be called.
Speaker 5: It's not right. It is simply not right, and people
Speaker 5: have not wanted to look at how they reach those conclusions.
Speaker 5: And the book is a piece of that story that
Speaker 5: shows how that came about. And so I think that
Speaker 5: I mean, one, you know, reason maybe to read it
Speaker 5: is to give those people some respect, and some do
Speaker 5: and that's really never happened. So you know, this guy,
Speaker 5: David Aldonna was on the jury and he's a Hispanic man,
Speaker 5: I believe, and he was on the twentieth anniversary of
Speaker 5: the case. He was on CNN and this woman was
Speaker 5: interviewing him. This is a year or so ago, and
Speaker 5: she said, you know, have you changed your mind in
Speaker 5: twenty years about this decision you came to clearly saying
Speaker 5: implying it was a bad decision all that. And he
Speaker 5: said no. But I wish he had said, you know,
Speaker 5: with everything that's come out about police misconduct, police violence
Speaker 5: and all these other things, have you considered changing your mind? Yeah?
Speaker 5: But he didn't. You know, we've had twenty two more
Speaker 5: years of that story unfolding, with these deaths and these protests,
Speaker 5: these and Black Lives Matter and the whole thing. What
Speaker 5: has that gotten stronger in twenty two years or has
Speaker 5: it gotten weaker? It's absolutely gotten stronger, And have you
Speaker 5: considered your opinion over those twenty two years based upon
Speaker 5: what's come out since then? But he didn't say that.
Speaker 5: That would have been a good opportunity to turn it
Speaker 5: around and say, you know, you've had two decades plus
Speaker 5: to look at this, is it possible that there's something here?
Speaker 5: You don't know. It's not the discussion we're having. You know,
Speaker 5: we're not making the connections, and we still can you know,
Speaker 5: we can learn from this. And it's an extremely complex reality,
Speaker 5: you know, That's what I'm saying. I don't want to
Speaker 5: create the impression of someone who's siding with one side
Speaker 5: against the police or something like that. It's a very
Speaker 5: difficult job, and it's a very stressful job, and you
Speaker 5: violate the system. You're violating a very large part of
Speaker 5: the American experience because our entire legal system, the Constitution
Speaker 5: and Bill of Rights are built around how new process works.
Speaker 5: You tamper with that and you're undermining everything. And that's
Speaker 5: what I was told at the start. This is where
Speaker 5: the conflict is in these communities, and this is where
Speaker 5: the problems are, and that's what I was trying to
Speaker 5: get at. So you can read this book come away
Speaker 5: thinking O. J. Simpson's guilty anyway, that's fine, But there
Speaker 5: are other larger issues in play, and I think they're
Speaker 5: worth thinking about and examining.
Speaker 6: Well. I actually really think the way this book reads
Speaker 6: is just like an harbringer of what's to come. And
Speaker 6: then now in this anniversary of the OJ experience and
Speaker 6: this re release of this book, because any book is
Speaker 6: just a fascinating look back at a case that everybody's
Speaker 6: looking at again and again. Hopefully people will look at
Speaker 6: it with fresh eyes and from a different perspective and
Speaker 6: a whole new legion of people that are just discovering
Speaker 6: this story. So hopefully it will be a different conclusion
Speaker 6: when you look at this. And it's an incredible book
Speaker 6: to see the same reoccurring themes, The same things that
Speaker 6: are at heart at this that seem to have been
Speaker 6: ignored are coming to blow up in America's face today.
Speaker 6: So it's very timely, very timely book. So I want
Speaker 6: to thank you very much Stephen Singler for coming on
Speaker 6: talking about legacy of deception. For those that might want
Speaker 6: to contact you, I don't know if you have a
Speaker 6: website or do you do Facebook? Do you do any
Speaker 6: of that?
Speaker 5: Stephen is ste p h E n singular si n G.
Speaker 5: I are so it's stevensingular dot com. I have a
Speaker 5: website and would be more than happy to hear from
Speaker 5: people and hear their point of view and all of it.
Speaker 5: I mean, this is a discussion worth having, so that
Speaker 5: would be good.
Speaker 6: Well, I want to stay again. Thank you very much
Speaker 6: Stephen for coming on and talking about this has been fascinating.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, and I hope to talk to
Speaker 6: you soon.
Speaker 5: It's a great opportunity and I really appreciate it. Well,
Speaker 5: thank you. You have a great right you too, I
Speaker 5: think