Simpson’s Case Seen as More Vulnerable Now

Calm under attack, composed in the face of accusations that he is a vicious killer, O.J. Simpson’s demeanor on the witness stand impressed many who saw him testify. But time and again, his answers contradicted the accounts of others, as well as physical evidence in the case and even some of his own prior statements.

For Simpson’s testimony to be entirely accurate, at least 12 other potential witnesses--ranging from police detectives to his former girlfriend and his longtime lawyer--would have to be lying or mistaken about certain aspects of their accounts.

In addition, at least two key pieces of evidence--a phone record and a photograph of him wearing a pair of expensive Italian shoes--would have to be at best misleading and at worst outright fakes.

And some of Simpson’s testimony, which ended after about an hour on the stand Tuesday, challenges his own previous statements about the case, including his description of when he cut his hand. He has explained those inconsistencies by saying he was incorrect in his earlier remarks but accurate this time.

Observers who watched Simpson testify credited him with keeping his cool in the face of accusatory questions from lawyer Daniel Petrocelli, and they predicted that Simpson’s attorney Robert C. Baker will use his portion of the case to patch up some of the problems created by the former football star’s 11 hours on the stand. But those observers also said that Simpson’s shifting answers and failures to recall some key details, such as how he cut his left hand, make him more vulnerable than ever to the wrongful death lawsuit.

Most damaging of all, many experts said, were the points at which Simpson’s testimony ran counter to the physical evidence or the observations of others. As those experts noted, inconsistencies are especially tough on Simpson because they allow lawyers for the plaintiffs to argue that he is a liar, and showing that a defendant is a liar often is as powerful as showing that he committed the crime itself.

People tell lies, the argument usually goes, to hide something. And why hide something unless you’re guilty?

“The mantra from the criminal case is becoming the mantra here: If you can’t trust the messenger, you can’t trust the message,” said Houston-based jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn. “But this time the messenger is O.J.”

For Simpson, the problem is magnified by the people whose testimony runs counter to his. Most have no obvious axes to grind, but rather are apparently reliable, even sympathetic, witnesses:

* Limousine driver Allan Park said that when Simpson finally answered his gate buzzer the night of the slayings, Simpson apologized and said he had overslept; Simpson denied that.

* Simpson house guest Brian “Kato’ Kaelin said Simpson wore a dark jogging suit the evening of the slayings; Simpson denied ever owning any such clothing, though he did wear a similar outfit in an exercise video made a few weeks before the killings. Simpson said he did not keep that jogging suit.

* Simpson testified that he had only one serious cut on his hand the day after the murders; lawyers for the plaintiffs say Skip Taft, Simpson’s longtime friend and personal lawyer, noticed a second cut on Simpson’s left hand that day.

* Lenore Walker, a nationally renowned domestic violence expert, recorded in her notes of an interview with Simpson that he told her he had received a long message from his girlfriend the morning before the murders; Simpson denied telling Walker anything of the sort.

* Simpson’s former girlfriend, Paula Barbieri, has said she saw his passport on a night stand before he took off with Al Cowlings on the famous Bronco chase; Simpson testified that Barbieri was mistaken.

In each of those examples, Simpson’s version of events squares with his innocence, while the other version tends to raise doubts. Park’s account, for instance, raises the question of how Simpson could have been napping at a time when Simpson says he was packing and showering. And Kaelin’s is significant because investigators found dark-colored cotton fibers at the crime scene, fibers that might have been consistent with a dark jogging suit.

Similarly, Walker’s notes cast doubt on Simpson’s insistence that he never received a message from Barbieri ending their relationship, a message she has said she left him the morning of June 12. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman were killed that night, and lawyers for their families have suggested in court that Simpson was left alone and enraged when his girlfriend broke off their relationship. That, they maintain, was part of what drove Simpson to murder.

Confronted with a phone bill showing that a five-minute call was placed from Simpson’s house to his message service at 6:56 p.m. June 12, Simpson had no explanation other than to continue denying that he had received the message. “I don’t know about the records,” he said.

Leslie Abramson, a well-known criminal defense lawyer, said Simpson’s rejection of the phone record may elevate the importance of the message.

“Paula broke up with him. Who cares?” Abramson said. “The fact that he denies it makes him not credible on the big things.”

Simpson also contested another piece of physical evidence, a photograph that first appeared in the National Enquirer and that purports to show him wearing a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. Another witness testified that the shoe prints at the murder scene were left by a size 12 pair of Bruno Maglis. Simpson, who has denied owning any such shoes, said the photograph was a fake.

Given the Enquirer’s reputation, that may resonate with jurors, though the plaintiffs do have a photograph expert prepared to testify. But the cumulative weight of Simpson fending off witnesses and physical evidence may undermine his credibility, experts said. “As to every single line of questioning, Petrocelli has come up with major and minor inconsistencies,” said Southwestern University law professor Myrna Raeder. “It’s lying big and small.”

In 1993, federal prosecutors made powerful evidence in the Rodney G. King civil rights trial out of false or misleading statements given by the officers who beat King. In one report describing the incident, Officer Laurence M. Powell described hitting King, but never mentioned that King was struck after falling to the ground.

The videotape of the beating surfaced after the report was filed, and the contrast between the tape and Powell’s account offered prosecutors a way to argue that the officers had intentionally violated King’s rights and then tried to lie about it--evidence not only of brutality but of a guilty conscience.

Steven D. Clymer, one of the lead prosecutors in the King case, said Tuesday that the disputed statements by Simpson may cast a long shadow across his honesty and, ultimately, his innocence.

“If you’re arguing this case, you can say to the jury: ‘These 15 people say one thing; Simpson says something else,’ ” Clymer said. “What does your common sense tell you when 15 people say one thing, and one person says something else?”

Those doubts will give lawyers for the plaintiffs plenty to argue when it comes time to sum up their case against Simpson. In the meantime, however, experts who watched all or part of Simpson’s testimony said he can take comfort in the way he handled himself on the witness stand.

“Simpson didn’t fold, he didn’t snivel, he didn’t become angry,” said Gerry Spence, a criminal defense lawyer from Wyoming. “This man has beautiful composure, and that’s important because juries don’t like ugly, strident people.”

Although Simpson’s mood seemed to shift subtly during the course of his examination--his initial gregariousness gave way to weariness--Spence and others credited him with keeping his cool despite accusatory questioning. Not once but three times Simpson was accused of murdering the mother of his children and her friend; each time, he rebuffed that charge forcefully but without any flaring of temper.

“You still have the same likable demeanor O.J. Simpson,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and associate dean. “But given all the denials and all the other evidence, it’s hard to believe him even if you want to.”

Similarly, UCLA law professor Peter Arenella said Simpson’s “positive demeanor and believability were extraordinary.”

But, Arenella added: “What Petrocelli has done masterfully is show this jury that there is a ‘world according to O.J.’ and then there’s the world according to other witnesses, cell phone records, DNA, blood evidence, hair and fiber, and even friends of Mr. Simpson.”

In some areas, Simpson’s firm answers on delicate topics also leave him vulnerable to the emergence of new evidence. Asked how often he had hit, kicked or struck Nicole Simpson, he responded each time: “Never.” Any witnesses who saw such incidents now could be used to impeach that testimony.

And much in the same way that former Det. Mark Fuhrman opened himself to a withering credibility attack when he asserted that he had never used the so-called N-word in the past 10 years, Simpson’s denial of using an epithet to deride women raises the possibility that he could face a similar challenge.

That issue arose after Petrocelli read an excerpt from Nicole Simpson’s diary. In it, she said her ex-husband was threatening to have her punished for tax evasion. According to her diary, Simpson that day called her a “f------ c---.”

Asked about that passage, Simpson said he had never once used that phrase. But just as witnesses came forward after Fuhrman’s testimony to say the detective had in fact used the epithet he denied uttering, Simpson now is vulnerable to the same challenge. Should witnesses emerge to contradict Simpson, the plaintiffs might be able to argue that he lied under oath, just as Simpson’s lawyers argued that Fuhrman had perjured himself in the criminal trial.

In contrast to Simpson’s definitive denials on spousal abuse and on his use of that phrase, he was vague on questions regarding why blood was found in his car, at his house and the scene of the double murders. Likewise, he repeatedly told the jury that he could not recall how he got cuts and abrasions on his left hand--beyond saying that one of them occurred in a Chicago hotel room after he heard that his ex-wife had been killed.

“How could you not know?” Abramson asked of that testimony. “You break a glass, you get cut. That’s an owee. I don’t care how tough an athlete you are. . . . I’m sure that will be very hard for the jury to buy.”

Tuesday, Simpson lawyer Baker decided to forgo questioning his client immediately, a move that ended his testimony without the jury hearing Simpson respond to a single sympathetic question but that allows Baker to call him as part of the defense case. By then, the Simpson legal team may have produced witnesses who can bolster aspects of Simpson’s testimony, taking some of the sting out of the inconsistencies that have arisen so far.

Simpson’s longtime assistant, Cathy Randa, for instance, told lawyers in her deposition that she had never seen bruises or marks on Nicole Simpson’s face, supporting Simpson’s contention that he never beat her. Randa also testified then that it was Nicole Simpson, not O.J. Simpson, who was pressing for a reconciliation in the months before the murders. That too supports aspects of Simpson’s testimony about his relationship with Nicole Simpson--testimony that also could receive a boost from Simpson’s maid.

In addition, half a dozen witnesses testified in the criminal trial that they saw no cuts on Simpson’s hand when he signed autographs and chatted with them in the hours after the murders were committed. Their accounts could support Simpson’s claim that he had no serious injuries at that time.

Those same witnesses testified in the criminal trial that Simpson was cordial and outgoing that night--hardly the demeanor most people would expect of a man who had just committed a brutal double homicide.

All of that would help rehabilitate Simpson’s credibility, at least in certain areas. And though experts said that was a challenging task in light of Simpson’s testimony, several pointed out that witnesses often can look bad after being questioned by only one side and that juries are instructed to withhold judgment until all the evidence is in.

Donald M. Re, a highly regarded criminal defense lawyer, said that everyone forgets some details, that inconsistencies are natural when people tell the truth and that contradictions are sometimes innocent even if hard to explain. Baker’s job, Re said, is to tell the jury that though Simpson may sometimes be mistaken, he is not lying.

“You have to remember,” Re said, “you can take a guy who’s telling the truth and make him look like the world’s worst liar.”

Times staff writer Stephanie Simon contributed to this article.

* ANTICLIMAX: O.J. Simpson lawyer decides not to question client until defense presents its case. A13

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Key Elements of Simpson’s Testimony

O.J. Simpson’s testimony covered many topics, from the physical evidence against him to his alibi to his stormy relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson. Here is a summary of his statements on some key points:

The Blood Evidence: “All things are possible,” Simpson testified, “but I don’t think I left any blood” at Nicole Brown Simpson’s condo, where the murders took place. As for his Bronco: “If I did [bleed in it], I would have absolutely no knowledge of it.” He saw one drop of blood on the kitchen counter of his home before leaving for the airport, but has no idea how blood landed on his driveway, in his foyer or in his bathroom. “I didn’t see any other blood any other time,” he said.

*

The Cut on His Left Hand: Simpson said he noticed a speck of blood on the pinkie of his left hand before leaving for Chicago, but saw no cuts. In Chicago, he broke a glass and cut his middle finger while rushing to pack up after police informed him of the murder. He could provide few details. Simpson said he did not know how he got the two other cuts and seven abrasions that a defense doctor observed on his left hand three days after the murder. “I wouldn’t have any idea,” he said of the abrasions. “They’re so small I wouldn’t have noticed them.”

*

The Alibi: Simpson said he was home alone during the period when the murders were committed, looking for a golf club, chipping a few balls, walking his dog, packing, showering and relaxing on his bed. “No one was at my house, and unless they were driving by when I was in my yard” no one can corroborate that account, he testified. He said he heard the limo driver buzzing at his gate repeatedly but did not let him in because he feared his dog would run outside.

*

Domestic Violence: “Yes, we had problems in our relationship, but I don’t think it was mostly a problem relationship.” Simpson said he never hit, slapped, kicked or beat Nicole, but testified that she hit him “numerous times.” Asked about a 1989 fight that sent her to the hospital with a black eye and other bruises: “I don’t know exactly what happened, but I felt totally responsible for everything that happened.”

*

The Polygraph Test: Simpson said he “wanted to know just how true-blue” a polygraph test was so he agreed to be wired to one a few days after the murders. But he said he never took a formal test. “I wanted to understand how it worked and [the tester] gave me an example.” Asked whether he was grilled about the murders, Simpson said: “I don’t know if he went that far with it.” He denied allegations he failed miserably, saying “I don’t know what the score was.”

*

More about the Simpson trial is available via the Internet. Articles and context can be obtained from the Los Angeles Times site:

http://161.35.110.226/home/news/state/reports/ojcivil

Trial transcripts can be purchased or viewed through links from the court reporters’ site:

https://www.internetcourt.com