Simpson, in His First Testimony, Denies Slayings

By STEPHANIE SIMON

Nov. 23, 1996 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

O.J. Simpson looked jurors in the eyes Friday and testified that he did not murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Emphatic, assertive, he said it again and again: “That’s absolutely not true.”

“You confronted Nicole Brown Simpson and you killed her,” attorney Daniel M. Petrocelli told him.

Simpson swiveled his chair to face the jury. “That’s absolutely not true.”

“And you killed Ron Goldman, sir,” Petrocelli said accusingly.

“That’s absolutely not true.”

The dramatic exchange came at the end of an emotional day of testimony--Simpson’s first appearance on a witness stand since he was first accused of murder 2 1/2 years ago. Acquitted in his criminal trial, Simpson is now battling civil lawsuits from the victims’ families, who are seeking to hold him liable for the deaths and extract from him millions of dollars in damages.

Lead plaintiff attorney Petrocelli used his courtroom confrontation with Simpson to lay out for jurors his theory of the case: that Simpson was a jealous and abusive husband who butchered his ex-wife and an innocent bystander after she humiliated him in late May 1994 by scorning his company and rejecting an expensive birthday gift.

Simpson denied the accusations. And, as he has from the beginning, he denied ever beating, punching, kicking or striking Nicole Simpson. He used his answers to build an alternative portrait of himself as a conscientious husband who nursed an ex-wife through pneumonia even after all attempts at reconciliation had failed, and who remained worried about her erratic behavior even as he was dating someone else. “This is a woman I love today,” he said of Nicole. “I’ve always loved her.”

But Petrocelli wasted no time in challenging Simpson’s credibility.

Pulling out a copy of “Education of a Rich Rookie,” Simpson’s 1970 autobiography, Petrocelli quoted Simpson as telling a friend: “I think I lie pretty effectively.”

“You do,” the friend responded. “Except that when you lie you look so serious and intent on what you’re saying, it gives you away. When you’re saying something and you’re laughing, that’s the only time I can tell you’re telling the truth.”

Simpson acknowledged that he had read and approved the book for publication, but said he had not written those lines. Similarly, he denied writing in the book that he would have to “plead guilty” to a deep concern about his public image.

But passing the buck to a ghostwriter could backfire, said legal analyst John S. Wiley, a UCLA law professor who listened in on the testimony. “There’s really nothing that Simpson can say about the book to eliminate the impact that those damaging words have,” Wiley said. “All he could do was say that the book wasn’t written by him--but then that means, of course, that the book itself is a kind of lie.”

Simpson found himself in the similarly awkward position of challenging written records when Petrocelli bore in on his actions on June 12, 1994--the day of the killings.

The plaintiffs contend that Simpson had been fuming for weeks. Furious that Nicole Simpson had rejected him, they contend, he sent her two harsh letters. One told her to stop using his address as a tax shelter; the other, which Simpson denies sending, warned her to stop relying on his housekeeper to run errands and baby-sit. Simpson’s rage and frustration only mounted, the plaintiffs argue, when girlfriend Paula Barbieri ditched him by leaving a message with his answering service early in the morning of June 12.

Simpson initially told police that he checked his messages in the early evening of June 12 and learned that Barbieri had left town. But in his deposition, he insisted that he never heard Barbieri’s message that day. Simpson repeated that denial under oath Friday.

Petrocelli, however, brought out his phone records--which were not produced in the criminal trial. The records showed two calls to the message center: one at 6:56 p.m., the other at 8:55 p.m.

Simpson’s response: “That’s incorrect.”

Every other call he made that evening was accurately reflected on the phone company’s record, he said. But the two calls to the message center were not. “I didn’t pick up any messages,” he said. Asked why there was a record of a five-minute call from Simpson’s home to the answering service just before 7 p.m., he answered: “I don’t know about the records.”

The disclosure of the phone records offers a double benefit for the plaintiffs, said Steven D. Clymer, a Cornell University law professor and former federal prosecutor. In addition to showing Simpson struggle with a document that appeared to contradict his testimony, it may demonstrate to jurors that the defendant is willing to shade facts to his favor, Clymer said.

“I think Petrocelli’s going to have a field day with that in closing arguments,” he said.

It also helped set the stage for the day’s showdown, when Simpson denied the killings.

“I think it’s a good tactic,” said Clymer, who successfully prosecuted the Los Angeles police officers who beat motorist Rodney G. King. “The jury hears evidence that Simpson is not truthful, so that when Petrocelli asks him about the murders, the jury’s thinking ‘yes, yes, yes,’ as he’s saying ‘no, no, no.’ ”

Simpson also denied the accuracy of another document Petrocelli produced--diary entries Nicole Simpson made in the weeks before her death. In an entry dated June 3, she wrote that Simpson came over to her house and started raving: “You hung up on me last night. You’re going to pay for this, bitch. . . . If you think you can do [expletive] anything you want, you’ve got it coming.”

Sentence by sentence, Petrocelli went through the entry, asking Simpson if he had ever said any of the threats attributed to him. “Certainly not,” he answered. “Absolutely not.” He also denied ever in his life using an epithet against women that Nicole had quoted him as using.

Yet Simpson acknowledged that everything else in that entry was accurate, as Nicole Simpson had faithfully recorded their discussion about their children and the times various events took place.

“So everything in these diary entries are true except when Nicole reports what you said to her?” Petrocelli asked.

“Yes,” Simpson responded.

“And all that’s a pack of lies?”

“Yes,” Simpson testified.

Though the courtroom proceedings at times got tense, Simpson looked comfortable throughout much of the day, leaning forward to speak directly and emphatically into the microphone. The victims’ relatives who accuse him of murder--Nicole Simpson’s sister Denise Bown and mother, Juditha Brown; Goldman’s father, Fred, stepmother, Patti, and sister, Kim; and Ron Goldman’s biological mother, Sharon Rufo--watched carefully, displaying little emotion. The courtroom spectators, who had arrived as early as 4 a.m. to vie for seats in a public lottery, also sat silently, absorbing the unfolding drama. As he testified, Simpson glanced over at the jurors a few times--and stared straight at them during the climactic final moments. For the most part, however, he faced forward and addressed his interrogator.

Simpson’s sister, brother-in-law and niece supported him from the front row.

“I thought [Simpson] went from being somewhat uncomfortable to being as relaxed as you can be on the hot seat,” said UCLA law professor Peter Arenella, who watched part of the testimony. After some opening jitters, Simpson “made more eye contact with the jury, and I thought he came off as more persuasive,” he said.

Simpson often paused or sighed before answering, pursing his lips and furrowing his brow. By the end of the day, he looked exhausted. But he was loose enough to make a few wisecracks and flash the famous Simpson smile--prompting Petrocelli to ask him acidly: “You think this is funny? You’re making jokes?” Simpson answered, “No, I don’t think any of this is funny. I wish I was anywhere but here.”

Simpson has been ordered to return for further questioning Monday and Tuesday. The court begins its Thanksgiving break Wednesday.

Throughout the day Friday, Petrocelli attempted to show jurors inconsistencies or oddities in Simpson’s account of his actions on the evening of the slayings. He questioned why Simpson went to McDonald’s in his Bentley, even though he preferred driving the Bronco. He wondered aloud why Simpson spent so much time packing in his bedroom for a one-day trip to Chicago.

And he ridiculed Simpson’s explanation for moving the Bronco during the evening. The Bronco was originally parked on Ashford Street but police found it the following morning on Rockingham Avenue. Simpson testified that he pulled from the street into his driveway to unload his golf clubs, then parked on Rockingham. He didn’t want to drive around the corner to his normal spot on Ashford, he said, because he wanted to keep an eye on his dog to make sure she did not run out of the gate.

House guest Brian “Kato” Kaelin has previously testified that the dog, Chachi, was lame and arthritic and rarely left the property. In deposition testimony, Simpson’s maids agreed. But Simpson insisted that neighbors had complained about Chachi running into the street, though he agreed that she was “somewhat lame.”

Although he had previously said he was stiff that evening (so stiff he chose to drive the Bentley rather than the Bronco for his burger run because it was parked closer to his front door), Simpson testified that in order to keep an eye on his dog, he parked the Bronco, jumped out and hustled through his gates back on to his property before they swung closed in 20 to 30 seconds.

Asked point-blank whether he took the Bentley to McDonald’s because he did not want Kaelin to see the gloves, knife and cap he had stashed in the Bronco, Simpson responded with a touch of indignation: “Absolutely not.”

Petrocelli did not get into the specifics of Simpson’s alibi. But he did ask: “Between 9:35 p.m. and 10:55 p.m. on Sunday, June 12th, there is not a single living human being you can identify that saw or spoke with you?” Simpson agreed. “That’s absolutely true,” he said.

Petrocelli opened the questioning by walking Simpson through a chronology of his relationship with Nicole Simpson, starting with their first meeting, when she was an 18-year-old waitress at a Beverly Hills restaurant, and he was a married, 29-year-old football star.

Simpson testified that he never struck or kicked Nicole Simpson. He also repudiated a statement he had made to police the day after the slayings, when he said they had a “problem relationship” and told detectives: “I always have problems with her, you know?” Simpson said Friday that their 17-year relationship was good overall, with just a few bad stretches.

Seeking to rebut Petrocelli’s argument that he was obsessed with Nicole, Simpson said that he did not badger her to reconcile after their 1992 separation. In fact, he said, it was the other way around. “She was incessantly pursuing me,” he said. “I think everyone, including her family, knows that it was her pursuing me.” Asked if he were sure about that, Simpson responded: “I’m 1,000% sure.”

Simpson was a bit less clear when Petrocelli turned to a fight that sent Nicole Simpson to the hospital on New Year’s Day 1989.

Flashing a photo of Nicole Simpson’s scratched, bruised and puffy face, Petrocelli demanded to know whether Simpson had caused any of those injuries. Simpson said he took “full responsibility,” since he had grappled with her and pushed his then-wife out of the bedroom, but he could not explain how she might have sustained the injuries. And he suggested that she might have inflicted some of the red marks herself by picking at pimples. “A lot of the redness would normally be there after she picks and cleans her face,” he said.”

All morning, Petrocelli pressed hard on the question of image, suggesting through his questions that Simpson lied and covered up abuse in order to protect his sparkling public persona. He even read aloud Simpson’s contradictory accounts of the 1989 incident, suggesting he had told different stories in a television interview, a conversation with a psychologist, and a sworn deposition statement.

After moving through other allegations of abuse, Petrocelli asked Simpson whether he had really cut all emotional ties with Nicole Simpson on May 10, 1994--the date he said he finally broke up with her for good on his own initiative.

Repeatedly, Petrocelli demanded a yes-or-no answer. But he didn’t get one. Simpson said he had felt good about leaving the relationship and getting on with his life, but remained in touch with Nicole. “I could never cut off my emotional attachment to Nicole,” he said. “To this day, I have an emotional attachment to Nicole.”

Times staff writers Jim Newton and Peter H. King and correspondent Michael Krikorian contributed to this story.

SIMPSON DISCUSSION

* The Times’ Web site features an ongoing discussion about the O.J. Simpson civil trial. It is supplemented with daily stories, background, profiles and photos. Go to:

https://www.latimes.com/simpson.talk

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Testimony

Here are excerpts from O.J. Simpson’s testimony Friday during questioning by plaintiffs’ attorney Daniel Petrocelli.

* “[On May 10, 1994] I mentally cut off any effort to reconnect with Nicole. I was happy to move on, but I was still very, very concerned about her. This is a woman I love today. I’ve always loved her ... I could never cut off my emotional attachment to Nicole. Until this day, I have an emotional attachment to Nicole.”

* “[In 1993] she was incessantly pursuing me. She’d show up on the golf course, where she’d never come before. She followed me to Mexico. She sent me cookies and cakes. She called me incessantly. I think everyone, including her family, knows that it was her pursuing me. ...I wasn’t returning her calls ... [because] I didn’t want to deal with any of her problems. I was in my own relationship [with Paula Barbieri]. I didn’t want to deal with any of hers.”

PETROCELLI: Did you ever hit Nicole?

SIMPSON: Never.

PETROCELLI: Did you ever strike Nicole?

SIMPSON: Never.

PETROCELLI: Did you ever slap Nicole?

SIMPSON: Never.

PETROCELLI: Did you ever kick Nicole?

SIMPSON: Never.

PETROCELLI: Did you ever beat Nicole?

SIMPSON: Never.

PETROCELLI: You are aware that Nicole has told people and written in writings that you hit her?

SIMPSON: Yes.