Simpson Defense Poised to Launch Counterattack

Jurors heard it over and over from O.J. Simpson’s mouth: “I don’t know. I don’t know.”

He didn’t know how his blood landed near two dead bodies--or how it dripped on his driveway, in his foyer and in his bathroom. He didn’t know how blood consistent with that of the murder victims turned up in his car.

Now it’s time for his lawyers to tell the jury that they do know. That competent experts have explanations for all the incriminating evidence that so baffled Simpson:

He was framed. The investigation was bungled. The blood was contaminated. The photo was faked. O.J. Simpson is innocent. And somewhere out there, the real killer lurks, perhaps still running with the hookers and drug addicts whom Nicole Brown Simpson called friends.

As Simpson’s team launches its defense today, analysts agree that an enormous challenge awaits. The attorneys seeking to prove Simpson liable for the slayings in civil court have presented a crisp, compelling and comprehensive case--65 witnesses in six weeks. Most important, the plaintiffs have picked apart Simpson’s testimony by producing at least 20 witnesses who contradict his accounts, including some of his closest friends.

But jurors have been instructed to reserve judgment until they have heard the defense case.

“There’s an old saying that he who states his case first may seem right,” fellow defense attorney John McNicholas said, “until another comes along to examine it.”

As he prepares to scrutinize the plaintiffs’ case, attorney Robert C. Baker has some potent arguments at the ready:

* True, many witnesses contradict Simpson. But as Baker is sure to point out, a few of those same witnesses contradict one another--so not all of them can be telling the whole truth or remembering the whole story. House guest Brian “Kato” Kaelin and limousine driver Allan Park, for example, offer differing accounts of what Simpson’s dog was doing when the limo pulled into his driveway on the evening of the murders.

* True, Simpson was put in the awkward position of having to deny the accuracy of a photograph showing him wearing Bruno Magli shoes. Yet several police witnesses have also challenged a photo, insisting that a blood spot on the back gate at the murder scene really existed, even though it does not show up in a photo taken early in the investigation.

* True, no one saw Simpson during a crucial 80-minute period, from 9:35 p.m. to 10:55 p.m. on June 12, 1994. But then again, no one saw him for several hours on the previous afternoon, either. As Baker explained in his opening statement: “O.J. was, and is, a bachelor. . . . He doesn’t have somebody to vouch for where he is when he’s home alone.”

* True, the DNA evidence seems overwhelming. The odds against the blood in Simpson’s Bronco coming from anyone but the murder victims are astronomical. But the plaintiffs’ own number cruncher, statistician Bruce Weir, has admitted botching many of the calculations he used to analyze the blood tests. Under cross-examination Friday, Weir could not even explain some of his mistakes. Asked, for instance, why he had been off by a factor of 1,000 in one calculation--coming up with 1.1 million instead of 1.1 billion--he responded: “I have no idea.”

*

As Baker presents his case, which he expects to last three to four weeks, he can also count on plenty of witnesses to back up aspects of Simpson’s testimony.

His maid and his former girlfriend agree that Simpson often talked on his cellular phone from his driveway--a key portion of his alibi. A former housekeeper corroborates his account of a pivotal fight with Nicole, agreeing that he was not the aggressor and did not punch her. His longtime secretary can produce a list of times that Nicole Simpson hit him to bolster his contention that he was the battered, not the batterer.

And half a dozen strangers, including an airline captain and a famed photographer, will agree with Simpson’s testimony that he had no cuts on his hands when he flew to Chicago a few hours after the murders.

Then, of course, there are the expert witnesses who will tell jurors that Simpson could not possibly have had time to commit the murders, that the Los Angeles Police Department lab is a cesspool of contamination and that something is wrong with the incriminating blood evidence. The defense is bringing back three stars from the criminal trial: medical examiner Michael Baden, criminalist Henry Lee and DNA expert John Gerdes.

Baker also has promised jurors proof of forgery to discredit the photo of Simpson wearing the same Bruno Magli brand shoes that tracked size-12 bloody footprints at the crime scene.

On top of all that, there’s the ultimate trump card: the Juice himself.

So far, Simpson has not had much opportunity to turn on the charm in court. But his lawyer has promised to put him on the witness stand for hours of friendly questioning. If so, Simpson could get a chance to do what he does best: to win people over. To reveal, in the words of one analyst, all those qualities “that cause people to believe this kind of evil does not exist in him.”

Baker plans to launch the defense case by attacking the Los Angeles Police Department.

As soon as the plaintiffs rest their case today--after presenting as their final witness the father of murder victim Ronald Lyle Goldman--Baker will call retired LAPD Det. Philip L. Vannatter to the stand. He will move on to other police witnesses, including retired Det. Tom Lange and criminalist Dennis Fung.

Most of these witnesses have already appeared in the civil trial. However, the plaintiffs limited their testimony so severely that Baker did not have a chance to probe the areas that he considers most important to his case. Now he hopes to drill them with the brutal cross-examination he is famous for--and in doing so, expose the incompetence and corruption he contends framed an innocent man.

In these opening salvos, Baker will sound themes familiar from the criminal trial. Some analysts think it will be his best chance to prevail.

“The defense lawyers have to avoid the trap that [the plaintiffs] have so carefully set up, that you either believe O.J. or you believe every other witness in this case,” said civil litigator Steven G. Madison, who teaches trial advocacy at USC Law School.

“They have to stay focused on their theory that this was at best a bungled investigation by police and at worst a setup, and they should not get involved in a credibility contest,” Madison said. To have a chance at winning, he added, the defense needs to shred one aspect of the plaintiffs’ case, be it the blood or the timeline or the integrity of the investigation, and then make the argument that the evidence against Simpson “is only as strong as its weakest link.”

To win, Baker may feel he has to offer jurors an alternative theory about the killings. The judge has already ruled that the defense cannot toss out wildly speculative scenarios; blaming Colombian drug smugglers is out. Baker, however, seems to have seized on a fresh tactic: hinting that Nicole Simpson may have come in contact with her killer by consorting with a sleazy underworld crowd.

*

Disregarding the conventional wisdom that attorneys must never attack a victim, Baker told jurors in his opening statement that Nicole Simpson brought prostitutes and drug dealers into her children’s home after her 1992 divorce from O.J. Simpson. He described her as promiscuous in the last few years of her life, compelled at one point to abort an illegitimate pregnancy.

“She had many boyfriends and men loved her,” he said. “She was gorgeous, and they loved to be with her. And she was with a lot of them.” Analysts call Baker’s tactic the “slut defense.” They also call it risky.

But Baker seems determined to try it. During his cross-examination of Kaelin, for example, he managed to insinuate that Nicole Simpson was brazenly fooling around with one of her ex-husband’s best friends, football player Marcus Allen. “O.J. Simpson was not jealous of Marcus Allen, was he?” Baker asked in an indignant tone. “He didn’t mind Nicole doing whatever Nicole did with Marcus Allen, did he?”

Analysts predict that Baker will drop similar hints during the defense case, trying to make his point with some subtlety so he does not look like he is slamming a dead woman. “It’s going to take some fine lawyering skills to pull it off,” Loyola Law School dean Laurie Levenson said.

Baker’s colleagues say they are confident he will put on a strong case for his client. “You wait till it’s done,” his longtime friend and fellow attorney John Collins said. The plaintiffs may feel confident now, but by the final bell, Collins said, “they’ll know they’ve had their hands full.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Timeline

The plaintiffs contend that they have proved that O.J. Simpson had ample opportunity to commit the murders or Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, based on a timeline constructed from telephone records and witness testimony. The defense will argue that it would have been impossible for Simpson to kill two people, rush home and clean up in that time frame. Here is a look at a crucial 80-minute period on the evening of June 12, 1994:

PLAINTIFFS’ TIMELINE

9:35 p.m.--Simpson and Brian “Kato” Kaelin return from McDonald’s.

10:03 p.m.--Simpson calls girlfriend Paula Barbieri from cellular phone but cannot reach her.

10:23 p.m.--Limousine driver Allen Park arrives outside Simpson’s Rockingham Drive gate; does not see white Bronco parked there.

10:35-10:40 p.m.--Robert Heidstra, walking his dog behind Nicole Simpson’s condominium, hears male voice yelling, “Hey, hey, hey” amid loud dog barking.

10:39 p.m.--Park again drives past Rockingham gate and does not see white Bronco.

10:40-10:52 p.m.--Park repeatedly rings intercom at Simpson’s Ashford Street gate; gets no answer.

10:40-10:45 p.m.--Heidstra sees white sports utility vehicle speeding away south on Bundy Drive.

10:50 p.m.--Kaelin hears three thumps on the wall of his guest room at Simpson’s house.

10:54 p.m.--Park sees Simpson walking briskly from the driveway toward his front door and into his house.

10:55 p.m.--Park rings intercom again; this time, Simpson answers.

11:15 p.m.--Simpson leaves for airport in Park’s limo.

SIMPSON’S ALIBI

9:35-10 p.m.--Simpson hunts for a favorite golf club in his garage and the trunk of his Bentley; chips several balls on his lawn.

10-10:15 p.m.--Simpson walks to his Bronco, parked on Rockingham Drive, to look for golf balls. Briefly walks dog.

10:15 p.m.-10:35 p.m.--Simpson reads, watches TV.

10:35-10:40 p.m.--Simpson realizes he’s running late, jumps in shower. Hears intercom ring but doesn’t answer it.

10:55 p.m.--Simpson goes outside in robe and jeans to rummage through golf bag sitting near front door. Returns to bedroom to finish packing.