OJ Simpson's Baggage

I had never seen so much blood in my life.

As the coroner's wagon pulled away -- there it was. Puddles of it. Some of it had oozed down the cracks in between the pathway pavers and toward the sidewalk. As I looked closer I could see paw prints from a large dog and patterned traces of wispy blood that its dragging leash had left behind. Up toward the gate of the fancy condo statuesque Agapanthus stood, its purple flower heads dotted with drops of this blood.

It was June 1994, about 10 AM on a sunny Sunday in Brentwood, California. My cameraman and I, the reporter on duty that weekend, had been assigned to go to the home of Nicole Brown Simpson. Word was O.J.'s ex-wife had been murdered.

My first thoughts that beautiful morning were: Why didn't someone take a hose and wash away this horror - -and -- where were the police?

With no one to stop us, and with camera rolling, we gingerly tiptoed to the gate and opened it. Across a shallow courtyard was the plate glass window behind which Nicole had lived. We could see inside the cozy living room with its overhead balcony leading off to the side bedrooms. Candles were still burning, framed photos of a smiling Nicole and her kids were everywhere. Outside, there were bloody footprints and what seemed to be a bloody hand print on the side of the house. Eerie, and to this day I remember it vividly.

A mostly black jury in downtown Los Angeles would ultimately find O.J. Simpson not guilty of the throat slashing murder of Nicole and her Good Samaritan friend, Ron Goldman, who was simply returning a pair of glasses left at a local restaurant that fateful night. No matter that a drop of OJ Simpson's blood was found on the toe-box of Goldman's boot.

Now, an all-white jury in Las Vegas is sitting in judgment of Simpson. This time the charges include armed robbery and kidnapping stemming from an incident in which sports memorabilia dealers say they were held in a hotel room and threatened by an angry Simpson and a group of goons with guns. The entire scene was immortalized on audio tape, including this opening, snarling statement from Simpson, "Don't let nobody out of here. Think you can steal my s-- and sell it?" And this charming statement from the Juice: "Stand the f--- up before it gets ugly in here!"

It's a sense of entitlement many famous people seem to adopt. "I am different, I don't have to abide by society's rules, I can do what I want and explain myself out of trouble later."

O.J. Simpson's elevated sense of status in the world brings him to yet another courtroom where he will once again have at the core of his defense the idea that when you're someone like him the rules of conduct should be different. His defense seems to be that he believed he was simply taking back what was rightfully his -- artifacts from his past life.

It seems to me if that's his defense he should immediately be convicted because he's admitting what he did. The law clearly says you can't take back items using threats and guns.

No matter, his faithful attorney will continue to claim that poor O.J. is just a victim of circumstance. The shoulder-shrug position will be that Simpson's celebrity attracts trouble, not the other way around.

In 1994 lawyers said Simpson was the victim of a misbehaving ex-wife and over-zealous detectives. This time he'll claim he was victimized by unscrupulous sports dealers and over-zealous detectives. He'll maintain he had no idea the men with him were packing heat.

This jury will not be allowed to hear testimony about the murders. They won't hear the more recent 911 calls by Sidney Simpson to Florida police about her out of control father, or about the December 2000 road rage incident in which Simpson was charged with battery and auto burglary. (He was acquitted.) Also, there were the investigations (plural) that this Heisman Trophy winner may have roughed up his girlfriend and that he pirated signals from Direct TV. For that a judge ordered him to pay a 25 thousand dollar fine. Gee trouble just seems to follow this guy, right?

Our system of justice does not usually allow a jury to take into account a defendant's past bad acts. But O.J., by the very nature of who he is, drags baggage into that Nevada court room anyway. Some court watchers openly wonder if he can get a fair trial. Others wonder if this guy will ever face true justice.

I wonder if justice will ever come for that brutal, bloody scene I came across in Brentwood, California all those years ago.

Comments

[Seeker11]

"I had never seen so much blood in my life. As the coroner's wagon pulled away -- there it was. Puddles of it. Some of it had oozed down the cracks in between the pathway pavers and toward the sidewalk. As I looked closer I could see paw prints from a large dog and patterned traces of wispy blood that its dragging leash had left behind. Up toward the gate of the fancy condo statuesque Agapanthus stood, its purple flower heads dotted with drops of this blood."

Which has always puzzled me. Why, if Simpson was guilty, was there so little in his vehicle? I'm told the total would barely cover a little finger's nail. There should have been much, much more than a mere dab.

[larry278]

OJ's trial can't compete with the drama of America's melt down, election & rearranging sock drawers. OJ's court room drama won't have a nation wide TV audience this time or Johnnie Cochran for the defense. Without Johnnie Cochran there is no drama.

[Diane Dimond - Huffpost Blogger]

No, Larry278,
I agree with my friend Dominick Dunne who said this trial hasn't captured America's attention because "there is no body". In the midst of crisis (like our current economic situation) people always want a good, riveting diversion! ~DD

[steamboat]

Something nobody brings-up. And correct me if I'm wrong because perhaps I misunderstood things. Anyway, OJ claims he was just trying to get his stuff back. But didn't Fred Goldman win most of these belongings in the civil suit? So basically, isn't this stuff OJ himself was hiding from Goldman?

[Diane Dimond - Huffpost Blogger]

Steamboat - you hit the nail directly on the head. That is part of the prosecution's point - that O.J. Simpson did what he did, with a passel of goons with guns because he wanted to get his property back in Nevada....not wait for it to travel back to California where the original civil suit order was filed. ~ DD

[belicoso]

The morbid sense of entitlement (which this article points out) is what really rubs me the wrong way. OJ's past aside, you cannot ambush people in a room and verbally berate and threaten them with bodily harm because you think they're selling items with your signature on them. This is a society of laws and if you have a complaint then you file it and you bring legal action. Celebrities do not have the right to enact vigilante justice on their own. This seems to be a belief that permeates celebrities as a whole. Take Anna Nicole Smith for instance, she thought she must obviously be due a ton of money since she was married to an old billionaire. Well Howard Marshall took adequate measures to omit Anna from his Will, but that wasn't good enough for Anna she paraded her case to every court that would let her in until she found a taker in Cali Bankruptcy Court (which would clearly have no jurisdiction over an estate dispute originating in TX). It's just sickening how celebrities in general think they operate on a separate plane and they don't have to abide by the same laws as us normal folk.

[jackie4444]

I have no affection for Mr. Simpson, but rather obviously if the sitting trial judge in his current case, has, after argument by the prosecutor and defense attorney, decided that certain 'other crimes' testimony not related to the current case may not be brought before a jury, there can be no excuse for this author's attempt, and HuffPo's facilitation of that attempt, to make an end-run around the order by publishing matter not to be revealed to the jury ON THIS SITE. Seems to me that OJ is not the only
one with an 'entitlement' and irresponsibility problem.

[blp58]

Huh? This "matter" is in the public domain. This isn't sealed evidence that is being leaked to the media. Jurors without their heads in their asses will already know these stories. It's up to the judge not to let evidence on these matters be presented at the trial. Stop muzzling free speech!

[Diane Dimond - Huffpost Blogger]

Jackie, Jackie, Jackie - are you seriously saying that by me mentioning the past highly publicized murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman that I've somehow poisioned this sitting jury?
Do you think they are idiots, living in a bubble and never heard about the homicides?
And besides, as in every case, the Judge has ordered the jury not to read articles or watch TV in which OJ is mentioned.
Sheesh. ~DD