Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

North-American Culture Studies

Bc. Katarína Vargová

Defense Strategies in Works of O. J. Simpson Case Actors Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Jeffrey Alan Smith, M.A., Ph.D.

2019

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor Jeffrey Alan Smith, M.A., Ph.D. for his guidance, patience, and advice that he has given me throughout the process of writing this thesis. I would also like to thank my friends who helped me during the studies. Finally, my utmost thanks goes to my parents for their endless encouragement, support, and love. This thesis would not have been written without them.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…5 2. O.J. Simpson Murder Case…………………………………………………………11 3. O.J. Simpson - If I Did It……………………………………………………………27 4. Johnnie Cochran - Journey to Justice……………………………………………....45 5. Christopher Darden - In Contempt………………………………………………….65 6. Armanda Cooley, Carrie Bess, Marsha Rubin-Jackson - Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment?...... 86

7. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………....102 Future Research Suggestion………………………………………………………….108 Works Cited………………………………………………………………..………....109 English Resume………………………………………………………………...…….114 Czech Resume…………………………………………………………………….….115

1 Introduction

When bodies of Nicole Brown and Ronald Godman were found in front of her

Bundy Drive condo in 1994, nobody could have anticipated how much it would influence American society. Shortly after the murders, the investigators concentrated on

Nicole's ex-husband, Orenthal James Simpson, known as O.J. or “Juice” as the main suspect. Simpson was a famous African American NFL player who was generally considered a likable hard worker who became famous because of his dedication and hard work. Even after his football retirement, the public liked him, and he became an occasional actor and commentator. Hence, when he was accused of viciously killing two people, many people were shocked. The case and the trial that followed caught the attention of millions, and most of those involved became celebrities, from attorneys to witnesses. Many people who played an active role in the case wrote books about their experience, describing the same events, but often from very different perspectives.

Some of these books were also used as memoirs, and therefore they concentrate on the aspects that fit into the authors' narrative well. Nevertheless, these books were arguably mostly used to defend their authors against the criticism they received during or after the trial.

The case that mostly focused on the racial aspects of the investigation and possible racial prejudice was closely followed by the media and often discussed on the television or in the press. It divided people, as some believed that Simpson was an innocent African American framed by the racist police while the others were convinced he was guilty. While the defense tried to convince jury their client was framed based on racial prejudice, the prosecution concentrated on explaining the “shockingly huge mountain of evidence” (Darden 152). What was even more shocking than the amount of evidence was the “not guilty” verdict that ended the year-long trial. As the race played

5 an essential part in the case, this thesis will only concentrate on the books written by the

African American authors, focusing on arguably the most important people in the case.

The analysis includes the books from O.J. Simpson, Johnnie Cochran, Christopher

Darden, and Armanda Cooley. All of these authors played a crucial part in the case as well as its verdict, and they are all African Americans. However different their roles in the trial were, they all had one thing in common: they were widely criticized by the public. That is why they used their books to redeem themselves in the eyes of their readers. As this thesis will argue, many biographies are used to defend or explain the writers in the eyes of their readers, and the actors in Simpson's case are no exceptions.

These authors chose different defense strategies, with some being more successful than others.

The books selected for this thesis follow the story of Simpson’s trial chronologically. First, this thesis will analyze If I Did It, the book that describes

Simpson’s relationship with Brown, as well as the murders and early investigations.

Then, when Simpson started to form his defense team of attorneys, Cochran’s Journey to Justice will be analyzed. His book depicts the case from the defense perspective and explains their strategy. The prosecutor Darden joined the case later, and his book In

Contempt focuses on the prosecution and the mistake they made. Lastly, the jurors who agreed on the verdict describes their point of view and verdict deliberation in their

Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?

The first chapter of this thesis provides a detailed background on Simpson's case that will be later commented on in the following chapters. This case overview includes information on Simpson and Brown's relationship and their lives after the divorce, as well as coverage of the investigation, trial, and verdict. All of the facts mentioned in this chapter are supported by the evidence presented in the court or public announcements.

6

This chapter also explains the racial aspect of the case, as the Los Angeles Police

Department was facing a public backlash because of their prejudice towards African

Americans.

The second chapter focuses on Simpson's If I Did It. It argues that Simpson, who was the only suspect in the case, facing murder charges for the crime he claimed he did not commit, tries to persuade his readers of his innocence. Again, this chapter is organized chronologically and starts with Simpson's description of his life with Nicole

Brown and their separation. Then it analyzes Simpson's description of the murders and ends with his reaction to early investigations and arrest. This chapter's analysis concentrates on how Simpson unsuccessfully tries to manipulate his reader into believing he could not have committed the crime, and if he could have done it, he must have had a reason. Throughout If I Did It, Simpson portrays himself as a victim who lost a loved one, failing to admit he ever hurt her, although it was proved he was an abuser. His book is full of inconsistencies, and he often contradicts his statements, which raises questions about what the intentions and aims of the book are. This chapter analyzes these inconsistencies and argues that Simpson used his biography to clear his name, although unsuccessfully. A part of this chapter also discusses how the writer perceived Simpson and his comments on the case.

The next chapter deals with Cochran's Journey to Justice. Cochran was often criticized for turning the case into a racial issue, and therefore he aims to explain his intentions. This chapter analyzes how Cochran used his book to portray himself as the winner and as the most important attorney whose ideas saved Simpson from imprisonment. Cochran also argues that he helped Simpson because he wanted to fight against racial discrimination in criminal cases, and this highly followed case could bring more attention to the issue. In his book, Cochran also portrays himself as a good person

7 who had good relationships with the prosecutions and claims that he was not controversial at all, opposite the general opinion. Unlike Simpson, however, Cochran manages to defend himself more effectively, as he does not contradict himself and often bases his claims on the evidence presented during the trial. His primary strategy against the criticism is to prove the readers he was the most important attorney on the case, and that he only did what he had to do for his client’s sake. This chapter follows the trial chronologically with analysis concentrating on the discussed aspects.

Darden’s In Contempt will be analyzed in the following chapter. As Darden, who was the only African American attorney in the prosecution, faced the most backlash, he defends his position and comments on the mistakes he made. In his book, he addresses two kinds of criticism: the one that accused him of betraying the African

American community, and the one he received after making mistakes in the trial that arguably led to Simpson’s acquittal. He also employs two strategies to respond to the criticism – portraying himself as a victim and blaming others. The former strategy prevails throughout the whole book, as Darden often concentrates on the mistakes he made and tries to explain them to his readers. Trying to make the readers feel sorry for him, he emphasizes the toll the case took on him and suggests he felt utterly alone. In

Contempt also heavily criticizes many aspects of the case, mostly the defense team.

While Cochran suggested to his readers that he had a good relationship with the attorney on the case, Darden often negatively comments on the defense team, blaming them for turning the trial into a racial issue. It could be said that Darden takes his book as an opportunity to blame everybody on the case, including himself.

The last book this thesis analyzes is Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment? by three jurors Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson. Since the jury faced criticism for acquitting Simpson, they address the accusation of racism and defend their decision. In

8 their book, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson aim to prove that their verdict was based on evidence, and despite the short deliberation, they came to the right decision. The jurors’ defense concentrates on proving they paid close attention to the evidence and witness statement, and that they did not take Simpson’s race into account. As they received a lot of criticism for being racially biased, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson emphasize that the defense team questioned the evidence enough for creating reasonable doubt, and therefore it would be wrong to convict Simpson. They also address the accusations they did not deliberate enough, claiming that after spending months on the jury duty, they mostly went into the deliberation room already decided. Like Darden, the jurors also attempt to portray themselves as victims, arguably trying to make the readers feel sorry for them, but this strategy only causes further criticism of their book.

This thesis aims to analyze how the authors, who released their books based on the success of Simpson’s case, used their works to address the accusations they faced during the trial. Although none of the readers admits it directly, there are strong tendencies to defend oneself throughout all these books, using various strategies to influence or even lie to the readers. It will also comment on the effectiveness of these strategies, supporting these comments with the public reception of the selected books.

Although several studies have been carried out to compare the depiction of the trial in the attorneys’ books, they usually took all the authors in the account. This thesis is original in its concentration on the African American writes only, and discussing the strategies and writers in the chronological order. The reason why I decided on this topic is that although the murders took place more than two decades ago, the case is still popular in the United States, confirmed by the success of the series The People v. O. J.

Simpson: American Crime Story. Moreover, even after all this time, the killer was not caught, and it still remains a mystery whether Simpson did it. This thesis aims to be

9 unbiased on Simpson’s involvement in the murders and only concentrates on the analysis of the selected books.

10

2 O. J. Simpson Murder Case

Even though the trial of O.J. Simpson for the murders of Ronald Goldman and

Nicole Brown Simpson, Simpson’s ex-wife, was closed over two decades ago, its influence on the American culture is still undeniable. The 2016 series American Crime

Story that depicts the case captivated millions of viewers, more than two decades after the verdict. The trial is often called “the trial of the century” in the way it captured the attention of Americans of all social classes or races. While it might seem like it connected people, it also created a strong division between Simpson's supporters and those who believed he was guilty. The reason this case was so captivating is that everybody could at least partially relate to the issues discussed in the trial, and it is also considered “a case that has riveted Americans with its mix of wealth, race, celebrity, science, obsessive love, and domestic violence” (Streisand 57). Not only was the defendant a charming celebrity everybody knew, but the trial also tackled the issues that

American society was dealing with daily: racial prejudice and domestic abuse.

From the early reports of the murders in the prestigious Los Angeles neighborhood and the infamous Bronco chase to highly-televised courtroom scenes, this case caught the attention of millions of Americans. The whole trial, which ended on

October 3, 1995, was often discussed in the media, and most of it was even live on TV, including the verdict. However, the case was not only followed in the United States, but

“even foreign leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Boris Yeltsin eagerly gossiped about the trial. When Yeltsin stepped off his plane to meet President Clinton, the first question he asked was, 'Do you think O. J. did it?‘“ (Linder 1). This question was often asked during interviews with famous people, too, but mostly among the public in everyday life. The Simpson murder case became a divisive element in American society, and its importance prevails even today.

11

2.1 Before the Murders

Simpson was an award-winning football player, who set numerous records during his NFL career. He was very popular among fans, and after ending his career, he became an actor and a spokesperson for Hertz. He starred in many commercials and organized various events, which led to tremendous popularity among his fans. Because of his responsibilities, he frequently traveled, which led to the collapse of his first marriage with Marguerite. Simpson met Nicole Brown in 1977, while she was working as a waitress. Brown and Simpson got married in 1985 and had two children, Sydney and Justin. Their marriage lasted seven years, and it was arguably problematic, as

Simpson was charged with spousal abuse in 1989. They filed for divorce in 1992. In

1993, after the divorce, Brown and Simpson tried to reconcile, but they did not get back together. Instead, they lived in separate houses, but close to each other to make sure the children can spend enough time with both parents.

Simpson’s estate consisted of the main house and the guest house. The guest house in the back of the estate was occupied by Kato Kaelin, who later became a witness in the case. Brown lived with her children in her condo on the Bundy Drive, where she was later killed.

2.2 Murders and Investigation

Because of the controversies of this case, it is still disputable how the murders were committed. This thesis will be working with the most likely scenario that has been accepted and described by the majority of official documents and the verdict from the criminal trial.

On the night of June 12, 1994, shortly after ten o'clock, a single male entered the

Bundy Drive property of Nicole Brown through the back door. This man then brutally

12 killed Brown, with the cuts so severe she was almost decapitated. The second victim,

Ronald Goldman, was stabbed more than thirty times. Both murders are considered a vicious attack because of the victims' injuries. Goldman is believed to be an acquaintance of Nicole's, and although he was sometimes considered to be her lover, this was never proven. Reportedly, he came to Brown's condominium to return the sunglasses her mother had left earlier that day at the Mezzaluna restaurant where

Goldman worked. It is more than likely that Goldman caught the killer in the act, which led to his death too.

The bodies were found at around midnight by Brown's neighbor, who was walking his dog. The investigation of the Brown and Goldman murders began almost immediately. The first suspect was Nicole Brown Simpson's ex-husband, O. J. Simpson.

When the investigators called Simpson, he was in Chicago as he had taken off from

LAX shortly before midnight. Simpson took a limousine to the airport, which was driven by Allan Park. In his testimony, Park mentioned that they left Simpson's estate more than thirty minutes late because no one answered the door and the house appeared to be empty. Park also mentioned he saw a man who “was holding a flashlight. And at the same time, he said almost simultaneously he saw a person approximately six feet tall, 200 pounds, African American wearing all dark clothing, walking at a good pace up the driveway observed a man he assumed to be Simpson” (The People of the State of

California v. Orenthal James Simpson).1 When the police called Simpson to inform him about the murder of his former wife, Simpson did not ask about any details, such as how she had died or who had killed her. When asked about this in court, he said he got emotional and wanted to end the call to get the emotions out of his system.

1 From now on, this thesis will only use the shortened version of the trial’s name in citation. 13

In his emotional outbreak, Simpson claimed to have smashed a glass, which cut his hand. The next morning, he boarded a flight to Los Angeles, “arriving home about noon to find a full-scale police investigation underway. Police tape stretched across his front gate, and cardboard tags marked bloodstains on the driveway” (Linder 2). After his arrival, the LAPD2 started to question Simpson, at first, at his Rockingham estate, later at the station. They immediately noticed the cut on Simpson's hand and assumed he could have injured himself in the fight with Goldman. At first, Simpson told the investigators he did not know how he had cut himself, but as the interview went on, he mentioned that he cut his hand when he was getting into his Bronco, and then reopened the cut when smashing a glass in Chicago after police had informed him about Nicole's murder.

According to the police, Simpson was very emotional and disconcerted. The officers ascribed his behavior to the fact he just lost his ex-wife and the mother of his two children. According to the records, the police did not ask some obvious follow-up questions and confused Simpson was sent back home. This primary interview did not bring any critical pieces of evidence, and it was never even mentioned in the courtroom during the trial. However, it did not seem to be necessary as police collected enough evidence suggesting Simpson's guilt shortly after the murders. This evidence included

Simpson's blood at the crime scene, Nicole's and Ronald's blood in Simpson's car (Ford

Bronco3), and a blood-soaked glove that was found at Simpson's estate. Because of this mounting evidence, the LAPD got a warrant for Simpson's arrest. Realizing the seriousness of the situation, Simpson started hiring lawyers, mostly prominent Los

Angeles lawyers who had helped many celebrities. One of the most famous lawyers,

Robert Shapiro, made a deal with the police department that Simpson would turn

2 Los Angeles Police Department. From now onwards, this thesis will only use the abbreviation. 3 Although the same model of the car was used in the infamous Bronco chase, it was not the same car. 14 himself in. However, Simpson and his attorneys failed to do so. The police then went to arrest Simpson at the house of one of his lawyers, Robert Kardashian, but he disappeared. This led to one of the most medialized chases in American history, the so- called “Bronco chase”. Simpson and one of his closest friends, Al Cowlings, were driving down the highway with police cars behind them and TV helicopters above them.

This chase was televised (as most of the case), and people were either cheering for

Simpson or hoping he would get caught. Numerous places the Bronco was passing, there were people waving and applauding. Looking back, this could be considered the first divisive aspect of the whole Simpson case, as it showed how people would react to the trial.

Before running away, Simpson left behind a letter to his children, his family, and his fans. It as read on live television, and many believed it was a suicide letter. In this letter, he thanked his family and friends and considering he took a gun to the

Bronco chase and held it against his head, it is more than likely Simpson was ready to kill himself. The slow chase ended with an agreement between Simpson and the police, and Simpson was arrested at home later that night.

The prosecution then took the case to trial. It was and still is common that the trial took place in the same district as the crime, but in this case, the district attorney decided to file the case in the downtown district. This was mostly because of the expected media attention, as the downtown courtroom was arguably the biggest one, and it could handle a big number of journalists and observers. It was later reported that the prosecution chose this district to prevent a mostly Caucasian, highly educated jury that could easily convict Simpson.4 The problem was that in the 1990s, the LAPD was facing a public outlash because of their treatment of African American suspects. In

4 Easton argues that a white jury would have been “bound to be biased”, which could have lead to further complications for the LAPD. (719) 15

1992, this outlash turned into the so-called Rodney King riots in Los Angeles after “four white Los Angeles police officers were caught on a home video camera beating an

African American speeding suspect, Rodney King.” (Matheson and Baade 2691) After this incident, the reputation of LAPD officers suffered, and many African Americans automatically considered them biased against them, or even racist. These riots “resulted in 53 deaths, 10,000 arrests, 2,300 injuries, more than 1,000 buildings lost to fire, thousands of jobs lost and an estimated cost to the city of $1 billion in damages”

(Matheson and Baade 2691). It is also possible that the prosecutors believed that the amount of evidence against Simpson was so overwhelming that even the jury consisting of Simpson’s peers would be able to convict him. Eventually, choosing the downtown courtroom would play a crucial role in this case and its verdict.

2.3 Trial

The highly-watched trial officially began on July 22, 1994. On this day,

Simpson famously answered Judge Lance Ito’s question "How do you plead?" with

"Absolutely one hundred percent not guilty, Your Honor" (The People v. O. J.

Simpson). Following this moment, there were months of jury selection, evidence evaluation, and endless hearings on the media presence in the courtroom. After almost six months, on January 24, 1995, both the defense and prosecution presented their opening statements. The street of the courtroom was full of journalists and photographers on that day and forward. The prosecution was represented by Marcia

Clark, Christopher Darden, and Bill Hodgman. Hodgman later left the team because of health-related issues. Darden started the prosecution's opening statement depicting

Simpson in a negative way:

16

The evidence will show that the face you see, and the man you will see, is the

face of a batterer, a wife-beater, an abuser, a controller. You will see the face of

Ron and Nicole’s murderer … He killed Nicole--not because he hated her. He

didn’t hate Nicole. He didn’t kill her because he didn’t love her anymore. He

killed for a reason almost as old as mankind itself. He killed her out of jealousy.

He killed her because he couldn’t have her. And if he couldn’t have her, he

didn’t want anybody else to have her. He killed her to control her. (The People

v. O. J. Simpson)

Darden's words resonated with the jury, but they also influenced Simpson. Later, in his book If I Did It, he tried to prove he did not want to control Nicole and that she was uncontrollable, doing whatever she wanted.

Throughout the whole trial, the prosecution fought to portray Simpson as a killer, not as a popular football player, which was a difficult task. Moreover, the jury mostly consisted of African American women who generally adored O.J. Simpson, as an underdog coming from a poor background who became an international superstar.

The next day, it was the defense’s turn to give an opening statement. Before the trial began, Simpson created the so-called “dream team” of attorneys, consisting of

Robert Shapiro, Sara Caplan, Johnnie Cochran, Carl Douglas, Shawn Chapman, Gerald

Uelmen, Robert Kardashian, Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, Peter

Neufeld, Robert Blasier and William Thompson. The most prominent ones, Robert

Shapiro and Johnnie Cohran, competed for the place of the team leader. At first, Shapiro led the team, but later, when the defense concentrated on the race issue, this part belonged to Johnnie Cohran. Cohran was a well-known African American lawyer who fought against the police brutality aimed at African Americans and the racism that was wide-spread in the department at that time. In their opening statement, the defense

17 concentrated on attacking the evidence the prosecution presented. Cohran introduced to the jury the timeline of events according to which Simpsons could not have committed the crime because he did not have enough time and strength to do so. Cochran, who was a great speaker, used his skills and prepared intriguing opening statement using figures of speech, or the famous alliteration, claiming that the evidence against Simpson was

"contaminated, compromised, and ultimately corrupted" (The People v. O. J. Simpson).

Over the next months of trial, the prosecution examined dozens of witnesses.

These witnesses were mostly friends and family of Nicole Brown, who knew Simpson and they believed he was capable of killing. One of the key witnesses was Nicole’s sister, Denise Brown. She claimed that although Simpson appeared to be calm in public, he was often aggressive in private. She said that they would often fight and that

“pictures were flying off the walls, clothes started flying” (The People v. O. J.

Simpson). The prosecution needed the jury to believe that Simpson was not just a smiling and likable football player, but he also could hurt the woman he claimed he loved. That is why they later introduced Nicole’s calls to 911 as part of their evidence.

These proved that Simpson hit Nicole on numerous occasions, or at least scared her enough to call the police. There were reports that Simpson threw Brown against the wall and threatened to take everything from her, but she never reported domestic violence, even when the police came to their home.

Then, the officers of the LAPD took the stand to present a timeline of events that gave Simpson enough time to commit murders. As has already been mentioned, Allan

Park testified that he “arrived at the Simpson’s home on Rockingham at 10:25 to pick him up for his flight to Chicago. I rang the doorbell repeatedly but received no answer.

Shortly before 11:00, a shadowy figure-black, tall, about 200 pounds, and wearing dark clothes walked up the driveway and entered the house. A few minutes later, Simpson

18 emerged, saying he had overslept” (The People v. O. J. Simpson). The jury seemed to understand this evidence well, and the prosecution believed they would easily win the criminal case.

However, the next part of the evidence got strictly technical, explaining the results of blood tests, hair evidence, and footprint analysis from the crime scene. The defense attacked almost every piece of this evidence, and they were trying to prove that blood samples were contaminated, and therefore, they should not mean anything. These attacks, in combination with a not highly-educated jury, caused the jury to start to question the evidence, which was the goal of the “dream team” all along. Since the prosecution based their case on the scientific evidence, such as blood samples from the car or the glove found on Simpson’s estate, they started to realize this trial was not at all yet won.

Over the next few weeks, the defense team started to work with the idea that the samples might not have been contaminated in the lab, but they could have been planted by the corrupted LAPD officers. According to Linder, they needed to “undermine the prosecution's evidence concerning motive, suggest Simpson was physically incapable of committing the crime, raise doubts about the prosecution's timeline, and finally to suggest that the key physical evidence against Simpson was either contaminated or planted, or both” (5). Taking the history of the LAPD racism into account, it was not that hard to believe. And later, on the witness stand, “the LAPD officer who found a bloody glove outside Kato Kaelin's5 bedroom turned out to be a godsend for the defense's corrupt-police theory” (Linder 5). This officer, called Mark Fuhrman, had had problems with the African American community, and the prosecution was even advised not to examine him. The “dream team“ was aware of these problems, and they knew

5 Kato Kaelin was Simpson’s house guest living in the back of his estate. Although he was a famous (and rather comical) character in the trial, he is not important for the purposes of this thesis. 19 very well he treated the African Americans with no respect, and would often call them names, including “the n-word”. During the prosecution examination, everything went according to Marcia Clark’s plan - Fuhrman confirmed he had found the glove with

Brown’s and Simpson’s blood, he also confirmed he had found Brown’s and Goldman’s blood on Simpson’s car. But a few days later, the cross-examination began, and the defense’s F. Lee Bailey aimed to prove that Fuhrman was a racist, and he was capable of planting the evidence. Fuhrman was caught lying on numerous occasions during his testimony, and it left him with no trust from the jurors. Considering he was the one to find the most crucial evidence, it is fair to say that the prosecution made a terrible decision to examine him.

However, this was not the only terrible decision they made in the trial. Shortly after the Fuhrman cross-examination, prosecutor Christopher Darden, believing that the bloody glove belonged to Simpson, asked Simpson to try on the glove. In his mind, this was the move that would have helped them win the jury back. The gloves, that belonged to the murderer, could have easily proven that Simpson was guilty. When

Darden asked Simpson to put them on, it was apparent that the gloves were too small, and Simpson was not able to put them on. After an evident struggle, Simpson turned to

Darden and said: "They don't fit. See? They don't fit" (The People v. O. J. Simpson).

Only later did it turn out that the glove material shrunk because of the blood, and

Simpson was seen wearing gloves the same size. But none of this was known back then.

Based on this incident, Johnnie Cohran came up with his memorable statement, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" (The People v. O. J. Simpson).

As a part of “playing the race card”, the defense team saw a fantastic opportunity to portray O. J. Simpson as a loving husband and father during the visit of

20 his home.6 This visit should help jurors see the defendant outside the courtroom, in his natural environment. Simpson, who was already in prison at the time of this visit, could not change anything about his house. But the “dream team” could. Simpson’s attorneys filled his house with pictures and artifacts of African American culture to make him look proud of his heritage. Most of these belonged to Johnnie Cochran, who was, unlike

Simpson, proud of his heritage and was strongly connected to the community. They also took all the pictures of Brown and her children out of her condo and brought them to

Simpson’s house. It was also reported that some African American people in the photos were complete strangers, and those photos were there to paint a better picture of O. J.

Simpson. There are no doubts that the defense smartly used this visit to their advantage, and although it was not based on truth, it helped.

As the trial continued, the defense team started to bring their witnesses to the stand. At first, Simpson’s family testified, most memorably, his young daughter and his mother. They both described him as a loving person who would never hurt anyone.

They both claimed that he loved Nicole Brown and would never treat her with anything but respect. In her testimony, Simpson’s mother, Eunice Simpson, concentrated on how her son beat the odds and became successful. She mentioned how nice he was to her and emphasized how emotionally draining Nicole's death and the trial were on her son.

After her testimony, it was easy to see that the jurors felt more empathy for the defendant and his family than for the victims.

Feeling confident, the defense team wanted to prove that Simpson was not capable of the physical activity that was necessary for the murders. Simpson's doctor,

Robert Huizenga, described all the health issues Simpson was facing, which included arthritis and other conditions. Although Simpson did not actively play football anymore,

6 Since Simpson’s house was not a crime scene, the defense team had access to it and they could change it to “make it look more family friendly” (Moore 14). 21 he appeared to be in good shape, and the prosecutors found numerous videos of him working out. Of the most controversial ones showed Simpson boxing, and then saying men should try that with their wives.

However, the most controversial part of the trial was, without a doubt, the

LAPD officer Mark Fuhrman. He was supposed to be the star of the prosecution, finding all the crucial evidence and helping to arrest Simpson. But during his testimony, he was proved to be a racist who used “the n-word” a lot. What is worse for the prosecution - it was all on tape and became a part of the evidence in the trial. Fuhrman also admitted to planting the evidence if he felt like the evidence the police had was not enough. Based on this, the defense team claimed that Fuhrman got a sample of

Simpson’s blood and then took to Brown’s condo to frame Simpson. They also claimed that it was impossible that a single male could commit a crime this brutal, and suggested that at least two people killed Brown and Goldman. The “dream team” later invited evidence expert, Henry Lee, who would support their claims, and raise doubts about the shoeprint evidence. Lee also suggested that the evidence collected for DNA purposes was not handled well.

Although Henry Lee was only introduced to the court later in the trial, he had a significant impact on the jurors. Not only did he bring scientific evidence that the LAPD did not handle the samples well, but he was also a charming witness. The jurors later described Lee as "a very impressive gentleman" and "the most credible witness.”

Presenting such a person close to the end of the trial has its consequences, and it appears that the jury remembered him the best. After Lee’s testimony, the prosecution could see that this was not an easy case, and they still needed to fight for the win.

2.4 Verdict

22

As the trial went on to become the longest jury trial in California, the criticism grew. The public criticized either the prosecution or the defense, depending on whom they believed. The LAPD was criticized by both the public and the government for hiring people like Mark Fuhrman. The lawyers were criticized because they often fought in the courtroom, and their fights resembled more personal attacks than fights for justice. The jury spent almost a year in the courtroom. It was apparent that the trial needed to come to an end.

The closing statement of prosecution resembled their opening statement. They pointed out to the mountain of evidence that proved Simpson’s guilt. They also mentioned that one person could be both a popular footballer and a murdered. Marcia

Clark also addressed the issues with Mark Fuhrman and admitted that he was not a good person, but it did not mean that he could frame Simpson. The prosecution believed that the jury would look at the evidence without any emotional aspects, and they would see the logic behind each piece of evidence.

In his closing statement, Johnnie Cochran continued to attack the evidence the prosecution collected and kept saying that it was impossible to have this much evidence; therefore, it must have been planted. He then continued to undermine the LAPD and their processes of collecting and handling evidence that was also mentioned earlier by

Henry Lee. Cochran then addressed Mark Fuhrman too. In his closing statement, he compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler, in the way he treated different races. According to

Cochran, that should have been enough to prove that Fuhrman was capable of framing

Simpson, and the LAPD was only covering him.

After the trial ended, the jury spent only three hours deliberating the case. The case that examined almost 150 witnesses over 133 days and had cost $15 million. On

October 3, 1995, the verdict was revealed to the world. In America, it was the day

23 everybody was waiting for. It was, again, televised, and many people gathered to celebrate together. At 10:00, the verdict was announced: "We the jury in the above- entitled action find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder" (The People v. O. J. Simpson). The cameras immediately concentrated on

Simpson and his “dream team” of attorneys who happily celebrated. There were no doubts they were proud of themselves - taking on the case that seemed completely lost and winning. The prosecution, on the other hand, stayed in their seats, not talking to each other. It was clear to see that they were disappointed with the verdict. But the biggest pain came from the audience. After hearing the verdict, the Goldman family broke down and cried aloud.

Simpson later said that he would invest all his time and money into tracking down Nicole’s killer. But after a year, Simpson needed to put all his efforts into another trial. The Goldmans, who were unsatisfied with the verdict, brought Simpson to civil court. This trial took place in Santa Monica, and Simpson’s “dream team” was not able to help him this time. The jury found Simpson liable for wrongful deaths, and he was ordered to pay a total of $33.5 million to the families of his two victims. After a lengthy trial full of controversies, it could be said that this ending was bittersweet for both sides.

Simpson did not end up in prison, but he was ordered to pay a substantial amount of money to the families of the victims, while the victims’ families did not put Simpson in jail, but they got some satisfaction from winning the second court.

2.5 Aftermath

Shortly after the verdict, the media started interviewing everyone on the case - from Simpson himself and his “dream team” to the prosecution, and witnesses.

Newspapers and television channels were willing to pay enormous amounts to get

24 someone from "the case of the century" to talk about their experience. All the people actively involved in the trial became household names, and some of them still mostly know because of Simpson's case. Most of the members of the “dream team” became celebrity lawyers, with Robert Shapiro representing Eva Longoria and Diana Ross.

This media circus caused the vast majority of people involved in the trial to write a book about the case. This included Robert Shapiro's The Search for Justice: A

Defense Attorney's Brief on the O.J. Simpson Case or Johnnie Cochran's Journey to

Justice, which were one of the most popular ones. The only major character in the trial who never released a book was the judge, Lance Ito. The prosecution's Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, who both quit after the verdict, also released their books, with

Clark becoming a full-time author. Darden's In Contempt will be examined later in this thesis.

However, none of these releases were as controversial as Simpson's book called

If I Did It. In his book, Simpson depicts a hypothetical description of the murders of

Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The idea of the hypothetical description was often considered bizarre, and many readers believed that this book was Simpson's confession. Nevertheless, this was never officially confirmed. It is also possible that

Simpson, who was at that time running out of money, wanted to create a bestseller to get out of the financial issues. This thesis will deal with an in-depth analysis of this book in the next chapter.

It was evident that the trial influenced American society, and all of those who were involved were often asked to speak up in the media. However, unlike defense and prosecution, the families of the victims were not as interesting for the press, and they needed to tell their stories in a different way. After the win in the second trial, Simpson was ordered to pay over thirty million dollars to the Goldmans and Browns. However,

25 he claimed he did not have that much money, so the court gave the rights for Simpson's book to the Goldman's.

Although Simpson won the criminal case, many still believed he was guilty.

Because of this, he lost many of his friends, and most of his influential Brentwood neighbors wanted him to move out. Their wish was fulfilled, and Simpson later moved to Florida with his two younger children, Sydney and Justin. In 2008, Simpson was convicted of an armed robbery in Nevada, and he was sentenced to thirty-three years in prison. He was, however, released in 2017. It could be even said that after the murders,

Simpson's popularity declined, and he was never that adored again. While the attorneys and Judge Ito made second careers based on his case, his own career was in ruins.

The next chapter of this thesis will focus on Simpson's book If I Did It and how it portrays not only the murders he claims not to commit but also his life with Nicole

Brown as well as the days leading to Brown's death.

26

3 O.J. Simpson - If I Did It

“You've read the story. This is the book. Judge for yourself.”

PABLO F. FENJVES

In 2006, Simpson announced he would release a book describing the hypothetical account of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and her acquaintance,

Ronald Goldman. This announcement was met with public outrage, as many believed that Simpson wanted to use the death of his ex-wife to make money. It did not take long before the release was canceled. The original name of the book was O.J. Simpson: If I

Did It, Here's How It Happened, and although Simpson is considered the author, the book was ghostwritten by Pablo Fenjves. In 2007, when the Goldmans received rights to the book by a court, they changed the title to If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer, under which it is selling even today. It is rather difficult to characterize this book by genre, and many readers, as well as critics, find it confusing, with some trying to define the book: “The book is a hypothetical tell-all, an account of how OJ Simpson would have murdered his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her acquaintance, Ron

Goldman, had he been the true killer, although even post-publication, Simpson still maintains his innocence” (Nguyen 38). Even more than a decade after the murder trial, the book became a bestseller, as it was expected. Many critics and readers felt like the book was Simpson's confession, even though he kept claiming it was all hypothetical.

Although the book became a bestseller, it raised the question of what Simpson aimed to say by his controversial piece.

As discussed, many autobiographies serve to defend or explain the writer’s behavior. In Simpson’s case, he is arguably trying to tell his readers that he could not have killed his ex-wife, or if he did, he had a reason for it. Throughout the book,

Simpson seems indecisive about his perspective and his defense, which leads to many

27 contradictions on his part. Simpson fails to stay consistent especially about his feelings towards his ex-wife; he claims to love her endlessly in some chapters, while in others he argues he was happy they got divorced. This chapter will analyze how Simpson tried to defend himself to influence the opinions of his readers, not only on his relationship with

Nicole Brown but, most importantly, on his innocence.

3.1 Book Contributors

Before concentrating on Simpson’s story, it is crucial to analyze how the book contributors depicted Simpson in their parts of the book. One may argue that both the

Goldmans as well as the writer Pablo Fenjves, are trying to discredit Simpson’s narrative, describing him in a negative way. In the Acknowledgement, the Goldman family expresses their frustration and anger with the verdict and the fact that Simpson was a free man: "He continues to walk as a free man. … We were left with a piece of paper that said he owed us $19 million, and he went out for cookie dough" (21, 23). It is evident they are not angry at the prosecution or the police department. Although they mention the verdict was unfair, they always blame Simpson. They believe he took advantage of the system and his wealth to get away with two murders. Their resentment is evident throughout the whole Acknowledgement, and on multiple occasions, they refer to him as a "killer" and a "beast": "What else would you expect from a beast that stabs another man in the heart and nearly decapitates the mother of his children? … "We can't feel bad for a killer" (24, 42). It should also be mentioned that the Goldmans could not change the manuscript because they only owned the rights to the book. The

Acknowledgment was, therefore, the only opportunity they had to express their opinions to the readers. It should also be noted that the Goldmans were sometimes criticized for publishing the book that describes the murder of their loved one, but many supported

28 their decision. Nguyen agrees when he writes that “acquiring the rights to Simpson’s story was their final resort, their final attempt to seek justice in a legal system that they believe has repeatedly failed them” (38).

The writer, Pablo Fenjves, also took the opportunity to address the issues he had with Simpson before the release. Fenjves criticizes Simpson for his approach as well for the crime. In the Prologue, Fenjeves explains that Simpson came to him, hoping he would write a book with a hypothetical confession that would sound just like Simpson.

Over a period of few days, Fenjves and Simpson met and talked about Simpson's life with Brown before the murders. All their meetings were taped so that it was later easier for Fenjves to transcribe the recordings into a book. These tapes are, however, not available today, as according to the agreement between Fenjves and Simpson, they had to be destroyed. Fenjves claims that Simpson was outgoing and friendly to him the first day when they only discussed what led to the murders. The next day, when they were supposed to discuss the night of the murders, Simpson did not show up and ignored

Fenjves's calls. When they finally got to talk about the killings, Fenjves was surprised to hear the details Simpson mentioned about the murders. When the manuscript was finished, and Fenjves sent the copy to Simpson, he seemed happy with the result: "He called every two or three days with changes, but most of them were minor, and he said he was pleased with the book. 'It's real good. It sounds just like me.' Then he got to the chapter on the murders and everything changed" (sic, 60). Simpson wanted to remove the whole chapter, and even called his lawyers, although it was his idea to write a book on the murders. One could argue that since Simpson wanted to defend himself in the book, he disliked the chapter about the murder, as it read as his confession.

It should also be mentioned that none of the changes Simpson later suggested are in the published If I Did It, all its content comes from the original tapes and the

29 original manuscript, which Fenjves confirms this when he concludes the prologue with

"This is an exact replication of the original If I Did It manuscript" (76). This does not, however, mean that everything in this book is genuine. It only shows Simpson's perspective, and it is up to the readers to decide whether they believe the story or not.

3.2 Before the murders

The first five chapters of If I Did It concentrate on Simpson's relationship with

Brown. In the first chapter, he describes how meeting her changed his life and how in love they were in the beginning. He claims that their relationship was almost idyllic, and he mentions that "Life was pretty good. I felt like the luckiest guy in the world."

(83). However, shortly after this, the tone of their relationship changed, and so did the way Nicole was depicted in the book. According to Simpson, "Nicole had a real temper on her, and I'd seen her get physical when she was angry, so sometimes I just left the house and waited for the storm to blow over" (85). It appears that Simpson admits they had their issues, and they fought a lot, but he fails to acknowledge he caused any of these fights. Despite the wide range of reasons to argue, their fights, according to

Simpson, had one thing in common: they were all started by Nicole Brown. With these descriptions, Simpson suggests his ex-wife was solely responsible for their separation, hoping to clear his name in the eyes of his readers. He portrays himself as a great husband who never did anything wrong, let alone abuse Brown physically. Simpson often claims he was "the bigger man", and that he always left the house to let Brown calm down.

However, there were several allegations against Simpson in the court, including a 911 call in which it was easy to hear Simpson yelling in the background. In If I Did It,

Simpson only addresses one of these accusations:

30

I only ever got truly physical with her once, and that was in 1989–and the whole

world heard about it. Let me take you back. It was New Year's Eve. Nicole and I

were at a party early in the evening, at the home of a producer friend, hanging

out with Marcus Allen, one of my old football buddies, and his girlfriend,

Kathryn. Marcus had bought some expensive earrings for Kathryn, as a little

New Year's present, and I guess Nicole got a little jealous (95).

Simpson then goes on and describes how he was just defending himself against Nicole

Brown, who was out of control, but then just went to bed: "I pushed her into the corridor and locked her out, then went back to bed, still fuming. I didn't know what the hell was going on with Nicole" (97). There is no doubt that Simpson wanted to make himself look kind to his readers. That night, when he claims only to have pushed Brown into the corridor, she was taken to the precinct with bruises on her face and her arms.

Another incident, when Simpson broke into Brown's house yelling, was not addressed in the book, as Simpson arguably wanted to improve his public persona. However, the transcript of the 911 call7 was included, and it strongly suggests that Brown was afraid of Simpson:

NICOLE: I don't want to stay on the line. He's going to beat the shit out of me.

DISPATCHER: Wait a minute, just stay on the line so we can know what's

going on until the police get there, okay?

…

DISPATCHER: Yeah. Has this happened before or no?

NICOLE: Many times (201, 209)

Based on these excerpts, it could be said that Brown expected Simpson to be violent, which does not correlate with the persona he has created of himself in If I Did It.

7 Fenjves includes the transcriptions of these calls as well as the interrogation in the book. 31

Moreover, the 911 calls Brown made were released to the public, and millions heard them. It is arguable whether Simpson did not address the 911 calls because he thought no one would remember them or because he did not want to acknowledge them, but they were still an essential part of the case. Many readers were skeptic of his depiction as a good husband, hearing the calls years before with Simpson shouting at Brown in the background. It appears that Simpson tried to improve his image too hard, which led to obvious misleading on his part. It could be even said that Simpson was ignorant towards the past accusation, arguably hoping the readers would not remember them.

However, most of the readers watched the trial closely, and they realized that Simpson’s narrative often contradicts what was presented in the courtroom for his benefit. Nguyen agrees when he claims that “Simpson downplays the incidents of abuse recorded by the

Los Angeles Police Department, swearing he never touched Nicole, and emphasizes

Nicole’s spontaneous and irrational bursts of rage, often justified by her frustration with being known as OJ’s wife” (39).

Another interesting aspect of Simpson’s defense in If I Did It is a comparison of how Simpson talked about Brown before her death and then later after discussing the murders with Fenjves, clearly describing himself as a mourning victim. What should be noted, is that the book monologue took place in 2005, more than a decade after Brown’s death. This means that Simpson had enough time to deal with his anger towards his ex- wife, yet he kept blaming her for most of their issues in the book. Also, in the first five chapters,8 he refers to her very negatively: “Nicole was venomous, full of rage and anger, and I kept my distance for the rest of the day” (243), “Nicole had poisoned them

[the children] with her anger” (255). However, after her death in the book, his attitude towards her changed, and he started to describe how much he cared about her and what

8 These five chapters describe the events before the night of June 12, 1994. 32 she meant to him: “I loved her, always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much” (413), “ I loved her too much” (397). It is clear to see that

Simpson blames most of their marital issues on Brown before the story gets to her death. However, after discussing her demise, he blames their problems on “loving her so much”. It is evident that Simpson tries to depict himself as a victim - a man who lost the woman he loved more than anything. Taking their marriage of twelve years into account, it is undeniable that he loved Brown, but the way he depicted her in his book shows that he concentrated on himself and the way the readers will see him. It could be even said that Simpson desperately tried to improve his image, trying every strategy possible, from blaming Brown for their divorce and ignoring his domestic abuse history to playing the victim.

3.3 The Night in Question

In the sixth chapter, called The night in question, Simpson describes what could have happened, had he committed the crime. In this chapter, more than anywhere else in the book, Simpson reminds the readers that his description of the murders is purely hypothetical, and they should not take it literally. Story-wise, the chapter continues exactly where the fifth chapter ended, with Simpson, furious at Brown, while at home with his houseguest Kato. After a while, a friend of his called Charlie arrives at

Simpson's mansion. The character of Charlie is only briefly introduced to the readers, and he is never mentioned again, neither in the book nor the trial. In the Prologue, the author describes how Charlie was introduced to the story during their interview, and it is more than confusing: “'Who was with you?' 'I'm not saying I did it,' he said. 'Well, hypothetically, then. You couldn't have done this alone. Someone was with you. Who would that be?' 'I don't know.' 'We've got to give him a name,' I said. 'You want to call

33 him 'Charlie'?' He shrugged” (52). It seems that Simpson only mentioned Charlie after

Fenjves pointed out that he must have had an accomplice. Simpson then continues with the story and says that Charlie told him that Nicole was an addict, and they decided to confront her for the sake of the children.

As the character of Charlie appears in the book only for a short time, Simpson must have had a good reason for introducing him. Arguably, it was because he gave

Simpson a motive. Defending himself in If I Did It, Simpson claims he went to Brown’s condo to make her stop doing drugs, but the situation took a nasty turn. However, he argues that his primary reason for confronting Brown was selfless as he initially only wanted to help his children. It could be said that using Charlie’s accusations, Simpson supports his previous claims about Brown’s bad influence on their children, and it helps him portray Brown as the bad one in their relationship. Simpson even describes that

Charlie wanted to prevent him from going to Brown’s place, but he was determined:

“'I’ve got to get this uder control.' 'You should let the lawyers handle it,' Charlie said.

'F*ck the lawyers.'” (Simpson 297).

He then continues, describing the soon-to-be crime scene in detail, adding his thoughts on the ongoing situation: “There were candles burning inside, and I could hear faint music playing. It was obvious that Nicole was expecting company. I wondered who it was this time” (300). According to his own words, Simpson got jealous, and it irritated him even more. He then saw a young man9 entering Brown's property through the back door, and he immediately assumed Goldman was the company Brown was expecting. At that time, Simpson did not know that Brown's mother left her glasses at the restaurant Goldman worked for, and he was willing to bring it to Brown after his shift. Simpson, evidently upset, then confronted Goldman: “'Who the f*ck are you?' I

9 Ronald Goldman 34 said. 'I, uh-I just came by to return a pair of glasses,' he replied, stammering. … 'This motherf*cker wants me to believe that he's here dropping off a pair of Judy's glasses,' I said. 'I am', Goldman said, appearing increasingly nervous” (302).

What might come as a shock to some readers is that Simpson arguably took all the blame for the murders on himself. He had the opportunity to blame the character of

Charlie for starting the fight or even the murders, but he did not do so. What is more, he describes that Charlie wanted him to calm down before anyone gets hurts which make

Simpson look even worse. It could be said that in this case hisdefense strategy failed completely, as he arguably felt guilty for the murders and could not blame them on anyone else.

With Simpson providing details, such as a conversation with Goldman, it was hard for some readers to believe that he made the crime up. Also, Simpson elaborates most of the evidence presented in the trial into his story. This includes the infamous gloves that did not fit, and a knife that was used as a murder weapon. It could be even said that for a hypothetical story, it contained too many details that were connected, and it would be difficult to fabricate them.

After hearing voices from the outside, Brown comes out of her condo and sees

Goldman, Simpson, and Charlie. If I Did It describes the following events like this:

Then something went horribly wrong, and I know what happened, but I can't tell

you exactly how. I was still standing in Nicole's courtyard, of course, but for a

few moments, I couldn't remember how I'd gotten there, when I'd arrived, or

even why I was there. Now I was standing in Nicole's courtyard, in the dark,

listening to the loud, rhythmic, accelerated beating of my own heart. I put my

left hand to my heart and my shirt felt strangely wet. I looked down at myself.

For several moments, I couldn't get my mind around what I was seeing. The

35

whole front of me was covered in blood, but it didn't compute. I was more

confused than ever. 'What the hell had happened here?' It didn't seem real, and

none of it computed. 'Who had done this? And why?' (305-306)

Trying not to reveal too much, Simpson does not, as a matter of fact, mention any killing. The description of the murders even brings more questions than answers. What is also surprising is that the moments leading to victims’ deaths are well described, but their deaths are only suggested, without Simpson mentioning the act of killing. Many readers were surprised that while the whole book If I Did It contained a lot of in-depth descriptions of situations that were not entirely relevant for the story, and the chapter that made the book a bestseller was somewhat obscure. Nguyen agrees when he writes that

While the circumstances of the events leading up to the murders were described

at length – Ron returning glasses that Nicole’s mom had left at his family’s

restaurant, the dog Kato wagging his tail at the sight of Ron, and Simpson’s

suspicions when he observed dim lighting, mood music, and candles inside the

house – the details of the actual murders were hazy (39)

After the murder scene, the in-depth descriptions continue. Simpson even discusses the route he took when he drove home from Brown’s estate, how he got undressed to dispose of blood-soaked clothes, even how he stumbled when he was passing the air conditioning units on his back yard. What strikes the most is that all these details fit perfectly into the timeline the prosecution created. In his book, Simpson even describes how he was contemplating about what lie would be best to tell the driver who had been waiting for him for almost thirty minutes: “Maybe he thought I’d been asleep. That would be a good thing to tell him: That I’d been asleep” (sic, 336). Details like this convinced some readers that this was a confession. It appears that while talking

36 to Fenjves, Simpson sometimes forgot that he needed to defend himself, and he mentioned the details he should have omitted.

In the last part of the chapter, Simpson describes the immediate moments after the murders: his flight to Chicago and the phone call he got from the police informing him Brown was found dead. According to the prosecution, Simpson’s reaction to

Brown’s death made the investigators believe he was the main suspect. The problem was that Simpson never asked how Brown died when the police called him to inform him that his ex-wife was killed. In If I Did It, Simpson addresses this moment, saying that he kept asking about her death, but they did not tell him: “The cop repeated himself: 'We can’t say anything. We’re still investigating. We’ll tell you what we know when you get here'” (266). However, according to the official records, Simpson never asked about his kids or Brown’s death, he only sounded very emotional. Detective

Ronald Phillips, who called Simpson, testified during the trial and said that Simpson did not ask about the murder method, place, or time. Robert Shapiro, Simpson’s attorney, then confirmed the information when he tried to defend his client, saying there is no

“appropriate way to respond when you find out somebody’s been killed” (The People v.

O. J. Simpson) instead of trying to prove Philips was lying. Again, a moment like this left the readers confused and made them believe that if Simpson lied about such a detail, he could have lied other times in the book. These little lies are the mistakes Simpson should not have made when he wanted to defend himself, and perhaps, he was not even aware of them during his conversations with Fenjves. Only after he read the author’s manuscript did he notice the inconsistencies, and that might be the reason why he wanted to change the book, and later cancel it altogether.

However, there is one more big mistake Simpson made in his narrative, as he arguably mentioned the last moments of his ex-wife’s life. This moment is, surprisingly,

37 not a part of the sixth chapter, but it is a part of Prologue. Before his official interview with Pablo Fenjves, Simpson said: “I’m not going to tell you that I sliced my ex-wife’s throat and watched her eyes roll up into her head” (45). Although it is questionable whether Simpson talked about this moment because he remembered it or whether that was his imagination of Nicole’s death, it had a strong influence on both the readers and the author. In his 2007 interview with CBS, Fenjves mentioned that he felt obliged to include this statement in his prologue. He claims that after this statement, he “never doubted Simpson’s guilt” (CBS). Even though it might not look like an important detail, for someone who is trying to defend their public persona, statements like this should be avoided at all costs.

3.4 Investigation

The last two chapters of If I Did It concentrate on the investigation before

Simpson’s arrest. They cover the first interrogation as well as the Bronco chase. In this part, Simpson explains his opinions and feelings on the police investigation and starting media pressure. He often mentions that he was willing to cooperate with the police, describing himself as a mourning ex-husband who wanted to bring justice to the case.

In the seventh chapter, the readers can find the whole transcript of the first interrogation of Simpson. This interrogation was never used in the trial evidence because it was confusing for both the defense and the prosecution. Most of Simpson’s relevant answers were too complicated, or he kept changing them. The readers can easily spot pieces of misleading information in this part. In the chapter before, Simpson mentions that when the police call to inform him about Nicole’s death, he gets upset and breaks a glass, cutting his hand. In the seventh chapter, during the interrogation, when asked about his injury, Simpson claims something different:

38

VANNATTER: How did you get the injury on your hand?

SIMPSON: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at

the house, I was just running around.

VANNATTER: How did you do it in Chicago?

SIMPSON: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the

bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.

LANGE: Is that how you cut it?

SIMPSON: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not

sure.

LANGE: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

SIMPSON: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last

thing I did before I left when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of

the Bronco. (294)

Similar answers can be found throughout the whole chapter on interrogation, and they confuse the readers almost as much as they confused the detectives. One may argue that his answers during the interrogation resemble If I Did It, with Simpson providing misleading information that makes him look good but does not make sense.

Moreover, Simpson claiming he was not able to remember his whereabouts from just days before the interrogation also makes readers question how he could have remembered the events happening more than ten years before. In the first chapters, when Simpson recalls the beginning of his relationship with Brown, he describes some events to such details as if they only happened yesterday. This fact raises questions whether it is even possible that Simpson remembers those days with the certainty he seems to have throughout the book. It is more likely that he is trying to persuade the readers that he is a good person who loved his then-wife. Nguyen agrees when he

39 claims that “Simpson clearly aims to manipulate the readers with the portrayal of his marriage to Nicole and the description of the events the night of the murder” (39).

This manipulation can also be found in the seventh chapter, when after the transcript of the interrogation, Simpson shares a note that Nicole wrote to him years earlier where she blamed herself for the failed marriage and describes Simpson as the victim: “O.J. You’ll be my one and only true love. I’m sorry for the pain I’ve caused you, and I’m sorry we let it die” (316). Although this note is apparently a very personal element of their relationship and it should be included in the book, it is surprising to find it mentioned right after the interrogation. One could argue that Simpson, knowing that readers could condemn him after the failed interrogation, decided to include a positive note about himself regardless of its story-wise misplacement. Furthermore, this note also supported his claims that Brown was the one to blame for their divorce.

The last aspect of the case Simpson discusses in his book is the slow-speed

Bronco chase and events that led to him. Throughout this last part, Simpson describes himself as a mostly calm person who was willing to obey the police orders. For example, he claims that he reacted to his arrest warrant easily, willing to cooperate:

“'They’ve issued a warrant for your arrest. You’re supposed to turn yourself in at eleven.' I looked at the clock on the night table next to the bed. It was almost eleven. I had an hour. 'Okay,' I said. 'I’ll shower and get dressed'” (332). However, he then took a gun, his passport, and about ten thousand dollars and left the house.10 His friend Al

Cowlings was driving the whole time, and it is still unsure what their destination was. In the book, Simpson does not explain why he decided to leave, but according to If I Did

It, he only wanted to go to Brown’s condo, as a mourning ex-husband: “'Let’s go by the

10 Author note: In all the available publications of If I Did It Simpson mentions he took his “Magnum, along with my passport and about ten dollars in cash” (335). It is unsure whether the incorrect amount of money is an honest mistake or whether he did not want to look like he was running abroad in the eyes of his readers. 40 house' I said. 'What house?' he said. 'Nicole’s house,' I said. He didn't ask why. He got onto the 405 Freeway and headed north” (337). However, if this was Simpson’s destination all along, it raises a question of why he took his passport and cash with him.

Once again, Simpson’s book is consistent, and his perspective confuses the readers.

After Simpson’s car is spotted on the freeway and police start to follow them, he takes the gun out of the case and points it to his head. He describes that it was an overwhelming situation for him, and he could not cope anymore. During what he thought were his last moments, Simpson claimes that he was thinking about his ex-wife:

“I was thinking about all those years with Nicole, most of them so good I wasn’t sure I deserved them” (347). While this might look like a delightful and poetic end of

Simpson’s book, it contradicts what he’s been saying to his readers in most of the time.

In the first half of the book, Simpson mentions that their “arguments started after a year or so and Nicole often got physical” (70). Although it is common to romanticize the deceased loved ones, it is apparent that Simpson is trying to make readers think that he loved Brown, and he could not have killed her. Ending the book with the thoughts of

Nicole, Simpson is arguably trying to show his unconditional love for her for the last time.

3.5 Evaluation

Although this biography aims to bring clarification on the murders and

Simpson’s possible motive, it could be said that the book provokes more questions than answers. Simpson’s strategy is unclear, and there are several aspects of this literary piece that could be considered confusing.

The first, and for many the most important one, is the reason why Simpson decided to reach out to Fenjves and write this biography. For many, however, this book

41 is not a biography but a novel or even just a story. Nguyen takes it even further when he writes that “it is a morally repugnant concept – a self-described hypothetical confession” (38). While the genre of this piece is undoubtedly difficult to explain, there is no clarification on why Simpson decided to write his “confession”. In the Prologue,

Pablo Fenjves asks himself the same question: “I kept asking myself why he had agreed to write this crazy book, and I could only come up with three reasons: One, he needed the money. Two, he missed the attention. And three, he genuinely wanted to confess. I was hoping for number three, of course” (39). Although Simpson never confirmed any of these reasons himself, the financial issues are considered the most probable cause.

After the civil case, which the Goldmans won, Simpson filed for bankruptcy and moved to Florida. Up to this day, he owes Ronald’s family over ten million dollars.

His reasons for writing this book might have also influenced why he was such an unskilled narrator of his defense. If he did not want to write the book in the first place, he kept going back and forth with his defense, and it caused many inconsistencies. Overall, the information he provided was confusing and distorted.

Given the fact that his case was highly-documented in the media, he was often caught misleading the readers. His perspective did not reflect the truth on multiple occasions, e.g., when he mentioned he never hit Nicole Brown. He also influenced the readers’ opinion in the way he portrayed Brown and himself. As has already been discussed in this chapter, Simpson implied their marriage failed because of Nicole and her issues, while he always stood by her. He then portrayed himself as the victim, who lost his loved one although it has been proven in the court that “in the year before the murder, [a witness] has said Simpson often phoned her and told her he would kill Nicole and that

Nicole said substantially the same thing” (Thagard 372). The readers who followed the trial (which is presumably a vast majority) probably remembered how it was proved that

42

Simpson was aggressive towards his ex-wife. Based on this, they might have easily noticed that Simpson was lying in his book when he described their marriage as “close to perfect” (70). Moreover, when on the next pages he claims she was “full of venom”

(188).

Another reason why If I Did It was considered a confusing and unreliable literary work was because it did not bring any new light on the event everybody expected - the murders. To mislead his readers even more, Simpson introduced a character of Charlie, which was never mentioned in the trial, and even his appearance in the book was puzzling - the readers did not learn why he came to Simpson’s place that night or how he left the crime scene. He only served as a messenger who accused

Brown of being an addict, which arguably gave Simpson the reason to confront her. The murder scenes also lacked any details, and its description arguably sounded like an excuse for killing Goldman and Brown. It contained many statements, such as “Then something went horribly wrong“ and “I don’t know what happened” (252-253). It appears that Simpson did not know how to present the killing to his readers without looking guilty, so he did not. With the previous chapters having in-depth depictions of details, this part might have been disappointing for the readers. Its former title was O.J.

Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened, but its content never described the exact moments of the murders. Simpson never truly mentioned how he killed Brown and

Goldman, he merely described the immediate situation before and after the killings. Fisher agrees when he writes: “We come very little closer to knowing the facts of a June night that found the slashed bodies of O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife and her ill- starred friend lying in their blood as a tormented Akita11 called the world to attention”

(972).

11 The dog who discovered the bodies. 43

Taking everything into account, it can be said that Simpson did not defend his public image successfully. He provided misleading and confusing information and was often caught lying. He blamed Brown for their divorce and for being a bad influence on their children, failing to admit the mistakes he did in the marriage. Moreover, he attempted to portray himself as the victim, which made some readers and critics upset, considering he was the main suspect in Brown and Goldman murder trial.

44

4 Johnnie Cochran - Journey to Justice

Johnnie Cochran, who was a part, and later the leader of the “dream team” that saved Simpson from prison is one of the most influential characters of the trial.

Anderson agrees when he writes that Cochran was the “most notable person on the

Simpson 'dream team' and was viewed by many of the aspiring young lawyers-to-be on my campus as a legend and a hero.” Before joining Simpson’s defense team, he was a high-profile fighter against racial discrimination, and most of his clients were African

Americans. In Simpson’s murder case, he arguably decided to “play the race card”12 too, and he emphasized many issues and prejudice the African Americans were facing from the LAPD. During and after the case, Cochran faced heavy criticism for trying to save the “murderer” from imprisonment and for playing the race card. In his book, he addresses this criticism and defends his fight for Simpson, basing most of his arguments on the racial prejudice of LAPD. Cochran also takes this as an opportunity to promote his skills, often mentioning he won the criminal case despite the mountain of evidence the prosecution had.

Cochran, who was well known for his skills as an African American attorney, was sometimes criticized for always concentrating on racial issues. Slovenko agrees when he writes that ”whatever the case, civil or criminal, prosecution or defense,

Cochran worked reliable magic with black jurors at least in part he could turn anything into social issues” (293). In his biography Journey to Justice, he concentrates on the racial problems and tries to explain to his readers how difficult it is to face white officers. The first chapters that focus on the history of his family and their struggle as

African Americans to make careers as successful lawyers, will not be included in the analysis, but they need to be mentioned. More than a quarter of Cochran’s book deals

12 Baynes 563. The term “play the race card” is mentioned multiple times in the thesis, but since it was commonly used, it will not be cited further. 45 with his family and his upbringing. For a reader, this is a clear sign that the book does not aim to depict Simpson’s trial, but it concentrates on Cochran as a person. He also includes dozens of family photographs and official portraits that do not influence the case in any way.

As it has already been mentioned, Cochran’s Journey to Justice is a biography by genre, just as the previously analyzed If I Did It. Again, he uses it to redeem himself from the criticism he received, but his defense strategy is arguably much better than

Simpson’s. In his book, Cochran often bases his defense on the situations that were part of the trial and were well-documented. As a lawyer, he was familiar with all the documents shown in the court and media and therefore, there is only little misleading information in Journey to Justice. He is a great speaker, and his defense strategy is emphasizing the events his readers know and adding details that make him look good.

Throughout the book he often mentions how many important decisions he made for the defense team, including examples from the trial. However, he is not subtle with his strategy and visibly tries to influence his readers and their opinions.

Journey to Justice was criticized for concentrating on Cochran too much. It was sometimes described as “advertisement for Johnnie L. Cochran Jr” and that it

“resembles the books published by politicians during electoral campaigns” (Kennedy).

Reasons for these comments could be often found in the parts that concentrated on the case strategy, as Cochran linked almost every critical aspect of the trial with himself.

In the first chapters that deal with the trial, Cochran evidently attempts to discredit his colleague Robert Shapiro. Cochran and Shapiro had some conflicts, and they were sometimes compared, so Cochran takes this opportunity to prove to his readers he is a better lawyer. Cochran also describes himself as indispensable part of the team, who was requested by Simpson himself and made all the critical decisions in the

46 defense strategy. Also, Cochran suggests that he was liked both by the defense and the prosecution, arguing they all respected him. All of these aspects will be analyzed in this chapter. Overall, Cochran’s could be described as including pieces of information that are not relevant to the story, but they arguably increase Cochran’s reputation.

This chapter will discuss this strategy and its manifestation in the chronological order of Simpson’s case.

4.1 Cochran’s View Before the Trial

When Cochran’s book starts to concentrate on Simpson’s trial, it is shortly after the media released the first information about the murders. Cochran tries to comment on the aspects of the primary investigations as well as the situation the media created with their coverage of the murders. He was also asked to be an active case commentator on the television, so he started to follow the investigation right from the beginning.

On multiple occasions, he also mentions Simpson’s public persona, and he compares how Simpson was represented before and after the crime. Shortly after

Simpson was seen in handcuffs and he became the main suspect, Cochran recalls that media started to treat him as if he had died: “Simpson was a winner of Heisman Trophy.

He was a commentator on NBC. He was highly regarded. The newsreaders used the past tense. For some reason--my instincts as a layer no doubt—this disturbed me. I thought it was premature. It was like it was a done deal” (Cochran 231). Cochran clearly criticizes the media portrayal of Simpson and suggests that they influenced how the public perceived him during the criminal trial. It could be even said the media popular among white communities tried to “blacken” Simpson to make him look more dangerous. In his article, Baynes agrees and adds that the white press wanted to depict

Simpson as a "savage Black brute." (560)

47

After the initial criticism of media, Johnnie Cochran continues with his critique of Robert Shapiro. In spite of not being a part of the team yet, Cochran expresses his opinion on the efforts of Simpson’s team, mostly blaming Shapiro for the mistakes they made in the beginning: “Shapiro elected not to tell his client about this.” … “There was

Kardashian, whom Shapiro had convinced to read aloud the rambling, ambiguous letter with its intimations of suicide that a clearly distraught O. J. had left behind. All this was great theatre—of a terrible sort” (Cochran 233-234). It should also be mentioned that this is the first time the readers learn about Robert Shapiro, and Cochran takes this opportunity to portray him as incompetent right away. Throughout Journey to Justice, there are numerous instances when Cochran compliments his colleagues and thanks to them for the work they have done during the trial, but he never praises Shapiro. What is more, in the pictures taken during the trial which are parts of the book, the readers can spot Shapiro only rarely. Cochran even included his photos with prosecution’s Marcia

Clark and Christopher Darden, all smiling and chatting, but there is no such a photo with Shapiro. This might be surprising to the readers because although Shapiro lost his leading position to Cochran, during the first weeks of investigations, he was arguably the most involved member of Simpson’s team13 and Cochran failing to acknowledge that seems somewhat biased.

Some readers might even notice that Cochran does not concentrate on the case and Shapiro’s skills at all when mentioning him in the book. For example, when recalling their first strategy meeting, Cochran does not comment on any legal aspects and trial details, he only comments on Shapiro’s clothes: “What stands out most in my mind about that meeting is Bob’s14 unusual dress—black shirt, black pants, and a gleaming silver metal belt” (Cochran 239). This way, Cochran possibly shows the

13 According to Bugliosi, Shapiro “laid the foundation of successful defense“ (294). 14 Robert Shapiro’s nickname 48 readers that he did not accept Shapiro as an equal colleague, but mostly as someone he had to cope with. Jeff Guinn agrees when he writes that Cochran in his book “mostly wants to use that particular forum to take shots at fellow O.J. legal eagle Robert

Shapiro.” The feud between the two leading attorneys must have been severe because, in his book The Search for Justice: A Defense Attorney's Brief on the O.J. Simpson

Case, Shapiro evidently criticizes Cochran too and blames the problems they had solely on him. For example, when the defense team failed to submit the list of witnesses to the court, “Cochran blames it on Shapiro’s staff, Shapiro blames it on Cochran’s staff, while in reality, they are both to blame” (Fisher 984).

Throughout the tenth chapter called “Does He Need Your Help?”, it is easy to see that before joining the “dream team”, Cochran did not agree with many decisions the defense made, and he often suggested that he could have done a better job. The reason why Cochran criticized Simpson’s team could be that he wanted to join the team and prove his lawyer skills to the world. This was arguably the most prominent case for the African American community, and Cochran wanted to be a part of it. He mentions that he has “too much experience with the LAPD” and that he “knew O. J. Simpson as a man, not just as an NFL star” (Cochran 235). Although it is not sure whether Cochran was the most experienced lawyer, his case commentary on the television also suggested he believed he was more than competent to take part in the trial. A murder trial of an international star that might include racial prejudice is something Cochran always excelled at, and it could be even said that “this case was made for him, but he couldn’t be a part of it [at that time]. Instead, he eagerly followed every piece of investigation and commented on the incapability of the defense team, claiming he would do a better job” (Slovenko 296).

49

However, to the surprise of many readers, in his book Cochran suggests that he did not want to be Simpson’s attorney: “I told Bob that I was not particularly interested in the case” (Cochran 239). This claim then raises questions among readers who closely followed the case, and it seems that Cochran was suggesting that he did not need

Simpson’s trial as much as Simpson needed him. Throughout the tenth chapter, there are numerous instances when Cochran mentions how often Simpson would call his office, but Cochran always turned him down. Later on, Simpson got more desperate, and Cochran describes his calls as following: “The next night, O. J. Simpson called again. 'Please, you have got to help me,' he repeated. 'I need you on this case. I have nobody else to try this case. I understand you’re the best trial lawyer I can get for this. I want you to come and do it'” (Cochran 245). In this excerpt, Cochran gives his readers a subtle hint that he was the best and most valuable member of the defense team, and

Simpson was aware of that. To take it even further, Cochran describes himself as “the most experienced trial lawyer involved. I had won dozens of high-profile cases in the very courthouse in which we were going to appear” (Cochran 367). Because of these excerpts, Cochran’s book was criticized because it “resembles the books published by politicians during electoral campaigns—books that formulaically praise friends, attack enemies and say only enough that is self-critical to create a thin disguise of openness”

(Kennedy).

To make himself look even more indispensable, Cochran reminds his readers that Simpson called him often, and both his wife and his friends thought he would be a great addition to Simpson’s team. But he makes it look as if he was not sure whether he should join the defense. He even mentions that it would not be good for him to take the case: “taking O. J. Simpson’s case would be a 'bad' business decision in much the same way my decision to pursue the [earlier] lawsuit had been. But at the end of the day, you

50 decide certain questions with your heart rather than your head” (Cochran 245). Based on these moments, it is easy for the readers to notice that Cochran portrays himself as

Simpson’s savior who had to take the case for his “brother’s” sake.

Cochran then accepted the case and started working with the “dream team” five months after the investigation began. After the chapter in which Cochran joined the defense, he includes sixteen pages of photographs from the trial and verdict with short notes. Some critics argue that these pictures are “so clearly indifferent to authentic self- expression and so obviously a tool of mere marketing” because all they do is portray

Cochran as the most skilled lawyer and more popular in the courtroom. (Kennedy) They mostly show Cochran in friendly chats with almost all the major actors of the case

(excluding Robert Shapiro). The image notes also often sound arguably rather self- centered, as Cochran writes about “my opening statement”, “my offices”, and “my client, O. J. Simpson”, although the defense was supposedly working as a team.

4.2 Defense Strategy

The latter part of Journey to Justice deals with the trial and the verdict, concentrating on the strategy of the “dream team”. As they were often criticized for

“playing the race card” in the trial instead of focusing on the evidence and crimes

Simpson might have committed, Cochran again criticizes Shapiro and accuses him “that he was the one who first shuffled the deck” (Cochran 252). Although it was Shapiro who was the first to mention that Simpson might have been framed, with Cochran as the main defender, this statement became their primary strategy. This is, therefore, again,

Cochran’s way of attacking Shapiro’s reputation. Throughout the whole book, there are numerous other instances when Cochran disapproves of Shapiro and his strategy, but

51 since it has been already proved in this thesis that Cochran was biased against Shapiro, this topic will not be discussed in this chapter again.

Like in the trial, Cochran uses his book to portray Simpson as a hero who was unfairly accused of a terrible crime by the allegedly racist LAPD. He often mentions

Mark Fuhrman and his past as the reason why Simpson was rightfully acquitted.

Cochran usually refers to Simpson as “brother” and a “good citizen who fell victim to

LAPD racism” (Cochran 284). In his book review, Slovenko criticizes Cochran for this portrayal and claims that “Cochran painted Simpson, who had hitherto moved almost exclusively in white society, as a victim of racial oppression” (293). It appears that

Cochran’s strategy of making Simpson look innocent was to make the readers for sorry for him. It was very often mentioned how the trial influenced Simpson’s mental health and wellbeing. According to Cochran, Simpson was “visibly weary and dispirited” and

“clearly in distress” (Cochran 288, 301).

Although in his book Cochran never mentions that the defense team used race as their strategy, the chapters depicting the trial might resemble a defense that could be used in court. He addresses the criticism he received for “playing the race card”, arguing that he only defended Simpson, believing it was the right thing to do. What is more, in the last chapter, Cochran even claims that he never tried to concentrate jurors’ attention on Simpson’s race: “No, we did not (play the race card). I find that phrase distasteful, since it trivializes not only the criminal justice system, but also the most important social issue in our society, the question of racial equality” (Cochran 360).

Cochran, being an experienced lawyer, skillfully suggests to the readers why racial prejudice was an issue in Simpson’s trials. It is evident to readers that Cochran and his team were hoping that “the racially diverse (but largely African American jury) in the criminal case would relate to and understand the defense’s story of police racism and

52 corruption” (Baynes 563). As well as in the trial, in Journey to Justice, he attacks the evidence provided by the prosecution paragraph after paragraph. In many cases,

Cochran chose the same arguments to persuade the readers about his truth as he did in the courtroom, sometimes even using the same words. Therefore, there are long passages in the book that just quote Cochran’s statements from the trial, including his opening and closing statements. To the surprise of some readers, he did not include any statements from his colleagues or prosecution, only several quotes that he commented on. For this reason it is evident that although the book claims to describe “journey to

Simpson’s acquittal, Cochran only concentrates on himself” (Slovenko 299). During the trial, he often takes credit for all the case-turning moments, as if his colleagues did not do anything important.

Arguably, the most controversial witness of the whole trial was Mark Fuhrman, an LAPD officer who was accused of planting the evidence against Simpson because of his racial comments on African Americans. In Journey to Justice, Cochran admits to his readers that he never spoke to Fuhrman, and based on the way he portrays him in his book, he did not even want to: “We had never exchanged a word, but I knew him and his kind” (Cochran 291). In his case, “his kind” represents all the racist police officers who Cochran faced either in court or in real-life experience. Shortly after learning about Fuhrman’s involvement in this case, Cohran described Fuhrman to his readers:

“He was not incompetent nor slothful, he was neither careless nor misguided. He was a living remnant of the LAPD’s dark past, an active, vocal, hate-filled bigot whose violent—even murderous—impulses were, by his own account barely under control”

(Cochran 275). It is evident that Cochran detested Fuhrman and everything he represented and suggests that he had been fighting against people like Fuhrman all his career.

53

It might have therefore come as a surprise when Cochran rejected the possibility to cross-examine Fuhrman. Instead, another member of the “dream team”, Lee Bailey, questioned the allegedly racist LAPD officer to prove his mistreatment of African

American suspects, and that he could have planted the evidence against Simpson. When

Cochran recalls these events in Journey in Justice, he explains he was tempted to cross- examine Fuhrman himself but believed it would be better if someone unbiased did it:

“The best way of showing this case was not about the race, I was convinced, was to confront Fuhrman with a white lawyer. So, I put my history and my feelings aside and turned over the witness I'd wanted to confront all my life to Lee Bailey. I'm not sure I've ever made a more difficult decision, nor been more certain that I was right” (Cochran

292). As Cochran suggests, he made the right decision because Bailey showed the jury that Fuhrman commented on African Americans pejoratively on multiple occasions, and then the defense team even played a tape with Fuhrman claiming he sometimes plant the evidence to get African Americans behind bars. Again, Cochran in his book emphasizes that it was he who allowed Bailey to confront Fuhrman. For the purpose of the narrative, he could have only mentioned that Bailey cross-examined Fuhrman, trying to prove he was the one behind all the important decisions, Cochran points out he let Bailey do it instead.

Although Cochran himself never crossed-examined Fuhrman, he makes evident to the readers he wanted to discredit him. Already in his opening statement, Cochran singles out Fuhrman to make it apparent that he is not one of many LAPD officers, and that every piece of evidence he collected must be treated with caution:

When Johnnie Cochran delivered the defense opening statement, he undertook

to expose Cark’s obfuscation: But with the regards to this glove … let me try to

54

set the record straight for you. This glove was not found by “them” or “the

officers” or whatever. This glove was found by Detective Fuhrman. He found it.

Although you didn’t hear about Mr. Fuhrman in the course of the opening

statement of the prosecution, we think he will be a key witness in this case.

(Fisher 987)

Like in the courtroom, in his book Cochran addresses Fuhrman’s testimony as one of the biggest mistakes the prosecution made. He mentions that he needed to address the racist allegations about Fuhrman, but he claims to his readers he did not want the jury to think that Simpson’s case was about the race.

To arguably flatter his ego, throughout the chapter, Cochran mentions numerous times how everybody on the team wanted him to cross-examine Fuhrman: “'The guy’s made for you, Johnnie,' he said to me. 'Think about it, a black lawyer confronting a racist white cop. It’s got to work with this jury'” (Cochran 290). To some readers, these excerpts felt as if Cochran implied that “graciously gave up his right to cross-examine

Fuhrman to those less fortunate” (Slovenko 295). Based on situations like this one, it could be said that Cochran aims to portray himself as the winner, not as a loser like

Simpson did. The situation with Fuhrman’s testimony is an excellent example of this: on multiple occasions, Cochran mentions how much he wants to cross-examine the racist officer, then often includes notes about how others wanted him to do so, but in the end, Cochran selects Bailey. By doing, this he is arguably trying to show his selflessness to the readers and that he values his team and his client’s sake.

Shortly after Mark Fuhrman's examination, in Journey to Justice, Cochran recalls possibly the most shocking event of the trial - Simpson trying on the blood- soaked glove that was found on his property. To prove that the glove belonged to

Simpson, the prosecution brought the manufacturer as their witness. Cochran comments

55 on this: “The D.A.’s were essentially jumping through hoops trying to show that those gloves belonged to O. J. Simpson. Obviously, the first step would be to ask O. J. to try them on, and Darden appeared to be flirting with the idea” (Cochran 299). The defense team, who had tried the glove, is convinced that it is too small to fit on Simpson’s large hand, and they come up with the idea that Simpson should try the glove. To make the whole situation even more astonishing, they want to make the prosecution’s Christoper

Darden ask Simpson to try on the glove. According to Cochran, this was his idea, and he came up with the plan: “I made a few conversational feints at Darden over the issue to put him on the edge. It was one of those days when he clearly seemed rattled. But I knew the one person he couldn’t stand taking anything from was Lee Bailey. Lee and I huddled. 'One more push and that young man might just go over the edge,' I suggested

(Cochran 299). Bailey then made some comments towards Darden about not being brave enough, and Darden then asked Simpson to try on the glove. When Simpson evidently struggled with small gloves, the point the prosecution was making was lost in jurors’ eyes.

Cochran, happy that his plan worked comments on this moment as “one of the worst humiliations I have ever seen a prosecutor suffer in front of a jury. Darden had allowed himself to be bullied into making a mistake” (Cochran 300). This was arguably one of the most critical moments in the case and a big turning point for the “dream team” because of Darden’s error of judgment. Fisher agrees and says that “there is no question that the glove demonstration was a disaster for the prosecution—it was awful courtroom theater” (998). However, for the defense, it was a glorious moment, and

Cochran, taking credit for it, says that after that day, he thought: “We just may have won this case” (300). However, he was not right, as the jurors mentioned this event. Did

56 not influence their decision15. With the case coming to its end, the defense team was, in their eyes, given a significant advantage by the prosecution, and Cochran cannot help himself and closes the chapter on the glove with: “Darden has helped the defense team more than Shapiro” (300).

4.3 Cochran and the Prosecution

Although Cochran does not often comment on his team colleagues in Journey to

Justice, he surprisingly includes many comments on the prosecution. It could be said that he does so to show his respect to the prosecution, to look like a respectable person.

Although they were rivals in the courtroom, Cochran seems to speak nicely about

Marcia Clark, Christoper Darden, and Bill Hodgman, especially before the trial and after the verdict. Since the next chapter of this thesis will analyze the trial from

Darden’s perspective, it is essential also to include how the writers portrayed the opposing team in their books. This part of the thesis will examine how Cochran describes the dynamics between him and the prosecution in Journey to Justice.

Immediately after joining the “dream team” in the book, Cochran includes his comment on the prosecution. It is evident that the members of the legal community in

Los Angeles knew each other because even before meeting the prosecution, Cochran was able to collect a lot of information about them.

The first person he mentions is Bill Hodgman, who later had to leave the case because of health problems. Throughout the book, Cochran mostly speaks nicely of

Hodgman, and sometimes even refers to him as “his friend” (Cochran 287). After

Hodgman left the case, the “dream team” was accused of celebrating it. Cochran addresses these allegations, clearing his name: “Some accounts have alleged that when

15 Author note: This will be discussed later in the thesis. 57 we were informed officially of his illness the next day we congratulated each other.

That is false and grotesque. Bill Hodgman was and is my friend; he is the only Simpson prosecutor to whom I still regularly speak” (Cochran 287). Hodgman is also the only prosecutor whose tactics and decisions Cochran does not criticize in his book. The reason for this might be that Hodgman and Cochran were friends, but some argue that it was because “Hodgman is more of a footnote in the Simpson story” and he “didn't do any serious damage” to the defense team. (Lascala) The fact is that Hodgman was most active during the jury selection, which arguably went well for the “dream team”, so

Cochran might not have felt that Hodgman made the case more difficult for them, hence the praise.

The second person from the prosecution Cochran mentions in Journey to Justice is Marcia Clark. Before meeting her, he is informed about her skills in court, and then he shares his findings with his reader:

Marcia, I only knew by reputation as one of the office’s rising stars. A

passionate and zealous advocate, she sometimes seemed to have difficulty

maintaining her stamina and deciding when not to fight. Still, as the trial went

on, my regard for Marcia increased, and I felt she was the one member of the

prosecution team who could hurt us if given the chance. (Cochran 252)

With evidently positive thoughts on his rival, Cochran eagerly watches every move the prosecution makes, and in many instances, he comments on their mistakes. Although he introduces Clark as a very skilled lawyer, he never praises her strategy in the book. On the contrary, he often points out the mistakes she made and criticizes her stubbornness:

“the available scientific evidence suggests the contrary, but Marcia was confident of her instincts” and also often describes her strategy as “expected” (Cochran 261, 283). It, therefore, raises the question among readers whether Cochran really respected Clark or

58 whether he wanted to appear as an appreciative person to his readers. It could be also said that not only did Cochran want to look like a likable person who was willing to praise the opposite side, but also he wanted to prove he was the best. Adding some criticism even to Clark’s praise, he suggests that she was good, but she was not as good as him.

When Cochran describes his encounter with Marcia Clark after the verdict, he writes that he praised her for the great job she had done during the trial and that he felt they respected each other. This suggests to the readers that these two prosecutors did not have any serious problem with each other, and their fights in the courtroom were caused by their zealousness. However, in her 1997 book Without a Doubt, Clark claims quite the opposite: “I've lost all respect for you, Johnnie. You're a two-faced, hypocritical bastard” (Clark 186). In this case, it can be, therefore, said that Cochran is lying to his readers about the relationship. This is supported by two facts: not only does he fail to give her anything but the general praise for her job, but it is also evident, they never seem to reconcile on the personal level.

The last person on the prosecution’s team, Christopher Darden, is arguably the most criticized prosecutor in Journey to Justice. Although Cochran and Darden are both

African American lawyers who fought against racism before joining Simpson’s trial, their roles and opinions on Simpson’s innocent are contrasting. Arguably, because of their similarities, Cochran saw him as a competition and tried to discredit him in his book. The relationship between them is sometimes considered a “father-son relationship”, and that might be why Cochran analyzed Darden’s strategy more deeply.

(Ficher 1002) Cochran and Darden also met years before the trial, when Darden was working in the same office. In Journey to Justice Cochran recalls those days and claims that “Chris had attempted to cultivate me as a kind of mentor, sometimes even

59 addressing me affectionately as 'stepdaddy'. He professed admiration for the work our firm was doing, obtaining compensation for the victims of police misconduct” (Cochran

277). Although Darden and Cochran never worked together on a case, Cochran sometimes supervised him, which arguably, in his eyes, gave him right to analyze

Chris’s job during Simpson’s trial.

Again, in his book Cochran fails to praise the prosecutor and to mention his contribution to the trial, but in Darden’s case, Cochran never even wrote that he respected him. In the latter part of the book, when commenting on the whole prosecution team, Cochran declares that “I have great respect for Bill Hodgman and

Marcia Clark as professional prosecutors. I bear Chris Darden no ill will” (Cochran

369). Singling Darden out, Cohran suggests that he disapproved of Darden’s prosecution.

Arguably, the most significant conflict between the two attorneys occurred because of Mark Fuhrman. The LAPD officer who was found guilty of racial comments and planting evidence was one of the prosecution’s main witnesses, and therefore it was

Darden's job to defend him to the jury. Cochran, who spoke after Darden, recalls this incident and says: “I don’t think I’ve ever been quite as angry in a courtroom as I was when I rose to respond to Darden’s remarks”. … “These are perhaps the most incredible remarks I’ve ever heard in a court of law in the thirty-two years I’ve been practicing.

His remarks are demeaning to African Americans as a group” (Cochran 282). In his speech, that will be further analyzed in the following chapter, Darden claimes that whites and blacks are “built differently” (The People v. O. J. Simpson). This statement aggravated Cochran, as he arguably believed that Darden would never defend Fuhrman because of the past fights against racism in LAPD that both attorneys shared. Trying to arguably discredit Darden, Cochran emphasizes that Darden “betrayed his people”

60 arguing that Darden was not a respectable African American (Cochran 283). Although it may not seem like a critical accusation, it is important to keep in mind that both

Darden’s and Cochran’s books were mostly read by the African American community, and with his claims, Cochran arguably humiliated Darden.

However, according to Journey to Justice, Cochran still tried to help Darden.

Not to attack his fellow African American colleague too much, Cochran emphasizes he tried to warn Darden from the traps the defense team was preparing for prosecution, and he “gave Chris as many warnings as my duty to my client permitted” (291). Later in the book, he even says that he “tried to reach out to him on a couple of occasions” (Cochran

369). Cochran does not further specify these traps; he only mentions that he did not want Darden to question Mark Fuhrman, as he knew about his racist comments.

Surprisingly to the readers, shortly after saying that he warned Darden, Cochran describes how he and Bailey tricked Darden to make Simpson try on the glove, which, eventually, helped them win the criminal case.

In Journey to Justice, Cochran then continues with his critique and says that he

“had always been slightly troubled by the aura of an adolescent hamlet that always seemed to surround Darden. Everything about his life and profession seemed to leave him in a state of unresolved conflict” (Cochran 279). It is therefore questionable whether Cochran tried to help Darden with good intentions or whether he mentions this instance to make himself look good in the public eye. As Kennedy says in his review, when it comes to Cochran describing his interpersonal relationships, “something rings false.” As this thesis will further elaborate on, Cochran and Darden were not on friendly terms, and throughout the years, Cochran faded as a fatherly figure in Darden’s eyes.

Taking the analysis into account, it can be said that although Cochran introduced prosecutors with mostly positive remarks, throughout his book, he never mentions them

61 as equal competitors, appreciating their efforts. It has also been proved that the relationships between Cochran and the prosecution were rather intense, with not many friendly moments. However, in Journey to Justice, Cochran highlights most of these moments to show the readers he respected every major actor in Simpson’s case and they respected him too.

4.4 Evaluation

The book Journey to Justice is one of the best selling books from the actors of

Simpson’s trial. In it, Cochran skillfully describes his perception of all the essential aspects of the case. With his lengthy career as a successful lawyer, however, Cochran seems to see his book as an opportunity to defend himself. As Anderson argues, “in true advocate’s style, Cochran presents himself as he would a well-paying client in dire straits.” From the days when he was not even a part of the “dream team”, he actively comments on the media attention, his views on his colleagues, and the mistakes they made during the investigation. To summarize the analysis carried out in this chapter, it is evident that Journey to Justice portrays Simpson’s trial from the winning side.

Cochran praises his own strategy, points out the mistakes the prosecution made, and criticizes the colleagues who, in his eyes, did not do enough.

In many descriptions, Cochran shows his readers the great strategy the “dream team” chose, and how it won the criminal case, often mentioning himself as the leading strategist. Cochran is arguably trying to show his readers that he was an irreplaceable member of the defense team; he stresses out that Simpson begged for his services, he discredits the former defense leader Robert Shapiro, and he points out details that portray him as the best attorney. One of these details is the evaluation of the attorneys done by a focus group. Although it does not influence Simpson’s case, Cochran

62 emphasizes that he was the most popular: “Each of us was then assigned a composite score based on a numerical scale that ran from a low of 1 to a high of 9. My score, 7.66, was the highest” (Cochran 325). Many readers and reviewers noticed this and criticized

Cochran for concentrating on himself and his reputation too much.

Although Cochran sounds arguably self-centered in some excerpts in his book, he can be considered a more effective defense than If I Did It. Most of Cochran’s bragging is based on facts, and it is supported by the evidence presented in the court and media. Cochran’s only problem is that he concentrates on the aspects that make him look good too much. As a skilled lawyer, he is used to defending his clients in front of the jury, and in Journey in Justice, he arguably defends himself to the readers. It could also be said that to his readers, Cochran plays the role of a “gracious winner” who claims to appreciate his rivals and even the adverse situations because “in the end, they brought him to triumph” (Fisher 991). Arguably, this might be the reason why Cochran mentioned his respect and positive thoughts towards the prosecution, while they consider him to be an enemy, to say the least.

Besides the self-promo found in this book, another recurring topic is racism and

Cochran’s comments on “playing the race card”. As this thesis already mentioned,

Cochran claimed he was a zealous African American lawyer who dedicated his life to fighting racial injustice. It is, therefore, no surprise that Journey to Justice contains many critical comments on any racial issue that occurred in the courtroom. It is evident to most readers that Cochran particularly criticizes Mark Fuhrman and his statements.

This is reasonable, as various critics agreed with Cochran’s opinions and argued that

“the police department was racist, incompetent and likely to have planted evidence”

(Baynes 559). Nevertheless, most of Cochran’s comments are, again, supported by the evidence presented in the court, and they cannot be considered lies.

63

Taking everything into account it can be said that Cochran’s defense and addressing criticism was more successful than Simpson’s If I Did It. Although both these books include some misleading facts, most of Cochran’s points are either supported by research or by the evidence presented in the courtroom. It is evident that

Journey to Justice was written by a lawyer who knows how to work with his audience to make them see what he wants.

However, Cochran does not try to hide his intentions to influence his audience.

To many readers, it might have been evident the book would be about racial issues too, given the fact more than a quarter of it deals with problems of the African American community. Most of the criticism Cochran included in the book, either on Shapiro or

Fuhrman, he also mentioned in the interviews during the case, so the readers already knew what to expect from him before reading Journey to Justice. The misleading information about the relationship between Cochran and the prosecutors or emphasizing his successes are examples of details that can be found in most autobiographies, and

Cochran’s Journey to Justice is no exception.

In the next chapter, this thesis will focus on the prosecution’s Christopher

Darden’s book In Contempt. The analysis will deal with the same aspects of the case as

Cochran’s biography – Darden’s views before the trial, the prosecution’s strategy, and relationship with the opposite side.

64

5 Christopher Darden – In Contempt

Darden, who was on the prosecution team, was also an African American lawyer that used to fight against the injustice done to minorities, just like Cochran. As has already been mentioned, they also worked together and knew each other a little bit, so to many readers, it was not surprising that there were some parallels between their books.

They both released quite well-received books about their views of the trial, trying to show the readers what they thought was right. Their other similarities will be later discussed in this thesis.

Over the course of the trial, Darden became arguably the most controversial and criticized person in the courtroom. With his history of defending African American convicts, he suddenly stood against O. J. Simpson, a famous African American NFL player, and moreover, his former idol, Johnnie Cochran. This caused many issues for

Darden in his community, but also in public, as he got numerous death threats during

Simpson’s trial. The public opinion on Darden was often discussed, and it differed throughout the United States. Hemmens also analyzes this issue in his essay and claims that “there is a great diversity of opinion in the Black community alone - some see

Darden as a good man, others as a sell-out” (170). Darden faced criticism from his community as well as media, and he addresses these remarks in his book too: “Most of all, I had become the lightning rod for the bigotry, insecurity, and misunderstanding of an entire nation” (Darden 14-15).

The pressure on Darden was so substantial; it led to the creation of the term

“Darden Dilemma”. Although the term was never adequately defined,16 it describes a situation when an African American prosecutor is trying to convict another African

American, therefore “betraying” his community. Since then, the “Darden Dilemma”

16 In In Contempt Darden provides a similar definition. 65

“has become a generic term for the anguish that these prosecutors endure as they negotiate between competing allegiances to the African American community and the

State” (Nunn 1474). This criticism affected the tone of the In Contempt, and for that reason, its readers can find many explanations of Darden’s actions, even though they would not expect them. It is apparent that Darden feels the urge to explain why he was willing to prosecute O. J. Simpson, although he was plausibly only doing his job.

It is, therefore, no surprise that Darden’s book is similar to Journey to Justice by

Johnnie Cochran. They both focus on the racial aspect of the trial, describe the team strategy, and comment on their opponents. Darden, as well as Cochran, includes a personal history in the story on Simpson’s case, although not as profound.17 As this thesis has already mentioned, both authors evidently want to manipulate their readers, and they often include details that are unimportant for the case. However, there is a big difference between the two books; while Cochran’s Journey to Justice was written from the winning perspective, Darden puts himself in the shoes of a victim, and his strategy is to make the readers feel sorry for him. While Cochran added details irrelevant to the narrative that suggested he was a hero, Darden mentions things the readers could arguably relate to. Already in the beginning, Darden complains that “Judge Ito moved the trial at glacial speed, my brother was dying of AIDS four hundred miles away, near the city where my daughter was growing up without me” (14). Understandably, he was frustrated by this, but it did not fit well into the chapter where he honors the memory of

Brown and Goldman. Apart from portraying himself as a victim, Darden also uses blame as his strategy; he blames the media for the attention they paid to the case, he blames the defense team for playing immorally, and he even blames Judge Ito for

17 In Journey to Justice, Cochran’s family history was discussed on over a quarter of the book, while Darden’s book only describes his past in two chapters. 66 allowing the attorneys to “play the race card”. All of these aspects of his narrative will be discussed further in this chapter.

5.1 Darden’s View Before the Trial

Darden, as well as Cochran, became involved in the case only after a few months; therefore, this subchapter of the thesis will focus on how Darden perceived the case and its actors before he became a part of it.

Shortly after Simpson became the main suspect in the crime, Darden recalls his representation in the media. While Cochran often mentions how the media tried to

“blacken” Simpson, Darden claims that the press says Simpson “was a hell of a football player” and a “hero”. (50) Darden criticizes the media and its portrayal of a murder suspect, but he also often comments on the media presence during the investigation. As a prosecutor who often worked with detectives, he describes how stressful their job could become if media follow their every step, and he suggests to his readers that the media presence “hurt the case from the beginning” (Darden 94). He often mentions that the media turned the case into a social event and the main topic of discussion in millions of households. Brown, Duane, and Fraser agree when they write that “the Simpson case created a 'publicity whirl-wind' that few creative scriptwriters could have crafted, resulting in what some legal scholars described as a 'circus atmosphere' with intense emotional and heightened public concern” (261-262).

But unlike Cochran, Darden also criticizes media for paying attention to the murders only because of a famous suspect. Before being assigned to the case, Darden mentions working on numerous cases in which injustice was done, often ending in the death of young African Americans. He emphasizes that he played an active part in the fight against police brutality and mindless killing on the streets. He was frustrated that

67

Simpson’s case was always discussed in the media, while “these [other] cases warranted nothing but the briefest mention in the Los Angeles media” (Darden 99).

After his criticism of the media, Darden concentrates on the situation at the police station. After the initial investigation and primary interrogation of Simpson, it was evident to most detectives that Simpson was guilty and they were sure he would be convicted.: “Earlier that week, I had been talking to a guy at the LAPD, and I asked about O.J. 'Well, do you have him?' 'Yeah, ' the guy said, 'we have him.' There was a ton of evidence, an unreal amount of evidence. 'He did it then?' I asked. 'Yeah, he did it'”

(Darden 151-152). Darden makes it apparent that the LAPD was convinced of

Simpson’s guilt, and he claims he was almost sure they would convict him too.

Knowing Cochran and Shapiro, he was aware that Simpson was building a “dream team” to represent him, but Darden believed they could not fight the mountain of evidence there was against Simpson.

Darden also criticizes the press conference Shapiro organized after Simpson ran away with his friend A.C., which led to a slow-speed Bronco chase. Like Cochran,

Darden was also outraged by the situation, and the suicide note the “dream team” read:

Robert Shapiro, and his friend, Robert Kardashian, came on television together

to explain what had happened and to read O.J.'s 'suicide' note, in which he

proclaimed his innocence, and which he signed with a happy face drawn inside

his 'O.' A suicide note with a happy face. Right. Even then, I wondered, why

apologize to the Goldman family if he was innocent? (Darden 154-155)

Darden also blames Shapiro for failing to turn Simpson in, and for misleading the police. He later argues that these “games” showed him that the case would be a

“performance”, not a serious trial. (Darden 168)

68

Another similarity in Darden’s a Cochran’s book is that they both try to convince their readers they were not interested in the case at first. Darden claims that he did not want to be a part of it because of his race and the media circus it created. He says that the case, in particular, did not excite him, mostly because it was, in his eyes, easy to prove that Simpson was guilty. He argues that it was not alluring: “I had less interest in the Simpson case than other prosecutors” (Darden 151). As Cochran, Darden later also explains that his family and colleagues thought he was skilled enough to be a prosecutor on Simpson’s case, but he did not want to. He even mentions that before joining the prosecution, he left on vacation, to show the police that he did not want to take the case: “Let Marcia Clark deal with aggressive reporters and unethical defense lawyers. I was going to the Bahamas” (Darden 191). Darden, however, does not claim that he was the best lawyer on the team like Cochran does, and he even admits that he might have been selected only because of his race, not his skills. This arguably shows the readers that Darden is not trying to promote himself, but he is putting himself into a completely different position. Although they were initially uninvolved, both Cochran and Darden ended up working on the case and became household names in the United

States.

Darden, however, claims that he expected to be involved, at least to some extent.

When Simpson started to add people to his defense team, the prosecution also hired more assistants and case managers. Darden writes that he was initially supposed to be a case manager only, and he agreed it was a perfect position for him, as an African

American lawyer. Nunn even says that Darden did not want to be an active member of the prosecution because he was afraid of the “conflict between his role as a prosecutor and his obligations to the African American community” (1474). Throughout the whole book, Darden makes it apparent to his readers that he struggled with his position in the

69 trial and that he wanted to avoid it from the beginning. To arguably make himself look good, he suggests he mostly joined the trial to help the prosecution. However, he admits that he wanted to be a part of the trial at least as an assistant to make his parents proud of him, taking part in the “trial of the century”. Another reason is the fact African

Americans are often considered biased towards their community: “Black attorneys who select this career are typically thought of as more 'community-oriented in nature', and

Darden wanted to show he was a professional” (Russel 783).

As this thesis has already discussed, it was common to promote oneself among the writers of books on Simpson’s trial, and Darden is no exception. He, too, adds comments on his skills to show the readers he was capable of handling such a critical case: “I watched this thing take over our office, and I knew I was imminently available and that I was one of the most experienced litigators in our office. I figured I'd be dragged in eventually” (Darden 139). However, in In Contempt, there are only a few instances in which Darden describes his skills and accomplishments, unlike Cochran, who often mentioned how qualified he was.

In the first part of the book, Darden also includes images from his life and mostly the Simpson trial. Unlike Cochran, Darden added only a very few photos of his family and his past and mainly concentrated on the case. However, Darden did not include many of the official portraits, and he mostly focused on the victims. He is arguably trying to make the readers feel sorry for the victims and their families, as he adds numerous pictures of young Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, as well as their crying families18. Darden was criticized for including images of beaten Nicole taken by the LAPD in 1989 because according to Wilkins he “manipulates the readers at the

18 He mostly describes the scene of the verdict, including the image of Goldman family: “The scene I dreaded, the scene I feared one day I would turn around to see: Kim, Fred, and Patti Goldman react to the 'Not guilty' verdict on October 3, 1995” (Darden 249).

70 expense of victims” (795). With the images, Darden also includes his personal remarks on people, and he addresses Ronald Goldman as a “real hero” (249). It could be even said that Darden, who was heavily criticized during the trial tries to make everything right with his book, arguably portraying himself as a noble person who only cared about justice, not about the media.

It is evident to the readers that In Contempt concentrates on the victims much more than any other book released by the attorneys on the Simpson trial, but it is arguably the most emotional book too. Darden often mentions how he wanted to get justice for the families, but everything was against him. He also focuses on how media portrayed him and how he had to fight the prejudice against African American prosecutors. Unlike Cochran, Darden does not describe himself as the best and most experienced lawyer on the team; on the contrary, he depicts himself as a victim and is trying to make the readers feel sorry for him.

5.2 Prosecution Strategy

This part of the thesis will focus on the prosecution’s strategy in the courtroom and compare the events that led to the verdict and their portrayal in Cochran’s Journey to Justice. Both Darden’s and Cochran’s book describe the same facts and evidence, but from a very different perspective. While Cochran points out the mistakes of his colleagues, glorifying his strategy, Darden shows his readers the background of the infamous glove incident and Fuhrman’s examination, concentrating on his mistakes and eating humble pie. Although Darden does not directly criticize the strategy of the defense team, he often shows his disapproval of Cochran’s approach to the case.

Shortly after the trial started, the prosecution team did not concentrate on their strategy, because they had “a mountain of evidence” (Wilkins 759). According to

71

Darden, the prosecution believed they could easily convict Simpson, and only after

Cochran joined the “dream team” did they realize it would not be that easy. Possibly, the first strategic move on the prosecution’s side was assigning the case to Darden. It was the police response to Cochran’s remarks on the racial aspects of the case, as they

“needed Cochran to face his equals” (Ontiveros 151). Darden addresses the claims that he was only added to the prosecution, because they did not want to look racist, with only Caucasian attorneys on the team. Darden claims to his readers he was aware of this, and that he knew Cochran would “play the race card”. In In Contempt, he describes how he was deciding whether he should take the case and that he realized that it was necessary, as only white prosecution would not be such an obstacle for the “dream team”: “Johnnie Cochran was rarely subtle about his trial strategy, and it could be summed up in one word: race. Cochran was going to use it. He always did. If I allowed the awesome power of the specter of racism to drive me off the case, I would be validating their strategy, allowing it to work” (Darden 199). Darden then claims he decides to fight the Cochran’s strategy for greater good, and this fight turns into the only plan the prosecution develops. Throughout the trial, as well as Darden’s book, it is evident that the defense team is moving strategically, while the prosecution only reacts to these moves.

After joining the case, Darden started to face the backlash from media and public, seeing him as a sell-out because he “abandoned his race” (Hemmens 169). This backlash later got worse, and Darden even started to receive death threats. Because of these, in In Contempt, Darden arguably feels he needs to justify his presence in the courtroom and explains why African American professionals often face prejudice:

“Black professionals always have to justify their existence. We are always having to justify our presence in the boardroom, the operating room, and, unfortunately, the

72 courtroom” (211). In addition, Darden claims that he felt alone during the trial because no one was on his side and the LAPD did not allow him to speak to the media to defend himself.

However, Darden rarely blames the public for his portrayal in the media. In In

Contempt, Darden mostly criticizes Cochran for trying to diminish him. Darden argues that it was Cochran’s strategy to keep Darden off the case, and after he failed, he made public comments that he knew, would hurt Darden: “'He's over here because of the makeup of our jury, which I think is wrong,' Cochran said. 'Christopher Darden is a fine lawyer, but I don't think he should be on this case'” (Darden 210). Cochran was right, and as Darden then describes, it made him feel insecure and arguably betrayed because he did not expect these comments from someone with similar background: “There have been many long nights after that one. I will never forget watching Cochran draw a line in the sand. I will never forget watching him choose that butcher over me” (Darden

211). It could be even said that Cochran used what he knew and tried to discredit

Darden from the beginning. However, Darden never fought back, either by confrontation with Cochran or through media. He only addressed these comments in his book, which some readers found “cowardly” and they suggest that “Darden was, and remains, furious at Cochran” (Reidinger 93).

Although his strategy as a victim could arguably create empathy among his readers, Darden sometimes appears to be too afraid to speak, and only takes his book as an opportunity to address any criticism he received. Because of this, Darden’s strategy was sometimes described as “the fool-as-victim technique” (Russell 50). Darden often emphasizes that the system betrayed the victims’ families, yet he fails to connect his mistakes with the acquittal. It could be even said that Darden “desperately search someone to blame” (Russel 51).

73

While in Journey to Justice, Cochran briefly suggested to his readers that he believed Simpson was innocent, and he tried to show his readers how much impact the trial and murders had on his defendant; Darden clearly states that he is convinced of

Simpson’s guilt. The first chapter of In Contempt deals with the verdict and a long monologue aimed at Simpson. Darden writes as if he was speaking directly to Simpson, asking him questions and describing the murders in detail:

How long were you planning to do it? When did it stop being a daydream and

become a challenge—'Can I get away with this?' … Then you turned back to

Nicole, that little black dress pulled up around her thighs. This was all her fault.

You grabbed her by the hair and pulled her head back, put the knife to her

throat, and drew it back toward yourself with even more force, cutting all the

way to her spine. (Darden 8, 10)

The monologue is arguably Darden’s way of describing what he believes happened on

June 12, 1994. He writes it not because he thinks Simpson will read it, but to portray

Simpson as a monster to his readers right from the beginning. However, during the trial,

Darden then does not comment on Simpson at all and mostly concentrates on the defense team and other actors in the trial. In his review, Russell argues that Darden seems “to have reconciled his anger towards Simpson”, and concentrates on “seeking the justice” (50-51).

Throughout the book, Darden expresses his frustration with the strategy of the

“dream team”, but he is aware that Cochran is responsible for the role race plays in the trial, and sometimes refers to the defense team as “Cochran”.19 Because of their (lack of) strategy, the prosecution did not know how to react and decided to rely on the evidence. Knowing Cochran, Darden realized that this might not be the optimal

19 Especially when a race is discussed in the courtroom, Darden does not mention the defense team, only refers to them as “Cochran” and “Cochran’s strategy” (Darden 116-117). 74 strategy, but he did not suggest anything either. In In Contempt, he remembers his frustration, knowing the trial would become more about race than the victims: “Cochran had made it clear that this was going to be a case based on the fact that O. J.Simpson was black. I was offended by that from the beginning, and I could see how destructive this case could be” (204). It was a surprise to some readers to learn that Darden knew what Cochran planned to do, but did not try to come up with a similar strategy. For this reason, Darden is often criticized for portraying himself as a victim in his book, while he arguably “let Cochran do what he does the best – blame everything on the race”

(Slovenko 296).

As this thesis already mentioned, In Contempt provides a look at Simpson’s trial from the losing side, and therefore Darden includes many descriptions of the mistakes he and his team made. While Cochran mostly criticizes his colleagues, Darden concentrates on the mistakes he made, most notably the glove incident. As the readers learn in Journey to Justice, Cochran and his team tricked Darden into asking Simpson to try on the glove. In In Contempt, Darden dedicates almost ten pages to show his readers what led to his colossal mistake. Darden tries to explain that he was convinced that the glove belonged to Simpson and “there was no way Cochran and the others should be able to disconnect those gloves from Simpson. All the racists in L.A. couldn’t change the fact that we were staring at O. J. Simpson’s gloves” (397-398). Darden evidently believed the gloves belonged to Simpson, and he thought that if Simpson could put them on, it would help the prosecution to win.

On the other hand, the defense team was convinced the glove was too small, and according to Cochran, they made some comments towards Darden that made him ask

Simpson to put on the glove. However, Darden does not address these comments in his book, arguably not to admit Cochran’s win, and mostly concentrates on his conviction

75 the glove would fit. In In Contempt, Darden describes his readers how he believed he was right and ignored the warning signs that suggested it was all part of the “dream team” plan: “While it seemed clear they were up to something, I felt a strong urge to act. Simply, I thought we had to put the gloves on Simpson ourselves” (Darden 398).

Darden, however, defends his mistake, saying that he felt that the jury was losing interest in the DNA and blood analysis, and he thought that a simple proof of Simpson wearing the gloves would help the prosecution win the criminal case.

After a short conversation, Darden convinced Clark it was a good idea, and they proceeded with their request: “'We would like to have Mr. Simpson put on the original evidence items,' I said, as calmly as I could” (Darden 399). Shortly after saying those words, Darden realized it must have been a part of the defense plan because Cochran looked “excited”.

Knowing something was wrong, Darden started to feel insecure about his decision. He describes these feelings to his readers:

Sounded like they were prepared to me. I fought back the bad feeling that

worked its way up in my throat. They were his gloves, I told myself. We were

just putting his gloves on his hands. My heart was pounding and my mouth was

dry, but someone had to do this. Someone had to stop the games these defense

lawyers were playing and just put the damned gloves on his hands. (sic, Darden

399-400)

It was apparent to Darden that he made a mistake, and he admits it angrily. He was angry with himself for helping the defense team win the criminal case, and he was angry because he let “the murderer run free.” (Reidinger 93) Surprisingly, he does not blame the defense team for this; he only blames himself and Simpson, who, according to Darden acted as if he was struggling to put on the glove. Although Darden later

76 explains his readers in In Contempt that the glove shrunk, he could not change the jury’s outlook on the situation.

While Cochran claims that this was the defining moment that helped the defense win the criminal case, Darden describes it as a nightmare. The whole prosecution team realized it was a turning moment in the case, and blaming Darden; they showed him their disapproval: “That afternoon, I went upstairs and passed a clerk; he did not look at me. No one did. No one said a word. I passed my colleagues in the hallway, and they were silent. They had nothing to say to me” (Darden 402). Although it looks plausible to include the reactions of his colleagues to his mistake, Darden then goes on mentions that he could not sleep for weeks and that “the glove haunted me” (Darden 403).

Describing himself as a victim, it could be said that he fails to acknowledge he caused this situation, and he should not have blamed his colleagues for ignoring him.

Another trial-defining moment Darden describes in his book is the Fuhrman examination. Since Darden received a lot of criticism for defending Fuhrman in the courtroom, he addresses these comments and tries to distance himself from Fuhrman as much as possible. Right from the beginning, Darden claims to his readers he did not like him: “Mark Fuhrman. The file just felt bad” (236). Darden aims to explain that he was aware of Fuhrman’s racist past, but he hoped he had changed. He claims that he did not believe Fuhrman and thought that the prosecution should not examine him, but Marcia

Clark insisted that Fuhrman was a key witness during evidence collection and “crucial for the case” (Darden 244). Eventually, she was right. However, Darden, like many readers, felt that “Fuhrman was clearly a liar” and Darden asked Clark to question him instead (Hemmens 169).

Nevertheless, Darden was then asked to defend Fuhrman in front of the jury, which led to massive conflict between him and Johnnie Cochran. As expected, Darden

77 also addresses the criticism he received and tries to explain himself to his readers. In his speech, Darden claimed that it was not crucial whether Mark Fuhrman was a racist and that the jury should not concentrate on whether he used “the n-word” in the past.

Darden also accused Cochran of trying to make the case about the racial issues, which left Cochran angry. When Cochran rose to speak, he attacked Darden and showed his disapproval of the remarks he had on the African Americans. In In Contempt, Darden considers this speech as a personal attack and reacts to it:

I was dumbfounded. I simply made a legal argument, one that is made every day

in America, that some evidence was too prejudicial to be used. 'I am ashamed

that Mr. Darden would allow himself to become an apologist for this man, to

justify the fact that he is a police officer.' That was all I could take. Apologist!

He was using all the buzzwords: 'demeaning,' 'offensive,' 'ashamed,' 'apologist,'

'used.' Cochran was talking to all the brothers out there, pulling back the curtain,

pointing at me, and calling 'Traitor!' (251-252)

While Cochran in Journey to Justice argues that by defending Fuhrman, Darden betrayed the African Americans, Darden tries to defend himself and claims that he only wanted to concentrate on the victims, not on the racial aspect of the case. Nevertheless, it is evident that both sides considered Fuhrman as a vital element of the trial, and they took his past and his remarks personally. This arguably led to bigger conflicts between them, which will be discussed in the next part of the thesis.

5.3 Darden and the Defense

In In Contempt, Darden often comments on the attorneys from the defense team, but only rarely in a positive way. It is therefore evident to the readers that the relationships between them were troubled, and they seemed to get worse as the trial

78 continued. It could be said that Darden was still angry after Simpson’s acquittal, and he wanted to discredit and blame the “dream team” as much as he could in his book. This made him “look bitter and aggressive” in the eyes of some readers (Hemmens 173). It could be said that Darden, as well as Cochran, were critical of other lawyers in their books, but there is a considerable difference – while Cochran mostly criticized Shapiro and Darden, speaking nicely about the others, Darden never criticizes his colleagues from the prosecution. However, he often shows his animosity towards the “dream team”. Another distinction between these two lawyers is that Cochran mostly criticizes by emphasizing the mistakes the attorneys made, while Darden does not explain his criticism. As this part of the thesis will show, Darden often criticizes the “dream team” based on other aspects, not their skills or strategy.

Given the fact that the defense team consisted of nine lawyers, Darden does not comment on everybody, only the most prominent ones. He only refers to them together on the first day of the trial, when he “dismisses Simpson's Dream Team as nine very expensive suits” (Fisher 975). From the beginning, Darden evidently dislikes the attorneys, and only rarely does he speak nicely of any of the members of the defense team.

Shortly after Darden was appointed as the prosecutor, he starts to voice his opinions on Simpson’s lawyers separately. He begins with Robert Kardashian, whom he met before the trial even started: “Robert Kardashian—slick and arrogant, gray-streaked hair forced back on his head—testified before the grand jury on August 31. He wore black socks with a streak of gray—like his hair—and the reporters nicknamed him

Skunk Man” (Darden 185). This is the first and only time Darden addresses Kardashian, and many readers were surprised that Darden expressed such negative feelings towards him, although Kardashian did not play an active role in Simpson’s defense. Based on

79 these and similar unexplained comments, Darden started to be referred to as “the most angry man”.20

The next person Darden disliked was F. Lee Bailey. As Cochran already mentioned in Journey to Justice, for some reason Darden despised Bailey. Darden does not explain to his readers why the relationship between these two attorneys was so bad, but he often mentions that Bailey hated him and that he referred to Darden as an

“asshole” (Darden 351). The relationship between these two gets so bad that Darden does not even call Bailey his name, and only refers to him as a flea: “That was the F.

Lee Bailey I had come to know. Flea. A foul-mouthed, arrogant SOB, nothing but an attack dogwaiting—ignoring the rest of the trial, taking sips from a tiny thermos”

(Darden 351). Although Cochran in Journey to Justice suggested that the problems between Darden and Bailey started after the glove incident, Darden already disliked

Bailey the first time he is mentioned in In Contempt.

Although Cochran frequently criticized Shapiro in his book, Darden does not mention him often. Mostly, he referred to him as a part of the team: “O. J. Simpson's legal team—Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, Johnnie Cochran, and Robert Shapiro—won his acquittal through a slick blend of distraction and distortion” (Darden 249). One of the reasons why Darden does not mention Shapiro that often is that Darden considers

Cochran to be the head of the team, believing Shapiro was only obeying what Cochran told him. Fisher argues, “Christopher Darden sees Bob Shapiro a deal maker” and someone who is “unlike to start the charade the way Cochran can” (976). Moreover,

Darden knew Cochran before the trial, and as this thesis has already suggested, he mostly blamed him for playing the race card.

20 Mentioned in various works, most notably by Thomas Fields-Meyer and Lynda Wright. 80

Darden tries to make it apparent to his readers that he respected Cochran even after the trial began, but his opinions started to shift after Cochran commented on

Darden in the media, and “played the race card.” Trying to arguably look open-minded at first, Darden included Cochran’s image in the book’s gallery and expressed his feelings towards Cochran: “When the trial began, I respected Johnnie Cochran for cases he’d taken that sought justice for people abused by the system. But his actions at the

Simpson trial undermined much of that” (249). This short note summarizes Darden’s relationship with Cochran most accurately, as many readers notice that throughout the book, Darden blames Cochran for concentrating on race more and more, blaming him for the way the trial developed. Throughout In Contempt, there are countless instances in which Darden expresses his contempt for Cochran, arguably because he feels betrayed by his colleague. It was Cochran who negatively commented on him in the media, attacked him personally during his speech about Fuhrman, and started to portray him as a sell-out. It is, therefore, no surprise that in his book Darden addresses these attacks and criticizes Cochran. Fisher agrees and adds that Darden’s “rage at Cochran is particularly vivid” because “Cochran exposed him to such personal attacks” (978).

However, Darden possibly realized that he concentrated on the criticism too much, and to portray himself as an honorable man, he adds some moments when he claims to appreciate Cochran during the trial. As Journey to Justice already mentioned,

Cochran tried to warn Darden about examining Fuhrman, arguably with no bad intentions. In In Contempt, Darden describes the situation, but adds that he was skeptical of Cochran’s motive after the personal attacks in media:

Cochran warned me three or four times. I knew they must have something on

Fuhrman, but what could it be? 'Look,' Cochran said to me a few days later. 'Just

don’t put him on. OK? You don't know what you're messing with. You don’t

81

know everything that I do. I’m just trying to do you a favor.' 'A favor?' I asked,

turning to face him. 'What favor would that be? The kind of favors you’ve

already done for me?' (Darden 337)

Although Cochran argues in his book that he selflessly wanted to help Darden, Darden implies that he did not believe him anymore. But he took his advice and asked Marcia

Clark to examine Fuhrman instead. This is arguably the only instance during the trial when Darden agrees with Cochran, and many readers believe that Darden never forgave him. Darden suggests similarly in the final part of the book when he claims: “I will have to make my final peace with Johnnie Cochran, on some path where we agree that justice is the true destination” (472). It could be even said that in In Contempt the readers follow the decline of Darden’s relationship with Cochran, which never seemed to recover.

Taking everything into account, it is evident that Darden blindly hated the

“dream team” and blamed them for the acquittal and for “playing the race card”. Darden often commented on the defense lawyers negatively and even suggested to his readers this was not common: “Unlike other trials I’d prosecuted, there was almost no camaraderie between their camp and ours; the stakes were too high for that, the tactics too low” (334). Darden makes it apparent to his readers that he disapproves of

Simpson’s team, and unlike Cochran, he does not add any polite comments about the respect he has for them.

5.4 Evaluation

Darden’s In Contempt became a bestseller shortly after it was released, among both Simpson’s supporters and those who believed he was guilty. It was interesting for all because while Cochran and the rest of the “dream team” often spoke to the media,

82

Darden and Clark were only allowed to attend the official LAPD press conferences.

Because of this, many readers were eager to read books from the prosecution’s perspective.

While Cochran’s Journey to Justice was often described as a self-centered promo for Johnnie Cochran, Darden chose a completely different approach. In his book, he admits most of the mistakes he made and comments on most of the crucial aspects of the trial. Russell even argues that, based on his writing, it is apparent that Darden “is haunted by the thought that the mistakes he personally made during the trial may have allowed a murderer to go free” (50). It is apparent to the readers that Darden regrets the mistakes he made and that he holds himself responsible for letting Simpson go.

Moreover, after failing to convict Simpson, Darden ended his career as a lawyer and decided not to prosecute cases again.

Darden’s strategy to look like an honorable man who is willing to acknowledge his mistakes has one more aspect: the victims. While in Journey to Justice, Cochran only rarely mentions justice for the victims, Darden often mentions the Goldman family as well as Nicole and Ronald. He starts the book with a monologue describing what might have happened on the night of the murders, and throughout the book, he often speaks of the justice he wants to bring. Darden suggests to his readers that he took the case seriously and not for personal profit. He even argues that all he did during the case, including defending Fuhrman, he only did because he hoped it would help to convict

Simpson. He also suggests that he stayed in touch with the Goldman family, hoping he could help them sue Simpson again.

One may argue that while Darden is critical to himself, he is even more critical to the others, especially to the defense attorneys. A considerable part of In Contempt consists of Darden’s criticism aimed at the “dream team.” Many readers criticized

83

Darden for his negative approach to the defense team, claiming that the book makes him sound “bitter” and “full of mounting rage” (Fisher 994). Although understandably,

Darden did not agree with the defense strategy, it appears that he “completely failed in a role of a gracious loser” and any reader might have felt that Darden still did not overcome the defeat in the courtroom (Fisher 1015). It could be even said that in some situations, In Contempt concentrated on the criticism of the opposite side too much.

Another dominant aspect of In Contempt is Darden’s portrayal of himself as a victim. “Darden emphasizes that the trial took a hard emotional toll on him because he believed it was his duty to seek justice, no matter how famous, rich, and back the defendant” (Russell 50). Throughout the book, Darden often blames Cochran and the whole defense team for “playing the race card”, instead of concentrating on fair trial.

Later, Darden also starts to criticize Judge Ito, claiming “he was too impressed with celebrity and lost control of this case the moment the lawyers stepped into the courtroom” (Darden 248). It may be even said that Darden was frustrated because of the verdict, and even months after the trial, he still needed to blame himself as well as others.

As this thesis has already discussed, In Contempt shows Simpson’s case from the losing perspective, and Darden arguably uses it to make the readers feel sorry for him. However, while Cochran skillfully described himself as the most crucial member of the “dream team” and the leading strategist, Darden is not as successful with his portrayal, and he ends up being called “coward” instead.21 The readers may understand his difficult situation, especially after Cochran attacked him in the media, but Darden did not fight back, either strategically or publicly. It could be even said that Darden

“does not play an active role in the trial, and when he does, he makes a mistake” (Tobin

21 Schulman 96 84

391).

Taking everything into account, it is evident that Darden did not overcome his frustration from the verdict, and it heavily influenced his writing. Although he and

Cochran come from a similar background, their books could not be more different.

While Cochran describes himself as a winner who beat the odds and helped an innocent man walk free, Darden criticizes himself for all the mistakes he made, but he fails to acknowledge his lack of strategy. This arguably led to the win of the “dream team”, and although playing a race card was arguably immoral, it proved to be more effective than relying on the evidence.

Darden’s strategy to portray himself as a victim and blaming other aspects of the trial for the prosecution's loss does not arguably go as he intended. As this chapter discussed, many readers noticed that Darden tried to influence their feelings too much, asking for empathy. However, after Darden mostly made mistakes in the trial, and did not fight back against Cochran, it is understandable that readers do not show that much empathy. Especially after Darden concentrates on defending his mistakes, and only rarely mentions any positive impact on the case.

The last part of this thesis will analyze the last book, Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement? in which the readers get to see the case from the jury’s perspective. The final chapter will, therefore, analyze the critical aspects of the case described in the previous books. As the jurors were often criticized for acquitting Simpson base on his race, the book concentrates on the defense of his decision, arguing it was the right thing to do.

85

6 Armanda Cooley, Carrie Bess, Marsha Rubin-Jackson - Madam

Foreman: a Rush to Judgment?

The last chapter of this thesis will concentrate on arguably the most important actors of the trial, the jurors who agreed on the verdict. Out of twelve people, three members of the jury joined together and wrote a book on their experience, describing their perception of the trial. In Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment?, the writers provide an interesting outlook on their view of the case, evidence, and attorneys that tried to convince them of their side. Since the jurors were criticized for their racial bias that led to Simpson’s acquittal, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson use their book to tell their readers this was not the case. The authors criticize both the defense and the prosecution and claim they only concentrated on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

This book claims to show how successful the efforts of both defense and prosecution were, and it helps this thesis to finish the full circle of the case, as the jurors ended the case, bringing the verdict. In their book, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson tell their readers how they quietly watched the trial, only able to passively collect information, without being able to ask any questions. Their perception of the case was not disrupted either by the media or their loved ones, and the book could be a unique opportunity to see how the case looked from outsiders’ perspectives. The authors provide intriguing information on how they perceived the evidence, prosecution, and the defense, but they also carefully chose to describe specific events that supported their integrity and unbias.

Compared to the previous books, Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment? is not written by a side that was originally biased for or against Simpson, and the writers try to describe how they perceived the attorneys as well as presented evidence. They also

86 explain what led them to the surprising verdict while describing how they thoroughly thought about the case while sequestered.

6.1 Jurors’ Views Before the Trial

As Cochran and Darden already mention in their books, jury selection was a lengthy process that took months. Both the prosecution and the defense wanted to have the best jury possible, which resulted in endless questionnaires, and eventually, the jurors were selected based on the details that the attorney found important. Rubin-

Jackson provides more details in her chapter when she writes: “I had no previous experience. I hadn’t watched the preliminary hearing or followed the story. And that’s why I was selected” (44). Although this might sound excessive to some readers, Darden argues it is essential to select the right jury: “Any trial lawyer will tell you that it is impossible to underestimate the importance of jury selection. Most jurors have already developed conclusions about the defendant, the lawyers, even the evidence, sometimes”

(203). Since Cochran and his team wanted the jury to consist of mostly African

Americans and Marcia Clark mainly wanted women who could convict Simpson based on his history of domestic abuse, the jury mostly consisted of African American women: “I was struck by the mix of men and women on the jury. I thought Damn.

We’re a bunch of women. There was eighteen women” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-

Jackson, sic, 44-45).22

For the purpose of this thesis, it should also be noted that once the jurors on

Simpson’s case were selected, they were moved to a separate accommodation where they live for the duration of the trial. They were not allowed to speak about the case to their relatives; neither could they read the press or watch the news that could have

22 Author note: The criminal trial jury consisted of nine African Americans, two Whites, and one Latino. 87 influencde their opinion on the defendant or the attorneys. It means that the jurors lived in a hotel with no access to the media, which at that time, discussed Simpson’s case very closely as well as every aspect of it. As a result of this, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-

Jackson then describe their lives in the Intercontinental hotel in Los Angeles, where they mostly spoke to each other. Doing this, the authors show their readers they were fully involved in the case and ready to do their job. However, after the jury selection, there was a lengthy argument between the prosecution and the “dream team” about which evidence can be introduced in the trial, which postponed the date of the opening statements. This wait made jurors anxious to such an extent they considered quitting, as they had already spent weeks away from their families: “I have a life. I had a life before

I came in here. I'm going to be in control of that life. What the hell can Judge Ito do to me? How bad can it be? I was willing to go to jail. How long would he have kept me in there?” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 66) Doing this, the jurors started to portray themselves as victims who were kept away from their families while ignoring the real victims in the case. Understandably, the jury wanted the trial to start immediately, but it was crucial for the attorneys to select the right evidence to present. Baynes agrees and adds: “In presenting a case to a jury, a lawyer needs to think about linking all the evidence together to present a credible story that the jury will believe” (549).

Finally, on January 24, 1995, the trial began with its opening statements. In their book, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson recall this day and write: “I remember feeling glad we were going to the court because we had been sittin in the hotel, waiting and waiting. So when we found out we were going to go, everyone was so happy” (sic, 88).

And after this moment, it was up to jurors’ decision what the result of the trial would be.

6.2 Perception of the Trial

88

This part of the thesis will concentrate on how the jurors described the trial and its actors in Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment? Since the trial consisted of two sides explaining their version of the crime, this subchapter will be further divided, focusing on two aspects of the trial: the defense and the prosecution. As this thesis mostly discusses Cochran’s and Darden’s perception of the trial, this part will concentrate on how these two attorneys are portrayed in Madam Foreman: a Rush to

Judgment? Another essential aspect that needs to be analyzed is the evidence and other case-defining situations, such as the Fuhrman examination. However, one of the critical aspects will be omitted - race.

Arguably, the most crucial aspect of this case was race. It was discussed not only in the media but also in the academic communities. Moreover, both Cochran and

Darden address “playing the race card” in their books so that it might have surprised the readers of Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment? when they learn that the jurors did not realize how big of a part the race played in the trial. According to Cooley, the jury did not expect the case to be discussed as a racial issue, and they were stunned when they saw the media response after the verdict: “For the time we were sequestered, we heard very little about racial stuff. I guess that’s the reason why everybody on the jury, and I say everybody, was shocked when we learned racism was so heavily involved in people’s reactions after the trial” (182). The jurors argue they did not have any access to the media, and, therefore, they could only base their verdict on the evidence presented in the courtroom. With this argument, the book defends jurors’ decision to acquit

Simpson, trying to prove the evidence was all that mattered in the verdict.

The jury faced a public backlash after acquitting Simpson, reportedly because of his race, and some academics agreed, as “African American juries are less likely to convict an African American defendant” (Baynes 552). The authors, therefore, take this

89 opportunity to explain their readers the verdict was unanimous and based on the evidence presented in the court. Because of this, their book concentrates on depiction of both the defense and the prosecution as well as their arguments, to prove the readers the jurors paid close attention to everything happening in the court.

It is evident the jurors used the book to “prove the public they made the right decision”. (Fisher 1001) After being in the public eye for so long, the jurors were criticized for the verdict, and they quickly became aware of that after the trial.

Arguably, for this reason, the book often explains that Simpson’s race did not affect the verdict: “I don't care what color Mr. Simpson is. If the evidence had been there to find him guilty, then that's what I would have done. … It’s important that people know this was not a racist thing. I’m black and Mr. Simpson is black. However, Mr. Simpson lives in a white world” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 183). The constant reassurance of not being biased made som readers feel the authors “were trying too hard”, and it might have seemed the jurors were trying to justify their behavior, instead of only explaining the case (Uelmen 480).

The next part of this chapter will analyze how the authors depicted the attorney in their book, criticizing their mistakes, which might have led readers to believe the jurors kept open minds and were willing to judge everything presented in the courtroom.

6.2.1 Defense

There is no doubt that the Simpson case was strongly influenced by the lawyers.

They were discussed in the media, their actions were commented on, and even the jurors noticed their overwhelming presence in the courtroom. In Madam Foreman: a

Rush to Judgment?, the writers say: “it was no longer a witness case. It was an attorney case” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 96). It is, therefore, no surprise that Cooley,

90

Bess, and Rubin-Jackson often commented on their perception of the defense and prosecution, pointing out their mistakes.

As far as the “dream team” is concerned, the jurors address Cochran frequently.

Like Darden, they also consider him the leader of the team, who suggested the strategy of “playing the race card.” But unlike Darden, they do not criticize him for that, and they even agree with him: “He’s supposed to play every card in the deck to get his client off. That’s the law. I am just surprised that the prosecuting attorney let it go so far”

(Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 187). It could be even said that the jury approved of the defense team’s strategy as long as it was for their client’s sake. Throughout the book, the jury did not criticize the fact that the “dream team” attacked most of the evidence presented, because “Cochran’s team has said nothing untrue” (Fisher 987).

The jurors claim they were convinced that the defense was telling their truth, but criticize the “dream team” for being too aggressive with their arguments.

Although the jury does not criticize the defense team’s strategy, they frequently criticize Cochran and his approach. Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson argue that the

“dream team” concentrated on the cameras too much, and it sometimes looked as if they were giving a performance: “When it came to showboating, it was mostly on the defense's part. Like they were on TV. They were showboating. I don't think anyone appreciated that at all. I really don't. I didn't appreciate the jokes. The glamour. To me, there was no glamour at all in what was going on” (96-97). The jurors put themselves in a comparison with the attorneys who are here described as performers, claiming they were not on the case for the right reasons.

On the other hand, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson argue it was the jury who wanted to concentrate on the trial, disliking the cames in the courtroom. With this comparison, the authors suggest they were the moral ones, doing their jobs. They also

91 hint that t way some attorneys behaved made some jurors think the “dream team” was on the case for the personal profit, and it made them look “venal, self-interested and downright foolish” (Hoffer 307).

In spite of not being able to see the media comments on the court, the jurors claim to have easily noticed that the defense was using psychology as their strategy against the prosecution. In doing so, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson suggest to their readers they paid close attention to the case and noticed every detail, even those that were not aimed at the jury. Again, the jury mostly blamed Cochran for the way the

“dream team” was acting in the trial, and they say that “there was a lot of psychology being used by the defense team. Johnnie Cochran is a cocky bastard, and he thought

Marcia and Darden were not in his league. Darden and Cochran seemed like they had a little personal war going on. It was all there” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 97).

The authors of the book try to prove to their readers that they did not care for the charismatic and poetic elements of Cochran’s defense, and they only wanted to know about the evidence. After receiving lot of criticism from the public for accepting the

“dream team’s” performance, the jurors claim it did not affect them at all: “After we got out, I was surprised to learn that everybody thought we bought all of that showboating from Johnnie Cochran. Let set the record straight. All I need from you is a complete outline of the evidence of what the defense had to offer and what the prosecution had to offer. I don’t need the drama” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 138). In this case,

Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson directly react to the criticism, trying to prove the readers they were smart enough to ignore the psychological games the defense played.

According to Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson, the jury was eventually glad they were not allowed to follow the media coverage of the case, as it would only confuse them and make them question the attorneys. In Madam Foreman: a Rush to

92

Judgment?, the jurors argue that when only meeting them in the courtroom, the attorneys were judged solely by their strategy and approach to the case. Hoffer agrees and adds that unlike jurors, the “world was treated to an endless round of conferences, insults, apologies, and speculation by lawyers turned media figures. It was confusing.”

(308) Throughout Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment?, the jurors emphasize they were able to evaluate the evidence without agreeing to play the defense’s games, and they add it was easier because they did not know the backlash each actor on the case faced. They also mention on numerous occasions they successfully saw through

Cochran’s pressure on the racial aspect, but they never took it into account when deliberating the verdict.

It could also be said that the jurors approved of the strategy the defense team chose (“playing the race card”), but they claim not to approve of their approach. While

Darden, as well as many trial spectators, criticized the defense for turning the case into a racial issue, the jury was more accepting, and they defend the “dream team” claiming they were just trying to save their client.

6.2.2 Prosecution

While the jury did not often criticize the defense’s strategy, they often questioned the decisions the prosecution made. From Darden’s appointment as an attorney, Fuhrman’s examination to the glove incident, the jurors often did not understand the prosecution’s strategy, and they make it evident to their readers.

When the trial started with its opening statements, the jury noticed that Chris

Darden joined the prosecution, and they almost immediately started questioning his role in the trial: “When the District Attorney's office first sent Chris Darden down, I remember thinking he was there as a token because the jury was predominantly black. I thought the prosecution felt they needed this particular balance. To me, this was the first

93

"race card," as it has come to be called, and it was played by the prosecution” (Cooley,

Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 88). Although this was never officially confirmed, both

Darden and Cochran suggest in their books that it was true. It could be even said that the jury saw Darden as “just a black man who was being used by the DA’s office” for their good. (Toobin 129) Nevertheless, the jurors did not question Darden’s role for long, as they soon concentrated on other elements they noticed.

As the jurors try to explain they paid attention to every detail on the case, in their book they describe situations that support this claim, including small details about the attorney’s behavior or manner of speaking. One of these situations was when the defense team started discussing the racial aspect of the case; the jurors claim to have noticed the prosecution began to look exhausted. Cooley, who was sitting close to

Marcia Clark, comments that she looked as if she wanted to surrender:

The prosecution believed that they had a strong case but they were showing

signs of stress and frustration. A lot of times, Marcia would sigh and make

gestures with her hands as though she were throwing in the towel. I'm sitting

right in front of her and I'm watching all her sighs and that to me was a sign of

weakness. It made me think, Well, if your case is so strong, why are you so

frustrated? (97)

The jurors, who claim to closely watch the prosecution say they quickly recognized that the attorneys were not prepared for defense’s strategy, and mostly relied on the evidence, that was frequently questioned by the “dream team.” As the trial goes on,

Cooley also comments on how to evidence was handles, claiming she does not blame the prosecution: “I thought the prosecution had outstanding evidence, but there was a breakdown in the way it was gathered and preserved. It wasn't the prosecution's fault”

(Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 140).

94

However, the jurors do criticize prosecutors for examining Fuhrman. They argue that although he played an essential part in collecting the evidence, it was not necessary for him to testify. The jurors say they were “surprised that the prosecutors let Fuhrman testified, knowing there might be a problem with him. Especially with planting the evidence” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 187). This was particularly important, as the “prosecution built the case on Fuhrman’s evidence” and when he got discredited in juror’s eyes, the most important evidence became irrelevant. (Uelmen 477) In Madam

Foreman: a Rush to Judgment?, the authors write: “Fuhrman was the trial. Fuhrman found the hat. Fuhrman found the glove. Fuhrman found the blood. Fuhrman went over the gate. Fuhrman did everything. When you throw it out, what case do you have?”

(187) Doing so, the jurors argue that when Fuhrman lied on the witness stand, it destroyed his credibility and all of the evidence he collected was useless in the jurors’ eyes. With these statements, they are arguably trying to justify their decision of acquitting Simpson, claiming, the proof of Fuhrman planting evidence was “enough to create reasonable doubt” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 187). Surprisingly, some people agreed with this,and it was arguably one of the most acceptable arguments for

Simpson’s acquittal in some communities: “This perjured testimony was enough to discount everything that Fuhrman testified about, including finding the bloody glove, seeing blood on Simpson's Ford Bronco, and finding blood on Simpson's socks laying on the floor of his bedroom.” (Baynes 563)

Another case-defining moment that was often discussed is the glove incident. As

Darden already discussed in In Contempt, he believes that the glove fitted well, and

Simpson was only acting as if it were too small. What might surprise many readers of

Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment? is the fact that the jurors also thought the glove belonged to Simpson: “I was sick when I saw they didn't fit because I just thought for

95 sure that they were going to fit. I realized that there may have been problems because the glove had been cut up on the inside or because he had on the latex. … I do believe the gloves fit. I have no doubt about that.” (125-126) The jurors claim not to base their opinions on the glove demonstration, and they argue that this moment did not influence the verdict. They even describe it as a “ silly performance” orchestrated by Cochran to discredit the prosecution, showing their readers they were smart enough to see through his plan (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 126).

However, they still criticize Darden for making Simpson try the glove without prior preparations. “Now, when I saw that demonstration, I thought, Why in the hell didn't the prosecution try that glove on somebody else that had the same size hands as

O.J. before they allowed him to get out here and do this?” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-

Jackson 125) As this thesis already discussed, the reason why the prosecutors had not tried the glove was that Darden made this decision under the influence of the defense team. This was also the moment that Cochran considered the most important in the whole trial, as he felt they “could win this case.” (Cochran 300) However, it is intriguing to put it into perspective with what jury claim in their book; that the glove demonstration probably did not bring any impact on the verdict. While the attorneys believed it was crucial, the jurors might have seen the incident from a completely different perspective.

6.3 Verdict

Shortly after the closing statements, the jurors started their deliberation.

Shockingly, only after four hours, the jurors came to a verdict of the case that took over a year. Being criticized for the verdict and short deliberation, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-

Jackson defend their decision. They argue that the evidence and witnesses presented in

96 the courtroom were enough for creating reasonable doubt, and it would have been immoral (and even illegal) to convict Simpson.

In Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment?, the authors suggest that their deliberation was strongly influenced by the length of the trial, and it should not have been surprising at all: “After we came back from the hotel, we were left alone with our thoughts. Every day. Of course, we thought about the trial and the verdict; it was all we could think about. The more the trial took, the more we were thinking about it” (62).

Also, the jurors spent a lot of time together, so they knew each other quite well, which also could have influenced the verdict. Fisher agrees when he writes that “the more the jury spent together, the more alike they started to think.” (975) According to Cooley,

Bess, and Rubin-Jackson, it is, therefore, no surprise that the jury agreed on the verdict so quickly, as they not only had enough time to think about it, but also they started to influence each other.

In their book, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson describe the deliberations in detail and make it apparent that most of the jurors wanted to acquit Simpson because they did not think the evidence against him was sufficient. “There was a lot of reasonable doubt in that room. There was just no way there could have been a guilty verdict with all the reasonable doubt. It would have been either a hung jury or a not- guilty verdict" (158). As was already mentioned, after Fuhrman was caught lying on the witness stand, the jurors did not entirely trust the evidence he had collected. This gave the authors a great opportunity to support the verdict, as the term “reasonable doubt” is never defined in the book. They often used this argument, which led some people to believe they were right. Despite the backlash the jurors faced, some people understood their decision, claiming the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to convict

Simpson and “given the high evidentiary standard-that the prosecution prove its case

97 beyond a reasonable doubt-it is not surprising that the jury found Simpson not guilty”

(Baynes 563).

To avoid the further criticism, the jurors point out their acquittal only meant that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence for conviction, and it did not mean

Simpson was innocent: “In the end, we made a decision that he was not guilty, but I think it is important to remember that we have not declared him innocent at all”

(Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 182). Uelmen discusses this moment further and writes that “Shortly after the verdict, one of the jurors said "she thought O.J. 'probably did it,' but she understood that 'probably' wasn't good enough, that she had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt” (478). It could be said that the jurors, trying to prevent the verdict criticism, tried to please both sides: they acquitted Simpson, pleasing his fans, but they did not declare him innocent either.

Trying to support the verdict even further, in their book, the jurors sometimes refer to quotes of other people who agreed with them: “Jeanette Harris summarized our predicament nicely when she said that race could have played a part in the verdict, but the evidence was so questionable that no one had to use the race card to come to this verdict” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 182). The authors try to persuade their readers they acted as professionals and did not allow the attorneys’ games to influence their decision. They claim they mostly concentrated on the information they received, not on the psychological aspects, as they often cite “the lack of evidence” as the most crucial reason for the verdict.

Although Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson released their book to explain themselves and prevent further criticism, Madam Foreman: a Rush to Judgment?

Caused the criticism they wanted to avoid. Right after reaching the verdict, the jurors started to look forward to their return home. Spending more than two hundred days

98 away, it is likely they would miss their families. The problem was, they even admitted they were thinking about it when the verdict was read: “Our ordeal was finally over, and our minds began to toy with the thought of a long-awaited homecoming” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 3). Although it is understandable they wanted to see their loved ones and get back to their homes, it might have been surprising to read that the jurors mostly concentrated on their freedom during the verdict, not on the feelings of others: “we the jury stood in the elevated box that had held us as prisoners of justice for 267 days. We were numb listening to the onslaught of sounds of grief and joy, our eyes darting around the courtroom” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 2). Although the jury argues that their deliberation was not influenced by their want to go home, it is surprising to find so many references to how eager they were when the trial was over. Especially when they wanted to defend their morals and integrity, these comments even led to criticism of the authors, which will be discussed next.

6.4 Evaluation

Unlike the rest of the books analyzed in this thesis, Madam Foreman: a Rush to

Judgment? did not become a bestseller. One of the main reasons is that the verdict was

“cited widely as an example of blatant Black racism” (Skolnick and Shaw 503). Many potential readers who believed Simpson was guilty blamed the jury for acquitting him and did not support the authors by purchasing their book. Unfortunately for the writers, as this was arguably the audience they were aiming at with their defense.

Most of the reviewers found the book interesting, but also “apologetic for the verdict” (Uelmen 479). While hiding behind the theme of the trial, the authors did not cover the trial from their point of view, and they were mostly trying to explain why they acquitted Simpson. Although it helps the readers understand the verdict better, the

99 authors were sometimes criticized for being biased. Because of their African American background, “many readers still interpreted the verdict as a payback to the White community for past racial injustices against Blacks” (Skolnick and Shaw 503).

Although the authors argue they did not realize “the race card” was involved in the case, numerous studies23 have shown that the African American communities are firmly connected, and it is almost impossible to be unbiased.

Another reason why this book faced criticism is that only rarely does it mention the victims and their families. Like Cochran, the jurors in their book do not refer to the

Browns and Goldmans often. They even say they did not take the families into account when deciding the verdict: “Funny thing, now that I look back on all that has happened, at that moment I hadn’t even considered what anyone else would think about the verdict we’d passed on O.J. Simpson” (Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson 5). Statements like this one angered the readers, who later criticized the book and referred to the jurors as

“selfish” and “racist” (Baynes 566).

The last aspect of the book that was criticized is how frequently the jurors mention they wanted to go home. Some readers even argued that it heavily influenced the deliberation length, and the jury did not take all the evidence into account, because they mostly wanted the trial to end so they could go home.24 It is evident that Cooley,

Bess, and Rubin-Jackson wish to return home as soon as possible, but they often argue that the deliberation was that short because the jurors agreed on the verdict quickly, due to lack of evidence. However, it is easy to see why the criticism started, because as this thesis already discussed, the jury thought about going home even during the verdict.

Taking everything into account, it can be said that the juror tried to influence their readers and prove they were right to acquit Simpson, but they were not entirely

23 See Russel and Skolnick and Shaw 24 Skolnick and Shaw 100 successful. They argued they paid close attention to the case and were more than competent to decide such a critical case. Moreover, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson aimed to defend the verdict, claiming to base it on the evidence, not on the “dream team’s” games. However, the jurors concentrate on themselves and their needs too much, wanting to quit the jury and thinking about the return home during the verdict.

Although it is understandable they were happy the trial was over, it was not appropriate note to include when trying to defend one’s honor. The readers quickly noticed the lack of respect towards the victims’ families, and it caused another backlash. For this reason it can be said that Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson’s strategy to defend and explain themselves ineffective.

101

7 Conclusion

This thesis aimed to analyze the strategies the actors in Simpson's criminal trial used in their books. It has discussed how these writers influenced their audience, emphasizing the elements of the trial that some might not consider necessary, or omitting some details entirely. Since all the books described the highly-followed trial, they were all read by the broad public, and many readers and critics expressed their opinions on them. As this thesis already mentioned, the books did not provide much new information on the case, but it was not their aim in the first place; they mostly showed the readers only what the authors wanted to share.

The first analyzed book, If I Did It, concentrates on Simpson’s life before the deaths of Brown and Goldman, and shortly after the murders. The book is a rather controversial work, which received a lot of criticism for its portrayal of Simpson and

Brown. As this thesis has proved, this book was heavily biased, and its main goal was to clear Simpson’s name in the public eye. Simpson uses his narrative to explain himself in the eyes of his readers, failing to stay consistent, which leads to many inconsistencies in his story. However, this book does not only tell Simpson's point of view.

The readers also get to read a short Prologue and Acknowledgment by the

Goldmans and the writer, Pablo Fenjves. The Goldmans, who are strongly connected to the case, get a unique opportunity to explain their perspective and tell the readers their side of the story. They take this opportunity to refer to him as a “beast” and a

“monster”, which shows the readers how much they detest Simpson and still blame him for the murders. Pablo Fenjves then discloses his writing process and his interviews with Simpson, especially how he reacted to the chapters about Nicole’s death. As has been mentioned, Fenjves believed Simpson was guilty, and he suggests the same to the readers. These two parts arguably balance the rest of the book; while the other chapters

102 try to portray Simpson as the good man, both Prologue and Acknowledgment describe him as a killer.

When the book starts with Simpson’s narrative, it depicts Simpson’s relationship with Brown. As this thesis already discussed, his story is full of inconsistencies, and

Simpson sometimes even contradicts himself. One of the most striking examples is how he describes his life with Nicole – one time he mentions he “loved her too much”, and on the next page, the readers learn Nicole was “poisonous” and “always angry”

(Simpson 67, 159). The readers did not understand Simpson’s point of view, and he was criticized for claiming what was convenient for him.

Another critical aspect of the book was the depiction of the murders. The readers did not understand the purpose of “hypothetical description of murders”, and Simpson made them even more confusing. On the one hand, he often mentioned the murders were only hypothetical, and that he did not commit them, but on the other hand, he described the scenes leading to deaths to such details, the readers were baffled. It was also argued that only the killer could know such details, but Simpson kept claiming he was innocent.

Nevertheless, this book provided plenty of examples of how the narrator can manipulate the reader, although unsuccessfully. Simpson's inconsistencies about important events, such as his relationship with Nicole Brown, caused more questions than answers, and Simpson failed to defend himself in his biography.

Following the murders, Cochran’s Journey to Justice starts with its depiction of the case as soon as the media reported it. Cochran comments on every important aspect of the trial right from the beginning, even when he was not a part of the “dream team”.

Although Cochran’s book was criticized for being too self-centered, and that it reminded a marketing campaign, Cochran's defense is more successful. Throughout the

103 book, Cochran concentrates on himself consistently and defends most of his criticized decisions. He also argues that the role he played on the defense team was irreplaceable.

Cochran, who quickly became the leader of the “dream team”, often mentions how he helped Simpson’s acquittal, and describes the case from the winning perspective. He praises many of his colleagues (except for Robert Shapiro), and explains to the readers how he made important moves, such as Fuhrman examination or trying on the glove. What his readers quickly noticed is that Cochran often talks about himself, and not about the team, or the defendant. He often claimed he made the most critical decisions, and frequently criticizes Shapiro, arguably, because he was his main rival. Cochran even describes himself as the lawyer who eventually won the criminal case for Simpson. It has also been proved that the decisions Cochran claims to make on his own were discussed in the whole team, and Cochran is trying to take credit for them, to improve his public image.

Moreover, Cochran also mentions how good relationships he had with the prosecution and Judge Ito. He repeatedly writes that he was friendly towards Marcia

Clark and Chris Darden and that they would sometimes chat in between the hearings.

He emphasizes how he tried to help Darden with the Fuhrman examination but fails to acknowledge that he discredited Chris in the media and claimed that he was not good enough to be on the case. Moreover, the prosecutors in their book claimed that they never respected Cochran for “playing the race card”, which shows the readers that

Cochran wanted to influence the public’s opinion on their relationship.

Overall, Journey to Justice is a great opportunity for Cochran to portray himself as a world-class lawyer who fights the racism in Simpson's trial. As a great lawyer and speaker, he talks to his readers in a skillful manner, and his narrative is undeniably more

104 consistent than Simpson's. He positions himself as an ultimate winner who did not make any mistake during the trial, explaining to his readers that all he did, he did for the

African American community.

While Journey to Justice is a book about the winner who depicts himself as a hero, Darden’s In Contempt is a complete opposite of that. As this thesis has discussed,

Darden portrays himself as a victim who blames the loss on almost anything. He uses his book to return the criticism he faced during the trial and criticizes nearly everyone on the case, including himself. This means, that unlike Cochran, Darden is aware of the mistakes he made, and he takes full responsibility for them.

In his book, Darden concentrates on how much of an impact race had on the trial. He often criticizes Cochran for “playing the race card” and undermining him in the media. Darden proves that Cochran’s team wanted to win at all costs but fails to acknowledge the prosecution’s lack of strategy. While the “dream team” attacked almost every piece of evidence presented in the court, the prosecution did not actively fight them and mostly concentrated on the evidence they collected. Darden shows that the prosecutors believed in the evidence, and they were tired and angry with the defense for “playing the race card” and questioning how the evidence was handled. He continually criticizes Cochran for his approach and blames him for the racial issues that arose from the case. Moreover, Darden also criticizes the whole “dream team”, arguably with prejudice, because he does not provide any relevant information to his readers about his hatred towards Kardashian or Bailey.

Darden also complains to his readers how the case affected his life in the African

American community and led to the creation of the so-called “Darden Dilemma.” Like

Cochran, Darden also concentrates on himself, but mostly in a negative way, portraying himself as a victim, not as a winner. He blames mostly the “dream team” for Simpson’s

105 acquittal, and often mentions they played immorally and discredited the prosecutors.

Darden aims to portray himself as a victim, arguably trying to make the readers feel sorry for him after Cochran discredited him in the media. Overall, it could be said the book is a complete opposite of Cochran's Journey to Justice, and it is far from the self- promo Cochran provides.

As the prosecution and the defense fought in the courtroom, presenting their evidence, the jurors quietly watched, taking notes. After the trial, three of them wrote a book Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment? in which they depicted the case from the perspective of an allegedly unbiased watcher. In their book, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-

Jackson try to explain how they perceived the case and which aspects led them to the surprising verdict.

The book again aims to defend the comments the writers faced, arguing that the jurors were unbiased and they only concentrated on the evidence when deciding the verdict. Right from the beginning of the book, the jurors claim they did not take the race into account. They argue they did not realize that the “dream team” was “playing a race card”, and they never expected the case to be a racial issue. However, the jurors did notice that the defense was playing psychological games, questioning presented evidence, and they approved of this strategy, arguing the “dream team” had to do it for their client’s sake.

To prove their integrity, Cooley, Bess, and Rubin-Jackson do not often mention race in their book and mostly criticize both the defense and the prosecution. Doing this, they aim to show their readers they noticed mistakes on both sides and took them into account during verdict deliberation. The jurors’ book also provides an interesting insight into how specific evidence could have influenced the verdict, e.g. the glove incident. While both the defense team and prosecution believed it was a turning point

106 for the verdict, in Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?, the readers learn it did not influence the decision process at all. Moreover, the jurors found it “too dramatic” and they did not think about it when deliberating the verdict.

Like Darden, the jurors also try to depict themselves as victims as a part of their defense. On multiple occasions, they mention how many days they had to spend away from their families, arguing the trial took its toll on them. However, this defense was unsuccessful, as it only led to more criticism from the readers, who claimed the jurors concentrated on themselves too much, without taking the victims into account.

Taking all the books into account, it can be said that while hiding behind the theme of Simpson's case, the writers mostly concentrated on themselves, instead of the case and the victims. As this thesis argued, it was proved that the authors who faced public backlash decided to defend themselves, using reader manipulation and concentrating on specific events that would depict them in the way they wanted.

107

Future Research Suggestion

With numerous books that were released by the actors in Simpson’s case, they are many perspectives to this trial that this thesis did not take into account. While this thesis concentrated on the African American writers and followed the whole case–from

Simpson’s life before the murders through the trial to the verdict– it could be useful to concentrate only on the trial.

One of the suggested analysis could be using the white authors’ books, both from the defense team (Robert Shapiro) and the prosecution (Marcia Clark), combining it with another influential person from the case, e. g., Mark Fuhrman. The reason why this analysis could be different is that while Cochran and Simpson, two authors from this analysis, were convinced of Simpson’s innocence, none of the suggested authors expressed similar beliefs. Their descriptions of the trial might be personally biased as well, but it could be more concentrated on the evidence, and less on the racial aspects.

108

Works Cited

Anderson, Kamili. “David, Goliath and the American Justice System.” Black Issues in

Higher Education, vol. 13, no. 21, Dec. 1996, p. 30. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=9707110083&lang

=cs. Accessed 23 Sept 2019.

Ball, Milner S. “The Play's the Thing: An Unscientific Reflection on Courts Under the

Rubric of Theater.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 28, no. 1, 1975, pp. 81–115.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1228228. Accessed 23 Sept 2019.

Baynes, Leonard M. “A Time to Kill, the O.J. Simpson Trials, and Storytelling to

Juries.” Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, vol. 17, no. 3, 1997,

pp. 549-570, http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol17/iss3/3. Accessed 4 Oct

2019.

Brigham, J. C., and A. W. Wasserman. "The Impact of Race, Racial Attitude, and

Gender on Reactions to the Criminal Trial of O. J. Simpson." Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, no. 29, 1999, pp: 1333-1370. doi:10.1111/j.1559-

1816.1999.tb00143.x. Accessed 11 May 2019.

Brown, William J., James J. Duane & Benson P. Fraser. “Media coverage and public

opinion of the O.J. Simpson trial: Implications for the criminal justice system.”

Communication Law and Policy, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 261-287. doi:

10.1080/10811689709368625. Accessed 23 Sept 2019.

Bulkin, Ellie, and Becky Thompson. “The Spectacle of Race and Gender in the O.J.

Simpson Case.” Off Our Backs, vol. 24, no. 9, 1994, pp. 10–23. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/20834931. Accessed 4 Oct 2019.

Bugliosi, Vincent. Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With

Murder. W.W. Norton & Co, 1996.

109

Clark, Marcia, and Teresa Carpenter. Without a Doubt. Viking, 1997.

Cochran, Johnnie L. Jr., and Tim Rutten. Journey to Justice. Ballantine Books, 1996.

Cooley, Armanda, Carrie Bess, Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Tom Byrnes, and Mike Walker.

Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment? Dove Books, 1995.

Darden, Christopher A., and Jess Walters. In Contempt. Regan Books, 1995.

Easton, Stephen D. “Lessons Learned the Hard Way from O.J. and the Dream team.”

Tulsa Law Review, vol. 32, no. 3, 1995, pp. 707-745,

https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2095&contex

t=tlr. Accessed 23 Sept 2019.

Fields-Meyer, Thomas, and Linda Wright. “The Most Angry Man.” People, vol. 45, no.

13, Apr. 1996, p. 50. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=9603257812&lang

=cs&site=ehost-live. Accessed 23 May 2019.

Fisher, George. “The O. J. Simpson Corpus.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 49, no. 4,

1997, pp. 971–1019. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1229341. Accessed 28 June

2019.

Hemmens, Craig. “BOOK REVIEW ESSAY.” Journal of Crime and Justice, vol. 22,

no. 1, 1999, pp. 167-177. doi: 10.1080/0735648X.1999.9721087. Accessed 23

May 2019.

Hoffer, Peter Charles. “Invisible Worlds and Criminal Trials The Cases of John Proctor

and O. J. Simpson.” The American Journal of Legal History, vol. 41, no. 3,

1997, pp. 287–314. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/846243. Accessed 23 May

2019.

110

“"If I Did It" Ghost Writer: O.J.'s Guilty”. CBS News, 18 Sept 2007,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/if-i-did-it-ghost-writer-ojs-guilty/. Accessed 23

Sept 2019.

Kennedy, Randal. “Playing to the Crowd : JOURNEY TO JUSTICE.By Johnnie

Cochran Jr., with Tim Rutten.”Los Angeles Times,

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-10-13-bk-53239-story.html.

Accessed 14 Aug 2019.

Kuhl, Victoria. “Disparities in Judgments of the O.J. Simpson Case: A Social Identity

Perspective.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 53, no. 3, 1997, pp. 531–

545. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02127.x. Accessed 23 Sept

2019.

Lascala, Marisa. “Where Is Bill Hodgman Today? 'The People v. O.J. Simpson'

Prosecuter Is Still Active In Law.” Bustle, 1 Mar 2016,

https://www.bustle.com/articles/144602-where-is-bill-hodgman-today-the-

people-v-oj-simpson-prosecuter-is-still-active-in-law. Accessed 14 Sept 2019.

Linder, Douglas. "The Trial of Orenthal James Simpson." 2018, pp. 3-16. SSRN,

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1305244. Accessed 23 May 2019.

Matheson, Victor A., and Robert A. Baade. “Race and Riots: A Note on the Economic

Impact of the Rodney King Riots.” Urban Studies, vol. 41, no. 13, 2004, pp.

2691–2696. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43197079. Accessed 14 Aug 2019.

Moore, Andrew G.T. "The OJ Simpson Trial-Triumph of Justice or Debacle." Louis

ULJ, vol. 41, no. 9, 1996, pp. 9-42. HeinOnline,

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stlulj41&div=9

&id=&page=. Accessed 14 Aug 2019.

111

Nguyen, Kimberly. "Book Review: If I Did It By OJ Simpson If He Did It, Would It

Matter?" Criminal Law Brief, vol. 3, no. 1, 2007, pp. 38-39.

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&con

text=clb. Accessed 23 May 2019.

Nunn, Kenneth B. “The Darden Dilemma: Should African Americans Prosecute

Crimes?” UF Law faculty Publications, 2000, pp. 1473-1509.

https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=facult

ypub. Accessed 23 May 2019.

Ontiveros, Maria L. “Rosa Lopez, Christopher Darden and Me: Issues of Gender,

Ethnicity, and Class in Evaluating Witness Credibility.” Critical Race

Feminism: A Reader, edited by Adrien Katherine Wing, New York University

Press, 1997, pp 269-277. Accessed 4 Oct 2019.

People of the State of California Vs. Orenthal James Simpson

Reidinger, Paul. “Squeezing the Juice out of O.J.: Here Is Proof That Anyone Can Write

a Book, Even If It Is Not Meant to Be Read.” ABA Journal, vol. 82, no. 12,

1996, pp. 92–93. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27839348. Accessed 23 May

2019.

Russell, Dennis. “‘Insider’ Narratives of the O.J. Simpson Case: A Klappean Analysis

of Hero or Fool.” Studies in Popular Culture, vol. 20, no. 3, 1998, pp. 45–56.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23414555. Accessed 23 May 2019.

Russell, Margaret. “Beyond ‘Sellouts’ and ‘Race Cards’: Black Attorneys and the

Straitjacket of Legal Practice.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 95, no. 4, 1997, pp.

766–794. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1290046. Accessed 4 Oct 2019.

Schulman, J. Neil. The Frame of the Century? Pulpless.Com, 1999.

Simpsons, O. J. If I Did It: Confession of the Killer. Beaufort Books, 2007.

112

Skolnick, Paul, and Jerry I. Shaw. “The O.J. Simpson Criminal Trial Verdict: Racism or

Status Shield?” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 53, no. 3, 1997, pp. 503–

516. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02125.x. Accessed 14 Aug

2019.

Slovenko, Ralph. “Book Review: Journey to Justice.” The Journal of Psychiatry & Law,

vol. 25, no. 2, June 1997, pp. 293–298. SAGE journals,

doi:10.1177/009318539702500205. Accessed 4 Oct 2019.

Toobin, Jeffrey. The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson. Penguin Random

House 1996.

Thagard, Paul. “Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference.”

Cognition & emotion, vol. 17, no. 3, 2003, pp. 361-383. ResearchGate,

doi:10.1080/0269993024400002. Accessed 23 Sept 2019.

Uelmen, Gerald F. “Jury-Bashing and the O.J. Simpson Verdict.” Harvard Journal of

Law & Public Policy, vol. 20, no. 2, 1997, p. 475. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=9710133457&lang

=cs. Accessed 23 May 2019.

Wilkins, David B. “Straightjacketing Professionalism: A Comment on Russell.”

Michigan Law Review, vol. 95, no. 4, Feb. 1997, p. 795. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.2307/1290047. Accessed 23 May 2019.

113

English Resume

This thesis analyzes four books of African American authors who played an active role in the O.J. Simpson's trial: O.J. Simpson, Johnnie Cochran, Christopher

Darden, and several jurors. Since all of these authors were heavily criticized during the trial, they used their literary works to defend themselves in the public's eyes. This thesis aims to analyze the defense strategies they use, in the chronological order of the case.

The first analyzed book is Simpson's If I Did It, and Simpson uses it to defend himself from the accusations he killed his ex-wife, Nicole Brown and her acquaintance,

Ronald Goldman. He portrays himself as a victim who loved his former wife, and he blames her for all the problems they had during their marriage, trying to clear his name from domestic abuse reports.The following chapter concentrates on Journey to Justice by Johnnie Cochran. Cochran, who helped Simpson win the criminal case, portrays himself as the ultimate winner, and the mastermind that came up with all the important decisions. He defends his role on Simpson's team, arguing Simpson was framed based on racial prejudice, and Cochran aims to prove to his readers that his intentions were good.The next book this thesis analyzes is In Contempt by Christopher Darden. Darden, who was heavily criticized by his community for trying to convict Simpson, addresses this criticism and portrays himself as an ultimate victim. He is trying to make the readers feel sorry for him, admitting his mistakes, blaming everybody on the trial, and depicting how difficult the case was on him. The last chapter deals with Madam

Foreman: A Rush to Judgment? by jurors Armanda Cooley, Marsha Rubin-Jackson, and

Carrie Bess. As the jury faced criticism for their acquittal of Simpson and the short deliberation, the authors defend their decision, claiming they spent a lot of time thinking about the case. They also aim to prove they did not take the race into account and only concentrated on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

114

Czech Resume

Tato práce analyzuje čtyři knihy afroamerických autorů, kteří hráli aktivní roli v případě O.J. Simpsona: O.J. Simpson, Johnnie Cochran, Christopher Darden a několik porotců. Jelikož byli všichni tito autoři během procesu kritizováni, použili své knihy k vlastní obraně cti. Tato práce si klade za cíl analyzovat obranné strategie, které používají, v chronologickém pořadí případu. První analyzovanou knihou je Simpsonova kniha If I Did It a Simpson ji používá k obraně proti obviněním, že zabil svou bývalou manželku Nicole Brownovou a jejího známého Ronalda Goldmana. Zobrazuje se jako oběť, a tvrdí, že miloval svou bývalou manželku. Obviňuje ji též ze všech problémů, které měli během jejich manželství, a snaží se očistit své jméno před obviněním z domácího násilí. Následující kapitola se zaměřuje na Journey to Justice od Johnnie

Cochrana. Cochran, který pomohl Simpsonovi vyhrát soud, se popisuje jako vítěz, který přišel se všemi důležitými rozhodnutími. Hájí svou roli v Simpsonově týmu a tvrdí, že

Simpson byl obviněný na základě rasových předsudků. Cochran si taky klade za cíl svým čtenářům dokázat, že jeho úmysly byly dobré.

Další kniha, kterou tato práce analyzuje, je In Contempt od Christophera

Dardena. Darden, jehož komunita těžce kritizovala za to, že se pokusil Simpsona usvědčit, se této kritice věnuje tímto obviněním a popisuje se jako oběť. Snaží se přimět

čtenáře, aby ho litovali, tím že přiznává své chyby, obviňuje každého kdo byl na soudním řízení a popisuje, jak negativní dopad na jeho život tenhle případ měl. Poslední kapitola se zabývá Madam Foreman: Rush to Judgment? od porotkyň Armanda Cooley,

Marsha Rubin-Jackson a Carrie Bess. Jelikož porota čelila kritice za osvobození

Simpsona, autorky hájí své rozhodnutí a tvrdí, že strávily spoustu času přemýšlením o případu. Jejich cílem je také prokázat, že rasu nezohledňily, a soustředily se pouze na důkazy předložené v soudní síni.

115