Murder in Brentwood (9 page)

Then Vannatter brought up Simpson’s history of domestic violence. When he asked the first question concerning Nicole’s crime reports, he sounded hesitant: “Uh huh. I understand that she had made a couple of crime... crime reports or something?

Simpson then told his side of the story, that the incident wasn’t a big deal, that she attacked him, and that he should have made a crime report himself.

SIMPSON: Ah, we had a big fight about six years ago on New Year’s, you know, she made a report. I didn’t make a

report. And then we had an altercation about a year ago maybe. It wasn’t a physical argument. I kicked her door

or something.

SIMPSON: And she made a police report on those two occasions?

SIMPSON: Mmm hmm. And I stayed right there until the police came, talked to them.

LANGE: Were you arrested at one time for something?

SIMPSON: No. I mean, five years ago we had a big fight, six years ago, I don’t know. I know I ended up doing

community service.

VANNATTER: So you weren’t arrested?

SIMPSON: No, I was never really arrested.

LANGE: They never booked or...?

SIMPSON: No.

Suddenly, while Simpson was talking about the criminal charges against him, Vannatter asked, “Can I ask you, when’s the last time you slept?”

Why did he ask that? Who cares when he slept? Why give the suspect sympathy or an excuse for his fragmented answers? You want the suspect to be vulnerable, and you want to take advantage of his vulnerability, whether guilt-ridden, distraught, in fear of being discovered, or even tired.

The questioning went on as the detectives attempted to establish a timeline for Sydney Simpson’s dance recital, and Nicole and O.J. s movements directly following. Then Vannatter asked about the Bronco. Throughout the rest of the interview, he and Lange constantly referred to the Bronco, making clear to O.J. that it was parked awkwardly and had blood on it. By doing this so obviously, they let Simpson know that the Bronco was a significant piece of evidence. So naturally his answers concerning it were purposefully vague and evasive. The detectives were unable to get a firm story of his actions in and around the car. They kept interrupting him while he talked, finishing his answers for him, giving him an out, and changing the subject.

They asked him when he last drove the Bronco the day before. His answer: “In the morning, in the afternoon.”

The next question should have been, “Which is it, O.J., morning or afternoon?” Instead, they started asking about the recital again, information they had already established. They asked him where he went after the recital.

“Ah, home, home for a while, got my car for a while, tried to find my girlfriend for a while, came back to the house,” Simpson answered.

Instead of pinning him down on specific times and movements, they asked who was home when he got there, without even making clear which time period they were asking about. Simpson responded that Kato was home. At that point in the Investigation, Kato Kaelin was a material witness, possibly an accessory, or even a suspect. He was one of the few people who could corroborate Simpson’s whereabouts. But the detectives weren’t interested in Kaelin. Instead, they quickly shifted to Arnelle, even though they knew she wasn’t home at the time of the murders.

By not following a line of questioning about Kaelin, the detectives indicated they did not suspect him, or thought that Simpson had already gotten to him. This was enormously helpful to Simpson, as he no longer had to worry about his permanent houseguest, so long as Kaelin kept his story straight.

Kato Kaelin and Arnelle Simpson had already been questioned. Vannatter and Lange could have used Kaelin’s statements to contradict Simpson, or they could have made up something in order to trick Simpson into an admission or conflicting statement. The detectives could have said, “Well, we talked to Kato, and he said you were missing for an hour around the time of the murders, and when you returned you were bleeding like a stuck pig.” True or not, such statements could have led Simpson to reveal important information, make a damaging statement, or even confess (a tactic universally approved by the courts). But the detectives didn’t use any of their leverage against Simpson. They seemed awed by him, and too worried about how the interrogation would be seen by the department, in the trial, and in the press. Ironically, they didn’t have to worry about how the interrogation was seen by the public, because it was never used in the trial.

Throughout the interview, Lange and Vannatter asked far too many irrelevant questions. They finished Simpson’s sentences for him. And even though every time Simpson discussed a sticky issue he rambled on incoherently, instead of allowing him to ramble, the detectives kept asking him more questions, many of them irrelevant or on a different topic that Simpson gladly answered to avoid the more difficult issues.

One of the most important points of this interview, and what should have been one of the primary goals, was to establish how and when Simpson was cut, and where he bled. Simpson offered a variety of explanations, but the detectives never pinned him down to one story and they never used his own conflicting statements against him. He kept saying he did not remember how he was cut, then he offered possible explanations. But he never gave the detectives one clear answer about how or when he cut himself.

Vannatter asked: “How did you get the injury on your hand?”

“I don’t know,” Simpson answered. “The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.”

Huh? Is Simpson saying he first cut it in Chicago? Or is he saying he bled in the house while he was getting ready to go?

Vannatter followed up, not with an open-ended question that would have allowed Simpson to dig himself a deeper hole, but instead with a specific question that allowed him to further develop his cover story.

“How did you do it in Chicago?”

“I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just went bonkers for a little bit.”

“Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?” Lange asked. Why not just ask: “Where did you bleed?” Lange s question told Simpson where his blood was found and where he would have to say he bled.

“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.”

Later in the trial, the defense would argue that Simpson cut his hand getting his cellular phone out of the Bronco. Here he seems to be saying that he cut himself before going into the Bronco. Still, the detectives wouldn’t or couldn’t nail him down on a detail most people would find very easy to remember.

Let me ask you, the reader, a question. Do you have cuts on your hand now? How many? Do you remember how you got them? When, was the last time you cut yourself badly enough that you dripped blood on the floor? Didn’t you clean up the blood immediately? Didn’t you put something on the cut? Or did yon run around your house bleeding everywhere?

It simply isn’t credible that O.J. Simpson couldn’t remember how he cut his finger the previous night. How could he not remember a cut which surely must have hurt, and which bled enough to drip all over his car, property, and inside of his house?

But Vannatter and Lange failed to get him to commit to an explanation about the cut. At one time, he said it happened after he ate at McDonalds with Kaelin. Another time, he said it was while he was getting ready to leave for Chicago and the limo was waiting. Or he was in the kitchen, where he wrapped a napkin around it? Or did he cut himself in Chicago? What really happened, O.J.? The detectives never got him to give them an answer.

What about his actions the night of the murders? The detectives weren’t asking him about a series of events in the distant past; they were talking about the previous night. People can usually remember what they did the night before, no matter how mundane. But except for the recital, the trip to McDonalds, and the limo drive to the airport, Simpson is either vague or self-contradictory about his movements throughout the interrogation. Still, Lange and Vannatter did not try to clarify his vague answers or use his self-contradictions against him.

A good example of how useful this interrogation should have been occurred during the civil trial. In Simpson’s deposition, Daniel Petrocelli, the Goldman’s civil attorney, did nail Simpson down to his movements and actions the night of the murder. Now, almost two years later, Simpson miraculously remembers that he was playing golf in his backyard, a rather leisurely and relaxing endeavor, which tends to contradict the description that he gave to the detectives of rushing around. And in the Superior Court trial, limo driver Allan Park testified that Simpson said he had overslept and was then just getting ready. Any one of those stories would have been difficult to forget, especially fifteen hours after the murders. But Simpson can’t seem to keep his lies straight enough to remember what he said to the last person. He confuses himself, so one lie creates two more lies.

In the civil trial deposition, Simpson declared that he didn’t believe he was cut before he left for Chicago and the injury to his left knuckle occurred in his hotel room after he was informed of his wife’s death. Yet, in his statement to Vannatter and Lange, Simpson did admit to cutting himself before he left for Chicago, and admitted bleeding in his house, in the driveway, and in the Bronco.

“Hmm, it was cut before. But I think I just opened it again. I’m not sure,” he told Lange and Vannatter.

But in his civil trial deposition, he never admitted that he even saw a cut.

So what happened between the Vannatter and Lange interrogation and his civil trial deposition? Simple. Simpson hired attorneys.

It would have been easy for Vannatter and Lange to nail him down to one story, to go through all his actions and movements the night before, starting with the recital and ending with the limo drive. Every half hour or fifteen minutes, what was he doing then? They could have had him commit to a timeline.

There are many other specific questions that Simpson should have been asked. Did he go into the service entrance and laundry room? Did he usually put his clothes in the washer? Did he usually put his clothes away? What about his socks? Did he go behind the bungalows? What’s his shoe size? Did he own brown leather gloves or a black knit cap? Did he own a knife?

Wouldn’t an admission that he bought a knife just weeks prior while on location at a movie set have been helpful to the detectives at this time? The follow-up should have been: “Where is the knife now, O.J.?” If the knife was at his estate, he could have described where it was. Conversely, if he said, “No, I don’t own any knives, except for kitchen knives,” that would have eliminated the defense’s miraculous discovery of the Stiletto and the mysterious envelope containing it, and brought up some interesting questions about the empty Swiss Army knife box that was sitting on the edge of the bathtub. A simple question-do you own any knives other than kitchen knives?- could have solved some of the mysteries in this case.

These are all specific and direct questions that should have been used to get Simpson tangled up in his own lies. But Vannatter and Lange never asked any of them. They didn’t nail Simpson down to anything. Then they started telling him about the evidence they had on him. Almost apologetically Vannatter recounted what they had found at the two crime scenes. “We’ve got some blood on and in your car, we’ve got some blood at your house, and it’s sort of a problem.”

Simpson said, “Well, take my blood test.”

Lange jumped in: “Well, we’d like to do that. We’ve got, of course, the cut on your finger that you aren’t real clear on. Do you recall having that cut on your finger the last time you were at Nicole’s house?”

“No,” O.J. answered. “It was last night.”

At that moment alarms should have gone off. Did Simpson say he bled last night at Nicole’s house? But instead of trying to place a bleeding Simpson at his ex-wife’s house, Lange gave him an out.

“Okay, so last night you cut it?”

Inexplicably, Vannatter jumped in, “Somewhere after the dance recital?”

Vannatter’s question opened up the time frame again and allowed Simpson to give another amorphous answer with a one-word response.

“Yeah.”

Finally, Vannatter tried to pin him down.

“What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?”

“I have no idea, man. You guys haven’t told me anything,” Simpson protested.

Wait a second. Weren’t the detectives interrogating Simpson? Since when did they have to tell him anything? Then Simpson launched into a long and confusing digression about an incident that occurred a month prior while he was driving his Bentley and some “Oriental guys” appeared to be trying to rob or carjack him. Instead of getting the interrogation back on track, the detectives asked him more questions about the supposed incident.

Finally, Vannatter returned to the murders, asking if Nicole had been getting any threats or was concerned about the kids’ safety. They talked about her being security conscious, and then Vannatter asked Simpson if he ever parked in the rear of the Bundy residence.

This question obviously tipped Simpson off that there was evidence in the alley behind Bundy. Simpson explained (in his rambling fashion) how sometimes he drove up behind the house, or in front of it, depending on the circumstances.

Vannatter went back to their relationship. Again Simpson rambled, and again the detectives kept interrupting him, asking irrelevant and distracting questions like, “How long were you together?” Then Vannatter asked, “Did you ever hit her, O.J.?”

Simpson launched into another meandering explanation and repeated his “battered husband” argument. Everything was Nicole’s fault. She started it, he did nothing. Well, maybe he wrestled her a little. But he didn’t hit her, and never touched her again after that incident which occurred five or six years ago, although the detectives never established which incident he was referring to.

Vannatter followed up by asking about Nicole’s birthday and whether Simpson gave her any gifts. This was a potentially interesting line of questioning, because the relationship had to have taken a dramatic turn for Simpson to become violent. She had returned a bracelet and earrings Simpson had given her. Did this signal that the relationship was over for good? Just when it seemed that they were about to establish the return of these gifts as a significant event, Tom Lange changed the subject, bringing up the last thing you ever want to mention in a criminal interrogation: the suspect’s lawyer.