YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → OJ Simpson Prosecutors Graded F- by Vincent Bugliosi on Geraldo 6-10-96

OJ Simpson Prosecutors Graded F- by Vincent Bugliosi on Geraldo 6-10-96 — Transcript

by Jeff Zest · 6,314 words · 1,040 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00I'm Geraldo Rivera, the fiery epidemic
0:02of arson at black churches continues.
0:04Jesse Jackson will join us in a bit to
0:06give us his take on the crisis. Closing
0:08arguments began in the Polly Klaas
0:10trial. Reaction from her dad, Mark, live
0:12later in the program. Up front tonight,
0:14this man who joins me here in Fort Lee
0:16is outraged. He's also a legal legend,
0:18Vincent Bugliosi, who will forever be
0:20known as the tough-talking prosecutor
0:22who put Charles Manson behind bars.
0:25During his 8-year career in the LA
0:26District Attorney's Office, Vince was
0:28successful in 105 out of 106 felony jury
0:32trials.
0:34Uh
0:34that included winning 21 consecutive
0:36murder cases for the prosecution. He
0:38later wrote Helter Skelter about the
0:40Manson murders. It is the best-selling
0:42true crime book in the history of
0:43publishing. Now, Vince has set his
0:45sights on Simpson with this powerful new
0:48book. It's called Outrage, the five
0:51reasons why O.J. Simpson got away with
0:53murder.
0:55In it, he depicts the Simpson trial as a
0:57travesty of justice and a showcase of
1:01incompetence.
1:04Simpson made a statement to the cops.
1:06We'll start right at the beginning.
1:06First of all, hi, Vince.
1:08Nice to see you.
1:08Good to have you on the show.
1:09Uh
1:10Simpson spoke
1:12twice. He spoke to the cops, as you
1:13know, the statement he gave when he got
1:15back to LA on the 13th, and then he
1:17spoke uh
1:18you know, in in terms of his uh would
1:20not, could not, did not. So, we'll run
1:23both those clips and then we'll start.
1:26This prosecution team
1:32didn't lose today.
1:36I deeply believe that this country lost
1:39today.
1:41Justice
1:43was not served.
1:50I and my family
1:53will do everything in our power
2:00to bring about
2:03the kind of change
2:08that won't allow what happened today
2:12to ever happen to another family again.
2:16Mr. Simpson, good morning, sir.
2:20Uh good morning, your honor.
2:21As much as I would like to address some
2:23of the misrepresentation made about
2:25myself
2:27and my ex-wife
2:28concerning our life together, I'm
2:30mindful of the mood
2:32and the stamina of this jury. Jury, I
2:34have confidence,
2:36uh a lot more than
2:37Miss Clark has, of their integrity
2:41and that they will find, as the record
2:43stands now, that I did not, could not,
2:45and would not have committed this uh
2:47crime.
2:48I have four kids, two kids I haven't
2:50seen in a year.
2:52They ask me every week, "Dad, how much
2:54longer?"
2:55All right.
2:58All right. Mr. Simpson, you do
2:59understand your right to testify as a
3:00witness.
3:00Yes, I do.
3:01All right. And you choose to rest your
3:02case at this
3:04All right. Thank you very much, sir.
3:07How did you get the injury on your hand?
3:09I don't know.
3:10I'm not the first time I know I had it
3:12when I was in Chicago. I know I
3:14At the house, I was just running around
3:15and it
3:16How did you do it in Chicago?
3:18I broke a glass. I just was
3:20You had
3:21One of you guys had just called me and I
3:22was in the bathroom and I just kind of
3:24went like this with a little bit.
3:26Is that how you cut it?
3:27Uh it was cut before, but I think I just
3:29opened it again. I'm not sure. I'm not
3:31sure how I did it.
3:33As you know, not As you know, not only
3:34did the prosecution not introduce
3:36Simpson's statement into evidence, they
3:38fought very hard, very aggressively to
3:40keep it out of evidence. Vince Bugliosi,
3:43you believe that was one of their
3:44cardinal sins.
3:45Well, there were so many. Yeah, you read
3:47the book, right? All
3:48I've read every word, every page.
3:49It's page after page after page example
3:52after example, just unbelievable
3:54incompetence. I mean,
3:56in many instances, if you've read the
3:58book as you did, we're going beyond
4:00incompetence. I mean, incompetence
4:01implies within the normal range of human
4:03behavior. We're talking about into the
4:05area of unprecedented, unheard of,
4:07bizarre,
4:08unique. If you didn't show up for work,
4:10Geraldo, I wouldn't say that you were
4:12incompetent. Incompetence is showing up
4:15for work and doing a terrible job,
4:16right? Literally, in many, many areas
4:19here, they literally did not contest.
4:21They They conceded by default key issues
4:24in this case, like conspiracy. But,
4:25people don't know that.
4:26Okay, let's let's do point by point.
4:28What about that statement? Why should
4:30they have introduced that statement?
4:31not the most incriminating part of the
4:32statement there.
4:33Right. He says
4:33Later Later on
4:34states that he cut himself out of his
4:36house.
4:36Here's a guy that admits dripping with
4:38blood on the night of the murders in his
4:40car, home, and driveway, has no idea how
4:42he got cut, and the prosecution didn't
4:44introduce that statement.
4:46I mean,
4:47number one,
4:49when you say you don't know how you got
4:50cut, and it's a deep cut to your left
4:52middle finger, we're not talking about a
4:53little nick or scratch.
4:55That statement alone is is preposterous
4:58on its face and shows an unmistakable
5:00consciousness of guilt.
5:01But, much, much more importantly,
5:03Geraldo, what is the likelihood? What is
5:04the the statistical probability
5:07that around the very same time that Ron
5:09and Nicole were brutally murdered, this
5:10guy supposedly innocently cuts himself
5:13very badly on his left middle finger.
5:14We're talking about DNA numbers, one out
5:16of 10 million, one out of 5 million. And
5:18when you cut yourself, uh if you're an
5:20adult, unless you're in a frantic,
5:22frenzied state as he obviously was in,
5:24you stop the flow of blood with your
5:26hand or your handkerchief, uh
5:29and you put on a bandage. You don't
5:30bleed all over the place. Extremely
5:32incriminating. And Tom Lange said, "We
5:34pushed Vince. We pushed and pushed to
5:35get it in." But, Marcia didn't did not
5:37want to let it come in. And the reason
5:39is mind-boggling. The reason.
5:42Tell us the reason. I mean, I know the
5:44reason to be that
5:46the fear of the prosecution was that
5:47Simpson's statement if left unrebutted
5:51by cross-examination would give him an
5:53opportunity basically to plead his
5:54innocence at a time when the
5:57prosecution did not want to
5:59beyond imagination. They didn't want the
6:01jury to hear Simpson denying guilt
6:03without us taking the stand. But the
6:04jury already knew he denied guilt. He
6:07pled not guilty. That's why they were
6:08having a trial. It's unbelievable.
6:11I mean you're going to keep out
6:12extremely powerful incriminating
6:14evidence of guilt because you don't want
6:15the jury to hear something or prevent
6:18them from hearing something that they
6:18already know? It's mind-boggling.
6:21And I'm not making this up by the way.
6:22They said Darden says that in his book.
6:24We don't want the jury to hear him
6:25denying guilt.
6:26Without any equivocation, you believe
6:29that Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden
6:30were guilty of gross incompetence.
6:32Uh well
6:34beyond gross incom- We're we're talking
6:36here and there's one thing about me,
6:38Geraldo. I never make an allegation or a
6:39charge unless I support it. You know I
6:41support it in spades in this book. We're
6:43talking here F- minus. It does not get
6:47any worse. It cannot get any worse. And
6:48it's page after page after page. And you
6:50know that. You read You read the book.
6:52When you talk about the cut on the hand,
6:53not only is he cutting the the hand at
6:56about the same time his wife is being
6:57brutally murdered
6:58Right.
6:59and has no explanation for it, but also
7:01you have the empirical evidence at the
7:02scene, the five Bundy blood drops, which
7:04I believe are the strongest evidence
7:05against Simpson always were. Explain.
7:08Well well the They're immediately to the
7:10left, obviously, the killer's bloody
7:11shoe prints. And by DNA they're
7:14identified as Simpson's um
7:16Simpson's blood. When you have your
7:18blood at the murder scene, Geraldo, it's
7:20the end of the ballgame. There's nothing
7:21more to say.
7:22I mean to deny guilt when your blood is
7:24at the murder scene reminds me of um
7:27the comic um
7:28Richard Pryor saying, "It's like a man
7:30getting caught in flagrante delicto with
7:32another woman and telling his wife, uh
7:34who Who are you going to believe, me or
7:35your lying eyes?" He cannot be innocent
7:38with his blood at the murder scene. If
7:40this man is innocent, then these two
7:42poor people are still alive.
7:43What about the allegation, of course,
7:45that the blood even there was planted?
7:48Well, they didn't argue that in their
7:49final summation. They argued
7:51cross-contamination.
7:52And Marcia Clark, unbelievable with
7:54unbelievable with two DNA experts
7:56working full-time there and having the
7:58the assistance of two DNA experts
8:01in her final summation, she did not
8:02point out that if this had been
8:04cross-contamination, i.e., the blood
8:06came from a reference vial of Simpson's,
8:09then it would have had EDTA in it,
8:10right? And it didn't. And it would have
8:12had a high concentration of DNA, but the
8:14blood was degraded because it had been
8:16left out in the sun for a while, right?
8:18So, she didn't even make those
8:19arguments. How don't you make arguments
8:22like that when you're on a case for an
8:23entire year and you have two DNA experts
8:26helping you out? She did not make those
8:27arguments in her final summation.
8:29Just to be very clear,
8:30couldn't have been cross-contamination.
8:31You're saying that there was not even an
8:33allegation by the defense that those
8:35five blood drops were planted at Bundy.
8:37They implied it during the trial, but
8:39when it came down to final summation,
8:42even these defense attorneys, who had
8:43the gonads of 10,000 elephants
8:46The gonads of 10,000
8:47did not have the guts
8:49title.
8:49did not have the guts to say that these
8:52these LAPD officers planted Simpson's
8:55blood directly to the left of the
8:57killer's bloody shoe prints leaving the
8:59scene of the crime. Even they didn't do
9:01it. Let's underline even they cuz these
9:03people are unbelievable.
9:04So, the sole defense explanation for the
9:09five blood drops
9:10Cross-contamination.
9:10Cross-contamination at the LA crime
9:12LAPD, yeah.
9:13Okay.
9:14SID.
9:14Would you like to put those three
9:16notions into one paragraph for us?
9:19Wait. What what what three notions?
9:21a Give me a All right, you've got uh the
9:23Simpson cutting his hand at the same
9:25time his wife is You want me to do it? I
9:26can do it.
9:27Go ahead.
9:27Yeah, you better do
9:28No, go ahead. You do it.
9:29What are I don't know what you mean.
9:30He cuts his hand at the same time his
9:32wife is being murdered.
9:33These are just a few things.
9:34No, I just want this one. We're going to
9:35concentrate one at a time. He cuts his
9:37hand at the same time his wife is being
9:38murdered. The same hand apparently that
9:40the murderer got cut. It's a deep cut
9:42for which he has no explanation. His
9:43blood is at the murder scene.
9:44Yeah.
9:45I could throw it
9:46How much would you have spent on that in
9:47your closing argument?
9:48Well, I would have argued my closing
9:51argument first place I'd have put 4 500
9:52hours of preparation that these people
9:54were up the night before they gave it
9:56preparing their final summation which is
9:58inexcusable. But that issue alone right
10:01there I'd argued probably for a half
10:03hour alone.
10:04And they just touch Well, they didn't
10:06they couldn't even talk too much about
10:07it
10:08because they didn't introduce the
10:09statement. So they tried to get it in in
10:11a roundabout way instead of playing
10:14the statement for the jury to hear
10:16Simpson's voice where he's admitting
10:18dripping with blood on the night of the
10:19murders and he says here's what he said
10:22when they asked him, "How did you get
10:23cut?" These are his exact words not a
10:25paraphrase. "I don't know." They asked
10:27him later on, "How did you get cut OJ?"
10:29"I have no idea man." The jury didn't
10:31hear that. They didn't know about that.
10:33Are you aware that several of the jurors
10:35have said when they've learned about
10:36this other evidence we've just touched
10:37on a little bit of it here that they
10:39were at These aren't my words absolutely
10:41shocked that the prosecution did not
10:43offer evidence like that that if they
10:45had known it the result probably
10:47would have been different. One of them
10:49came right out and said and it's in the
10:50book I got the quote. "I would have
10:51convicted him if I'd have known about
10:53this evidence."
10:55You state
10:56without equivocation that you've put
10:58people on death row for for with far
10:59less evidence.
11:00Oh my god, are you kidding?
11:02Much much less evi- evidence than this
11:04I've put people on death row. Of course.
11:07Is there any way that there could have
11:09been a conviction in this case given
11:11this jury?
11:13With an F minus presentation, okay, as
11:16dreadful as this prosecution was
11:19the first vote that this jury took 10-2
11:21there was a black and a white juror that
11:23voted guilty. Now by extrapolation
11:26if you had an A plus performance which
11:27we didn't have here
11:29a halfway decent prosecution there would
11:31have been a conviction in this case,
11:32almost assuredly, if not at an absolute
11:35minimum, a hung jury.
11:37Vincent Bugliosi is outraged, and he's
11:39written a book to that effect. There it
11:40is, the five reasons O.J. Simpson
11:44got away with murder.
11:48I told you when this began that I had
11:50the hardest job.
11:54Nobody wants to do anything to this man.
11:57We don't.
11:58There's nothing personal about this.
12:03But the law's the law.
12:07And it applies to us.
12:09It applies to you.
12:11It has to apply to him.
12:13What is wrong with that?
12:15Oh my god.
12:16It is the reason I I aired that little
12:18clip is I believe it is an example of
12:20something you find very
12:21Yeah, that's that's
12:23that's another section of the book.
12:24Marcia Clark, in picking this jury, then
12:27I'll get into what he just said, tells
12:28the jury, listen to this, tells the jury
12:30that this guy is a good-looking guy,
12:33he's very popular, and then he's then
12:36she says to him, he's so sympathetic,
12:39sympathetic, this is not a fun place for
12:42me to be. Now, can you imagine this guy
12:44with with a knife stabbing these poor
12:46people,
12:4737 stab wounds, poor Nicole was almost
12:49decapitated. Can you imagine the horror
12:51and the fright in in the victims' eyes
12:53at the time that he was killing them?
12:55And this prosecutor, who's representing
12:57the people, the state of California,
12:58fighting for justice, saying this is not
13:00a fun place for me, meaning, you know, I
13:01really don't want to be here, but I've
13:03been assigned to the case, so what can I
13:04do? Then she takes it a step further and
13:07makes the most ill-advised statement
13:09that any prosecutor's ever made to a
13:10jury, as far as I know, and says, you
13:12may not like me for bringing this case.
13:14I'm not winning any popularity contest
13:16for doing so. Now, what the heck is that
13:17telling the jury? Well, that's
13:18essentially telling the jury that the
13:20majority of people, if you're losing the
13:22popularity contest, the majority people
13:24outside that courtroom don't even want
13:26this guy to be prosecuted. And by
13:28necessary extension, if you come back
13:29with a verdict of guilty, you're going
13:31to be going against the majority of
13:32people. Then then then we have a Darden
13:35in his final summation saying, "Nobody
13:38wants to hurt this guy. We don't.
13:40Nothing personal here." Almost
13:42apologizing for prosecuting this guy.
13:45Wherever you look in this case, there's
13:47nowhere that you can look without
13:48finding the incompetent fingerprints of
13:50the prosecution in this case. It's
13:52staggering. And you agree with that,
13:53don't you, after reading the book?
13:55Well, I I think that this is a wonderful
13:57book, extremely well written, and your
14:00arguments make total sense to me. But in
14:03a sense to me, you're preaching to the
14:04converted. Because I believe as you do
14:06that Simpson got away with murder. In
14:09what I was interested in doing in
14:11reading the book was to see if it was
14:12all Monday morning quarterbacking. That
14:15is, easy for you to say because Right.
14:17Now you're looking back and review but
14:20checking the contemporaneous news
14:21accounts, you held all these views or
14:23most of them during the trial.
14:24We're right back. That was the short
14:25segment. We're right back.
14:26Is it possible that you have forgotten
14:28that act on your part?
14:30No, it's not possible.
14:31Are you therefore saying that you have
14:33not used that word in the past 10 years,
14:36Detective Fuhrman?
14:37Yes, that's what I'm saying.
14:39And you say on your oath that you have
14:40not addressed any black person as a
14:43or spoken about black people as
14:46in the past 10 years, Detective
14:48Fuhrman?
14:49That's what I'm saying, sir.
14:50So that anyone who comes to this court
14:52and quotes you as using that word in
14:55dealing with African-Americans would be
14:56a liar, would they not, Detective
14:58Fuhrman?
14:58Yes, they would.
14:59All of them,
15:00All of them.
15:02He lied.
15:03Yet you call him a victim.
15:06Well, yeah. Yeah, he's a victim because
15:08here here's a fellow that is awakened in
15:10the middle of the night. He goes to a
15:11crime scene, does absolutely nothing
15:13wrong at all, and maybe his life is
15:16destroyed. And I'm I'm not a an
15:17apologist for Mark Fuhrman, the fact
15:20that he's been a racist in the past.
15:22We're getting into another area of
15:23incredible incompetence. What you do
15:25with a Mark Fuhrman, you sit him down in
15:27a room and you tell him the facts of
15:29life. You don't do what Darden did, ask
15:30him if you've ever used the N-word and
15:32he says no and you leave it at that. No,
15:33you tell him the facts of life. You tell
15:35him that you know he used these words
15:37because there was a lot of evidence that
15:38the DA had and he's going to testify to
15:41the truth on that stand. You make him
15:42cough it up. And then you put that
15:44evidence on yourself, you put it behind
15:46you, it becomes a dead issue. When the
15:48Fuhrman tapes surfaced later on, they
15:50probably
15:51Started is easy, the hard part is
15:53knowing when to stop.
15:55What happened?
15:57Are you aware that that Fuhrman had a
15:59basically good record at the LAPD?
16:1194. The last time he used the N-word was
16:13in 1988.
16:17He had black friends in 1994. He was
16:19getting up at 5:00 in the morning to
16:22play basketball with black fellow
16:24officers. Did you know
16:27and it's in the book
16:28when I said did you know, you know.
16:30But do the people know
16:32that Mark Fuhrman, as late as 1994,
16:36worked hard to free a black man, Eric
16:38Harris, to free a black man charged with
16:41the murder of a white man when he came
16:42upon exonerating evidence? Now, when you
16:45have the Fuhrman tapes tapes just
16:47absolutely devastating. Don't you try to
16:50mitigate the damage a little bit.
16:51Phillips, his partner, Fuhrman's
16:52partner, gave that information to the
16:55DA's office. They didn't offer it. They
16:57joined in the vilification. Not one
16:59word, not one syllable in defense of
17:01Mark Fuhrman.
17:03There's There's 10 things that I could
17:04tell you about how they handled the Mark
17:06Fuhrman issue. It's all bad. It's all
17:07negative. You read the book.
17:08Did
17:10they treat Fuhrman in a way they should
17:12have treated Simpson?
17:13The prosecution.
17:14Well, yeah, there's no question that
17:15they vilified and maligned the
17:17prosecution as well as the defense,
17:19Furman, much more than um
17:22Simpson. And the nitwit media, I mean,
17:24who can always be counted upon to do an
17:26absolute minimum of thinking, they
17:28treated Furman's taking the fifth, and
17:30he's not even on trial. They treated his
17:32taking the fifth with big headlines much
17:34more seriously than Simpson refusing to
17:37take the witness stand and testify in
17:38his defense.
17:40That's the media.
17:41Okay, let's get to the
17:43the slow-speed chase. What was there?
17:46Again, another piece of evidence like
17:47the statement that never came in, and
17:49you were very, very harsh in your
17:51criticism of the prosecution for not
17:53putting that slow-speed chase
17:54as as as I say, the book is just page
17:55after page of this stuff. But after the
17:57slow-speed chase, as you know, they find
18:00in Simpson's possession a gun, a
18:02passport, a cheap disguise, several
18:05fresh changes of underclothing,
18:07uh and in A.C. Cowlings' pockets, $8,750
18:11worth of cash, and he says he just got
18:14the money. He told the police he got the
18:15money from Simpson inside the Bronco.
18:17Again, why didn't they introduce it?
18:19Because during the chase, Simpson is
18:21talking on a cellular phone and telling
18:24everyone that he's innocent, denying
18:26guilt, and they didn't want the jury to
18:27hear that he was denying guilt
18:30without taking the stand. You're going
18:31to keep evidence like this out to
18:33prevent the jury from hearing something
18:34that they already know. It's
18:35mind-boggling.
18:37When we think we're in the cellar, the
18:39absolute cellar
18:41of incompetence, Darden comes along with
18:43his drill
18:44and takes us to new and lower depths,
18:46previously unimaginable depths of
18:48incompetence. In his book, he says,
18:50"Now, strap yourself in your seat here
18:52now, Arallo."
18:52I'm there. I'm ready.
18:53Okay, because what I'm going to tell you
18:55is so far out and mind-boggling that
18:57it's as bright as you are, it may go
18:58over your head because it's not going to
19:00register. It'll be like I'm speaking a
19:01foreign language to you, okay? All
19:03right.
19:03You may.
19:04Darden says in his book
19:06that another reason for not introducing
19:08the slow-speed chase is that to do so,
19:11even with all the evidence that they
19:12gathered later, would focus on Simpson's
19:14state of mind during the chase. And he
19:16didn't want to do that. Why? Because he
19:18said as a result of the LAPD chasing
19:21Simpson, he started to cry and he was
19:23threatening suicide, and Darden said he
19:25feared that uh Cochran would get up in
19:28his final summation and garner sympathy
19:30for for Simpson by arguing to the jury,
19:33"Look what the LAPD did. They almost
19:35made
19:36OJ blow his brains out."
19:39Did you hear what I just told you? Did
19:40you hear what I just told you? In other
19:42words, in other words, uh even though
19:45even though there's a warrant out for my
19:47arrest for for two murders,
19:49I can refuse to turn myself in and
19:51instead try to escape. But if you come
19:52after me, if you come after me, and
19:55because of it I get upset and I start to
19:57cry and I threaten suicide, I'm going to
19:58use that against you.
20:00Now, if you can take that, Geraldo, if
20:02you can take what I just told you, that
20:04type of logic without being staggered,
20:06you you you wouldn't even notice,
20:07Geraldo, if Mike Tyson hit you with his
20:09best left hook. I mean, you wouldn't
20:10even blink your eyes. You'd laugh at
20:11Mike. You'd laugh at him.
20:14Darden's position and reasoning is is
20:17unbelievable. It's mind-boggling. And
20:19yet this was the mentality all the way
20:21through this case. The mentality of the
20:23prosecutors that were representing the
20:25people of the state of California. And
20:26people wonder why this guy is out
20:28playing golf with a smile on his face.
20:30Last month he's in the Bahamas, okay?
20:32And he reports back that he's never been
20:34received so well. He's got more lipstick
20:35on him than he's ever had. And people
20:37wonder why that's so.
20:39If people want to know why this case is
20:40lost, okay? Why this case was lost, as
20:44you agree,
20:45the answer's in that book right there.
20:46You're certainly not going to find it
20:48out
20:48I agree the answer's in that book. Okay.
20:51Edo,
20:52you say bears some of the blame.
20:55Clearly it wasn't all the prosecution's
20:57incompetence.
20:58Right.
20:59Mark Fuhrman would never have risen to
21:00the heights or sunk into the depths that
21:02he did of importance but for Juditha.
21:04You have 30 seconds before the break.
21:06Okay, this was not a
21:08There was no racial issue in this case.
21:09Just a manufactured racial issue.
21:12Uh
21:13this was simply a case of a man who
21:14happened to be black who murdered his
21:16former wife and male companion.
21:18Uh nothing more, nothing less.
21:20The defense, showing no respect, no
21:22concern for the black community,
21:24exploited the black community to the
21:25black community's own detriment. Just to
21:28help a guy who's black in color only.
21:31The Okay,
21:32Finish it up there, Brian.
21:33Willie O'Cie is out
21:34What is your opinion about the existence
21:37of these transfer stains?
21:43Overall.
21:45Only opinion I can
21:47giving under this circumstance,
21:50something wrong.
21:51There are many, many reasonable doubts
21:54buried
21:56right in the heart of the scientific
21:57evidence in this case, and we have
21:59demonstrated them.
22:01And we don't have to prove them.
22:04But the evidence shows it.
22:07So,
22:08in the words of Dr. Lee,
22:10something is wrong.
22:12Something is terribly wrong
22:15with the evidence in this case. You
22:17cannot trust it. It lacks integrity.
22:21It cannot be a basis for a verdict of
22:24beyond a reasonable doubt.
22:26If they weren't easy on Simpson in their
22:28portrayal of the defendant, they were
22:30reverential
22:32about Dr. Henry Lee.
22:35Dr. Henry Lee should have been ridden
22:37out of town
22:39on a rail, okay?
22:41I talk about the in the air
22:44phenomenon. It It's It's It's It's kind
22:46of a subtle type of phenomenon that
22:47contributed to the uh not guilty
22:49Everyone's saying that he'd never get
22:50convicted.
22:51Yeah, okay.
22:52Dr. Henry Lee was reputed to be one of
22:55the top forensic sleuths, right?
22:57If not the.
22:57Yeah, in in the entire country. Uh Ito,
23:00this silly Judge Ito, tells Hank
23:02Goldberg, "If I were you just ask him a
23:04couple questions and then get out
23:06because of his reputation.
23:08Well, one thing among many. I mean, he
23:10was totally discredited by William
23:12Bodziak, the FBI agent. But one thing
23:13among many.
23:14About the shoe print that he saw.
23:15Unbelievable. He says he saw
23:18a shoe print
23:19at the Bundy crime scene
23:21that didn't match the Bruno Magli. If
23:24anyone watching is Italian, I guess it
23:26would be Molly. G before all Italians is
23:28silent.
23:29Didn't match the Bruno Magli.
23:31Yeah, Bruno Bruno Magli. Yeah, that's
23:33right. Bruno Magli shoe print. Didn't
23:36match it.
23:37Ergo, what? The inference that we're
23:39talking about a second assailant. Very,
23:41very helpful to the defense, very, very
23:42damaging to the prosecution.
23:45Bodziak comes along, goes out to the
23:47scene with the photograph that Lee had
23:49taken, okay?
23:50And he sees that shoe print. And you
23:52know what the shoe print is of?
23:54It is a shoe print, but it's the shoe
23:55print of the worker that laid that
23:57cement years and years ago. I mean, it's
24:00a permanent indentation.
24:02You can feel the the the ridges and the
24:05depressions, okay?
24:07Why didn't the jury
24:09from that point on disregard everything
24:11this man said?
24:12Because, Geraldo, there's this
24:13phenomenon of seeing what you expect to
24:16see. The majority, the greater bulk of
24:17mankind, people hear the music, not the
24:20lyrics of human events. I don't know if
24:22it was Voltaire or the the New England
24:25naturalist Thoreau who said this this
24:27constant struggle to see what's directly
24:29in front of my eyes, see? They didn't
24:31see that. What they saw up there was the
24:33top sleuth in the country. And one of
24:35them said, "Oh, he was world world
24:36renowned." They totally
24:38totally ignored it. He should have been
24:40ridden out of town on a rail, okay?
24:42on his statement as amplified by Barry
24:45Scheck and Johnny Cochran in both their
24:47closing arguments, something is wrong.
24:49That sentence became the sum total of
24:51Dr. Lee's testimony.
24:52Yes, and the prosecution didn't point
24:53out that when Lee was saying that he was
24:55talking about only one little tiny part
24:57of this case, the transfer stains on
24:59those paper bindles. And there was an
25:02innocent explanation for that. The paper
25:04bindles that were enclosing
25:06the the cotton swatches that had the
25:09blood of Nicole's on it. There was a
25:10There was a transfer that same night
25:13from the cotton swatches to those paper
25:15bindles, too. So, it was innocent. But
25:17he was only talking about these little
25:19transfer stains, and he used the word
25:21something wrong, okay? And they They
25:24appropriated it as their model for the
25:26entire case. And not once did the
25:27prosecution say, "Wait a while. He's
25:29just talking about this little tiny
25:30point."
25:32Marcia Clark in her final summation,
25:33instead of talking about this permanent
25:35indentation, and this guy should be
25:37ridden out of town on a rail, all he
25:39said, "Well, you know, Bodziak clarified
25:43clarified what Dr. Henry Lee said."
25:44That's not what you do in your final
25:45summation. You ridicule this guy.
25:49How dare this guy take the witness stand
25:51and lead you folks to believe that there
25:53was a second print there that could have
25:55been the shoe print of a second
25:57assailant. She doesn't say anything like
25:58that. I mean, anything that you can
26:00mention, any issue that you mention,
26:02immediately I will give you gross
26:05incompetence, and many times going
26:06beyond gross incompetence. Let me make
26:08one point before I go any further. The
26:09good guys lost here, okay? And it hurts
26:12me to say the things that I'm saying,
26:13because no one from the beginning of
26:14this case was more pro-prosecution than
26:16I was.
26:17How do you fight
26:17Very very supportive.
26:18If the gloves don't fit, you must
26:19acquit.
26:21How do you fight that?
26:22How do we How do you fight that?
26:23Tell me.
26:23I fight it in the book. Among other
26:25things, the audacity of this guy to say,
26:27"If the gloves don't fit, you must
26:29acquit." DNA fits better than anything
26:32anything.
26:34Gloves, clothing, anything.
26:37If it's your DNA DNA, it matches you to
26:39the exclusion of everyone on the face of
26:41this earth. And he's got the audacity to
26:43argue, "If the gloves don't fit, you
26:45must acquit." Incidentally, all they had
26:47to do, the prosecution here, is tell the
26:49judge, "Judge, that's a misstatement
26:51here.
26:52It's a misstatement. You can't allow
26:53them to tell the jury that because that
26:55leads the jury to believe in a fact that
26:57if the gloves don't fit, you must
26:59acquit. That's just as improper as the
27:01prosecution arguing if the DNA matches,
27:04you have to convict. You can't do that.
27:07Now, shouldn't the prosecutor have said,
27:08"Judge Ito, who should have done it on
27:09his own?
27:11You have to instruct this jury
27:13that that statement is a totally
27:14improper statement." And if he had done
27:16that, that statement "If the gloves
27:18don't fit, you must acquit." actually
27:20would have been a near to their to the
27:22to the defense's detriment. I explain it
27:24in much more detail in the book.
27:26Roll tape U. Do you have tape U? This is
27:28from Chris Darden's appearance on this
27:29program, the uh
27:3222nd of March this year.
27:34Roll.
27:35I don't think it was Judge Ito's
27:36courtroom.
27:37And you've said to me before that you
27:39count Ito amongst the reasons this case
27:43was lost.
27:44I do count him amongst them.
27:45And you're extremely critical of Judge
27:47Ito.
27:48Well, celebrity struck.
27:51Starstruck, yeah.
27:53I think so.
27:56Abandoned his gavel, right?
27:58Surrendered
27:58Surrendered
27:59All right. Surrendered his gavel.
28:01Uh in a case like this and in all cases,
28:03you need a a strong judge. A judge who
28:05is going to maintain uh
28:08the focus
28:10on on on on the appropriate issues.
28:13And the issue in this case is guilt or
28:14innocence. It's murder. It's Nicole.
28:16It's Ron.
28:17Those are the issues in this case.
28:20Judge Ito called for short days at a
28:21time the trial was running on and on and
28:24on. He allowed too many objections.
28:25These are all excerpted uh objections to
28:28Judge Ito's performance from Outrage,
28:29Vince Bugliosi's fine new book. Uh and
28:32also
28:33asked to take a vacation shortly before
28:35the verdicts came down. But aside from
28:37all that, you believe his key error was
28:39in allowing the N-word testimony to be
28:42introduced.
28:42Yeah. Uh so far, the defense attorneys
28:45have gotten all the blame for injecting
28:47race into this case, and they deserve
28:48all the blame that they can get and then
28:50some. But for some reason, Ito has
28:52gotten a free ride on this issue. He
28:54doesn't get a free ride in my book. I
28:56blame him 100%
28:58for allowing race to become an issue in
29:00this case. Yes, they wanted to inject
29:02it, but he didn't have to allow it to
29:03come in. Not only on common sense
29:05grounds, but under 352 of the California
29:07Evidence Code, you keep that out. If the
29:09relevance of offered evidence is
29:11substantially outweighed by the
29:13probability of prejudice to the other
29:15side, you keep that out. And here, the
29:17relevance of of of Mark Fuhrman using
29:19the N-word in the past uh 10 years is
29:22extremely remote uh at best. I mean,
29:24it's a non sequitur. In a broad jump of
29:27Olympian proportions to conclude that
29:29just because he used the N-word, that
29:31he's going to go around framing uh
29:32innocent people of murder.
29:35That's absurd. So, Ito under 352 should
29:38have kept that evidence out. And if he
29:40didn't want to follow 352 of the
29:41Evidence Code, he snubbed his nose, by
29:43the way, at the law throughout this
29:44case. If he didn't want to do that, then
29:46common sense will tell you, every single
29:48day in America, thousands of white
29:50police officers arrest and investigate
29:52black suspects. Does anyone really
29:54believe when they when these cases come
29:55to court, these thousands of cases, it's
29:57perfectly proper to ask every single one
29:58of these officers, "Have you ever used a
30:00racial slur in the last 10 years?" And
30:02if they deny it, and you can prove that
30:04they did, have a separate satellite
30:05trial on that issue. So, Ito was way off
30:08base on this issue, and the prosecution
30:10had to pay for Ito's sins. I want to
30:12comment on what Darden said about he
30:15didn't take charge of that courtroom. I
30:16believe Ito did take charge of that
30:18courtroom.
30:19What happens so much in life, you read
30:21the caption of an article or an
30:23assertive statement in the opening
30:24paragraph, and then you read and and you
30:27you search in vain for the support for
30:29that. In his book, he makes a statement
30:31that Cochran took charge of that
30:32courtroom. I don't believe that. But if
30:34it's true, what you have to do then is
30:36what?
30:36Like I do here in this book, five, six,
30:38seven examples. So, someone say, "Yes."
30:40He gives no
30:42evidence of that. In fact, his opening
30:43paragraph of his book, very
30:45disappointing, extremely disappointing.
30:48Here's a guy who claims that he looked
30:50into the eyes of these people and he
30:51knew this case was lost.
30:53That is pure drivel, okay? He doesn't
30:56believe it himself.
30:57In the very next paragraph
31:00he says, "My God." He's quoting himself
31:02when the verdict came in. "My God, my
31:04God, my God, my God." Why's he saying
31:06that if he, according to him, he already
31:08knew 9 and 1/2 months earlier that the
31:09case was lost? Does he know that in his
31:12own book, after the failed glove
31:14demonstration, he quotes himself as
31:16telling Garcetti, "Don't worry, we're
31:18going to win this case." Hasn't even
31:19read his own book.
31:21He's got one paragraph in his book
31:25as to why this case was lost, okay?
31:27There's 356 pages in this book as to why
31:29this case was lost. According to him, it
31:31was lost before the case started, which
31:33is pure nonsense.
31:35This is the book destined for the best
31:37sellers, I have no doubt, The Five
31:39Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with
31:41Murder
31:42by Vincent Bugliosi
31:44prosecutor of Charles Manson, author of
31:46Helter Skelter.
31:47Outrage, it's called, Vince.
31:49Did you enjoy the book?
31:50I did. It's terrific.
31:52It sure did raise
31:54hackles and controversy. We'll have
31:55Chris Darden on the program Thursday to
31:57discuss
31:57Let me ask just one further point. Are
31:59there a lot of things in this book that
32:01you did not know about and you have not
32:03heard discussed anywhere else?
32:04There are things in this book uniquely
32:06phrased and I would never have thought
32:08them as strong as they were until I saw
32:10them in black and white.
32:11Uh no, you didn't answer my question.
32:13Are there things in this book? Well, no,
32:14don't don't say yes if it's not true.
32:16I it would definitely be worth the $25.
32:18there a great number of things in this
32:19book that you did not know about that
32:21you have not heard anywhere else?
32:22Well, I'm a tough one to ask that cuz I
32:24have encyclopedic knowledge of this
32:25case, but I clearly think that this is
32:28the finest effort at
32:31at how how should I say it? A devil's
32:33advocating the prosecution case,
32:35clearly, that I have ever seen. And were
32:37you the prosecutor in the case and you
32:39had the opportunity to follow this
32:40blueprint, I think Simpson would have
32:42been convicted. That is a pretty good
32:43endorsement.
32:44No one has ever mentioned before 1
32:46minute, 1 minute to knock down 9 and 1/2
32:49months of conspiracy allegation. That's
32:50all they argued, 1 minute to convince
32:52the jury there was no conspiracy.
32:53Never even named
32:54Never even named the 14 officers who saw
32:57the Bundy crime scene before Fuhrman
32:58ever got there. Vince, good luck.
33:00Good to see you.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of OJ Simpson Prosecutors Graded F- by Vincent Bugliosi on Geraldo 6-10-96 by Jeff Zest, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,314 words across 1,040 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.