Bill Pavelic - William Bill Pavelic

Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, OK)

January 5, 1997, Sunday CITY EDITION

Another Wave of O.J. Simpson Books Floods Book-stores

BYLINE: Ann DeFrange

SECTION: TRAVEL & ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. 4

The second surge of books following the O.J. Simpson murder trial includes four authors who have their own theories of Simpson’s guilt or innocence and variations on the phrase “They Framed a Guilty Man.”
Some parts are already outdated in the midst of the civil trial, but they won’t be the last Simpson books or the last word on the subject.
AMERICAN TRAGEDY: The Uncensored Story of the Simpson Defense by Lawrence Schiller and James Willwerth. Random House, $ 27.50.
Schiller’s credentials are among the most impressive of this group of Simpson reporters. A magazine writer, he collaborated with Norman Mailer on the Gary Gilmore and Lee Harvey Oswald books. But Schiller also assisted O.J. with the book he wrote from jail, and
collaborated with the defense on other projects. Schiller includes himself in the book in the third person.
Therefore, other writers have found a tainted note in his Nonetheless, this is a staggering achievement in research.
Furthermore, the readable narrative flows like a gripping novel.
Schiller has the inside stories and the drama behind the public scenes - yes, there were incidents that weren’t instantly publicized.
Told strictly from the view of the defense attorneys - the Dream Team - it unfolds day by day. Fascinating individuals, these lawyers were an amazing team.
Robert Shapiro started out as lead attorney and put the team together. But while the staff scrambled to build a defense, Shapiro autographed pictures to mail to fans and attended Hollywood parties. The other attorneys viewed him as rude to themselves, and
worst of all, Shapiro openly stated he didn’t believe in O.J.’s innocence. He pushed for a plea, kept proposing possible motive and modus operandus.
Unity on the team was elusive. There was jealousy, competition, power struggles even over who sat next to O.J. at the defense table, who got to address the jury and who was getting paid more.
They all held their own press conferences. They accused each other of leaking information.
Petty spats and professional standards drove the team to urge Cochran to take charge and encourage O.J. to fire Shapiro.
Bailey was the brilliant planner and, on good days, a masterful interrogator. On bad days, he drank.
Barry Scheck figured it all out, pulled it all together, explained the scientific evidence for the jury and the team - what was missing, what might have been tampered with, what was
mishandled by investigators.
Carl Douglas, says Schiller, was caught in a race situation and was used as a scapegoat for the famous lawyers.
Investigator Bill Pavelic suspected corruption among the police investigators and brought in the proof.
Robert Kardashian, who contributed much to Schiller’s interviews, describes Simpson’s suicide tendencies just before the Bronco ride and confirms the story that before the jury visited Rockingham, photos of white females were removed from Simpson’s bedroom and photocopies of black relatives and a Norman Rockwell were print put up.
His job was primarily to be O.J.’s friend. He took the most shifts sitting in the jail cell pampering the client, listening and consoling while O.J. made demands and raged and sobbed about his relationship with Nicole. Finally, a law firm staff member was assigned to this duty.
Schiller does an excellent job at following the stress as it built and the strategy as it worked.
THE RUN OF HIS LIFE: The People vs. O.J. Simpson by Jeffrey Toobin. Random House, $ 25.
Toobin covered the trial for The New Yorker magazine, and the tone of this book is a typical New Yorker style. As characters are introduced, Toobin contributes biographical and personality profiles; with the running narrative of the hearings are background and analysis of issues and environment.
His book is well written and good reading.
But Toobin strays far from the journalistic standards of objectivity. He firmly believes Simpson is guilty, and frequently notes as much. And EVERYONE connected with the case on either side, he points out, was a sleazebag.
The defense attorneys believed, from beginning to the end, that their client was a murderer, Toobin says. Thus: the “race card.”
They designed it and exploited it. They originated the conspiracy theory of planted evidence and framing, and the perception that Simpson himself was a victim.
Toobin contends that much of the trial, on both sides, was staged for “high drama.” But he agrees that the prosecution “botched” the case by merit of arrogance, ineptitude and being “drunk on virtue.”
He says that officials, from officers who investigated the crime to Judge Ito, were starstruck by celebrities, a condition which gave O.J. an advantage in the investigation and trial.
He does not agree with the common belief that O.J. contributed to the defense strategy, insisting O.J. isn’t intelligent enough for that. “Simpson’s attorneys manufactured this idea primarily as a gift to their client and as a way of remaining in his good graces.”
Most of his characterizations are negative.
He describes clever Shapiro out of his league in a homicide case, brilliant Cochran who understood the racial implications, wily Bailey who became a dangerous loose cannon, Shapiro besotted with the glamorous fame but torn about the role assigned him on the
team. The Bailey-Shapiro feud, he gathers, was waged between equally self-centered and self-promoting personalities. He rates Barry Scheck the best defense lawyer; Scheck constructed the plan of “undermining the integrity and competence of the LAPD,” of
convincing the jury “that the mountain of forensic evidence against his client means nothing.”
Marcia Clark dismissed a jury consultant, believing a jury of black women would relate to her and the domestic violence issue; in fact, they were hostile. A defense jury consultant correctly concluded black women would be O.J.’s best chance for acquittal.
He labels Christopher Darden impetuous and immature … sulking because he couldn’t compete with his idol, veteran Johnnie Ito, he says, “… conducted oral argument, as a sort of group therapy through collective stream of consciousness ….” He constantly delayed the trial and let the jury sit idly in hotel rooms because “in moments of stress for the judge, he simply He writes: “But in responding to the entreaties of their client - and to the needs of their own vanity - the defense lawyers forgot something very important: that their client was guilty. … And yet, incredibly, the prosecution’s arrogance and clumsiness during the course of the defense case managed even here to trump the folly of O.J. Simpson’s lawyers.”
Toobin believes the sheer volume of evidence against Simpson overwhelmed the “exhausted” jury, but he recaps the evidence to show a conspiracy was highly unlikely.
Toobin is a player in his own book, too; and his ego shines as big as those he criticizes. He claims his New Yorker articles had an influence on the proceedings, and he takes several digs at another author. His unflattering description of Lawrence Schiller’s physical appearance is petty. His conclusions on Schiller’s insider status with the defense is labeled as unethical and slimy.
A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE: How the Prosecution Freed O.J. Simpson Joseph Bosco. Morrow, $ 24.
Four book authors had permanent, daily seats in the courtroom: Joe McGinnis, Dominick Dunne, Toobin and Bosco. They enjoyed a special status and formed a clique; some of their activities are described here.
Bosco may have been one of the more professional reporters in attendance. From his book, it is evident he listened, he hung around the fringes and the back doors, he interviewed the principals and he managed to cut through the complicated His personal opinions are significant in his account, but they appear to derive from observation rather than prejudice.
Bosco approaches some of the controversial questions and handles them with logic. On Kardashian and the luggage, he asks why a murderer would bring his bloody clothes back home? He notes it is unlikely Simpson could have committed the crime by himself, according to the evidence presented, and certainly without substantial injuries to his own person.
Investigator Pat McKenna, whom Bosco interviewed extensively, presents the case for two  assailants. McKenna also works out a scenario that has Mark Fuhrman planting evidence.”Interesting, isn’t it, that Detective Mark Fuhrman appears all over the latter years of the obviously sick relationship between O.J. and Nicole: two other narcissistic, totally self-absorbed, promiscuous, manipulative liars and emotional cheats who perpetually chose to live life in the passing lane of a two-lane highway. This was a bloody no accident’ waiting to happen.”
A veteran crime reporter, Bosco claims that Judge Ito stifled the media and First Amendment rights of the public to know what was going on in that courtroom. At the same time, Ito reveled in media attention to himself.
Ito was a law and order man, he labels him - married to a cop and prone to practice his cowboy quick draw with a loaded revolver in his office.
Bosco disdainfully makes much of Marcia Clark’s flirting, preening and giggling in the courtroom - even during delicate autopsy exhibits.
He says Clark was leaderless during the proceedings; her communication with her boss Gil Garcetti was through Garcetti’s press officer and also girlfriend. Garcetti viewed the case as a public relations problem, Bosco says.
In strong language, he names Mark Fuhrman “evil incarnate” and the controversial comparison with Hitler appropriate - both started out as “a thug in a uniform with a handful of nasty friends.”
He knocks a fellow writer, too - Vincent Bugliosi, who didn’t attend the trial but covered it for “Hard Copy.”
He introduces some characters not so familiar - a music promoter and a Mezzaluna waiter, friends of Nicole and Ron who were also murdered.
But he doubts the conspiracy theory as “… uncanny coincidences surrounding the Simpson case - of which the public knows very little - that when placed together have at least that tantalizing, beckoning aroma of CONSPIRACY irresistible to those so inclined.”
Bosco relates the difficulty the prosecution had in securing a coroner to testify on the stand; they were loath to “try to tidy up such shoddy work.” And he debunks some sympathy for the Brown family, who continued, into the trial, to live on Simpson’s
voluntary largesse.
He closes his book with a lapse in his objectivity. He comments that a criminal may have gotten away with a crime, but the more serious result was that an inept justice system let that happen.
The blame goes to Marcia Clark, the one responsible for the prosecution lying and cheating and, “in the zeal to win at any cost abused almost all of the tenets that are the fabric of their sworn oaths as advocates for the people.”
He is outraged that Clark told the jury she represented the victims and the victims’ loved ones, “the murdered pair crying out for justice … the grief-debilitated families ….” Bosco’s
“innards roiled and boiled.”
At the risk of being politically incorrect, he warns, a public prosecutor is bound to seek truth, “wherever or whatever it might be … truth can have no agenda, no side to be on …” not a “legal representative of the victims or their families seeking vengeance.”
He quotes assistant DA Peter Bozanich, who provided interviews, saying that, in the long run, the system worked, the jury followed instructions, there was a reasonable doubt.
Bosco’s book is the only one of these four with photographs, most of witnesses or trial figures in the courtroom.
KILLING TIME: The First Full Investigation by Donald Freed and Raymond P. Briggs. Macmillan, $ 24.95.
This duo of a historian-writer and a scientist re-open the case on the basis of the element of time on June 12, 1994, and who could have done what during that time frame.
They thoroughly - tediously, in fact - lay out evidence that didn’t get on the stand, stories that didn’t get investigated, questions that didn’t get answered, witnesses not interviewed, trails not followed. They contend significant scientific evidence wasn’t aired.
The theme throughout is “You be the jury,” but it’s obvious the authors favor a not-guilty verdict.
Witness accounts, phone records and location of principals are listed in charts and graphs to pose possibilities of people’s movements on that evening. Then, the authors reverse and act as their own devil’s advocates, postulating why the time line might not work.
The prosecution based its case on the estimated time of the murders and O.J.’s ability to travel to and from the crime scene within that frame. When evidence cast doubt on that theory, the prosecutors were inflexible, the authors say.
With time charts as guides, they study whether: - A possible second killer might have been Jason Simpson, son.
- The drug link and A.C. Cowlings’ Mafia connections staged the crime. Nicole was probably in deep debt to drug dealers, they say.
- O.J. may know that organized crime families committed the deed, but kept the code not to tell.
- A serial killer working in the neighborhood, stabbing may figure in the scene.
- Faye Resnick was the real target. It was well known she someone desperately.
- Mark Fuhrman had the time to plant evidence at Rockingham or Bundy.
In fact, they insist that Fuhrman and/or Resnick had bigger roles than the trial revealed.
But much of their information comes from a inside source called The Source and never otherwise identified. The information thus obtained is good, but less credible this way. Some theories are built on stories published in tabloid newspapers.
Calling O.J. once a “berserk Othello” and again a redeemed Agamemnon, the authors pose that the lifestyle of “the Simpson pack” in Brentwood was a classic and fated setting for murder.
These “beautiful people” indulged in conspicuous consumption, greed, sex, unremitting narcissism - and, fatefully, narcotics … impulse-ridden, addictive, violently or masochistically sexist, as ruthless opportunists ….”
Briggs plans to market a virtual reality version of the book.

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

The Dallas Morning News

September 15, 1996, Sunday, Home Final Edition

Byline: David Walton

SECTION: SUNDAY READER; BOOKS; Pg. 8J

The run of his life

By Jeffrey Toobin (Random House, $ 25)
New Yorker reporter Jeffrey Toobin interviewed more than 200 people for this definitive account of the O.J. Simpson trial.  But the last word belongs to Mr. Toobin’s two young children, quoted in the afterword on their reaction to their father’s two-year immersion in this case.
“I think O.J. Simpson should be in time-out for a long time!”
says 4-year-old Ellen.  And Adam, aged 3: “No O.J., Daddy!” Fat chance.  Mr. Toobin’s is probably the best of the many “full” and “de-finitive” accounts now arriving in bookstores.  But the book phase of O.J. cov-erage, like the TV and tabloid phases that preceded it, looks to be tidal, and about as edifying.

Mr. Toobin’s book is literate, well-researched, penetrating and evenhanded, laying blame where it belongs, offering a reasonable perspective on this shabby and ultimately open-and-shut case.  Mr. Toobin examines the facts of the case, as opposed to the facts of the murders themselves, revealing who did what, why, and at what cost as the case worked its way through the legal system.  Not sur-prisingly, there’s plenty of blame to
lay, plenty of places to point a finger.

If you’ve been following this week’s news, you know that Mr. Toobin’s book offers several new revelations: that Mr. Simpson learned the verdict before it was announced in the courtroom, that he flunked a lie-detector test, that de-fense attorneys Johnnie Cochran and Robert Shapiro stated privately on several occasions that they believed their client was guilty.
The matter of The People vs.  O.J. Simpson, whatever else it may or may not be in the annals of jurisprudence, is a grand American spectacle, awful and re-vealing, stupefying and sad.  Mr. Toobin, second only perhaps to Vanity Fair columnist Dominick Dunne, understands “the crucible of the Simpson trial,” and how much the intense public scrutiny affected the behavior of all who came into it.
Mr.Toobin comes down particularly hard on Robert Shapiro, Marcia Clark and Lance Ito, but almost nobody is spared here.
Judge Ito, he says, suffered “from an undue eagerness to please, an unwill-ingness to offend - and a fatal lack of gravitas.”
“Proximity to murder can harden a conscience, and so it is with Lee Bailey,” he says in possibly his harshest condemnation.

“He is a consummately cynical man, with an eye only for the bottom line - le-gal and financial.  The guilt or innocence of his clients means little to him.”
Mr. Toobin’s portrait of Mr. Simpson himself, and “the banality, self-pity and narcissism that are the touchstones of his character,” is limited but mas-terly, written entirely from the outside, without benefit of any personal con-tact.
Unexpectedly, Rosa Lopez and Barry Scheck, who I thought were the most dubi-ous figures in the trial, come off sympathetically here.  Ms. Lopez, especially, emerges not as a buffoon, but as one of the trial’s most touching victims.
If you followed this trial on the nightly news, you know four-fifths of what’s in this book already.  What The Run of His Life offers, along with a com-pelling summation of the evidence of Mr. Simpson’s guilt, is its view into the culture of celebrity and power that shaped the trial, and its verdict.
E.L. Doctorow in The Book of Daniel portrays these high-profile trials as a collaborative event, rather than any adversarial struggle - something summed up memorably in the Rolling Stones line, “Judge and jury walked out hand in hand.”
Everyone in the O.J. case seems to have known and worked for everyone else.  Mark Fuhrman once worked for Judge Ito’s wife, and Mr. Fuhrman’s name first rang a bell for Shapiro investigator Bill Pavelic when Mr. Pavelic remembered the two of them once moonlighted as bodyguards for Johnny Carson.
Both Judge Ito and current District Attorney Gil Garcetti had been supervised by Johnny Cochran during Mr. Cochran’s stint with the prosecutor’s office.
Only Marcia Clark seems to have come into the case with a clear slate.
“Who’s that?” she said, when told the suspect in the case she was being handed was O.J. Simpson.

Oh, don’t you wish we could all say that now?
David Walton is a free-lance reviewer who lives in Pittsburgh.

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

May 27, 1996, MONDAY, Late Sports Final Edition

SECTION: NEWS; NATION BRIEFS; Pg. 13

Gasoline Prices Up, but Not by Much
Gasoline prices nationwide rose only slightly over the past two weeks, the Lundberg Survey of more than 10,000 gas stations reported. The average price at the pump for all grades, including taxes, rose only 0.11 of one cent to 138.07 cents per gallon, according to the survey. Nationwide at self-serve pumps, where more than 95 percent of all gas is sold, the average per-gallon price was 131.83 cents for regular unleaded, 141.34 cents for mid-grade and 149.71 cents for pre-mium.
Rain Not Enough to End Drought
Weekend rainstorms in the panhandle areas of Texas and Oklahoma were not enough to end one of the worst droughts of this century.  Scattered storms dumped six to 10 inches of rain on areas of northwest Texas and western Oklahoma Saturday and early Sunday. While the rains may help corn and cotton crops, they came too late to prevent a disaster for wheat farmers. Much of the rain simply ran off the baked soil.  Areas of northwest Texas have had rainfalls at about one-eighth of normal levels.
Hurricane Names Lined Up
After nearly using up the alloted names for hurricanes last year, forecasters in Miami will break in a new list with the hope that they won’t have to resort to a secondary list. Last year, 19 named tropical storms and hurricanes churned through the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean.  If they had run out of the list of 21 names — the letters Q, U, X, Y and Z are not used — forecasters would have had to use for the first time a backup plan of naming storms for the let-ters of the Greek alphabet. This year, forecasters hope they will not run that far into this list: Arthur, Bertha, Cesar, Dolly, Edouard, Fran, Gustav, Hort-ense, Isidore, Josephine, Kyle, Lili, Marco, Nana, Omar, Paloma, Rene, Sally, Teddy, Vicky and Wilfred.
Detective Says He’ll Work Free for Simpson
A well-known San Francisco private eye and five fellow detectives have of-fered to help find Nicole Brown Simpson’s killer for free. Hal Lipset and the others said they would waive their usual $ 100-an-hour fee to chase down any leads, the San Francisco Examiner said.  Lipset’s offer was a response to press reports quoting O.J. Simpson as saying there were leads in San Francisco but that he was running out of money to pay for his investigation.  Simpson’s pri-vate investigator, Bill Pavelic, welcomed Lipset’s offer.  Lipset, who turns 77 today, designed the olive bug — a martini olive as transmitter with toothpick as antenna. He also worked for the Senate’s Watergate investigation of President Richard M. Nixon in 1973.

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

City News Service

May 15, 1996, Wednesday

Assisted Suicide

BYLINE: DAVID HOUSTON, City News Service

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES

The lawyer for a man being prosecuted for helping his AIDS-ravaged lover com-mit suicide last year vowed today to make his client’s trial O.J. all over again.'’
We’ve uncovered a great deal of evidence of police misconduct in this case,'’ said John Duran, and the ironic thing about it is that some of the major players in the Simpson case are involved.'’
Deputy District Attorney Lydia Bodin worked on the Simpson double murder trial. She is prosecuting Keith Green, but refused to comment on Duran’s remarks.

I think it is highly unethical to talk to the press,'’ she said.
Duran said a key investigator in the Simpson case, Los Angeles police Detec-tive Ron Phillips, and Brad Roberts, who was former Detective Mark Fuhrman’s partner, investigated James Northcutt’s suicide.
The 54-year-old interior designer killed himself, with the help of his lover of eight years, at the couple’s Laurel Canyon home.
Green, 36, reportedly confessed his role to police and said later he did not realize that what he did was illegal. His preliminary hearing is set for June 10.
Bruce Roberts, who also represents Green, said one informant told the attor-neys a total of 20 Los Angeles police officers and detectives investigated the suicide, far more than usually show up at these kind of things.'’
We’ve found that there was a lot of AIDS phobia and homophobia (by the po-lice),'’ he said. Roberts said police referred to Green as the faggot who killed his husband.'’
This is a clear case of gay bashing,'’ he said. There is also evidence that the coroner did not perform all the usual tests in the autopsy, like examining (Northcutt’s) brain and testing his blood for drugs. We believe that is because they were scared of AIDS.'’
In another parallel to the Simpson case, Roberts claims the coroner discarded the contents of Northcutt’s stomach without testing them. The coroner’s office came under fire in the Simpson trial for throwing out Nicole Brown’s stomach contents without examining them.
This is extremely important,'’ Roberts said, because we believe Northcutt may have died from the overdose, and not from carbon monoxide poisoning as the coroner’s report says.'’
Green’s attorneys have hired forensic pathologist Michael Baden, who was highly critical of the coroner’s actions during the Simpson case, as an expert in their case.
Investigator Bill Pavelic, a former detective who uncovered alleged police misconduct in Simpson’s case, also has been tapped to look at officers’ behavior while investigating Northcutt’s suicide.
Duran said when detectives arrived at Northcutt’s house Dec. 4, they ini-tially were sympathetic to Green, hugging him and talking of the awful toll of the AIDS epidemic.
This was entirely directed at having him give up his rights as a citizen and speak to them,'’ Roberts claims.
When Green told detectives he helped Northcutt kill himself, they arrested him on suspicion of murder. Prosecutors later dropped the murder charge, but are pursuing the case under a 100-year-old state statute that bans assisted suicides. The obscure law reportedly has never been invoked by police before.
Last month, defense attorneys failed to get West Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge Linda Lefkowitz to dismiss the case. The lawyers had cited two recent federal appeals court decisions that called bans on assisted suicide unconstitutional.
Green has refused to talk about his case publicly. But his attorneys say that after watching his lover make unsuccessful attempts to kill himself earlier in 1995, Green agreed to help Northcutt.
According to his lawyers:
Green watched as Northcutt took scores of barbiturates and sedatives, then helped him tape a swimming pool hose from the exhaust pipe of his BMW to the car’s rear window, and later reinserted the hose after it fell out of the window.
Northcutt’s doctors had told him he had about five months to live, but had refused the designer’s request to help him end his life, according to Green’s lawyers.
The prosecution contends Green has not worked for years and stands to inherit most of Northcutt’s $2 million estate, which raises suspicion about his role in the suicide.

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

USA TODAY
October 9, 1995, Monday, FINAL EDITION

BYLINE: Gale Holland
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 5A
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES

O.J. Simpson’s defense lawyers may have won the war, but they’re losing the peace.

The “dream team” has collapsed in an orgy of sniping that reveals not only differences over trial strategy but titanic ego clashes.

And, People magazine reports, the backbiting began long before the verdict.

Defense lawyer Robert Shapiro, in a pre-verdict interview with People, accused Johnnie Cochran of exploiting race and of patronizing the jury.

“When Johnnie did the hat trick” - pulling on a wool cap similar to one found at the crime scene - “I was appalled,” Shapiro said. “It was stupid.”

Cochran, in turn, rejected Shapiro’s criticism that he trivialized the Holocaust by comparing retired detective Mark Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler.

“Nobody who is not an African-American can tell me that our people have not been through Hades,” Cochran said.
The battle between Shapiro and his old legal mentor, F. Lee Bailey, also rages.

Shapiro called Bailey an “uninvited guest” at the trial. Bailey said Shapiro desperately needed him: “He was in way over his head.”

Bailey and Simpson’s legal adviser and friend, Robert Kardashian, said Shapiro tried to get Simpson to plead guilty.

The deal would have had Kardashian pleading to charges as an accessory to murder, Bailey said. “That’s right, and I was going to do it,” Kardashian said.

Shapiro’s response: “From Day One, O.J. told me he was innocent, and I never doubted it. I never asked him to plead anything other than not guilty.”

The magazine did reveal one new battleground: who gets credit for finding the explosive tapes that showed Fuhrman lied on the stand about not using a racial epithet.

Patrick McKenna, an investigator who worked with Bailey, said he got them first.

“McKenna is so full of it,” responded Shapiro, who insisted he got the tip about the tapes.

But private investigator Bill Pavelic said Sunday that he found out about the tapes. Then, Pavelic said, Shapiro got a tip.

LOAD-DATE: October 10, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

Byline: By MICHELLE CARUSO in Los Angeles and JERE HESTER in New York

SECTION: News Pg. 8

The credibility of O.J. Simpson’s alibi witness crumbled yesterday as prose-cutors charged her testimony was “coached” by the defense.
The latest challenge to Rosa Lopez came after the defense turned over an eight-month-old interview tape a recording that prosecutors said contains “many glaring inconsistencies” with her testimony.
“I have never heard a witness basically coached and told what to say through every bend and turn,” said prosecutor Marcia Clark, after listening to the 15-minute tape in Judge Lance Ito’s chambers.
The maid, who worked next door to Simpson, has reported seeing the football legend’s white Ford Bronco outside his home about the time his ex-wife and her pal were slain on June 12.
But the tape highlighted contradictions in Lopez’ statements, including:
She made no mention of seeing the Bronco around the time of the slayings on the July 29 tape and she reported hearing Simpson’s voice at 10 p.m., Clark said.
She made no mention of her friend Sylvia Guerra on the tape, in an Aug. 18 statement or on the stand Monday.
But in a July 29 defense report purportedly based on the taped interview Lo-pez said that Guerra came over for coffee around 9 p.m., stayed for 10 or 15 minutes and made a remark about seeing Simpson’s Bronco parked outside.
In the July 29 report, Lopez said she saw Simpson and a passenger drive away in his black Bentley between 8:30 and 9 p.m. In her Aug. 18 statement and on the witness stand she put the time at 9 p.m.
In another wrinkle, Lopez’ testimony Monday that she saw the Bronco shortly after 10 p.m. leaves Simpson with a far from airtight alibi.
The defense’s opening statement alleged that Lopez saw the vehicle at 10:15 p.m. the time prosecutors claim Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Lopez’ hazier account could give the football legend time to make the six-minute drive to Nicole’s condo.
The jury has not heard Lopez’ account and Ito delayed resumption of her tes-timony until tomorrow to give prosecutors time to prepare their cross-examination.
The judge has ordered her testimony to be video-taped for future use because of fears the media-wary maid will flee to El Salvador.
A tearful Lopez pleaded with the judge to let her return to her homeland but reluctantly agreed to appear tomorrow.
“This is not my fault to work close to Mr. Simpson, to have seen and to have heard,” she said through a translator.
Simpson lawyer Johnnie Cochran insisted that the tape doesn’t punch holes in Lopez’ credibility. “We think she is entirely consistent,” he said.
And he angrily denied prosecution contentions that he concealed the tape. Simpson private eye Bill Pavelic claimed yesterday that he didn’t tell defense attorneys that he had tape-recorded the interview until Monday.
Meanwhile, newly released transcripts of an in-chambers hearing indicated that Ito might dismiss a juror as soon as today for misconduct.
The “problem” juror is a 46-year-old black man who has worn items bearing the San Francisco 49ers logo the team with which Simpson ended his career.
He would be the fourth juror bounced.

Copyright 1995 Daily News, L.P.

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

Daily News (New York)

March 4, 1995, Saturday

BYLINE: By MICHELLE CARUSO in Los Angeles and LAURIE C. MERRILL in New York

Prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case wrapped up their blistering cross-examination of Rosa Lopez yesterday leaving the credibility of the star alibi witness in tatters.
Even defense attorney Robert Shapiro conceded that there were problems with the testimony of the former maid of Simpson’s Brentwood, Calif., neighbors.
“To date she has been very consistent on some issues, and on some others she has clearly been inconsistent,” he said.
Yesterday afternoon, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran tried to salvage some of the damage wrought by prosecutor Chris Darden, asking Lopez if he ever coached her or gave her hand signals which she denied.
Lopez, who says she saw Simpson’s Bronco parked outside his mansion around the time prosecutors charge he was murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, also denied trying to sell her story to the National En-qurier, The Globe or the Star.
In response to Cochran’s question, Lopez said she was not offered money by a lawyer or Simpson’s assistant.
But in earlier cross-examination, Darden asked about a taped interview in which another maid, Sylvia Guerra, said that Lopez was offered $ 5,000 to tes-tify on Simpson’s behalf.
“You’ve heard the tape of Sylvia’s interview with detectives in which she says you told her the lawyers were going to give you $ 5,000 for testifying, and that she could also get $ 5,000. . . . Is Sylvia lying?” Darden asked.
“One hundred per cent,” Lopez said.
“And you’re telling the truth?” Darden said.
“One hundred per cent,” Lopez said.
Darden also grilled Lopez on whether she had the proper vantage point to see the Bronco when she was out walking a dog. He suggested the only place in the neighbor’s yard to see where the Bronco was parked was a patch of ivy in the front.
“Have you ever told any one you believe there are snakes and rats in that ivy and you wouldn’t want to go in there?” Darden asked.
“At night, sir, in the back, yes sir, because it was very ugly . . . I never said that about the front,” Lopez responded.
Darden also sought to prove that Lopez had been led on in her interview with Simpson gumshoe Zvonko (Bill) Pavelic.
On the tape played yesterday, Lopez said at first she “took the dog [out for a walk] at 10.” There is a pregnant pause while papers are shuffled, then Lopez says, “I took the dog at 10:20 . . . I took the dog at 10:15.”
Lopez also gave different dates of birth a difference of seven years on her driver’s license and on her application for unemployment insurance, according to a court transcript released yesterday.

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

he Boston Herald

March 3, 1995 Friday All Edition

BYLINE: By HELEN KENNEDY

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 001

The credibility of O.J. Simpson’s key alibi witness crumbled into dust yes-terday when she said she “couldn’t remember” if she told a friend she was being paid $ 5,000 to back up Simpson’s alibi.
Rosa Maria Lopez - a maid at the house next door to Simpson’s - also admitted she wasn’t sure when she saw Simpson’s Bronco and that parts of her story had been molded by the defense.
Lopez’s assertion that she saw Simpson’s white Bronco parked in front of his house just after 10 p.m. - when prosecutors say he was two miles away killing his ex-wife - is crucial to his alibi.
Lopez said she saw the car sometime after 10 p.m. June 12, but she acknowl-edged she’s not sure how long after 10 p.m. She admitted yesterday that defense investigator Zvonco “Bill” Pavelic prompted her to revise her memory of the times of events.
“You would give times and he would give you other times, correct?” prosecutor Christopher Darden said.
“Yes, it’s correct,” Lopez replied through a Salvadoran translator.
“And Mr. Pavelic is the one that first suggested (that Lopez saw the Bronco at) 10:15 or 10:20, correct?” Darden asked.
“If that’s what he’s saying, that’s fine,” Lopez said serenely.
During her cross-examination, Lopez testified that she couldn’t remember when various meetings happened or how long they took.
She said she couldn’t remember what time, day, month - even which season - one key meeting took place.
“You’re not very time conscious, are you?” Darden asked.
“I’m conscious of the time I’m wasting here,” Lopez shot back, showing a rare flash of feistiness.
Darden asked, “Do you have a hard time remembering time?”
“If I don’t have it written down, how can I remember?” she replied.
Lopez, who testified with great self-assurance about minute details of the events of June 12 when she answered defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran Jr.’s ques-tions, was substantially more vague under cross examination.
Her answer to more than 60 questions was: “I don’t remember.”
“Did someone tell you that if you testified you don’t remember, it will be easier?” Darden asked.
“No,” she replied.
During the cross-examination, Darden repeatedly asked the judge to stop Coch-ran from signalling the witness and feeding her answers.
Darden himself was openly condescending - grilling Lopez about what she told “Mr. Johnnie” and “Mr. Bill.”
At one point, when he asked Lopez if Simpson’s lawyers had told her what to say during a court break, she responded: “We talked about my always telling the truth, sir.”
Darden exploded with a loud, sarcastic “Hah!” and was admonished by the judge.
During the cross examination, observers couldn’t help feeling sorry for the confused, illiterate woman who seemed oblivious to her various inconsistencies.
In an apparent attempt to show Lopez’s motive to lie on the stand, Darden dwelled on Lopez’s close ties to Simpson’s lawyers.
Lopez said she was good friends with Simpson’s maid, had been to his house several times - she even made up Simpson’s bed one time - and she was “very an-gry” at Nicole Brown Simpson for slapping her maid once.
Lopez said she didn’t know there was a $ 500,000 reward for anyone who helped Simpson beat the rap.
The dramatic high point of the day came when Lopez was asked if she had told another Brentwood maid, Sylvia Guerra - who will be called to the stand by prosecuters - that she was being paid $ 5,000 for her testimony.
Lopez said she “couldn’t remember” saying that.
Lopez was also asked if she told Guerra that Guerra could also make money by pretending she had seen the Bronco. Lopez said she didn’t remember.
When Darden - his voice dripping with sarcastic incredulity - asked if a per-son would forget saying something like that, Lopez denied making the statements to Guerra.
Prosecutors have said Guerra will testify the $ 5,000 was offered by a tab-loid.
Lopez testified that Guerra drank coffee and ate tamales in Lopez’s kitchen June 12 and that she drove Guerra home between 8:30 p.m. and 9 p.m.
But Lopez never mentioned Guerra in her direct testimony Monday, which cov-ered events of the night of June 12 in painstaking detail.
Prosecutors said Guerra will testify she had never been inside that house.

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

ABC NEWS
March 2, 1995

SHOW: Nightline (ABC 11:30 pm ET)

SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 3697 words
ANNOUNCER: March 2nd, 1995.

ROSA LOPEZ: My bedroom is there, I don’t know, I can hear only voice, I don’t know what they talk or nothing, because I can hear nothing very well. Pero [But], I know he’s very nice guy.

TED KOPPEL: [voice-over] The defense had hoped she’d provide them with an alibi.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Prosecutor: Do you have a hard time remembering times?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] If I don’t- if I don’t have it written down, how can I remember?

TED KOPPEL: [voice-over] Instead, she’s providing them with contradictions.

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] All I said was that it was after 10:00.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So you don’t know how long after 10:00?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] No, sir.

TED KOPPEL: [voice-over] Tonight, The State v. O.J. Simpson: the housekeeper on the stand.

ANNOUNCER: This is ABC News Nightline. Reporting from Washington, Ted Koppel.

TED KOPPEL: Last night on this program I told you that we would be joined this evening by Mike Knox, the man who was excused from the O.J. Simpson jury by Judge Ito yesterday. Mr. Knox and I spoke yesterday afternoon, and he agreed to appear on Nightline today. That, however, was before Mr. Knox had spoken to his lawyer, who advised him today that it would not be in his interest just now to appear on television.

Meanwhile, the trial, which seems to be falling a little further behind with each passing day, continued with the cross-examination of Rosa Lopez. Her testimony, you may recall, is being videotaped. Ms. Lopez wants to return to her home country of El Salvador as soon as possible. Since the prosecution is in the middle of presenting its case against Mr. Simpson, the jury would have heard the testimony of Ms. Lopez, who is a defense witness, out of sequence. Judge Ito agreed with the prosecution that this might be confusing to the jury and damaging to the state’s case, so if and when the jury ever hears what went on in court today, they’ll see and hear it on tape.

After what happened today, the defense may yet choose not to introduce the Lopez testimony. Here’s an update from Judy Muller.

JUDY MULLER, ABC News: [voice-over] Rosa Lopez, who worked as a maid in the home next door to O.J. Simpson’s estate, is a critical alibi witness for the defense. According to her testimony earlier this week, she saw Simpson’s white Bronco parked on Rockingham about the same time the prosecution claims Simpson had driven it to Nicole Brown’s condo to commit murder. Lopez said she noted the time on her bedstand clock as 10:00 P.M., just minutes before she took the dog out to the front yard.

JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And what cars did you see parked out there, if any?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] The Bronco.

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] If Lopez saw that Bronco at approximately 10:15 P.M., as the defense claims, it would seriously undermine the prosecution’s time line for the murders. But after Lopez gave that testimony on Monday, the defense admitted it had failed to turn over some evidence about this witness to the prosecutors. That evidence included a tape-recorded interview by defense investigator Bill Pavelic. When cross-examination finally began today, prosecutor Chris Darden used that interview in an attempt to shake Lopez’s testimony. He implied that investigator Pavelic had basically asked Lopez a series of leading questions to which she merely answered yes.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Mr. Pavelic is the one that first suggested 10:15 or 10:20, correct?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] If that’s what he’s saying, that’s fine.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Okay. But what you told Mr. Pavelic was that you saw the Bronco sometime after 10:00 P.M., and you don’t know how long after 10:00 P.M.

ROSA LOPEZ: Yes, sir.

JUDY MULLER: That vagueness about time undercuts the defense alibi, since Nicole Brown’s condo is only a few minutes’ drive from the Simpson estate, and the defendant himself was not seen by anyone between approximately 9:45 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. Another bit of information that surfaced in the material handed over by the defense was the mention by Rosa of a friend named Sylvia Guerra, also a maid who worked in the area and who allegedly had been with Rosa that night.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: The night of the murders, Sylvia came to your house for a cup of coffee?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] Yes, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: The truth is that Sylvia’s never been to the Salingers, correct?

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] Darden’s clear implication? That Sylvia will be available as a rebuttal witness to impeach Lopez’s videotaped testimony when and if it’s played for the jury, and he implied others would be called to do the same thing. Lopez has testified that Mark Fuhrman was the only detective who questioned her, and that despite Fuhrman’s promise the LAPD would be back, no officers ever returned. Darden asked Lopez if she recognized a picture of LAPD Detective Otis Marlow.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So you never spoke to this man before, correct?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] No, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So if this detective were to testify that you did, he would be lying, correct?

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] Time after time, Darden caught Lopez in contradictions. In earlier testimony, Lopez had said she had not filled out an application for unemployment insurance. Under cross-examination, Darden confronted her with her completed and signed application, in which she claims she had been fired by her employers, when it appears she may have quit voluntarily. She also gave what appeared to be a false address.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Whose address is that?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] It is my son’s address, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You weren’t living with your son, were you?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] No.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So when you filled out the form, you put false information on the form?

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] Often when Lopez was confronted with inconsistencies in her statements, she would reply that she could not remember.

It became almost a mantra, repeated more than 50 times today, as in this case, when she was asked about her interview by Pavelic.

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] Sir, it’s been a long time since this happened, and I don’t remember.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What month was this?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] I don’t remember, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Was it in August?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] I don’t remember, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Was it during the summer?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] I don’t remember, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What year was it?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] I just know that it was in ‘94.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Okay. Do you have a hard time remembering times?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] If I don’t- if I don’t have it written down, how can I remember?

JUDY MULLER: Her ability to remember times is crucial, since that is her only value as an alibi witness for the night of the murders. Darden also painted Lopez as a witness who had been coached and coddled by the defense. Darden even asked Lopez if she had been coached during this morning’s 15-minute break.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Well, you had a talk with all of these lawyers back there in the jury room, correct?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] With Mr. Cochran, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Okay. And did you talk about your testimony?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] No, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What did you talk about?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] We talked about my always telling the truth, sir-

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Hah!

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] -and that’s what I’m saying now, sir.

Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Darden-

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] After Judge Ito admonished Darden for laughing out loud at the witness, he ordered the reaction stricken from the videotape record. Throughout the day, Rosa Lopez appeared increasing impatient, as Darden hammered away at her lapses in memory on crucial points.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You’re not very time-conscious, correct?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] Yes, I am conscious about the time that I waste here.

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] So, if this is a waste of time, why was Lopez willing to testify for the defense in the first place? Darden raised two possible motives, first, that Lopez disliked her former neighbor, Nicole Simpson. The reason? Nicole had allegedly slapped her maid, Michelle, and Michelle was a friend of Rosa.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And so you were angry at Nicole for having slapped Michelle, correct?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] No. She didn’t hit me. Because if- I would have hit her back.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you ever tell anyone that you hated Nicole?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] I didn’t say that I hated her. I said that I didn’t like her.

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] Darden also suggested another motive for Lopez’s testimony: profit. He asked Lopez if she’d been offered money from any of the tabloids for her story.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You never discussed receiving $5,000 from the National Enquirer or the Star?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] I wouldn’t be here anymore, sir. With $5,000, I would no longer be here, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Ms. Lopez, isn’t it true that you told Sylvia Guerra that you were going to be paid to testify in this case?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] No, sir.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And isn’t it true that you told Sylvia Guerra that if she would say that she saw the Bronco, that she could also get paid $5,000?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] I don’t remember having said that, sir.

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] Darden implied that Sylvia was ready to testify to all of that, and more.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you tell Sylvia that the lawyers would give her $5,000 if she testified? We’ll get there.

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] No, sir.

JUDY MULLER: [voice-over] Later, Johnnie Cochran called that suggestion of a bribe an outrage. In the last exchange of the day, Darden even questioned whether Lopez had lied about her age on her driver’s license or unemployment insurance application.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What year were you born?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] Do I have to tell the whole world my age? I wouldn’t like that. All of us women lie about our age, because we don’t like to admit it.

JUDY MULLER: Whether or not Rosa Lopez lied about her age may not seem a critical point, but it comes atop a mountain of contradictions and inconsistencies in her story. She returns tomorrow for more of this grueling cross-examination, after which the defense will try to salvage the credibility of this most crucial witness. Ted?

TED KOPPEL: Thank you, Judy, very much.

When we come back, we’ll be joined by our two legal experts, in just a moment.

[Commercial break]

TED KOPPEL: Joining us now live from our Los Angeles studios, our two ABC News legal consultants, defense lawyer Leslie Abramson and former Los Angeles district attorney Robert Philibosian.

Leslie, you’re the defense lawyer, so let me ask you. At this point, having seen what you have seen, put yourself in the position of the defense lawyers in the O.J. Simpson case. Do they put this- do they put this testimony on?

LESLIE ABRAMSON, Defense Attorney: Well, you know, Ted, it depends on what are their choices. They don’t seem to have a plethora of alibi witnesses floating around, and you know, we have an expression, you don’t make your witnesses, you don’t create the facts. I don’t know that they don’t have any choice but to put her on. After all, the core story about seeing the Bronco, hearing voices, has not been shaken as yet by Mr. Darden’s cross-examination.

TED KOPPEL: It’s been nicked a little bit, hasn’t it?

LESLIE ABRAMSON: Well, not the core story, because even on direct, what was interesting was she never said 10:15, 10:20, which really would have given O.J. Simpson an alibi. She doesn’t give him a complete alibi. And that hurts, ostensibly, but it also helps a little, because it contradicts the notion that she’s a bought-and-paid-for and coached defense witness. If that were true, she would swear on that stack of Bibles that she had seen the Bronco there at 10:20 P.M. That gives him an alibi. So even though she doesn’t seem to be entirely truthful about every aspect of her life, I don’t know that the Simpson defense has much choice but to use her. I mean, she’s really all they have.

TED KOPPEL: Is it- is it, Bob, entirely up to the defense team? In other words, it is only the defense team that determines whether or not to put her on the stand, on tape or any other way, and if they don’t put on her on the stand, then the prosecution does not have the option of playing anything, right?

ROBERT PHILIBOSIAN, former Los Angeles District Attorney: Ted, that’s absolutely true. If the defense, at the end of this videotaped examination of Rosa Lopez decides they don’t want to use her, they don’t want to put on this videotape in the course of their case, their defense, then it’s gone, and the prosecution can’t bring it in whatsoever. If, however, they do decide to put her on, then they’re going to be confronted with trying to explain all of these inconsistencies in her testimony. And the fact that maybe the core story, as Leslie said, may be undisturbed, it’s more than nicked, it is slashed around the edges.

TED KOPPEL: Now, what we have here is sort of a mind-bending situation where this is on tape, but the prosecution has already alluded to a detective and this other housekeeper who may be brought in later on - if, indeed, the defense does decide to put this testimony on the record - to undermine the testimony. So the defense has issued the warning here, and it’s up to the- I mean, the prosecution has issued the warning, and now, Leslie, it’s up to the defense to- to say, ‘Oh-oh, if we put her on, there may be a couple of live witnesses coming on after who say that’s all nonsense.’

LESLIE ABRAMSON: Well, there’s actually more than a couple, there’s really four people that were alluded to in Mr. Darden’s cross-examination. But you should understand, Ted, the defense knows what the prosecution has. F. Lee Bailey was heard, in a press conference this afternoon, talking about Sylvia Guerra’s tape, the taped interview with the police, I take it. So they already know what those witnesses have to say, and they’re still saying that they will go with Rose Lopez because she proves that O.J. Simpson couldn’t have committed the murders. That’s what they say. And indeed, they may go ahead and do that, but all we know right now about these so-called impeaching witnesses is what Mr. Darden has alluded to in his questioning. Mr. Bailey says that Sylvia Guerra said in her tape, while busy trashing Rosa Lopez, she nevertheless admits that Rosa has always insisted that she saw the Bronco parked outside Mr. Simpson’s estate.

TED KOPPEL: All right. We’re going to take a break. We’ll be back with both of our defense and prosecution specialists in just a moment.

[Commercial break]

TED KOPPEL: And we are back once again with Bob Philibosian and Leslie Abramson.

Bob, not so much by design, but over the past three weeks these Thursday night sessions have sort of become our recap for the previous week in the O.J. Simpson case. Bring us up to date. What have we missed?

ROBERT PHILIBOSIAN: Well, we’ve missed a lot of argument among the lawyers. And I think what we have missed is what the jury has missed. The jury has not seen anything, obviously, because they are sequestered, and I think we have to keep in mind that these jurors now have gone some four or five days without having seen anything, and they’re probably wondering what’s going on. And in terms of what have we missed, we haven’t missed a heck of a lot at this point in time.

TED KOPPEL: Leslie, what about the- what about the impact on the judge and his attitude toward the defense? There was, once again, an item, a piece of audiotape, which the defense neglected or deliberately did not pass on to the prosecution, which they are required by California law to do.

Did the judge, in any way, punish them for that?

LESLIE ABRAMSON: Not yet, and- I suspect that he will. He seemed to be very unsympathetic to their arguments of inadvertence and negligence and oversight. And indeed, at this point, I think, frankly, he should be, because even if it is negligence, he had ordered them to carefully go through their files. So I think that they have lessened credibility with him, but above and beyond that, he is going to fashion some kind of punishment to make them more careful in the future.

TED KOPPEL: What is it with this group of lawyers? I mean, they have been referred to, not by themselves, but by others as the ‘dream team,’ a lot of high-powered lawyers. Why is it that they have been- I mean, let’s take them at their own word, that this was inadvertent, they didn’t intend to do it. In that case, it is a form of incompetence. Why?

ROBERT PHILIBOSIAN: Ted, it can’t be incompetence, and it can’t be inadvertent. As Leslie pointed out, Rosa Lopez is one of their most important witnesses. They don’t have any witnesses. They have Mary Anne Gerchas, who they probably won’t put on the stand now because of all of her problems. Remember, she’s the one who said she saw four men leaving the vicinity of Nicole Brown’s condominium that night. She’s also one who’s now been arrested and charged with fraud. They have Mary Anne Gerchas and Rosa Lopez, and Rosa Lopez is not doing very well. But Rosa Lopez was a key witness, so when the investigator interviewed her in July, and he had that tape, I cannot believe that he didn’t gleefully turn that tape over to Mr. Shapiro, who put it in his safe to keep it, because it was very important. How could they say they didn’t get it?

TED KOPPEL: Well, very seriously now, you’re talking to a lot of people around the country who say to themselves, ‘If lawyers intentionally lie to the court, there has to be some consequence for that, doesn’t there?’

ROBERT PHILIBOSIAN: We don’t know if they intentionally lied to the court.

TED KOPPEL: Well, you’re saying it wasn’t by inadvertence, and it’s not inefficiency. I don’t know what other options there are. The only one that leaps to my mind is, they did it deliberately, in which case they lied to the court.

ROBERT PHILIBOSIAN: Well, Mr. Shapiro has offered to take responsibility for not disclosing the evidence. In fact, Mr. Uelmen came into court yesterday and said, ‘We’re here in sackcloth and ashes to make apologies.’ Of course, Marcia Clark, I think, had the best remark of the day when she said, ‘I don’t care if Mr. Uelmen shows up in a dress, it doesn’t make any difference.’ And she accused them of lying to the court. If they did lie to the court, the sanctions can be very, very serious, including action by the state bar.

TED KOPPEL: Now-

LESLIE ABRAMSON: Ted, can I suggest- can I suggest something here, just a second?

TED KOPPEL: Sure.

LESLIE ABRAMSON: I know all of these lawyers, but I have to tell you that this is not a team that’s put together the way a defense team ordinarily is. In my humble opinion, there are too many cooks, too many generals, and- and too much work was delegated to the little soldiers in the field.

There is a sense that we all get, we who do this, who are professionals in this field, that this is an unusually disorganized group. I know all these lawyers. I don’t believe that any of them were deliberately hiding evidence or lying to the court. But I have long- for a long time have had the feeling that things are not exactly under control on the defense. They went to trial too quickly, they were a team that was assembled by the choice and desire and taste of the client, and not necessarily by their own desire of who they want to work with. The power in this team shifted from Mr. Shapiro to Mr. Cochran, the files shifted from Mr. Shapiro’s office to Mr. Cochran, and I think an awful lot of stuff got lost, misplaced, and overlooked in the shuffle.

TED KOPPEL: We-

LESLIE ABRAMSON: I don’t think it’s deliberate.

TED KOPPEL: -we’ve got only a few seconds left, Bob. You said they’ve really only got two witnesses. They’ve got one other thing going for them, and that is the case against the LAPD. They’re going to be getting back to that one of these days, aren’t they?

ROBERT PHILIBOSIAN: Oh, yes. They are going to try, and they have tried to indict the Los Angeles Police Department. But they have to present something from their side, and they don’t have much to present from their side. If all they have to go on is trashing the LAPD, and attempting to trash the DNA evidence, that’s not going to be good enough.

TED KOPPEL: All right.

ROBERT PHILIBOSIAN: That’s not going to be enough to raise their reasonable doubt.

TED KOPPEL: Bob Philibosian, Leslie Abramson, again, thanks very much. I’ll be back in just a moment.

[Commercial break]

TED KOPPEL: Tomorrow, on 20/20, he’s the man who shot and killed a graffiti vandal, and then went free. Was the shooter a hero or a villain? That story on 20/20 tomorrow, on this ABC station.

And that’s our report for tonight. I’m Ted Koppel in Washington. For all of us here at ABC News, good night.

The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it has not yet been proofread against videotape.

LOAD-DATE: March 7, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »

ABC NEWS

March 2, 1995

SHOW: ABC World News Tonight 6:30 pm ET

SECTION: News; Domestic

HIGHLIGHT: The balanced budget amendment failed to pass in the Senate by a mar-gin of one vote.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: On this vote, the yeas are 65; the nays are 35.

PETER JENNINGS, ABC News: [voice-over] For want of a single vote, the balanced budget amendment has not passed in the Senate; the exhibition baseball season begins for want of a crowd; and murder in Moscow - when a leading journalist is assassinated, the whole country is forced to pay attention.

ANNOUNCER: From ABC, this is World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

PETER JENNINGS: Good evening.  We begin on Capitol Hill tonight with politics, posturing and the balanced budget amendment.  Try as they might, the Republicans failed to swing over that one last vote today and the proposed constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget was defeated.  The Democrats proclaimed they had successfully protected the Social Security system from being raided; the Republicans said it was the American people who have lost.  It was, in short, a banner day for rhetoric.
In Washington, ABC’s John Cochran.

JOHN COCHRAN, ABC News: [voice-over] Militant to the end, freshman Republicans who said they came to Washington to cut government spending, staged an 11th hour photo op, warning Democrats to vote for the balanced budget amendment or else.

Rep. JOE SCARBOROUGH, (R), Florida: They need to get with the program or else they’re going to learn the hard way the lessons that their colleagues learned in the revolution of 1994 - Get on board or go back home.

Sen. FRED THOMPSON, (R), Tennessee: I hope they take their furniture and their belongings and their Rolodexes with them, because they’re not coming back.

JOHN COCHRAN: [voice-over] But senior citizens against the amendment staged a counter-photo op, complete with a birthday cake marking the 60th anniversary of Social Security and a warning that balancing the budget could lead to sharp cuts in Social Security benefits.

ARTHUR FLEMING, Save Our Social Security Coalition: We want Congress to cele-brate Social Security, not raid it.

JOHN COCHRAN: [voice-over] As the showdown finally arrived, everyone knew that with only 14 Democrats voting for the amendment, it would pass only if every Re-publican voted yes.  But one - Hatfield of Oregon - stood alone.

SENATOR: Mr. Hatfield - no.

JOHN COCHRAN: [voice-over] Even as the amendment was going down to defeat, Re-publicans were handing out old campaign commercials of Democrats who had prom-ised to vote for a balanced budget amendment.

ANNOUNCER: [Republican National Committee] Remember this Tom Daschle TV ad?  When he wanted our vote, he promised us he supported-

ANNOUNCER: [Daschle campaign commercial] The constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

JOHN COCHRAN: [voice-over] Daschle says he changed his mind because he believes the new Republican-controlled Congress would go after Social Security funds.  But it wasn’t Social Security that Republican presidential candidates were going after today, it was Bill Clinton.

Sen. BOB DOLE, Majority Leader: He has abdicated his responsibility on reducing the deficit.  And now he’s taken on 80 percent of the American people who want a balanced budget amendment.

Sen. PHIL GRAMM, (R), Texas: One way or another, we are not going to let Bill Clinton and the Democrats continue this spending spree.

JOHN COCHRAN: [voice-over] The President’s response had a little something for both conservatives and liberals.

Pres. BILL CLINTON: I believe we can reduce the deficit without compromising our commitment to education and to our children and without undermining our commit-ment to our seniors and Social Security and basic Medicare needs.

JOHN COCHRAN: So now the real fight begins - the fight not over an amendment that wouldn’t even take effect for several years, but over how deeply government programs should be cut this year.

John Cochran, ABC News, Capitol Hill.

PETER JENNINGS: One thing you can be sure of, the issue of Social Security and whether the benefits for future generations are in jeopardy is not going to go away.  And the rhetoric and the reality are sometimes quite different.

[voice-over] There is not, as popular imagination has it, some special Social Security bank account accumulating cash as the taxpayer contributes.  It is all part of the general government account from which the government borrows regu-larly to pay down the budget deficit.  The so-called surplus that’s been build-ing in Social Security for the last 10 years is nothing more than government IOU’s - pieces of paper.  Without the Social Security allocation, politicians would have to make even tougher decisions to balance the federal budget.  And very few want to do that.

[on camera] Let’s stay in Washington for a moment.  Today, religion, protection and tax dollars were making news.  Over the past few years, many followers of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam have gone into the security business.  They’ve been patrolling some of the country’s most dangerous public housing projects.  They have government contracts in six cities.  Today, members of Congress held a hearing about how those firms operate.

Here’s ABC’s Michele Norris.

MICHELE NORRIS, ABC News: [voice-over] The question is whether the Nation of Is-lam, with its all-black Muslim-led security patrols, discriminates or promotes religious bigotry.

Rep. PETER KING, (R), New York: It was Louis Farrakhan who denounced Jewry as a gutter religion; who said that Hitler was a very great man; who said he would grind Jews and break them into little bits; and who denounced the Pope as a ‘no good cracker.’

MICHELE NORRIS: [voice-over] But Nation of Islam leaders maintained that they were being singled out and that the hearing smacked of religious McCarthyism.

LEONARD FARRAKHAN MUHAMMAD, New Life Self Development Co.: The focus should not be on what you have spent on so-called Muslim affiliated security companies.  Where is the focus on the money that we’ve saved you and the lives that we’ve saved?  Does anybody care about that, Mr. Chairman?

MICHELE NORRIS: [voice-over] The group also said a federal review found no evi-dence of discrimination.

HENRY CISNEROS, Secretary, Housing and Urban Development: In fact, we’ve con-ducted over 1,000 interviews of residents and management and they illustrate that these security guards have been effective.

MICHELE NORRIS: [voice-over] So effective that in one case - the Flag House com-plex in Baltimore - security patrols are credited with reducing crime by almost 50 percent, even though they do not carry guns.

[on camera] Residents here say the Nation of Islam patrols have helped transform this housing project.  The sound of gunfire, which was once so common, is now rare.  And children are once again allowed to play outdoors.

DOROTHY SCOTT, President, Flag House Tenants Association: We do not want NOI taken from us because it’s the best security we’ve ever had.

MICHELE NORRIS: [voice-over] But even statements like that don’t satisfy some members of Congress, who are calling for a review by the Justice Department.

Michele Norris, ABC News, Baltimore.

PETER JENNINGS: In a moment, we’ll have some of the day’s other news.

[voice-over] At the O.J. Simpson trial, the prosecution has a chance to examine a key defense witness; a tale of two shelters - the debate over compassion and cost; and why the record of the year is music to the ear of a professor of lit-erature in Vermont.

[Commercial break]

PETER JENNINGS: At the O.J. Simpson trial today, it was the prosecution’s turn to question the woman who the defense says may provide Simpson with an alibi for the time of the murder.  The jury was not in court, but the testimony of Rosa Lopez was recorded on videotape for possible playback later in the trial.

Here’s ABC’s Bill Redeker.

BILL REDEKER, ABC News: [voice-over] Once again prosecutors caught Rosa Lopez in a series of contradictions.  Although she previously testified that she saw Simpson’s Ford Bronco parked outside his house at the time of the murders, today she said she wasn’t so sure.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Do you have a hard time remember-ing times?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] If I don’t have it written down, how can I re-member?

BILL REDEKER: [voice-over] Lopez admitted that the first time she told her story to defense investigator Bill Pavelic, who recorded it, she did not mention ex-actly when she saw the vehicle.  In her second interview with the investigator, she seemed to agree that Pavelic fed her the answers.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did Mr. Pavelic tell you that you saw the Bronco at 10:15 or 10:20?

ROSA LOPEZ: [through interpreter] All I said was that it was after 10:00.

BILL REDEKER: [voice-over] Lopez said she couldn’t recall the time, date or even the season in which she talked with Pavelic.

In another development, new information today surrounding the 911 call Nicole Simpson made in October of 1993.

NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON: [October 25, 1993] Well, my ex-husband, or my husband, just broke into my house and he’s ranting and raving.  Now he’s just walked out into the front yard.

BILL REDEKER: ABC News has obtained a transcript of a secret tape recording made by Officer Craig Lalley following that call, when he responded to Nicole Simp-son’s house.

[voice-over] In the early morning hours of October 25th, Lally and his partner first interviewed Nicole and then O.J. Simpson.  The interviews may be used by both the prosecution and the defense.

Nicole - ‘I just got frightened tonight when he gets this crazed.  He gets a very animalistic look in him.  All his veins pop out.  His eyes are black and just black - I mean cold, like an animal.  I mean, very, very weird.  And when I see it, it just scares me.’

Police then asked O.J. Simpson about scaring his ex-wife.

Simpson - ‘Even before we split, she beat me on so many times and all I did was cover my groins and my face and let her beat on me.  We had a fight on New Year’s when she started a fight six years ago.’

Simpson’s explanation about what happened during the 1989 spouse abuse case may explain why prosecutors have not called Officer Lally to testify.  Eventually, O.J. Simpson agrees to leave, but not before Nicole Simpson tells police, ‘I think he wouldn’t hit me again because he had to do community service.  I think if it happened once more, it would be the last time.’

Bill Redeker, ABC News, Los Angeles.

PETER JENNINGS: In Moscow, a murder that has moved the nation.  Everybody in Russia who has a television set knows Vladislav Listyev.  Last night he was shot to death.  It seems to have been another hit by organized crime.  The Russians are certainly paying close attention, and that includes the President, Boris Yeltsin.

Here’s ABC’s Gillian Findlay.

GILLIAN FINDLAY, ABC News: [voice-over] He was one of Russia’s most popular TV personalities - a bit of Phil Donahue, a bit of Larry King.  His murder last night, apparently by hit men, sent an entire nation into mourning.

At Vladislav Listyev’s home today, hundreds gathered to share their grief.  At the TV center where he worked, there were hundreds more.  And on TV, all four Russian channels suspended regular programming for 12 hours to pay tribute.

Even Boris Yeltsin was visibly shaken.  To a meeting of Listyev’s co-workers, he conceded the war on crime was being lost and said he would fire Moscow’s chief of police and head prosecutor.

BORIS YELTSIN, President of Russia: [through interpreter] I bow my head as one of the leaders guilty of failing to ensure proper measures against banditry, corruption, bribery and crime.

GILLIAN FINDLAY: [voice-over] Listyev’s death seems to have little to do with his journalism.  Two months ago, the TV anchor was appointed to head Russia’s newly privatized TV network.  In doing so, he vowed to crack down on corruption, saying the tradition of kickbacks for advertising would end.  It may have cost him his life.

Tonight, in a broadcast reminiscent of Listyev’s own programs, many of Russia’s top journalists and politicians gathered to condemn the wave of corruption they say Boris Yeltsin is allowing to strangle their nation.

ARTYOM BOROVIK, Journalist: [through interpreter] I hope the president is lis-tening to us.  He must answer to what’s happening in this country.

GILLIAN FINDLAY: [voice-over] Russia’s crime wave has claimed many victims, but none so well known as Vladislav Listyev.

[on camera] While many Russians still doubt their government’s commitment to prosecuting such crimes, there is some hope that Listyev’s popularity will in fact pressure Yeltsin into finally living up to his promise and dealing with or-ganized crime.

Gillian Findlay, ABC News, Moscow.

PETER JENNINGS: Still overseas, the most dominant figure in Italian politics since World War II has been indicted.  Giulio Andreotti is charged with having consorted with the Mafia during his seven terms as the Italian premier.  Prose-cutors say that the Mafia delivered votes for his party; in exchange, he deliv-ered lucrative government contracts to companies the Mafia ran.  Mr. Andreotti denies it.  The trial is set for September.

[voice-over] In Germany, police have captured the international bond trader who broke a British bank.  The story when we come back.

[Commercial break]

PETER JENNINGS: The international search for the young man who helped bring down the oldest British investment bank is over.  Nicholas Leeson is in the custody of German police.  Leeson lost more than $1 billion of the company’s money in risky trades from his base in Singapore.  And then he ran.

Here’s ABC’s Garrick Utley.

GARRICK UTLEY, ABC News: [voice-over] Nicholas Leeson surfaced in Frankfurt af-ter a 19-hour overnight flight from Asia, economy class.  He and his wife trav-eled under their own names and said they were on their way to London, the head-quarters of Barings Bank.

Tonight, Leeson is being held in this detention center.  Tomorrow, he faces a hearing on Singapore’s request to German authorities for his extradition for fraud and forgery.  His wife has been released.

For a week, the couple has been on the run.  Fleeing Singapore, they went first to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where they spent one night in a hotel.  Then they moved on to Kota Kinabalu on the island of Borneo, where they stayed in a luxury resort while Leeson presumably thought about what to do next.

Yesterday, after flying to Brunei, they continued on to Europe aboard this plane.  They paid $2,055 each, cash.  Why was Leeson heading back to Europe?

FENTON BRESLER, Attorney: It’s just my conjecture, in order to face our people in London within the organization or outside the organization who could help him to prove his innocence.

GARRICK UTLEY: [voice-over] And if not his innocence, perhaps that the manage-ment of Barings shared responsibility.  Last month, an internal report said that financial controls in the Singapore office were lax, but that was not corrected.  And in the past month, the bank sent hundreds of millions of dollars to Singa-pore to cover Leeson’s losing financial bets.

[on camera] No small depositors lost in this bank failure.  Other banks and big investors put their money in Barings, including the Royal Family.  It’s esti-mated that Queen Elizabeth may lose up to $800,000.

Garrick Utley, ABC News, London.

PETER JENNINGS: It has not been a good day at the baseball talks in Scottsdale, Arizona, for the past couple of days.  Reports coming out of the talks between owners and players had been guardedly optimistic, but today the owner of the Colorado Rockies- Colorado Rockies, said things are bogged down again and talks may even break off completely.

Meanwhile, eight more teams began their spring training games today with nary a familiar face in sight.  Here’s ABC’s Mark Potter.

MARK POTTER, ABC News: [voice-over] For just a moment at the New York Yankee stadium in Ft. Lauderdale, it actually looked and sounded like the traditional start of major league spring exhibition baseball.  But the Yankee lineup today revealed only one player with major league experience - pitcher Frank Eufemia, who left the majors 10 years ago.  Most are career or former minor leaguers.  So far, fans are not flocking to see them.

[on camera] Last year’s spring game opener here in Ft. Lauderdale between the Yankees and the Mets drew nearly 7,000 fans.  Today, fewer than 700 showed up by the start of the game.

[voice-over] Attendance at the Minnesota-Pittsburgh game in Bradenton, was also down by more than half from last year.

BASEBALL FAN: You don’t have the same caliber of people out there, but I love the game so I’m here.

MARK POTTER: [voice-over] Because of the strike, spring training fans will see an odd mix of aging former stars like 48-year-old Pedro Borbon, who rejoined the Cincinnati Reds after a 15-year absence, and newcomers like Steven Spurgeon, who was a singer until he joined the Minnesota Twins.

STEVEN SPURGEN: This is a gift from God to be here and play professional base-ball.  If there’s something difficult about being here, then I haven’t found it yet.

MARK POTTER: [voice-over] But there are difficulties.  The Players’ union met with minor leaguers this week and strongly argued that playing spring training games is strike breaking.  Nearly 40 minor leaguers have left spring training camps run by Montreal, Texas and the New York Yankees recently, aware that some-day they could be major leaguers covered by the union.

BOBBY MacDONALD, Yankee Minor League Player: I’ve got to stand behind the union and what they say to do.  And what they say to do is for me not to play in these exhibition games.

MARK POTTER: [voice-over] Which is why it could be a very long month before the start of the regular season in April.

Mark Potter, ABC News, Ft. Lauderdale.

PETER JENNINGS: A note about health.  Federal health officials said today that anyone with an active case of tuberculosis should not be allowed on commercial airlines.  They have confirmed the first cases of tuberculosis transmitted from one passenger to another last year.  It had nothing to do with the plane’s ven-tilation system; the passenger with TB was coughing and spread the bacteria to four other passengers nearby.

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrials lost more than 14 points today to close at 3,979.  On the NASDAQ market, stocks gained nearly 2 points.

Back in just a moment.

[Commercial break]

PETER JENNINGS: [voice-over] In Washington today, at a Senate hearing on aging, the politicians heard from one of the country’s dedicated workers in the field of treating alcoholics and drug abusers.  Bob Cote, from an organization called Step 13 in Denver, told the committee that government help only helps the ad-dicted stay addicted.

BOB COTE: I don’t think taxpayers should be subsidizing addiction.  It’s misdi-rected funding.  It should go to those that really need the hand up.

PETER JENNINGS: We have reported on Mr. Cote’s widely admired program in the past.  But we were also reminded today of how the rhetoric of debate in Washing-ton these days is something not always supported by the research.  The other day, the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was comparing Step 13 to a govern-ment facility in Denver.  And we asked our Denver correspondent Tom Foreman to follow up.

TOM FOREMAN, ABC News: [voice-over] Step 13 is a widely-praised treatment pro-gram for hardcore alcoholics and drug abusers.  Private donors and the people who come here pay for the program - $320,000 a year.

Last week, in a speech, House Speaker Newt Gingrich praised Step 13 and compared it to the cost of a federally-funded facility in Denver.

Rep. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: Would you like to guess what it costs?  A million?  Two million?  $8.8 million.  Guess which one saves more people?  The first one - 25 times as much money to ruin lives.

TOM FOREMAN: [voice-over] Gingrich was talking about Denver Cares.  And his of-fice admitted today he was wrong.

The budget for this 100-bed facility is not over $8 million, it is $3.2 million.  Only a third is federal money; the rest comes from local taxpayers.  But offi-cials at Denver Cares say he also missed the mark by even comparing two places with radically different missions.

RICHARD BERRY, Director, Denver Cares: Anyone that is a public inebriate really is a candidate for a stay here at Denver Cares.

TOM FOREMAN: [voice-over] Administrators say Denver Cares is a safety net, a last resort for addicts in deep trouble who might otherwise sleep, even die, on the streets.  And by law, all must be taken in.  Unlike Step 13, where people must assume personal responsibility and try to get better, many at Denver Cares are beyond improving or may not care.  Watching their medical condition is ex-pensive - $200 per bed, per night.  But without Denver Cares, many would wind up in nearby hospital beds, where the average cost is $800.

Dr. EDMUND CASPER, Denver Health and Hospitals: You either pay for it now or pay for it later.

TOM FOREMAN: And you think if you pay for it later-

Dr. EDMUND CASPER: It’s much more costly.

TOM FOREMAN: [voice-over] Denver Cares’ $3 million budget may deserve scrutiny.  Reformers may admire Step 13’s get-tough approach, but officials here say this time in the quest for reform, Washington got it wrong.

Tom Foreman, ABC News, Denver.

PETER JENNINGS: When we come back, the poet behind the song.

[Commercial break]

PETER JENNINGS: Finally from us this evening, the record of the year and the professor.  At the Grammy Awards last night, the record of the year was All I Want to Do by Sheryl Crow.  It was a popular victory, gratifying to lots of peo-ple, but none more so than a professor in Marlboro, Vermont.

Here’s ABC’s Beth Nissen.

BETH NISSEN, ABC News: [voice-over] Millions have found themselves singing the catchy chorus and listening to the offbeat lyrics.

SHERYL CROW: [singing] All I want to do is have a little fun before I die said the man next to me, out of nowhere.

BETH NISSEN: [voice-over] Sheryl Crow’s hit song is a frothy observation of life by beer buddies in an L.A. bar.  The slack, sly lyrics are based on a poem writ-ten by a professor of literature in rural Vermont.

Prof. WYN COOPER: The poem never really went anywhere.  I tried sending it to magazines; nobody wanted to publish it.

BETH NISSEN: [voice-over] So Professor Wyn Cooper published his own poetry col-lection.  Somehow, one of the 500 copies made its way to Sheryl Crow, who adapted Cooper’s poem Fun.

SHERYL CROW: [singing] I like a good beer buzz early in the morning.  Billy likes to peel the labels off his bottles of Bud.

BETH NISSEN: [voice-over] Cooper says he hopes the success of the song will in-spire other singers to use the work of poets; that poetry wil find it’s way into popular culture, measure by measure.

Prof. WYN COOPER: I think that there are a lot of good poets in this country right now writing very good poems and they have literally no audience.

BETH NISSEN: [voice-over] Cooper’s five-stanza poem has reached an epic audi-ence.  The song has sold more than one million copies.  Royalties have already earned the professor twice his $25,000 teaching salary.  But he says he intends to keep teaching and keeping writing verses until the end.

Beth Nissen, ABC News, New York.

PETER JENNINGS: That’s our report on World News Tonight.  Later this evening on Day One, searching for the endangered mountain gorillas in Rwanda.

I’m Peter Jennings.  Good night.

The preceding text has been professionally transcribed.  However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distri-bution and transmission deadlines, it has not yet been proofread against video-tape.

Tags: Author / Writer // Add Comment »