Murder in Brentwood (18 page)

“No,” I responded. “I work P.M. watch. There is a change-of-watch policy not to mention a memorandum of understanding that dictates when watch change is proper.”

“Be here at seven o’clock tomorrow to start day watch,” York said curtly.

“I’ll be here at 3:30, my regular watch,” I replied.

I immediately called the Police Protective League and spoke to Fred Tredy, a League delegate. I knew Fred from Central Division, and after I described York’s order he reaffirmed my decision and told me to continue working P.M. watch. He said he’d take care of the rest. Fred quickly set Lieutenant York straight, and I remained on P.M. watch.

But a strange reassignment soon occurred anyway. Despite the fact that I was one of the most productive patrol officers in the dangerous parts of West LA, I was reassigned to the Pacific Palisades car. Pacific Palisades is one of the wealthiest and safest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. I was used to working a very high crime, gang, and drug area. The reassignment was a rude awakening, and that was precisely York’s intent. If she wanted to irritate me, she succeeded.

I also got a new partner, Tasha Ellerson, a black officer who had recently been promoted to P-3, a field training position. Tasha is a nice, quiet person who does her job and minds her own business. Sergeants loyal to me said confidentially that York had paired us because she expected that I wouldn’t get along with Tasha. Tasha was subjected to weekly and sometimes daily questioning by a black male sergeant named Paul Enox, who inquired about my conduct. Whatever the motives behind the new pairing, Tasha and I got along fine. York was foiled again.

One incident between York and me became so heated that had we both been men it probably would have ended in a fist-fight. York asked to speak with me and led me into the station conference room. I listened to her description of herself and her method of leadership. She was basically laying the law down to me, and I didn’t like it. Our “discussion” kept getting louder until I was at some points yelling at her. She tried to obtain some respect from me by describing her police exploits, but I quickly told her that she had not worked the streets and nothing could substitute for experience, something I thought she did not have. Not only did she lack experience, but in my view she also had no leadership qualities.

Things kept getting worse. It seemed I was spending more time in the station listening to York or one of her henchmen than I spent chasing criminals. On New Year’s Eve 1986, Lieutenant York was once again the acting captain. At roll call briefing, the watch commander was emphasizing safety, as that holiday is a dangerous time for firearms. Just as the roll call got under way, York entered the room and made a statement to the watch concerning the vandalism of a poster in the report writing room. The poster, a Martin Luther King Jr. birthday flyer, was defaced with “KKK.”

While York was making her statement, I was talking with another policeman in the back of the room and trying to ignore the lieutenant as much as possible. Unfortunately, I spoke loudly in response to my friend’s conversation and York immediately thought I was making some sort of joke about her serious statement. York continued threatening the person who committed the vandalism and then without a pause stated: “Fuhrman, I want to see you in the captains office after roll call.”

The officers in roll call turned back toward my seat and made Catcalls and snide comments. After roll call was over, I asked what the problem was. York told me that my “snicker” was insensitive and uncalled for. Then she accused me of vandalizing the poster. I was so enraged at the accusation that I almost stumbled over the words that followed. I proclaimed my innocence, but it fell on deaf ears. She handed me an entry on a comment card that described her view of the events in roll call and the insinuation that I had vandalized the poster. She simply said, “Sign it.”

I could not contain my anger.

“Not only will I not sign it, I won’t even acknowledge it or you,” I said. “I don’t go around writing on posters or walls. You’re way off base.”

After I said that, I walked out of the captain’s office without a dismissal and went on to do my job.

There were many other conflicts with York that I cannot remember in enough detail to describe completely. But one occurred in 1994 that indicated clearly that York still remembered me and still hated me. One day, I went into the Wilshire Division station to speak with another detective about a case. As I rounded a corner into the main hall, I came face to face with Margaret York, who was the detective commanding officer of that division. From twelve inches away, she looked directly into my eyes and stared. In response, I said “Good morning.” It was not a snide or sarcastic “good morning” but a genuine greeting. York continued to stare and then walked away, as if I was invisible. I sensed an animosity so great that she could not even greet me with common courtesy. I had long since stopped being angry at her, and had no desire to continue our hostility.

Although the full story has not been told until now, the Simpson defense team learned about York and me early on. Bill Pavelic wrote a memo to Cochran and Shapiro on November 17,1994, saying that he had been told that York had several run-ins with me. He followed that up with at least two other memos more than a week later. The media also learned of the connection between us, and soon the issue was out in the open: If York and I had a history, would our bad relationship prejudice Judge Ito against me and therefore the prosecution? Could he be impartial? Should he step down?

After the initial media reports that York had served as my superior officer in West LA, she was ordered to give a deposition concerning our professional relationship. On November 21,1994, York made a signed declaration concerning me. In the declaration, she claimed that she could remember very little about our professional relationship, except my name and possibly my face. As Lawrence Schiller reported in his book, “The defense could now upset the trial if need be. Somewhere down the line, Captain York’s declaration would be a valuable weapon.”

What follows is her signed declaration, dated November 21, 1994, given under oath and penalty of perjury in the chambers of Judge Curtis Rappe. I reprint it in full so that it is clear that I have not used any quotations out of context.

I, Margaret A. York, hereby declare as follows:

1.
   
I make and submit this declaration for use in the case entitled, “People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson,” Los Angeles Superior Court No. BA 097211. If called as a witness I could and would testify competently to the following:

2.
   
I have been employed as a police officer by the Los Angeles Police
 
Department
 
(“LAPD”)
 
since
 
April
 
2,
  
1968.
  
I presently hold the rank of Captain II, and I am currently assigned as the commanding officer of the Bunco-Forgery Division.

3.
   
In February 1985 I was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the West Los Angeles Area as a watch commander. I continued in that assignment until May 1986, at which time I was transferred to the Office of the Chief of Police.

4.
   
West Angeles is one of the eighteen geographic divisions of LAPD. It, like each of the other geographic divisions, provides police patrol services for the residents and businesses of the area. At the time of my tenure at West Los Angeles, the total number of sworn personnel assigned there was, to the best of my recollection, approximately 175.

5.
   
A watch commander is defined by the Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department (“Manual”) as the employee having charge of a specific watch (shift) in a division or geographic area. A watch commander is a second-level supervisor;
 
that is,
 
direct supervision of patrol officers is
 
the responsibility of sergeants, who are subordinate to the watch commander. The duties of a watch commander at West Los Angeles when I was assigned there were to oversee field operations, assign duties, train personnel, review and recommend resolution of personnel matters including training deficiencies and discipline, inspect facilities and personnel, approve bookings and reports, approve evaluation of work performance, respond to emergency tactical situations, and oversee general management of watch activities.

6.
   
When I was assigned to West Los Angeles in 1985,1 do not recall being given any assignment, charge, or instructions to do anything other than perform the routine and normal duties of a watch commander with LAPD. Specifically, I do not recall being assigned, instructed, or charged to investigate the existence or behavior of a group referred to as “MAW” or “Men Against Women.” Furthermore, I do not recall that at any time during my assignment at West Los Angeles was I given an assignment, instruction or charge of that nature. I believe that if I had been given such as assignment, instruction, or charge that I would recall it.

7.
   
During my assignment at West Los Angeles, I served at different times as watch commander of each of its patrol watches, and therefore was in a position to have most of West Los Angeles patrol officers service in the watches which I commanded. I also served as Acting Commanding I Office of West Los Angeles area during part of that time.

8.
   
I
 
recall
 
that
 
Mark
 
Fuhrman was
 
among the
 
officers assigned to patrol at West Los Angeles during the period that I was a watch commander there. It was my practice as a watch commander to interact with officers serving in the watches which I commanded. Such interactions could be for many purposes, including the discussion of tactical matters, personnel matters, personal matters, and other matters. The interactions could be organized and planned, incidental or spontaneous. I have no recollection of the nature of any interactions between then-Officer Fuhrman and me, or any other contacts I may have had with him.

9.
   
In preparing this declaration I have relied only upon my recollections and my experience as a police officer and employee of LAPD. Except for my own personnel records, which I reviewed to determine die dates of my assignment to West Los Angeles, or the Manual, I have not reviewed any documents or records of any sort in order to prepare this declaration. I do not know with any certainty what records may exist which bear on the matters discussed in this declaration, nor do I know what those records may contain.

10.
  
Since my assignment at West Los Angeles nearly ten years ago, I have had the responsibility of command over hundreds of officers. I have promoted to Captain and have been the commanding officer of three separate Divisions in LAPD. I have written, reviewed or approved hundreds of reports, and I have interacted with hundreds of officers, sergeants and lieutenants. My present inability to recollect specific instances or circumstances from my time at West Los Angeles is due to the volume of work and the number of employees for which I have had the responsibility and to the passage of time.

I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the above is true and correct of my own personal knowledge.

Executed this 21
^st
day of November, 1994 at Los Angeles, California

/s/ Margaret A. York

When I read this declaration, I was stunned at the position she took concerning me. It was almost as if she didn’t know who I was.

York’s statements to Judge Rappe are at least problematic for the friction between her and me was no secret. Dozens of police officers knew about it. In 1992 when West LA detectives were about to get a new commanding officer, rumors circulated that York might get the position. I received calls from many officers and detectives joking that I might as well transfer if York came to West LA. In fact, the joke had a good bit of truth to it. I would have had to transfer, because York would have made working there unbearable for me.

In paragraph six of her declaration, York states that she does not recall being assigned to investigate “Men Against Women.” This claim was contradicted by none other than LAPD Chief Daryl Gates himself. On national television, Gates said that Margaret York was sent to West LA to follow up on the investigation of sexist attitudes and the group “Men Against Women.” On Inside Edition, after Chief Gates described the investigation, he said about York: “We sent her there for the very purpose of looking at the situation to make sure it no longer continued to exist.” It is also worth noting that following her tenure in West LA, Margaret York was assigned to Chief Gates’s office.

Jim Wakefield, my old sergeant from the Task Force unit at West LA, told a reporter that York had been sent there by Chief Gates to investigate “Men Against Women.” He also said that York was privy to all the information concerning the prior investigation.

Don Evans, a senior lead officer of West LA, now retired, also went on television and described York’s obsession with “Men Against Women” and her negative contacts with me. Evans worked the same watch as I, but we had only a casual friendship and worked together only a few times and never as regular partners. He didn’t make these statements to stick up for me, or to stick it to Margaret York. His only motivation was the truth. In his interview, Evans made statements to the effect that he himself was “Men Against Women,” that he was responsible for the joke, and he had perpetuated its fantasy existence. Evans found it difficult to believe that York lives with and sleeps with Ito, yet she never mentioned anything about me.

In paragraph eight, York states that she remembers me. How does she remember me? I work with divisions of officers, and I can’t remember most of their names or faces, it is officers with whom I’ve had either good or bad relationships that I remember. That isn’t the case with York. I find it difficult to believe that she doesn’t remember our conflicts. But if she doesn’t, then how does she remember me at all?