Murder in Brentwood (29 page)

When Bailey said that he would soon call Max Cordoba to testify that I had addressed him with a racial slur, Marcia rose to object.

“We have interviewed Max Cordoba a long time ago,” Marcia said. “He never made such a statement, and he never alleged that Mark Fuhrman made such a statement.”

Bailey puffed up like a gamecock and addressed the court:

“Your honor, I have spoken with him on the phone personally, Marine to Marine. I haven’t the slightest doubt that he will march up to that witness stand and tell the world what Fuhrman called him on no provocation whatsoever.”

That evening on the television show Dateline, Cordoba said that he had never spoken to Bailey-Marine to Marine or otherwise. He also claimed that I called to him using the slur. The next day, after Marcia aired Cordoba’s interview in court, Bailey admitted that he hadn’t actually spoken to Cordoba about the case, but that he had talked to him the night before and Cordoba said he misspoke on the television show.

The
 
next day,
 
March
 
14,
 
Bailey
  

[Did F. Lee Bailey even realize that what he claimed was impossible?]

attempted once more to get Max Cordoba on the witness list. The issue at hand was a statement Bailey had

made to the court that Cordoba had personally spoken to him, “Marine to Marine,” and that Cordoba would testify, describing an incident where I supposedly called him a racial slur. Of course, months prior, Cordoba had been on television and described me as a “nice guy he always got along with.” Since that time he had a dream that made him remember the slur.

That night Cordoba was again on television and again stated that he had never spoken to Bailey “Marine to Marine,” as Bailey had told the court.

The next morning I told Clark that she had to get in his face about this. Bailey had already gotten away with enough. Cordoba was lying about me, but I was sure he’d been truthful about the conversation between him and Bailey. Why else would he say it on national television? Clark agreed, and I told her, “Bailey will lose it if you challenge him that he lied to the court.”

The morning of the March 15, the fireworks started in earnest. Marcia Clark said that Bailey misled the court on this issue. Bailey jumped up, looking like he was going to burst, and interrupted Clark’s statement. Bailey’s response was less than believable, but Clark made the statement precisely to watch Bailey lose his temper.
 
It worked.

Although I was not in the court, I believe this was when Bailey attempted to have the court allow him to do a glove demonstration. Bailey wanted to demonstrate how a glove could be put into a plastic bag and then carried in someone’s sock. This was how I supposedly transported a second glove from Bundy to the Rockingham scene. Of course the judge wouldn’t allow it, because the glove Bailey wanted to use was not the same size as the gloves in evidence.

“Size small-must be Mr. Bailey’s,” Marcia said, examining the glove, a comment that was obviously sexual.

Bailey’s blood pressure went up, and the demonstration was shot down.

After he eventually composed himself, Bailey resumed cross-examination and continued drawing more testimony of facts and observations from me, with racial issues intermingled throughout. Using the “grand jury” practice sessions as a springboard, Bailey asked, “Did you tell the lawyers in that room that you never used the word ‘nigger’?” I answered, “It was never asked.” Then Bailey launched into the race issue head on:

BAILEY: I’m asking, do you?

COURT: Rephrase the question.

BAILEY: Do you use the word “nigger” in describing

people?

Bailey had yet to establish a time frame for his question, which from my understanding of the court’s ruling was use of the word in the past ten years.

FUHRMAN: No, sir.

My answer here was in response to Baileys blanket statement concerning the use of the word. The question in my understanding then and now referred to habitual use in the course of a lifetime.

BAILEY: Have you used that word in the last ten years?

FUHRMAN: Not that I recall, no.

At this point of the cross-examination, Bailey directly asked if I “ever” use the word, and my answer was, “Not that I recall.”

BAILEY: You mean if you called someone a nigger you have forgotten it, sir.

FUHRMAN: I’m not sure I can answer the question the way you phrased it.

I didn’t answer the question because he never restated it.

BAILEY: You have difficulty understanding the question?

FUHRMAN: Yes.

BAILEY: I will rephrase it. I want you to assume that perhaps at sometime, since ‘85 or ‘86, have you addressed a member of the African American race as a nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part? FUHRMAN: No, it is not possible.

Bailey quite clearly asked, since ‘85 or ‘86 have you “addressed” which means, “directly called,” an African American with that word. I previously answered no to that. So I answered no again.

BAILEY: Are you therefore saying that you have not used that word in the past ten years, Detective Fuhrman?

By stating, “are you therefore saying...” Bailey is referring to the previously asked question and answer, which clearly described addressing African Americans, not referring to them.

FUHRMAN: Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

BAILEY: And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black persons as a nigger or spoken about

black people as niggers in the past ten years, Detective Fuhrman.

This question is compound at the least, and when I answered this question I continued to answer the portion that was connected to the rest of the cross concerning this issue, “Have I addressed or called any black person a nigger.”

For this statement to be perjury, of course, it has to be relevant and material, which it clearly is not. But perjury must also be willful, and I can guarantee that at no point was I willfully lying to the court.

The screenplay tapes only could prove the “use” of the word, not the direct addressing of an individual. The attorney general could come up with only one person who claimed that I addressed him with that word in the past ten years. This person was Roderic Hodge, a suspect whose statements could easily have been impeached. The crime of perjury is supposed to require more corroboration than one person.

As we all know, the attorney general did eventually file charges of perjury against me. My plea had nothing to do with what I have described here; it had to do with the ability to finance a defense and the realization that I could not receive a fair trial.

My detective work in this case was never successfully challenged. Bailey never laid a glove on me. The only problems with my testimony were areas in which I defeated myself.

I could have answered “yes” to the accusations that Bailey leveled against me, but I truly do not address people with that word. Perhaps I was a little stubborn, a little embarrassed, and felt like I was carrying the reputation of too many people on my back. All these factors resulted in my blanket answer of “no.” As I sat in the witness chair, there seemed to be no right or wrong answer. I did the best I could.

Marcia’s redirect was short and to the point, focusing exclusively on how it was impossible for me to have planted the glove and ludicrous to think I did.

CLARK: The first time you walked out on the south pathway at 2360 South [sic] Rockingham, did you know the time of death for Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown?

FUHRMAN:
 
No.

CLARK: Did you know whether Mr. Simpson had an alibi for the time of their murders?

FUHRMAN:
 
No.

CLARK: Did you know whether there were any eyewitnesses to their murders?

FUHRMAN: No.

CLARK: Did you know whether anyone had heard voices or any sounds or any words spoken at the crime scene at the time of their murders?

FUHRMAN: No.

CLARK: Did you know whether Kato had already gone up the south walkway before you got there?

FUHRMAN: No.

CLARK: Did you know whether any fibers from the Bronco would be found on that glove that you ultimately found at Rockingham?

FUHRMAN:
 
No.

CLARK: And did you know the cause of death?

FUHRMAN: No.

That’s the redirect in its entirety. After just those seven questions, anyone who still thought I planted the glove must have been drinking from F. Lee Baileys thermos.

Chapter 21

CENTER STAGE

Mark is a very fine officer. He may not be a choirboy, may not be a perfect individual. But he’s an aggressive officer. He’s exactly the kind of individual you want.

FORMER LAPD CHIEF DARYL GATES

ONCE AGAIN, AFTER MY TESTIMONY, Marcia came up and said, “You are one of the best police witnesses I’ve ever seen.”

In the following days and weeks, I remained the prosecution’s star witness. Despite all the charges and innuendos, despite the fact that the defense still claimed, without even a wisp of evidence, that I framed O.J. Simpson, I was congratulated everywhere I went. The media continued to hound me for interviews, but they were continually disappointed.

One night I went to my attorney Bob Tourtelot’s house, and Gerry Spence happened to drop by. I was glad to meet the cowboy lawyer, despite the fact that he was regularly commenting on the trial and had close ties to the defense. I don’t know whether he knew I was at Tourtelot’s or not, but at least he respected my request to keep the evening off the record, even though he was accompanied by John Gibson, a local news anchor who was covering the Simpson trial. John had a lot of class, and I never heard a hint that he knew me, spoke to me, or was ever even in the same room as me. I hope that someday I can return the favor.

Gerry is a great guy, unorthodox, friendly, and intelligent. At Tourtelot’s house we briefly discussed my testimony, and he said he thought I had exhibited a Zen quality. I got a laugh out of his description, but admitted to having studied martial arts many years ago, and joked about having positive Chi. He got a kick out of that.

While Gerry tried to keep the conversation centered on the Simpson trial, I wanted to talk about anything else. I was especially interested in the Ruby Ridge case, and asked him all about it. For the remainder of the evening, through coffee and dessert, I had him go over all the details in this very interesting and tragic case. We never got back to the Simpson trial.

What I found most striking about Gerry Spence was his honesty. Whatever he said seemed to be carefully thought out and spoken with conviction. And Gerry never asked me two obvious questions: Did I plant the glove? Did I think Simpson was guilty? I figure Gerry had answered those questions long before he ever met me.

The next evening, the Protective League arranged to take me to dinner and then to a private club called The Magic Castle. Accompanying us for the evening would be former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates. When we all met at the Hollywood police station, I realized that most of the League s directors and their wives were all coming along.

Our party of twenty or so first had dinner in the private dining room of an elegant restaurant. Chief Gates sat to my left, and we talked all through dinner. I kept calling him Chief, and he tried to get me to call him Daryl, but I couldn’t. I think he loved being called Chief anyway.

We talked a lot about the trial and my role in it. I had a great time talking with the Chief, asking him a lot of things that had been on my mind for years. We laughed about most of them. At one point I proposed a toast. Holding up my glass, I said: “To Daryl Gates, who in my mind is still the real chief of the LAPD.”

Everyone cheered and drank to the toast. I sincerely meant what I said. Gates was a street cop’s chief, and we all loved him.

After dinner, we went on to the Magic Castle, and saw a first-rate magic show. I really enjoyed

[Shapiro wore a blue ribbon on his lapel signifying his support of the LAPD; he knew that the defense had already gone too far, and he wasn’t comfortable with it.]

the evening, but it got late and was soon time to go. As I said goodbye and thanked everybody, Chief Gates congratulated me for a job well done. I was proud to have his respect. Although I knew the trial wasn’t over, and I could still be recalled, I thought my participation in it was just about finished. I felt I had done a good job, and had made Chief Gates proud.

When I was getting hammered in the media and by the defense, it was rumored we did have a chief of police, but most of the time we didn’t know where he was. Had Daryl Gates been the chief, he would have been on every television show defending his officers against the defense attorneys making outrageous claims against us. Even without having an official position, Daryl Gates still spoke out more forcefully and more frequently than our missing-in-action chief,
 
Willie Williams.

When Bob Shapiro cross-examined Vannatter the week after my testimony, he wore a blue ribbon on his lapel signifying support of the LAPD. Since the controversy had started about the LAPD, and specifically the allegations that I had planted the glove, a movement sprang up within the Protective League to demonstrate support for the detectives in the case. The League had made a blue ribbon lapel pin for friends of the LAPD who wanted to make their support visible.

When Bob put on his pin, he knew that the defense had already gone too far, and he wasn’t comfortable with it. For Bob I’m sure it only got worse from this point forward. Following my last day of testimony, he told the press:

“My preference was that race was not an issue in this case and should not be an issue in this case, and I’m sorry from a personal point of view that it has become an issue in this case.”

Bob Shapiro began to have difficulties with the case almost as soon as Cochran came on board. Although he was a major leak to Jeffrey Toobin and probably others about the defense s racial strategy and attempts to discredit me, Shapiro quickly made it clear that he did not approve of Cochran’s racial obsessions, his overblown rhetoric, and his willingness to do almost anything in order to win. After the trial he was quick to distance himself from the race strategy and said that he would no longer talk to his former friend, F. Lee Bailey, or work with his former colleague Johnnie Cochran. He made these remarks just after the verdict, a time when you’d think the team would be enjoying the glow of victory. But the acquittal, or at least the way it was won, left a bad taste in Bob Shapiro’s mouth, and he didn’t waste any time telling the public how he felt.