Det TOM LANGE: We had a witness at the airport that initially, interestingly enough, came to the defense and said, "Listen, I was at the airport a little after 11:00. I saw OJ Simpson there with his arm buried in a trash container, and then it went to a small flight bag on top. He zipped it closed, and he walked inside." The day after -- the day of the murders, this fellow reported this to the defense, and they never shared it with us. It was nine months later when this man followed up on this revelation with us.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Did you investigate this man who says he saw OJ Simpson disposing contents of the -- of a bag?

BILL PAVELIC: First of all, first of all, let me just say something about Detective Lange here. We don't have an obligation to turn over discovery material to him. Discovery material would be turned over to the prosecution. If the prosecution did not let him see it, that's their business. We did turn over that information. As far as his interpretation, what happened is, their interpretation is completely different from ours.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: And the other evidence about supposedly OJ Simpson got a gift of knives just days before the murders?

BILL PAVELIC: Again, you have to ask yourself, why didn't they introduce this man? Why didn't they call him to testify? His contention is that it was the prosecution that didn't want to do it. This is a question that should be posed to the prosecution. As far as we're concerned, the gentleman that he is referring to was contacting tabloids, was trying to sell his story, has changed the version of his story, and he is -- he was not reliable.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: To many people in this civil trial in particular, the most damning evidence against OJ Simpson is this series of photographs showing him wearing Bruno Magli shoes, the kind of shoes that left a footprint at the murder scene. Do you still believe that first photograph printed in "The Enquirer" was indeed doctored, was a fake?

BILL PAVELIC: Unlike the plaintiffs' witnesses, I will not comment on an issue that the jury in the civil case is adjudicating. I think it would be improper. I'm still subject to the rules and regulations and the gag order that was issued by Judge Fujisaki.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: All right. Then without commenting in specific on this evidence, do you think that overall, this civil trial has been a fair trial for Mr. Simpson?

BILL PAVELIC: I would prefer to answer that question after the adjudication. And I think you may find it rather surprising.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: There have been many have been -- who have felt that Mr. Simpson has been subjected to double jeopardy. Those who support him feel that he's already been through this once, that in the civil trial, he is -- has been -- all this has been brought out against him again, we're getting this new evidence. Do you feel the same way? Do you feel sympathetic that way?

BILL PAVELIC: Let me just make a comment that I don't see the rage in America with regards to Mark Fuhrman making a living, who is a convicted perjurer. I don't see groups demonstrating against him. He is given an opportunity to make a living. So if we're talking about double standards here, I think there are double standards with regards to the way they look at OJ versus Mark Fuhrman. And in this case, only one person was convicted, and that was Mark Fuhrman.

Page 3 of 4 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 4 | Next