LEGACY OF DECEPTION-Stephen Singular

claim you're free. Welcome bonus, that's Chumbucasino dot com and live the Chumber line. No proce necessary DL you repod where everybody lost in terms of conditions eating plus.

journalist and author Dan Zufanski. Good Evening, Legacy of Deception crashes through the wall of silence constructed by the Los Angeles Police Department and exposes facts that prove the case was far more sinister than meets the eye. In presenting a scenario what really happened late one night on Bundy Avenue, Stephen Singular proves that no one was truly innocent in this horrible crime. This is a behind the scenes look at the oj Simpson case that explains why the blood

evidence fell apart at trial. Veteran true crime writer Stephen Singular, two time New York Times bestselling author, details his involvement with the Simpsons defense team and updates his nineteen ninety six book about one of America's most notorious crimes. The book that we're featuring this evening is Legacy of Deception, an investigation of Mark Furman and racism in the Los Angeles Police Department with my special guest journalist and author,

Stephen Singular. Welcome back to the program, and thank you very much for agreeing this interview. Stephen Singulardo, Thank you for having me.

background is. We alluded to the introduction, but what is your background that had you be the person to do this book, Legacy of Deception? How'd you come to do this?

from the northwest of America called the Order. Some people might be familiar with this case. The Oliver Stone movie Talk Radio came out in nineteen eighty nine and was based loosely on my first book about the Burg assassination, called Talk to Death. So that's nineteen eighty four. I was writing about race, anti Semitism, all of these issues that are in that book. Fast forward ten years and it's nineteen ninety four, it's August. It's actually August second,

which is twenty two years ago yesterday. And I was contacted by somebody that I'd worked with on the Burg book, someone LA's legal system who they had their own neo Nazi far right groups out there in southern californ And so I interacted with a number of people, and I was told or asked if I wanted to be involved in the O. J. Simpson case. And you know, my immediate reaction was no. I mean, I'd watched the Bronco Chase on television. I assumed he was guilty like so

many other people. And this source said, do you know, do you remember writing about neo Nazis and all of that ten years earlier? And I said yeah, and I was done with all of that. And he said, well, not all acts of terrorism involved, you know, assassinating people using guns and all of that. And I didn't really know what I was being told or what he was talking about, but effectively it was about, there are elements in law enforcement that have somewhat the same beliefs as

the people you were writing about ten years ago. And the sentence that really stuck with me was your neonot he is now wearing a much more respectable face, and that has resonated through me for the past twenty two years. So we began to talk. I was very resistant to this. I didn't want to be involved in it, but I

was given at that time four pieces of information. That was August second, nineteen ninety four, and I was told I should try to convey them to Simpson's defense team, which at that time primarily was Robert Shapiro, but Johnny Cochran was also coming on. So I called Shapiro's eight hundred number, knowing that that was a totally feudal thing to do, but I tried. It didn't get anywhere, and then I wrote out of facts and Senator Cochrane's office

that same week, and for a day nothing happened. And then I called out there again and I said, would you please put this in the hand of Cochrane's second in command, a lawyer named Carl Douglas, And the woman was I didn't want to do it, but she said, okay, I'll do it. She walked on and she laid it on Carl's desk, and fifteen minutes later he called me and he said, where did you get this information? And

what else do you know? And this was again early August, about six to seven weeks after the crime, and I said, well, I can't tell you who the source is, but there is more information and I wanted to meet with them and talk face to face. It was a dicey situation. Obviously they didn't know who I was or where I was coming from, so they resisted. Charle was this at that, But I said, you know, no more information unless we can meet face to face. So he worked it out.

I flew to Los Angeles the week of August eighth, nineteen ninety four, and I met with Carl and with his lead private investigator, a Bill x LAPD officer named Bill Pavlick, and two other lawyers, and I told them four pieces of information, the initial four things, and they were this that Furman's relationship with Nicole Simpson went beyond the fact that he had been over at Ojy's and

Nicole's place in nineteen eighty seven. I think it was for a domestic dispute, that he had some sort of relationship with her that went beyond that, and that that was a critical piece of sort of understanding what unfolded in this case. I was told that that was totally wrong, that did not exist. Pavlic again, an XLAPD guy, private, very high level private investigator, really did not like the idea some guy flying in from Denver, which is where I am was and where I am and telling him

something that he didn't think was true. I told them that there was a broken piece of stick, a freshly broken piece of stick, that could be found in evidence if they looked for it. And I told them that there was a blue place plastic evidence bag that homicide detectives take with them to crime scenes, and that it was in evidence, and that if they looked for it they would find it. And they both told me, there's no stick, there's no bag. Your source is using you

for some strange reason, and we can't trust you. Or even more provocatively, I think the District Attorney's office sent you over here to mislead us. That was their main line of attack at the start. The fourth piece of information, which was by far the most important, was that when a criminal defendant is taken into custody, as oj Simpson was on the afternoon of June thirteenth, nineteen ninety four,

he voluntarily went to the police station. He was voluntarily interviewed by Tom Lang and Phil then Adder, the senior detectives. He voluntarily gave his blood. None of this with a lawyer present. He was questioned at length, and I was told that when a defendant's blood is drawn, it is placed in a purple capped vial for a very specific reason, and the vile contains something at the bottom called EDTA,

which is a chemical compound and anicoagulant. And the reason this is done is because that blood will likely be tested in a number of different ways into the future, and you can't have it coagulating. In other words, you can't have it hardening or becoming unusable. So the compound goes up into the blood and keeps it from doing that. And I was told that if you, if someone would test the blood, that Simpson's blood in this case, they

would find that compound in the blood samples. And as everybody I think listening to this is very well aware of the strong evidence against though J. Simpson was the blood. There's no murder weapon, there's no other actual strong physical evidence, but the blood evidence is strong. So I was told that if those samples that would hold Simpson's DNA were tested, they would be found to have this compound. That means that the blood came out of the vile after the crime,

not out of his body during the murders. It's a critical piece of information to understand about this case. And if it had died right there, no one would have ever heard of this and it wouldn't have played any significant role in the trial. But exactly the opposite happened. So Carl Douglas told me on that occasion and many times after it, he said well, it's a nice theory.

Nobody else has talked about this. But in fact, when the blood is drawn from a defendant, the blood is sealed, and the sealed vial in Los Angeles is taken to a place called Parker Center where evidence is stored. So if the seal had been broken, we would know that your theory doesn't hold up. Have a nice light. Back to Denver, and I was a little taken aback because, you know, I had gone out there with the intention of trying to convey what, at the very least could

have been useful information. It could have been a lot more than that, but there was tremendous resistance to listening to a journalist. You know, I was part of the media. The media was all over this. They didn't like the press all of that. However, as I was leaving that first meeting, everybody dispersed and Carl grabbed my arm and said, get me some more information. So I knew that the door was umping a little bit at that time, and I decided to keep, you know, getting information and trying

to convey it to them. Time went on about six weeks or so, and they got their hands on the evidence book in the case, and they looked through all of the photographs and guess what. There's a picture of a freshly broken stick in the evidence book, and there

is a blue plastic bag that was discarded. If those listening think about the case, what we know is that Mark Furman reported finding this bloody glove on Simpson's property on the morning of June thirteenth, and it is an event of profound significance in the whole case, which maybe will become clear as this goes on. But there's a chain link fence that separates the walkway where the glove was found from Simpson's property. The next house over on the other side of the chain link fence was this

blue plastic bag and retrieved by the police. So two of the four items that I had told them about were now shown to be real. That started to get their attention. Carl started to listen. He called from time to time. I called him. The relationship developed. They about again. I would say sometime in September, the criminalist LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung testified in open court and what he had to say was this that the blood was drawn from

Simpson eight milliliters of blood. A very important figure to think about in this case. And the blood was put in the vile with purple cap and thedta, but the blood was not checked in the Parker Center. The blood was given to Philip van Atterer, one of the senior detectives. He put it in his pocket. He went back to the crime scene and for three to four hours on that afternoon the blood was unaccounted for. Beyond that, when the vial was returned to actually be entered into evidence,

it held six point five millileterers of blood. There was missing blood. Where was it? What happened to it? When this came out in court, Douglas and I talked and for the first time the bells started to go off in his head that there may be something to this and they had to look into it. I wanted them to test the blood. You know, as we all know, this was the most covered case. The media was all over them. They getting the blood and testing it was a very difficult thing for them to do, just because

of the way the law works. The prosecution usually does that, and secondly, they didn't want anybody to know their strategy, which they were actually thinking about doing. So I kept saying to Carl, you know, test the blood test the blood. You've got to test the blood, because if this stuff is in that blood, then it didn't come out of OJ's body on the night of the crime. The core evidence against him, which you know, let's look at it for a minute. The glove doesn't fit his hand, there's

no murder weapon. The cap that they wanted to say he wore during the crime doesn't fit his head. The timeline is an absolute disaster in this case, because their witness is walking by the crime scene at ten thirty to ten thirty five, and if five till eleven and there's no body, no blood, no barking dogs, no nothing. And if five till eleven, which is twenty minutes later, Simpson his home cleaned up, ready to go to the airport.

Very difficult thing to kill two people in that period of time, clean up, get rid of all the evidence, and be ready to take a flight to Chicago. That's not really what my book is about. It's really about these pieces of evidence that I'm laying out for people now.

So by October, the defense had started to pay a lot more attention to what I was telling them, and they asked me to come to Los Angeles and go find somebody in the crime lab and try to get this person to talk about what had actually gone on with the blood samples in the crime lab. There's one piece of the story I failed to mention, and that is that Vanatter had Simpson's blood vile for a number of hours on the afternoon of June thirteenth, nineteen ninety four.

Two years later, there was a civil case against Simpson and another lab technician testified that Vanatter also had the blood of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown with him for a certain unspecified period of time, so he was walking around Los Angeles. Now we know this comes from people inside the criminal justice system with the three principles blood samples. So this is far beyond the standard operating procedure and an important part of the narrative that I'm trying to lay out for people.

You know, I'm wasting my time. And I was told, you know, only an outsider. They're not going to listen to anybody within the system or in the prosecution itself. So the only hope for getting this kind of information out is through going to the defense and seeing what they will do. Is the very first question I asked, and I was just shot down totally is I said, okay, I'm not going to go down that road, but it's a totally legitimate question. So I went to Los Angeles.

I approached somebody in the crime lab and I tried to get this person to sort of tell me what became of the blood swatches that were ultimately sent off to the DNA lab for testing, and it was not It was a virtually impossible thing to do, but I was now sort of a part of the case and I wanted to get closer to it, and I tried,

and I wasn't able to accomplish that. But what I did when I was in Los Angeles is me with Johnny Cochrane and Carl Douglas and basically tell them that I had given them three pieces of information now that looked pretty solid, the stick, the bag, and the blood, and that I wanted to be able to communicate with them more freely and you know, ultimately I might have written something about this, and they were Carl Douglas in particular, was very, very nasty and very tough to deal with

and constantly shooting me down. And he said, you know, I'm not going to work with you, and that's never going to happen. If any of this ever comes out, will totally disown you and you're on your own. And it was a pretty harsh thing to say. After three months of working together, having them information and having a pretty good give and take, so I was kind of at a crossroads. I came back to Denver and I said, Okay, I'm just going to return to being a journalist now.

I've tried to work with these lawyers. It's very difficult. And I'm going to write do what I do, and I'm going to write a book proposal. So at the end of October of nineteen ninety four, I took some of what I'm saying now and I put it in a twenty two page book proposal, and I sent it to a publisher in Los Angeles, and I wrote strictly confidential across the front of that the cover page, and I said, this absolutely stops here because there was some

pretty explosive information in there. Well about a week later, I called Carl Douglas to ask him a question, and he said, I'll never speak with you again, and he slammed down the phone and he was enraged. So what happened was the publisher had given the proposal without any without my knowledge whatsoever, to the District Attorney's office. Is very significant in how the case will unfold. This is early November nineteen ninety four, four months before the trial,

three months before the trial will begin. So what that means is that the prosecution has on their disc all of this information about a stick, a bag and about the blood preservative in the critical blood samples. Then the defense had to give it to the prosecution had to give it to the defense. That's how it ended up on Carl Douglas's disc they felt betrayed. They didn't want to talk to me anymore. You know, it was a bad ending. I mean, that's you know, there aren't any

heroes here in my view in the legal system. I didn't think they behaved terribly well, and I think the story of the prosecution will make that point as this goes on. So the point is is that three months ahead of the start of the trial, you have what in the law is called Brady material. If you were to read Christopher Darden's New York Times best selling book about this case, he devotes five pages to myself, to

the book proposal and to the issue of DTA. So they have on the table in front of them what he calls Brady material, meaning that if it's substantive, it should derail the trial and it should launch an investigation and do what the truth is behind the allegation about the blood. So, just to be clear so everybody understands what I'm saying, the contention is that the blood that Simpson is the blood evidence that's going to be used

against oj Simpson. The contention is that it has not come out of his body on the night of the crime, meaning he could not have committed the crime, but came out of a blood vile that he voluntarily gave to the police without a lawyer present the next day. So

my relationship with the defense was essentially over. And so what happened was the trial starts in late January, and in February, one of the prosecuting attorneys stands up in front of Judge Edo in open court and says, there's this absurd contention going around that the blood in this case was planted and that it holds this anticoagulant, And in order to disprove this once and for all, we're going to call in the FBI and we'd like them to run a test and it will show that none

of this substance is in any of the blood evidence. And Judge Edo agreed to that, and the FBI was called in and they ran their test, and guess what they could not call.

oath talking about this issue. So now we have number three of the four original things is on the record. In February of nineteen ninety five, during the trial, Johnny Cochrane entered into evidence the broken stick and the blue plastic bag. And the allegation here, and I'm using the word allegation, is that when Furman arrived at the scene

in the middle of the night. There were other police officers president President, but he was the first detective on the scene, and he went into the crime scene and

looked around. Another thing I was told, this would be number five in the original meeting, was that the official story of the police in this case is that they all went over to Simpsons about five to five point thirty that morning as the sun was coming up, and Furman sort of placed the other officers in the house and went out and walked around and found the glove.

That's the official story. What I was told was that Furman did not make one trip to Simpsons that night, but he made two trips, and the first trip occurred around three am, and that he and his partner left the crime scene went over to Simpsons to look for evidence because Furman was absolutely convinced they would find it there. And they looked around, they found nothing. They got into a loud argument and they had and they went back

to the crime scene empty handed. If you will recall, during the course of the trial, the next door neighbor to the Simpson property held an employee called Rose Lopez. Ros Lopez told the police and testified in court that she heard men arguing on the property adjacent at about three in the morning that night, that there was a loud argument that woke her up and she was disturbed

by it. That's another piece of information. So the allegation was that there were initially two gloves at the crime scene, and that a stick and a bag were used to transport one of them to Simpson's place, and that they were both discarded on the property. That was the allegation. Those are the pieces of evidence. The argument was heard at three am. What we know is that at five or five point thirty, Simpson and the three other detectives went over there. Rman jumped the fence, went inside and

told the story of finding the glove. So fast forward to the spring of nineteen ninety five. By this point, a number of people in the LAPD criminal justice system have come come forward and told the authorities, not the press, not the defense, but the authorities in the District Attorney's office that Furman was poison and that he couldn't be trusted, and that he had severe racial attitudes and they had

to be very careful. There were two women in particular who did this, named Lucy Ane Coleman and Julie Sergosian. It was disturbing enough so that by the winner Late Winner of nineteen ninety five, as the trial is unfolding, the LAPP launched an internal affairs investigation of Mark Furman, and it included and concluded with information from these two women.

If we backtrack a little bit in the story that I'm telling you, it begins with me writing a book about the assassination of Allenberg in Denver in nineteen eighty four by a group of neo Nazis from the north West, people with viciously virulently anti Semitic and other racial prejudices

who were violent. What the women told, the story that they told, and this is in an internal affairs investigation, its open knowledge was that Furman they had been told by police officers that he had put swastikas in the locker of a fellow police officer whose wife was Jewishy. This happened simultaneously with a woman named Kathleen Bell coming forward and telling the authorities that Furman had said something to the effect if he wanted to round up all

the African Americans and burn them to death. You could not have created a more direct parallel between what I wrote in my first book, and what began to come out in the IA investigation and would come out much more strongly in the Furment tapes that surfaced in the summer of nineteen ninety five. So I was told at the beginning of the case that there were connections between my first book and what had happened here, and I frankly couldn't see any connections. I didn't believe it. I

didn't see how that could be possible. And six eight months later, what was surfacing about Furman was a direct parallel with the neo Nazi beliefs and activities that I had documented in my first book. So it was starting to make sense why I had been contacted and why the person who told me this felt that it was important. And the real larger reason that I was given this information.

We're talking about lot of beats here that played out in the trial, but the real reason I was contacted was I was essentially told this kind of activity is not confined to Mark Furman, It's not confined to one or two officers. It is more widespread than people would like to believe. The fabrication of evidence, the racial attitudes, the violence against minority communities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And I was told this case will have enough of a spotlight put on it that if this kind of information could come out, it might actually help in understanding why there's such bad blood between the minority communities, the police, et cetera, et cetera. And it's that's the larger and more important story. I was told that I should try to write, and so I essentially believed that that was an story, and that's why I got involved in this,

and that's why I pursued it. So, what the Internal Affairs investigation turned up, other than the fact that Furman puts allegedly puts swastikas and a fellow police officer's locker, was that he had bragged to numerous people at numerous venues that he had seen Nicole Simpson's boob job up close and personal. So we think back to the fourth piece of information that I gave Bill Pavlick and Carl

Douglas in August of nineteen ninety four. That was it that some kind of personal relationship between them existed, and the IA report that this. So you can interpret that as you will. I don't interpret his meaning they were lovers. I interpret his meaning he was around her at other times and other venues enough that he could brag about seeing her boob job. So that's the fourth piece of information.

As the trial unfolded, and as the EDTA things came out, and as the stick in the bag came out, and as the Firman tapes came out, and as Rosa Lopez testified about hearing that argument at three am that morning came out, it began to seem fairly evident that the source that I was working with was pretty credible. And so essentially, you know, that's the arc of the story

that I write about in the book. And I think what's interesting about it, apart from what I've said, is that I don't think it's a well known story, and I've left out a couple of things in the course of telling. At Number one is that my book Proposal, which went to the defense and went to the prosecution in November of nineteen ninety four, eventually made its way into the courtroom in April of nineteen ninety five, and it was written about Invanity Fair that month, and it

was distributed to multiple multiple people in the media. And this is extremely important.

got the internal affairs report. Tell us a little bit more about Michael Viner and his motivations for doing what he did, which in.

and it was not very acceptable. Wiener was interested, and what happened is that he is now dead, and so I can tell more of this story than I could back then. But he, like most people with white people anyway, thought that Simpson was guilty, and he thought that my participation was novel and somewhat interesting. And I was communication

with him throughout nineteen ninety five. But he believed without any doubt that Simpson would be found guilty and my little story would hang out somewhere to the side, and so he had agreed to publish the book on October third, nineteen ninety five. As we all know, after about three hours of the deliberation, Simpson was very easily acquitted. The jurors subsequent to the verdict came out and talked about a number of issues. One of the issues they talked

about was Edta and Planet Blood. So it sank in. It had an impact, and it was a struggle to get it into the trial and to get it in front of the jury. But that happened and there was a result. Wiener, like many others, was outraged and how could Simpson be acquitted? So we clashed and he said I will not publish your book now that he has been set free. And I said, no, we have signed contract and you're going to publish my book. And I'm going to be in your office from Denver tomorrow morning

at nine thirty and that's that. And I flew out there and I got in his face and I said, you know, this is what happened. And like many bullies, he backed down. When you got in his face, he folded. So he was a very unpredictable man. He did some very good things during that time, and he did some very questionable things. But he agreed to publish the book. And what I didn't know at the time was that he was also working with Mark Furman's first lawyer, a

man named Robert Turtelhau. Robert Tortoloau represented Mark Furman right up to the point that the Furman tapes came out. And then when he heard Furman bragging and you know, going on and on with his virulent racism, he could not stomach it anymore and he quit and he wanted write something, so Vener said, you know, show me what you got, or something to that effect, and Tortelo gave him the Internal Affairs Investigation Report. I didn't know any

of this at the time. I didn't know anything about it. And then Veener slipped it under the table to me, and he didn't say where it came from or anything about it. He said, put this in your book. And so I went through the whole thing and I pulled out the relevant portions which I've talked about here, and I put in the book. It is an incredibly damning document.

And when you get to the end of the IA report, unless review it for a minute, district attorneys coming forward, Deputy district attorneys who worked in that office coming forward and saying, you can't trust Furman. He's a racist. You can't trust anything he says about the evidence. He put swastika's allegedly in the lockers of people. All of it is in the report, and you get to the end of the report and it says, oh, well, there's nothing

here forget about. That was the attitude of the Los Angeles Police Department, the District Attorney's office throughout this trial. It is an exact parallel to putting a glove on OJ Simpson's hand that doesn't fit. It is exactly the same thing. Well, let's just disregard that because it doesn't fit our theory of what happened in this case, just like Furman has one bad apple and that's all he is. So they I was given the IA report, I put

it in the book. I showed how it squared up with what I had been told almost a year earlier, and I documented how these pieces of evidence played through the trial. And when my book proposal was handed to the media in April of nineteen ninety five, Youdo talked about it in open court. It was distributed to every major news organization out there, The New York Times, the Chicago Papers, the LA Times, the network's cable TV, all of it. What does that mean? That means that they

had this in front of them. What would that be four or five months before the end of the trial. They knew what the defense this is, before the defense put on its case. They knew what the defense was going to do. They knew what the case would be. They knew what the attack on the blood evidence would be. They knew all of it. And for about forty eight hours, I was called by every major news organization in the United States and I laid out some version of what

I'm telling you, and I said, this is important. Watch how this goes through the trial. It went through the trial, Simpson was easily acquitted. The jurors came out of the courthouse for the last time and said, this is one of the factors. I'm not saying it. There weren't a lot of others. This is a factor in how we came to this conclusion that the evidence in this case

absolutely could not be trusted. And I thought naively that someone in the in the American media might call back and might say, this is how this got into the case. This is how the FBI was brought in, this is what the FBI found, this is what the FBI tests fight in court, and this is how the evidence fell apart. No one, nobody, not one, not one person ever connected the dots of what actually happened with the evidence in

this case. And you know, I went on with my life and occasionally was interviewed by you know, certain people about it and and kind of put it to bed. But this last winter, you know, we we've had this FX series on the Simpson case, and we've had an extensive ESPN documentary on the Simpson case five hours, and you know, you'd be very hard pressed to hear this

kind of information in any of these venues. So I think that if we look at the really big picture here, which is a twenty two year cycle for myself anyway, you know, my original intention was to pick up from my first book to write about racism, to write about anti Semitism, to write about the terrible effects of these things in our society and how it led to the assassination of a man here in Denver, and by the way, these people committed two hundred and forty other crimes as

well and killed four other people, and to sort of document, how so to speak, the you know, the wolves had moved, you know, into the hen house, and you weren't talking about neo Nazis sitting out in the woods beating on their drums. You were talking about people inside the legal system doing very damaging and destructive things, and that this has an effect on the communities that they say that they are sworn to pooh, protect and serve. And so my story never made it out there. A lot of

other peoples did. Most of those stories will tell you unequivocally that OJ Simpson committed these murders. And that's the end of the story and anything contradicts that we don't want to hear it. I was contacted by a CNN producer. I contacted an CNN producer about two months ago. They're doing something on the case, and they were looking for untold stories of the OJ Simpson saga, and I called them.

I said, well, here's an untold story, and I think if you track it from beginning to end, you're going to find out that there's some important information here that the public really doesn't know anything about, and it might just serve a useful purpose if they did understand it more.

And it might even have some effect on racial relations in the United States because minority people to some degree at least were able to accept some of what I was saying, whereas the white mainstream they know what had happened, that was the truth in the end of the story. So if you fast forward to twenty sixteen, you know we've had a year of police violence, black white violence, minority violence against the police, vice versa. I would suggest

that the problem is not going away. I would suggest it's a very important aspect of our culture and politics right now. And I find it absolutely astounding that when it has become much more acceptable or understandable that police officers would hold racist attitudes in certain cases, or that they might manufacture evidence in certain cases, or that these kinds of things actually do go on. And we had

a classic example of it twenty two years ago. We have a police officer on tape talking about creating probable cause, talking about being god on the street, talking about beating black suspects so badly that his on pants are soaked with their blood. We have it on tape, we have it on the record, But somehow none of that has any connection to what we're seeing today. That's the irony,

that's the difficulty of all this. And I just think that someday, you know, somebody is going to make a documentary that gets to a major media platform that talks about the evidence in the case and why it fell apart as opposed to what you know. As the guy who made the ESPN documentary put it, that O. J. Simpson is a monster. I never got involved in this to defend O. J. Simpson. Some of his behavior in the past was very bad, and after the acquittal was

very bad as well. It's not the point. The point is that when when these kinds of things happen. They damaged the entire community, and they damaged the entire criminal justice system, and we're not anywhere near to having had an honest discussion about this and trying to make progress

with it. And so that's essentially the story. I'm sorry for being so long winded, but it's a highly complex story, and it's a shame that it isn't more well known, not because I wrote it or was involved in it, but because it was an important piece of this whole saga and it's been left out. It simply didn't fit the paradigm that the mainstream media wanted out there, and it was brushed aside. So I still hope I would. I would if people are interested in this story. If

you're interested, why I'm saying I would. The book has just been reput up on Kindle. Legacy of Deception is the name of it, and it is updated with a lot of new information about things that have happened subsequent to the equittal and the release of that book seven

ninety nine on Amazon. I think you can get a much different view of this case from somebody who was not coming in with an ax to grind about it, but trying to be a journalist, just simply trying to be a journalist and find out what happened, and that that was what I tried to do, and that was what I tried to write.

Idaho and around there. But they were basically gathered congregated around a town called Sand Point, Idaho, and way up in the northwest, and that's where they came together, and that's where they made their plans and they wanted to start their white power revolution. So when Simpson, when Furman was driven out of the LAPD finally in disgrace when he became too toxic for even them to coddle anymore.

I heard a news report one morning. He says Mark Furman has decided to leave the Los Angeles area and he's resettling in Sandpoint, Idaho. And I subsequently learned that it is essentially a haven for retired LAPD officers with a certain set of beliefs, and that he was one of those people. But there were numerous people up there like so again it goes to the point that these were not wild eyed fanatics in the wood. These are

people who had been in law enforcement. The murder weapon that killed Alan Berg was a mac ten automatic pistol, and it was found in the hum of one of the core members of the Order, man named Gary Yarborough, who was arrested on October eighteenth, nineteen eighty four, four months of the day after Berg was assassinated, and they found the gun in a room that held all kinds of ammunition and weaponry and a shrine built to Adolf Hitler.

The story was that Furman collected Nazi memorabilia, that he was very drawn to that sort of thing, and obviously his views on this subject were very clearly expressed. So I just find it incredible that in the wake of this case and these things, that first Fox hires him as a commentator on criminal cases. He's even commentated more recently on some of the racial things that have come up, with the Freddie Gray killing in Baltimore and other things.

And then Oprah had him on. He wrote a book and he tried to rehabilitate himself, and Oprah had him on, and you know, it was nice to him. So I'm sorry, folks, I don't get it. I'm just here's the most powerful black women in the United States having on a guest who's said that his desire was to round up all the African Americans and burn them. So we had not

cracked the facade of any of this. And it's a very painful part for me to me of American of the American experience over the last twenty five years, because it's not about O. J. Simpson. It's not about one guy if you think he got away with murder or something like that. It's about the profound pain and divisions that exist between minority communities and police. And we see it acted out again and again and again in violence,

and this case was the starting point for it. We had an opportunity to learn more about why there is such animosity there and why the minority community would be so affected by bad police behavior. And this is not the man, you know we should have embraced and turned into a matinee idol on Oprah and given a job on Fox News. I'm sorry. There are people who have something significant to say about these issues, and I just would strongly encourage you to pay a little more attention

to them. So so, I'm sorry to be on a soapbus, but I've had twenty two years of not being able to as Dan has done here to provide an opportunity to present a truly alternative point of view that's based upon journalism and facts. I'm not telling you, I'm not speculating about who killed these people or who else might

be responsible. That's not my job. But I tracked this evidence through the criminal justice system and it all checked out, and that has as much right to be reported on as someone's opinion about this case.

through the use of these two objects. And the reason it was done was because Furman, I believe I am speculating here, genuinely truly believed that Simpson committed these murders and then he had the resources to probably fight the system and without good, strong evidence, you know, they would have a difficult time. He came back to the crime scene, and when he went back the second time with the senior officers in tow they he had to find something. I mean, at that point, you know, in order to

go on with the they had to have something. So I'm yes, that's the story that I was told was that the glove was moved using these objects and that the blood would contain this substance. And that's the story that I wrote, and that Furman had some sort of relationship with Nicole Simpson. So when people talk about a conspiracy, it always comes down to that. It's always, well, how could hundreds of people put their heads together and do

all this. I'm talking about three people. I'm talking about Furman. I'm talking about the natter. We know for a fact he had the blood samples of all three principles. We know it from the system itself, and someone in the crime lab who this is the Murkier area. But when doctor Lee testified in the case, and he made a famous pronouncement about something wrong, and what he was saying was that the samples that were sent to the DNA

lab for testing were not the age samples. That someone had doctored samples in the lab and sent them off, and therefore they had to hold Simpsons DNA. So you're talking about the activities of three different individuals, and everybody else just does their job, as is usually the case in these kinds of situations. And I like to focus on the evidence that can be tracked through the system because when people the easiest thing for people to do is to say, well, that's a conspiracy and that's all

it is. And that's what has essentially dismissed all of this for twenty two years. And what I'm suggesting is that if you read the book, or if you track this in a real way, it holds up quite well. And you know, that's the story that I've tried to lay out here. It's not a vast conspiracy involving a lot of people. So I would suggest I mean, you know, obviously I'm not telling people what to think. They could read the book and very clearly disagree with me and say, oh,

Jay's guilty, and that's that. What I'm suggesting is if you expose yourself to an alternative set of ideas, it might come to a different conclusion. I'm not telling you who committed the crime. I'm not telling you you have to agree with me. The issues here are all bigger. Why wouldn't all of the major media outlets track this kind of information through the most covered trial in American history?

Why would the story effectively not be known. I've talked to countless people who think they know everything about the case. They've never heard of DTA. They don't know what it is. That's what I'm really suggesting. You know, we've had the FX series, we've had ESPN, but it is effectively people speculating on the nature of oj Simpson, at least what I've seen, or it's about lawyers arguing or something like that. Criminal cases, as you know, Dan, and as I know

from writing fifteen books about that, they're about evidence. They are essentially about evidence, and if that is this case has been about everything but evidence, and so this book is an effort to offer a different perspective on the evidence.

end you don't. And in that frustration when you see them using those points that you again have to hammer home so that they would use them, that they would understand them, comprehend them. You'd have to prove to them. And yet you still don't get that credit. That's incredible. Part of this book is that that testimony in that fight for you just to have this evidence looked at. As you say, if it was a real murder investigation, an actual proper murder investigation, at least all of the

stuff would have been looked at. And in that case there could have been a different direction for suspects could.

look at anybody else. Well, is that really true? You know, most people don't know that Ron Goldman, for example, had a friend in nineteen ninety three named Brett Cantor who ran a nightclub in la and he goes throat slit from ear to ear in the summer of nineteen ninety three. Most people don't know that Ron Goldman had another friend named Michael Nigg who got shot to death in the parking lot of the Coyote Restaurant in Los Angeles in

the summer in nineteen ninety five. So you got nineteen ninety three, nineteen ninety four, nineteen ninety three is candor nineteen ninety four is Goldman in nineteen ninety five is nig But nexus for all of these people is the

Medsaline restaurant and that subculture around it. Where would any murder of investigation have gone if the glove isn't there, if you have two victims in the case rather than one, if you have a drug culture around the case that all of these people had involvement with, starting with oj and a. C. Cowings and the other people, and Nicole and her best Van fe Resnik, who was in cocaine rehab the night of the murder, Where would the investigation have gone if it had actually been opened up to

look at it as a true double murder? You know, where would the seventeen fingerprints at the crime scene have gone if they've been investigated, or the other blood types that don't belong to any of the three principles, or the blood on the back gate that isn't there the night of the murder, that isn't there for three more weeks, but mysteriously shows up in it's OJ's blood. Where would the investigation have gone? That's what isn't explored in any

of these shows. You know, these people had backgrounds, you know, they had lives, They had all of these things. And there was a culture of violence around the case that is much larger than Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. There were three people murdered in Florida who were a loose part of that circle in two weeks after this crime. What was their connection to it? That none of these

questions have been explored. None of it's been explored. And you know when I was told repeatedly by Dominic Dunn, you know, the writer for Vanity Fair in nineteen ninety five, that Chris Darden wanted to talk to me. So I called him up and I tried to talk to it, and I tried to you know, convey information, and you know, he wouldn't talk. And then when Simpson was acquitted, I got him on the phone and he blamed me, among others, and he said, how do you sleep at night? How

do you sleep at night. It's like, hey, man, you know I didn't put the glove on this guy in front of the entire world, make a fool of myself. You know, I'm not in denial about the evidence in this case. So you know, that's the story of the case. I mean, they all went on, they wrote multimillion dollar books, they hardened their position, they refused to consider anything outside

of their point of view. Then here we are, twenty two years later, you know, dealing with exactly the same issues and exactly the same rage and exactly the same violence. And you know it's it's not going to change without some larger discussion of this. And I'm not taking sides in it and saying that. I'm saying here was the classic example to look at what vicious racism on the record does to a community when it's led by police

officers and nobody wanted to look at it. Nobody. And here's what happens if the evidence in a case can't be trusted and nobody wanted to look at they, you know, think about what I'm saying. They had this information three months before the trial began, and when Rodney Harmon wrote to the FBI to have the blood test. This is a direct quote. What he wrote to the FBI is run your tests to refute the possibility that this happened. Not run your test to find out what was in

the blood. Not run the test to find out what actually happened here, but run it to disprove something. And even with those in stress, they lost. And when the case was over and the book came out, I got a call from Rockey Harmon and he chewed me up one side and down the other. It was my fault. It was my fault that this happened.

threat cuts made on somebody. In other words, if you don't do something, I'm going to threaten you and I'm going to hurt you a little bit, and I'm going to give you a chance to do what I want you to do. This is not a wild, violent, vicious attack. This is a controlled situation. So you have to think about a little bit. You know, you have to pull back and you have to think about it a little bit.

How could if there are two victims standing there, I mean, how is it that nobody's making any noise, nobody hears anything? And who is being threatened? And why are they being threatened? It stands the whole paradigm of the case on its head. It suggests that Nicole Simpson may not have been the primary target of the crime. It suggests that great threats were being made before the crime went down. It suggests that people were being controlled, because you have to control

people to do that. It suggests that there was more than one assailant. The first coroner who testified in the case is named doctor Golden, and he testified in court that, in his professional opinion, after decades of doing this, there were two murder weapons, implying two assailants. The prosecution treated him the way they treated me, the way they treated the two assistant district attorneys who came forward in nineteen ninety four and said Furman's a vicious racist, the same

way they treated everybody else. And they said, well, we're going to get rid of that guy. That guy is saying something that doesn't fit our view of the crime. So they got rid of doctor Golden and he was never heard from again. And they brought in a man with a long Indian name, and he told the court

what the prosecution wanted the jurists to hear. Think about it that the man who did the autopsy in the original climber board which anybody can go read, talked about where who got the threat wins, not Nicole Simpson, Ron Goldman, And they talk about the initial report from Lang was that JUDITHA. Brown, the last conversation she had with her daughter was at eleven o'clock at night. That's the freshest memory anybody has. Well, that's when Ojay was an alemo

on the way to Chicago. So there are a countless number of questions, you know, that could be raised here. But when people get a mindset that is absolutely shut down, you can't possibly find out what happened. You can't do it. And you know, we had a chance here. I think we've had a chance to society as a culture, as a media, as a legal system to sort of pull back and look at this and say, you know, let's go below the surface and see what happened. And we

haven't done yet. And I don't know that we'll ever do it. I don't know that that's ever possible. But the but you know, again, the irony is that the information's out there. It's been out there for decades. People have documented it in a handful of, you know, books that are not written by the principles in that case who were getting three and four and five million dollar advances.

It occurred, it's on the margins. It's out there. You can read about the timeline in Donald Fried's absolutely excellent book called Killing Time. You can read about a problem of evidence by Joe Bosco. You can read about why the case fell apart in my book legacy of deception and in a handful of other places. And I just I think we have a great educational opportunity here that goes to the heart of our whole politics, racial relations,

these you know, minority communities, all of these things. You know, this is not a story that sits in the past. It's a story that's unfolding all over the place right now. And this isn't an attack on the police and saying they're always right and he always wrong. It's not what it's about. We were given an opportunity to look at what really happened here and thus far basically that narrative. People don't see it as sailable, so they won't dig

into it. And that's wrong, that's just plain wrong. You know that the investigative journalisms is on its deathbid. It's dying for all of these reasons because it's so hard to get people to pay attention to it. But it still has value. And I just would strongly suggest I was told from the very beginning of this case. I said, why was I given this information? I clearly thought O Jay was guilty. I didn't want to think much about it, and I was told because if you do this you'll

get an education. You will learn a lot more about how your society works, you know. And I thought, well, I was almost forty years old. I was forty three years old, and I'd written several books, and I thought I was reasonably smart. And I was wrong. You know, I got an education, and as a non minority person, I got an education about something that really wasn't a

part of my world. That much is invaluable because the pain of all of this racial hatred and racial violence is everybody's pain, everybody's and we can all be struck down by it. So it's just, you know, we need to do what we've never done. And even a show like this, I mean, Dan has given me an opportunity to talk and to talk freely and openly and to try to just get people to think a little bit more deeply about this. This is not just a late

night comedian's you know, gagline. There's more at stake than that they go on TV every night, Oh J Skelly, O J Scale, the OJ Skilly. Well, that kind of complacency doesn't get us anywhere. So anyway, obviously, you you know, there is some frustration here, and I'm sorry if it comes across as you know too much. But this is this is a turning point in our history as far as I'm concerned, and we haven't gotten over it yet.

part of this community. And it just if people would read the book, you know, they will see from the very start that I was contacted and given information for a very specific purpose, and it was to sort of take the smaller story that I'd written and talked to death about really a group of nine men who decided to start a white power revolution and and did end up committing a lot of crimes, but it was still

a relatively small story. And to sort of look at it in what happens when this mindset enters the system. What happens when people in authority start to think this way. That's a big story. And you know, I was told, you know, there are thousands of OJ's out there, you know, that are in these circumstances. They just don't have the resources to fight the system. And because the resources are here and the spotlight is here, this is the opportunity to really go below the surface of this thing and

look at it. And again, no one's defending Simpson before or after the trial. I mean, that's not the point. But you know, accusing somebody of murder, you know, you better have the evidence. That's the way our system works. And the evidence fell apart, and we as a society just don't want to consider that. We don't want to think about it, which is be fine. The same story

keep surfacing. So I would just strongly encourage people to sort of do what I did, you know, be willing to sort of humble yourself before the fact that you know, watching something on television doesn't tell you everything you need to know about it, because I was dead wrong here. I mean, I I don't know. There's no way to rationalize that I was wrong in what I was looking at.

So if you have an interest in the subject, or an investigative journalism, or in the way the sort of modern media function and all of those things, it's right there in front of you, and it's not it's not in these series that you're seeing on television. I mean, Jeffrey Tuban wrote the book that they based the Fax series, and he says, you know, and I thought he was guilty, and I assumed everybody else thought he was guilty too. Journalism,

you know, that's that's not it doesn't work. Other people have a different life experience from you, and theirs is just as valid as yours is. And that's what the jury told the United States of America.

in this case. And my point is that it's the media society as a result, and these powers to be believed because we can't don't seem to have much of attention spand that we're going to keep everything simple and overly simple and when things are complex, and I know this audience listens to a sixty to ninety minute interview with an author about one subject, about one case, and so we have an audience I think that does listen

to that. In fact, it realizes that just when you think you have that guilty person, you've made that emotional decision that they must be guilty. I think we're all learning the power of a documentary to display its bias and without us seeing that that emotionality, that power of that documentary doesn't do us any good. And the best thing that we can do is look at things unemotionally in a book where they're laid out and less dramaticism

to influence us from this predetermined perspective. So again it's very valuable for people to listen to this explanation legacy of deception about a completely different perspective on something that most people have had their minds made up as a result of these documentaries and even watching the news coverage itself, they really, this is something they need to look at to at least consider that the story that they thought they knew, the narrative that was it seems to be

so clear and so simple. Again, is very complex and would be surprising for people to read this and hear a completely different story.

blood that was tested? Yes? Did Firman have a relationship with this woman of some kind? Yes? Did Rosa Lopez here in our three am on Simpson's property is I didn't begin with any conclusion about any of that. I could have been set up for some other purpose. And that's the whole way the book is written, it tested out through the course of our legal system, which relies on testimony, evidence, across examination, scientific testing, all of those things.

So it's not a conspiracy theory. It's not a theory, it's it's here's evidence that effectively was extremely important in the trial, was extremely important to the jury, but never made it into the public consciousness because the commentary on it just destroyed it. It couldn't be true, or the whole narrative would have to be questioned. And that's a

really strange thing to think about. I mean, if you really ponder that for a moment, that jurors, you know that their job is to study the evidence and come to a conclusion, and they spent nine months doing that, also questered, and they had no difficulty whatsoever. A mixed race theory seeing this does not hold up. And they've been maligned from the day they reach their verdict and they've been called every bad thing you can be called.

It's not right. It is simply not right, and people have not wanted to look at how they reach those conclusions. And the book is a piece of that story that shows how that came about. And so I think that I mean, one, you know, reason maybe to read it is to give those people some respect, and some do and that's really never happened. So you know, this guy, David Aldonna was on the jury and he's a Hispanic man, I believe, and he was on the twentieth anniversary of

the case. He was on CNN and this woman was interviewing him. This is a year or so ago, and she said, you know, have you changed your mind in twenty years about this decision you came to clearly saying implying it was a bad decision all that. And he said no. But I wish he had said, you know, with everything that's come out about police misconduct, police violence and all these other things, have you considered changing your mind? Yeah?

But he didn't. You know, we've had twenty two more years of that story unfolding, with these deaths and these protests, these and Black Lives Matter and the whole thing. What has that gotten stronger in twenty two years or has it gotten weaker? It's absolutely gotten stronger, And have you considered your opinion over those twenty two years based upon what's come out since then? But he didn't say that.

That would have been a good opportunity to turn it around and say, you know, you've had two decades plus to look at this, is it possible that there's something here? You don't know. It's not the discussion we're having. You know, we're not making the connections, and we still can you know, we can learn from this. And it's an extremely complex reality, you know, That's what I'm saying. I don't want to create the impression of someone who's siding with one side

against the police or something like that. It's a very difficult job, and it's a very stressful job, and you violate the system. You're violating a very large part of the American experience because our entire legal system, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are built around how new process works. You tamper with that and you're undermining everything. And that's

what I was told at the start. This is where the conflict is in these communities, and this is where the problems are, and that's what I was trying to get at. So you can read this book come away thinking O. J. Simpson's guilty anyway, that's fine, But there are other larger issues in play, and I think they're worth thinking about and examining.

when you look at this. And it's an incredible book to see the same reoccurring themes, The same things that are at heart at this that seem to have been ignored are coming to blow up in America's face today. So it's very timely, very timely book. So I want to thank you very much Stephen Singler for coming on talking about legacy of deception. For those that might want to contact you, I don't know if you have a website or do you do Facebook? Do you do any of that?