Murder in Brentwood by Mark Fuhrman Page A

questions about the supposed incident.
    Finally, Vannatter returned to the murders, asking if Nicole had been getting any threats or was concerned about the kids’ safety. They talked about her being security conscious, and then Vannatter asked Simpson if he ever parked in the rear of the Bundy residence.
    This question obviously tipped Simpson off that there was evidence in the alley behind Bundy. Simpson explained (in his rambling fashion) how sometimes he drove up behind the house, or in front of it, depending on the circumstances.
    Vannatter went back to their relationship. Again Simpson rambled, and again the detectives kept interrupting him, asking irrelevant and distracting questions like, “How long were you together?” Then Vannatter asked, “Did you ever hit her, O.J.?”
    Simpson launched into another meandering explanation and repeated his “battered husband” argument. Everything was Nicole’s fault. She started it, he did nothing. Well, maybe he wrestled her a little. But he didn’t hit her, and never touched her again after that incident which occurred five or six years ago, although the detectives never established which incident he was referring to.
    Vannatter followed up by asking about Nicole’s birthday and whether Simpson gave her any gifts. This was a potentially interesting line of questioning, because the relationship had to have taken a dramatic turn for Simpson to become violent. She had returned a bracelet and earrings Simpson had given her. Did this signal that the relationship was over for good? Just when it seemed that they were about to establish the return of these gifts as a significant event, Tom Lange changed the subject, bringing up the last thing you ever want to mention in a criminal interrogation: the suspect’s lawyer.
    “Did Mr. Weitzman, your attorney, talk to you anything about this polygraph we brought up before? What are your thoughts on that?”
    What possessed Lange to mention Simpson’s lawyer and risk his invoking right to counsel? Why would he talk about a polygraph? Why would he change the subject just when it seemed they were getting somewhere?
    They discussed the polygraph, and Simpson eventually said that he would talk to his lawyer about it. At this point, the interrogation was effectively over, as it now could be argued that Simpson invoked his right to counsel.
    However, Lange then became accusatory, telling Simpson that he was the suspect and giving him detailed information about the investigation and the evidence against him.
    “Well, there’s blood in your house and in the driveway, and we’ve got a search warrant, and we’re going to get the blood. We found some in your house. Is that your blood that’s there?”
    Why did he ask Simpson this? Wasn’t it already established that Simpson had been bleeding? What hadn’t yet been established was when he cut himself, how, and what he did between visiting McDonald’s and the limo drive. Why didn’t either detective try to establish these crucial points?
    After previously stating that he “kind of leisurely got ready to go,” Simpson then said he was “hustling,” “rushing,” “running,” “doing my little crazy what I do, I mean, I do it everywhere.” Instead of using his own words against him, the detectives tried once more to get a firm answer when he was last at the Bundy residence. Once more, Simpson evaded them. Finally, the detectives decided they were through. Instead of interrogating him further, they started talking about bringing in the photographer, and they terminated the interview.
    The interrogation was extremely important to the entire investigation, maybe as important as the physical evidence. It should have been well planned. The detectives should have taken the time to go over Simpson’s alibi, his movements after the dance recital, the cut on his hand, the blood in his Bronco, and the glove found at his house. Any crucial statements should have been covered, over and