|Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback||
Larry King Live
Can Lie Detector Tests Solve the O.J. Simpson Case?Aired June 7, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, new DNA evidence says that this convicted murderer may not have done it. Possibly, we'll know later. We'll hear from the victim's mother, Janet Roberts. Plus famed defense attorney and DNA expert Barry Scheck on the debate over death row. Then O.J. Simpson says he'll take a new lie detector test if somebody puts up $3 million. We'll hear from Simpson himself, plus his former defense attorney, F. Lee Bailey, and Fred Goldman. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Let's start with Janet Roberts in Abilene, Texas. This is all over the news this week, in "Time" magazine, "Death on Hold." In "Newsweek, " "Rethinking the Whole Question of the Death Penalty." Scheck has been a leader in this fight for a long time, with a lot of people released from prison based on DNA.
Janet Roberts is the mother of the late Stephanie Rae Flanary, a 12-year-old raped and bludgeoned to death in 1993 in Texas. There is a picture of Stephanie Rae. Robert's former husband, Ricky McGinn, a 43-year-old mechanic, was convicted of the murder in 1994. He's got a 30-day reprieve. Minutes before the scheduled execution, Governor Bush orders a stay based on new DNA technology.
Janet, what do you think of the governor ordering the stay?
JANET ROBERTS, MOTHER OF MURDER VICTIM: I don't think it should have been happened. I think he should have been put to death.
KING: And no doubt in your mind he did it?
ROBERTS: No, sir, not at all.
KING: But wouldn't it be better at least to learn completely true that the DNA definitely proves he did it. Wouldn't that make you feel better?
ROBERTS: Yes, sir, but I don't think that the new test will show anything different.
KING: So at least -- so what's 30 days difference?
ROBERTS: Thirty days that the state of Texas has to support someone that they shouldn't have to.
KING: Barry, how did you get into this case? BARRY SCHECK, DNA LEGAL EXPERT: Well, we got calls from an investigator and others that were close to the case, and really when publicity focused on it, finally we got a call from the lawyer that was involved, and when we heard the kind of evidence that existed and could be tested, we filed an affidavit with the court and pointed out that there was new technology. We could get a result where previously they couldn't get any results, and we'll find out one way or the other.
KING: There was, was there not, Barry, extraordinary evidence against this defendant?
SCHECK: Well, I can't profess to be completely knowledgeable about the entire record, but there was some evidence against him, yes, but it's clear there is semen found in the shorts that the victim was wearing and a pubic hair, and they weren't able to get DNA test results using previous technology on those two items of evidence, and the prosecution's position was that the person who committed the rape was the person who committed the murder, and we now have new technology that might be able to give us that answer.
KING: All right, Janet, would you agree with the prosecution? Would you say the person who committed the rape committed the murder?
ROBERTS: Yes, sir, I think so.
KING: So aren't you anxious to see the results of the semen test?
ROBERTS: Sure. Yes I am. I'm real anxious, but I know what the outcome will be.
KING: What was the clear evidence against your former husband at the trial?
ROBERTS: My daughter's blood all over his clothes -- on his shoes, his pants, his shirt, the blood on my car, the blood on the ax.
KING: Did he take the stand in his own defense?
ROBERTS: I'm not real sure. I wasn't allowed in the courtroom. I was a witness.
KING: Because you were a witness at the trial, you couldn't take the stand?
ROBERTS: I did. I wasn't allowed in the courtroom.
KING: You weren't allowed to hear the evidence.
Do you know, Barry, if he testified?
SCHECK: You know, I actually don't even know that. I do know that there was a car on the property and it had an ax in it which had blood from the victim, and there were two specs of blood that were found on the outside of his pants that came back to the victim, but these people did live together, and there were other explanations offered for it. The other blood was not typed as coming from the victim, and it was a very bloody scene.
KING: Janet, Governor Bush, when he was on this program, said he thought that every person on death row in Texas was correctly there, and he had never issued a reprieve ever until this one. Were you surprised?
ROBERTS: Yes, sir, in a way I was real surprised. I didn't think that he would -- he hasn't gave a reprieve before, why now?
KING: Why do you think he did?
ROBERTS: Because it's an election year, and he can't lose.
KING: Do you think it was part political, Barry, or are you saluting him tonight?
ROBERTS: I'm not going to take a side on that, I'm sorry.
SCHECK: I actually don't want to attribute any kind of political motivation. I always thought that Governor Bush was going to do this, because this has become an issue that I think all right-thinking people have come around on -- and that is whether it's on death row or whether you're in jail, if DNA tests can show that you didn't commit the crime.
The problem is that in most states, including Texas, there are these statutes of limitations -- in 33 states, it's six months or less -- that prevent you from getting an opportunity to get this test. There's a bill in Congress that has bipartisan support, introduced by Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, a Republican -- in the House it's Delahunt, Democrat from Massachusetts, LaHood, a Republican of Illinois -- that says that every state would be required if they're going to be part of the DNA databank system to give an opportunity for people to prove innocence with DNA. Only two states have it, Larry: Illinois and New York. Illinois has 14 post- conviction exonerations, New York seven, the two highest in the country. It's not a coincidence.
KING: By the way, Governor Bush's power is only to reprieve for 30 days, right, or full pardon, which he's obviously not going to do?
KING: So what if it takes longer than 30 days?
SCHECK: It will, and there was a meeting in court. I think Ms. Roberts might have been there today. We were able to work out an arrangement with the district attorney, a cooperative that the judge approved today, and we have a schedule of tests, tests on the semen, tests on the pubic hair, two different labs. Each will get about 30 days to do it. There will be a protective order guarding the results until it's known to everybody, so it would take about two months I think.
KING: Janet, were you there at that hearing today?
ROBERTS: Oh, yes, sir, always.
KING: And so it's going to take two months. Does that bother you even more?
ROBERTS: Yes, it does. Why should we support a guilty man?
KING: We'll take a break and come back with more. Barry Scheck's new book, by the way, "Actual Innocence." He's going to be on in a couple of weeks to discuss that book, writing about a lot of cases similar to this one in this country. Back with more, and then F. lee Bailey.
Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Governor Bush says that he does not believe while he's been in office any innocent man has ever been put to death.
RICKY MCGINN, CONVICTED MURDERER: That's wrong. That's wrong. That's dead wrong.
MCGINN: If they executed me tomorrow, there's going to be another one. There's not everybody on death row guilty. There's not everybody in all these Texas prisons guilty, not everybody. There is innocent people out here. Why not? Why is the Texas courts afraid to be proved wrong? They think they are so high and mighty that they can't be wrong?
QUESTION: Do you think you are caught between a presidential race, politics? Do you think you're caught between politics here?
MCGINN: Sometimes I wonder about that. Why they would sell a man's life just to get to be put into office. That's pretty sorry if you ask me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have recommended, and Senator Ellis has accepted my recommendation, to grant a 30-day reprieve in the case of Ricky McGinn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Barry Scheck, I know you are in on this, late, though, but did you get a chance to talk to your client?
SCHECK: You know, I haven't directly talked to him. My co- counsel, Morrie Levin (ph), spoke to him at length today, and we kind of passed on information back and forth.
KING: Are you bothered at all by all the blood at the scene -- blood on the hammer found in the truck, blood on his clothes? I mean, doesn't that tell you that something is wrong here?
SCHECK: Well, actually, I think that Ms. Flannery went missing for a few days. There was a car that was abandoned on the property that the ax was found in. I mean, there are explanations for this, but you know, it's all really besides the point. We have a test that can tell us one way or the other. Let's find out.
You know, there are other cases, Larry. For example, on Wednesday of last week, Governor Gilmore of Virginia, in response perhaps to Governor Bush -- I don't know -- finally allowed DNA tests in the case of a man named Earl Washington who is on death row in Virginia. We had the same problem. There's a 21-day rule, we couldn't get tests there. But there have already been some preliminary tests in Earl Washington's case, and I have a high degree of confidence that Earl Washington, we're going to get results that'll demonstrate he's innocent, and he'll be the 88th person sentenced to death in this country that will be taken off death row on the grounds of innocence, unless something else happens before then. So this is a big movement.
KING: These are 87 people who, without DNA, would be dead or on the way to being dead?
SCHECK: Well, actually, these are 87 people who were sentenced to death, and then with new evidence of innocence, they were taken off death row. Actually only eight of them through DNA, although DNA has been able to exonerate in North America just in a few years now 70 new people. Not all were on death row, obviously, but quite a number of them were in jail, sentenced forever.
I mean, the other thing that Governor Bush did last week that was overlooked that's very relevant to this is that he gave a pardon to a man named A.B. Butler. A.B. Butler did close to 17 years in jail for a crime he didn't comment. DNA proved he was innocent. But, Larry, he spent seven years -- seven years trying to get a test that would prove he was innocent -- and he couldn't do it because he had no place to go.
KING: Janet, how do you know that Ricky did it?
ROBERTS: By the evidence against him. There are 170 pieces of evidence against him proving he did this, two that they want retested. Two out of 170 do not prove anything except that he did it.
KING: Did you suspect him right away?
ROBERTS: No, sir, not at first, I didn't. I think that's called denial, or shock.
KING: Were you still living with him at the time?
ROBERTS: I was out of town, and my daughter had stayed home with him.
KING: But you were still a couple, you were still a couple.
ROBERTS: Oh, yes, yes.
KING: And what did he say to you when we learned of her tragic death? What did Ricky say to you?
ROBERTS: I've talked to him I think twice since this happened. The first time called me when I was in Arlington and told me that my daughter ran away. My daughter is not the kind of child that would run away, and they told me to stay where I was, that I didn't need to come in -- he did not tell me to stay where I was; the law officials told me to stay where I was, that I was better off where I was, versus coming home. The next day when I got home, he was already in jail.
KING: And so you have no doubt? The only thing to ask you is, what if the semen turns out not to be his?
ROBERTS: It won't. Sorry, it won't.
KING: And, Barry, you would be satisfied then, too, would you not, if it turns out to be his?
SCHECK: Well, I mean, the evidence would speak for itself. He'd have no new grounds of innocence. You know, that's a separate and distinct from the issue of the death penalty.
But, look, Governor Bush made the right call here. The only issue is, why can't all people in this position, particularly those still in jail, get this chance?
KING: When will we have the answer, Barry? When will we know the DNA results?
ROBERTS: Two months.
SCHECK: I think in about two months.
KING: Janet, do you know? Two months they told you?
ROBERTS: We should know something by August the 15th.
KING: Thank you both very much, Barry Scheck and Janet Roberts, Janet in Abilene, Barry Scheck in New York City.
ROBERTS: Hi, everybody.
KING: When we come back, F. Lee Bailey. We'll talk about the lie detector. O.J. Simpson and other things as well.
Don't go away.
KING: Joining us now from West Palm Beach, Florida is famed criminal defense attorney F. Lee Bailey. He was the attorney for O.J. Simpson and handled many, many other famous cases in this country. He's as well known as there is in the field.
Lee, there has been much made this week over O.J. taking a lie detector test. Did he take a lie detector? Was it stopped? And as I remember, you're being on the program sometime back saying you did stop a lie detector test that was being -- I seem to remember that. So give us tonight, the full story, did he? Didn't he? What happened?
F. LEE BAILEY, FORMER SIMPSON DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I'll give you exactly the story I testified to, which many in the media sought to totally misrepresent. I said that I was brought into the O.J. case officially when Robert Shapiro called me, said I'm in the middle of a lie detector test with O.J. I don't know what's happening here. Why don't you talk to the examiner? Whom I knew. You don't test a guy 48 hours after what we call an exoricide (ph), that is the killing of a spouse. It just doesn't work, and I shut the test down. O.J. wanted to continue, but that was the end of it. We almost tested him again in the civil case, but Judge Fujisaki, having let it in to begin with, changed his mind, and threw it out, and said I don't want to hear about it again.
But it's still out there, still can be done, and I hope that it will be done, because like DNA, anybody who wants to take a polygraph test should have that opportunity before they're condemned.
KING: We did a tape with Alan Dershowitz last night. It's going to play next week. He doesn't like the lie detector test. He would never have it as evidence in court. He doesn't trust it. He thinks it's really up in the air. You don't?
BAILEY: Well, I've been at it for better than 45 years. I've been an expert witness in more than a dozen cases. I know it like the back of my hand. I can read the charts, and it's something that Alan Dershowitz doesn't know about. Between Alan and I, we know everything, but this is one of the things I know. So Alan can distrust it all he want, but if Alan were charged with a murder he didn't commit and I told him to take a polygraph, I bet he'd do it.
KING: OK. You stopped the polygraph, you said, because it was two days after the incident. Why would that make a difference in telling the truth or lying?
BAILEY: Because the emotions are in such a terrible state that you can't calm down enough to permit the examiner to differentiate between one question and another. For instance, O.J. was reacting to his daughter's name, his mother's name. I think he would have reacted to the name Larry King. He simply was not in a testable condition and it shouldn't have been attempted.
Now, Shapiro's motive was he was under the gun. He wanted to get that the test into the hands of the prosecutor before O.J. got arrested. But he simply should not have attempted it at that time. And if had called me before instead of in the middle of the test, it wouldn't have happened. He would have been tested later that week. KING: Did you...
BAILEY: And he should have been tested not on Nicole but on Ron Goldman, because whoever killed Ron killed the other.
KING: Oh, so, and Ron Goldman, he would have had -- wouldn't have had the same emotion.
BAILEY: Well, he hardly knew Ron Goldman, and I think he would have done much -- a clearer chart on that, but who knows.
KING: Did you look at how he was doing? Did you look at the test?
BAILEY: I am the only person that I know who is qualified to read polygraph charts that looked at those charts, other than the examiner, whose name was Dennis Neleni (ph) and used to work on the lie detector show with me and Ed Gelb. And I thought the charts were totally unreadable for any purposes of detecting deception. They were just wild.
KING: So they would have been called what had they been...
BAILEY: Well, they would have been called inconclusive by any examiner who took a look at them, and I appreciated the circumstances.
KING: All right. Now, you're telling us -- we're going to take a break -- that O.J. is willing to take a lie detector test.
By the way, does it matter when a lie detector test is taken? Could you give a lie detector test 10 years after a crime?
BAILEY: Larry, we gave a lie detector test 36 years after the crime, and it came out very nicely. The man was lying and admitted it.
KING: All right, we're going -- we're going to take a break, and when we come back, we'll ask you how he proposes to do this.
During his deposition for the civil trial, O.J. was asked about a lie detector test by plaintiff's attorney Daniel Petrocelli.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, JANUARY 25, 1998)
DANIEL PETROCELLI, ATTORNEY FOR GOLDMAN FAMILY: Did you do one?
SIMPSON: We offered one.
PETROCELLI: Excuse me?
SIMPSON: We offered it to the prosecution, yes.
PETROCELLI: To whom?
SIMPSON: To the prosecution office. I guess Marcia Clark, Gil Garcetti. PETROCELLI: You personally did or your lawyers.
SIMPSON: My lawyer did.
PETROCELLI: When did they do that?
SIMPSON: Oh, I would imagine a day or so after that Monday, but that week I'm sure it was.
PETROCELLI: And what did they say?
SIMPSON: They declined.
PETROCELLI: But you -- you didn't take a test on the 13th, correct?
PETROCELLI: And you didn't want to then, correct?
SIMPSON: Well, I had to talk to my lawyers about it. I was -- and then they didn't want me to either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: OK. I'm told that you, F. Lee Bailey, will announce tonight that O.J. is willing to take a new lie detector test. What are the circumstances?
BAILEY: All right. Here's the deal. For anyone who will put up a line of credit of $3 million, O.J. will take a test where we pick an examiner, that party picks an examiner, and they agree on an examiner to run the test. There will be collaboration in question formulation and the other important ingredients of the test.
If he passes the test, the 3 million goes into a trust fund as reward money for anyone that can come forward and say who did these killings. And it would be paid out in increments by some retired judge that will be selected by the parties. If he flunks the test, the letter of credit is dissolved.
We need to get enough money out there to bring somebody forward, because that's the only way this case is going to break.
KING: And will that test be publicly seen?
BAILEY: It will be publicly seen win, lose or draw. It could come out inconclusive, but I doubt that that will happen. Good examiners -- and only good examiners will be candidates here -- don't get many inconclusive results. As a matter of fact, I took a test myself a couple of weeks ago.
KING: If it's inconclusive, does the party get the 3 million back? BAILEY: It's called a draw. Yes, he gets it back. O.J. has got to get a positive result.
KING: Now, who would be inclined to put this up, do you think?
BAILEY: Oh, I think there are people out there that would consider it to be a valuable asset in a way. I mean, what have they got to lose? They're not paying O.J. the money. They're not -- this is not checkbook journalism.
But the public needs to know -- just as if DNA could solve this case, which it did not -- the polygraph has never been reached for. And O.J. is dead right. We offered the prosecution a polygraph test. They could have participated. They said, well, we'd like to have it, but we would never agree to let it in evidence. And that's the kind of people they were.
KING: So if O.J. took this test, took this test and passed it, the $3 million then goes -- none goes to him?
KING: It goes into a trust fund that's used to find the perpetrator of the crimes.
BAILEY: It is reward money in the classic sense that reward money has been posted over and over again, and as you may recall, in the death, I think, it was of Bill Cosby's son, that reward money found the killer.
KING: Will that -- when you -- will be made public. Will -- can a lie detector test be telecast live?
BAILEY: No, not while it's being done, although we did that for, I think, 120 tests. Ed Gelb, who recently passed the Ramseys and myself, in 1983. Most it must be done -- and there are three charts run, because the last two are confirmatory. We ran two charts, then brought the party on the air, ran the third one on the air, and we had very good results.
But normally, you must videotape any polygraph. That is now part of the American Polygraph Association code of ethics. I agree with that. So the video is there for posterity.
KING: And what about the stories that O.J. wanted to do a pay- per-view showing the lie detector test? Is that true?
BAILEY: Well, that's another way simply to raise a fund. O.J. is not trying to make O.J. rich. He's trying to get enough money out there, which he doesn't have and I don't have -- or frankly, I'd be inclined to put it up -- to smoke out someone. There's got to be more than one person who knows what happened and who was there, because I remain convinced, as I always have been, that he was not.
KING: You remain firm, right? You have you never doubted this, have you, since your first day on? When you're the lawyer, you can't say you doubt it. But as I know, you have never doubted his innocence?
BAILEY: Larry, let me tell you something. I'll defend a client. I'll defend a client to the best of my ability. If he did it, I'll still defend him. But I will not, after the trial is over, particularly after he's been acquitted, pick up the banner and carry it unless I totally, completely and sincerely believe that he is innocent. And I know enough about this case, perhaps more than any other living human being, to be satisfied to my dying day that he didn't do it, and to hope that some day he'll be cleared.
KING: Someone wants to put this up, they contact you in West Palm Beach?
BAILEY: They can contact anybody in the world. I'm sure the word will filter back to me. We can sit down at the table and draw up a contract, because that's what it's going to be.
KING: As we go to break, here's what the Ramseys had to say. They were on our show last week with a detective who thought that Mrs. Ramsey was the perpetrator of that crime -- what they had to say about a lie detector test. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: We went to the best polygrapher in the country, had the results quality controlled by the person who invented the polygraph system.
KING: And he was going to release those results no matter what, right? That was a given understanding, that it would be made public no matter what they found.
J. RAMSEY: That is the condition we agreed to.
KING: Steve, did that appeal to you?
STEVE THOMAS, FORMER BOULDER POLICE DETECTIVE: Well, it certainly didn't satisfy the Boulder Police Department. They are putting little stock in this polygraph, and quite frankly, it took Patsy, if I'm not mistaken -- and I don't think I am -- three tries to pass a polygraph.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: By the way, to your knowledge, we've received -- AP is reporting -- F. Lee Bailey is our guest -- that O.J. plans to talk directly to the public on the Internet in a question-and-answer on a new Web site. Is that true?
BAILEY: I have heard that. Originally, it was something confidential, but I understand that he described it to Linda Deutch of AP, who's probably the best reporter alive in this country. And if that's so, I can only say that I've heard about it; I'm not a participant.
KING: Some other -- some other areas, Lee. How are you doing with your own case? They're trying to disbar you.
BAILEY: Well, this is really a rehash of the case that occurred in 1996 that caused me to go to jail, caused me to give up close to $20 million, and caused me to sue the government to get it back, which case is planned for trial this fall.
The bar has brought a prosecution. They tried once before. They were rejected seven to nothing by the Florida Supreme Court on an emergency basis, and now, four years later, on the same evidence, they are coming after me again.
However, they took a belly blow the last day of the trial, because, lo and behold, the government finally disgorged 80 pages of notes, and if you look at the notes, it corroborates almost everything I've ever said about the case and puts the lie to almost everything the government lawyers and witnesses have said. So I'm optimistic.
KING: I know you are a very self-confident person. Where in this area did you, if at all, make a mistake?
BAILEY: I made a very big mistake. I trusted employees of the federal government, who did not want many documents in this case, and operated on a handshake. And I would tell every lawyer in the country don't ever do that, because these people, although some of them are wonderful lawyers, cannot be trusted in these matters. Put it in writing and eliminate any possibility of mistake.
KING: Do you trust the FBI?
BAILEY: I think the FBI is one of the finest law enforcement organizations in the world. I have many friends that are FBI agents. But I am also privy to litigation in Boston that shows that they have lied to cover for murderers, committed perjury and so forth, and it's always a rotten apple that makes the stink. The barrel may be full of good ones. And basically I trust the FBI and I like them. But I want it in writing.
KING: You mentioned Mr. Gelb. He did the lie detector of the Ramseys. The Ramseys' lawyer will not let them have an FBI polygrapher do it.
BAILEY: Nor would I.
KING: Would you let -- nor would you?
BAILEY: Retired FBI agent, I had one of them test me. A present employee of any governmental agency, no way! And...
KING: Why would the FBI -- why would the FBI care whether the Ramseys did it or not? They'd do an honest polygraph, wouldn't they? And they'd give you the results. Why would they care?
BAILEY: No. I know exactly what they do. They come up inconclusive, No. 1. And No. 2, they would say, well, this is not evidence in a courtroom, it's only an investigative tool. That's a slogan that the Justice Department has put on them for years, and that's why I won't put any stock in an agent who is still working for the government.
If you are ex-FBI and you are good, they are very good. But -- and I'm very sympathetic to the Ramseys. Ed Gelb is as good an examiner as you can get anywhere. And Cleve Backster, for whom I used to teach in the '60s, is the guru of polygraph -- one of the deans. He did not invent the polygraph, but he did design the Backster control question technique, called the zone technique. And it is the standard throughout the industry now. And he is still the guru. And when he says Ed Gelb's charts are right -- and I look at them and I see a very positive result -- the chief of police of Boulder is just full of beans.
They blew the case, and they don't want to recognize the fact that the Ramseys didn't do it.
KING: By the way, we will take some calls for F. Lee Bailey in a moment, and then later we'll meet Fred Goldman.
You saw the first part of the show, I presume. What do you make of DNA and death row?
BAILEY: Well, I'm a big fan of Barry Scheck, because I worked with him in the trial. I met Barry Scheck when I think he was 17 years old, an editor of his school newspaper, and I was trying a murder in New Jersey. He's sharp. He knows his business, and he's dead right about one thing: Nobody should ever be executed or held in prison if they want DNA evidence and they haven't been allowed it.
I say the same about the polygraph for the good examiner. And you know, we offered to test a whole bunch of them during the lie detector show, and we did test a bunch in prison. They all flunked but one, and everybody knew he was innocent.
KING: The lie detector is to you conclusive, why?
BAILEY: It's not conclusive. It is a very, very valuable piece of evidence in cases where the issue is clear and distinct. You can't test state of mind, you can't test motive, you can't test any of that. But if two people say, "Lee Bailey shot Larry King," and the next guy says, "No, Barry Scheck shot Larry King," and they both claim they saw it, only one of them will pass that test.
KING: And of that you have no doubt?
BAILEY: After 45 years, Larry, I bet my life, my client's, and recently my own on the polygraph test. Interestingly enough, I took one. My only witness took one. Two government prosecutors refused, and the witness they recruited to testify against me refused, even though he uses it in his practice.
Now, what does that add up to?
KING: Can you beat it?
BAILEY: You probably can. The only person that we think that might beat a lie detector test is one who is insane but so overtly insane that he would never get a test. After 45 years, I don't know how to beat it and I don't know any examiner who knows how to beat it.
You might confuse it, but you are not going to beat it.
KING: All right. Just recapping, F. Lee Bailey tonight is announcing that O.J. is willing to take a new lie detector test. The condition is someone puts up $3 million. The money goes in escrow. A contract is signed.
If O.J. passes the test, that money goes into a rewards system and an investigative system to find the real killers. If he fails the test or it's inconclusive, the money will be returned to whomever put up the money and O.J. would get nothing. Have I recapped you correctly?
BAILEY: You are on the money.
KING: We'll be right back, take some calls for F. Lee Bailey, then get the thoughts of Fred Goldman. I'm Larry King. Don't go away.
KING: We're back. We'll take some calls for F. Lee Bailey. Ottawa, Canada, hello.
CALLER: Hello, Larry.
CALLER: Yes, a question for Mr. Bailey.
CALLER: Concerning the lie detector test that Mark Fuhrman originally took, and apparently F. Lee Bailey was on a little while after that and he kind of pooh-poohed it -- he didn't think Mark Fuhrman passed the test -- he made a challenge to Fuhrman to take a test with Mr. Gelb. I don't know. I understand that he did take the test and he did pass, and Mr. Bailey said on your show that if Mark Fuhrman took the test with Mr. Gelb and if he passed, he would get that apology, that he didn't plant the glove.
Is Mr. Bailey aware of the result?
BAILEY: No. Mark Fuhrman -- Mark Fuhrman did not take a test with Mr. Gelb. He took it from Paul Miner (ph). Paul Miner would not let anyone look at the charts, but they showed up briefly on TV. I had arranged for three distinguished examiners to look at them, and they all agreed with me. Mark Fuhrman flunked question 15 in a test that didn't follow any of the rules. Indeed, Paul Miner admitted he let Mark Fuhrman write out the questions. That is never done.
So, that test was a fraud, and Mark Fuhrman didn't pass it.
KING: What was question...
BAILEY: He has not taken another test.
KING: What was question 15?
BAILEY: Question 15 was: "Did you plant the glove at O.J.'s residence?"
KING: All questions on a polygraph are answered "yes" or "no," right?
BAILEY: Yes, and sometimes the answer, "yes" or "no," isn't important because the stimulus is the question, and that's what causes the reaction. But examiners require that you say "yes" or "no" and no more.
KING: But you don't even have to say anything. You will have a reaction.
BAILEY: In all probability, you will.
KING: Fountain Valley, California, hello?
CALLER: Hi, my question is a two-part question. Are you still O.J. Simpson's lawyer in any capacity whatsoever?
BAILEY: Well, we don't have a lawsuit pending at the moment, but I count myself among his close friends, best supporters, and when I spoke to him today, he reiterated that he felt the same way.
KING: And the follow-up, Ma'am?
CALLER: I asked you -- that's not what I asked you. What I asked you is...
BAILEY: Am I still his lawyer?
CALLER: ... are you still his lawyer in any capacity whatsoever?
BAILEY: Well, I would have to say yes, if he wants me to do something, I'd be glad to do it. I've never been fired.
CALLER: OK, great. Then the second part of my question is then why are you sitting on TV breaching the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege by talking about the results of a lie detector test that he thinks he didn't even take.
BAILEY: Because apparently you don't know much about that privilege, but he authorized me to do it long ago. I've done it on the LARRY KING SHOW, and you need to go to law school and stop giving legal opinions. Clear?
KING: All right. Explain the privilege, Lee.
BAILEY: The privilege exists between attorney and client. The attorney may not disclose anything he learns from the client or in the confidence of that relationship without the client's authorization.
The disclosures about what really happened in the attempted polygraph test of O.J. Simpson, legion -- legendary (ph), have been published everywhere, and apparently this young lady is hoping to go to law school, but hasn't gotten there yet.
KING: Would you agree, Lee, that if no one else is ever found, every -- O.J. Simpson's going to go to his grave with 95 percent of the public believing he did it?
BAILEY: Tragically, yes. And that will be another of the black marks, I think, on the press. They did it to Sam Sheppard. He was able to throw off a good part of that by getting DNA, very frankly, to exonerate him. And even though he did not win the civil trial, which is a whole different scene, he pretty much proved that he didn't do it.
Now, if O.J. gets that opportunity, I'll be gratified. I'm sure he will, his children will, and his family will. And we're going to do the best we can to cause it to happen. But this is a lousy system in many respects.
When you get 13 people on death row in one state by mistake, you have a lousy system.
KING: What about the civil suit which O.J. lost? That had no impact on you?
BAILEY: It had a big impact on me. I listened very carefully as the jurors talked about what they had discussed during the deliberations, and not one of them ever mentioned any of the items of defense that were so cardinal to the criminal jury. In my view, O.J. Simpson was hung in Santa Monica before he got to trial, and no juror would have dared to go home after voting in his favor.
KING: Victoria, British Columbia for F. Lee Bailey. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. I have a question for Mr. Bailey.
CALLER: I think the same drug dealers that killed Nicole and Ron probably botched JonBenet's kidnapping and resulted in her death. What do you think of that theory, Mr. Bailey?
BAILEY: Well, I'm fairly close to JonBenet's situation, because I know Dr. Henry Lee, Barry Scheck, both hired by the prosecution, and Dr. Cyril Wecht, a lawyer and pathologist who has written a book about it.
The problem is no one can say this was a homicide. Dr. Lee says it could have been an accident. Dr. Wecht says it certainly wasn't intentional no matter what it was. And the Ramseys have been hung on the same petard that hung Sam Sheppard for a while and is hanging O.J. Simpson. If you can't prove somebody else did it, you're the one that we have to target. And that's the -- they've been victimized in that respect.
It is so clear to me they didn't, couldn't have, and wouldn't have killed their daughter just as O.J. would never have killed Nicole. That -- it's infuriating when I hear everybody who doesn't know anything about the case with these very strong opinions. I wonder why they didn't show up and help the police.
KING: Thanks, Lee. Always good seeing you.
BAILEY: Good night.
KING: F. Lee Bailey with an announcement tonight of O.J.'s willingness, under the conditions we've explained, to take a lie detector test.
Fred Goldman. He's in Phoenix. He's the father of the late Ron Goldman, and he's next. Don't go away.
KING: Next Monday is the 12th -- is the sixth anniversary of this tragedy, the Simpson-Goldman murders. And by the way, in that connection, Monday night, Chris Darden and Johnnie Cochran will be on together on this program Monday evening for the full hour.
We now welcome from Phoenix, Arizona Fred Goldman.
What do you make of what F. Lee Bailey had to say and that offer tonight of a lie detector test?
FRED GOLDMAN, RON GOLDMAN'S FATHER: Well, I will tell you, F. Lee Bailey on the life-form chart is one step above his double- murdering client, the killer. He is about the most arrogant individual I think I've heard in a long time. He talks out of two sides of his mouth.
His own client says he never took a test. But then Bailey says that Shapiro called him because the killer was taking a test, and Bailey told him to stop the test, which wasn't a test because it was going to be inconclusive because he was too emotional.
I mean, give me a break. There is no -- there's no way that this guy, this murdering scum client of his is ever going to pass a lie detector test.
You notice the little -- little innuendoes and the little comments he made. The conditions that would be on a test that would be done. You can imagine what the conditions would be. OK? We don't ask him any questions about this, and we don't ask him any questions about that.
The bottom line is he was found responsible for Nicole and Ron's murder in a civil trial, and for Bailey to say that that jury didn't hear any of the evidence, I mean he has to be living in a dream world somewhere.
KING: Are -- back to the lie detector. He did say, obviously, he would be asked questions about the murder, Fred. I mean, he's not going to sit there and answer questions about football on the lie detector test.
GOLDMAN: But I think you would agree -- I think you would agree, his comment about "under certain conditions, we'd have to set the conditions" -- there'd be two different people administering the lie detector test. One would be of their choosing and then it would be somebody else. All they -- all they're going to do, if they ever do this -- and I hope to God they don't, that nobody is dumb enough to give money to have this murderer on TV so he can smile at the world and claim he's innocent again.
KING: So you would discount it, hope it doesn't happen, and don't want it to happen?
GOLDMAN: Oh, absolutely. He is guilty as sin. He murdered two people. Every piece of evidence pointed to him, and no one else. Ninety-five percent of the world, as you said a second ago, believes his client's a double murderer, and 95 percent of them -- the world are correct.
KING: Fred, when did you first think it?
GOLDMAN: Did I think that he was guilty?
GOLDMAN: I think somewhere into the trial when the -- perhaps when the DNA evidence started coming in. Everything pointed to him. Everything pointed to him. It was his size-12 shoe, his blood at the scene, Nicole and Ron's blood in his car, Nicole's blood on his socks and his shoes, in his house. My God, are we all going to be convinced by Bailey, who's a guy who's been in jail for bad behavior, who Florida wants to disbar right now, and is part of the scheme team. I mean, my God, which liar are we going to believe? His client or him?
KING: We'll be back with more of Fred Goldman, the father of the late Ron Goldman. Again, that happened six years Monday.
We'll be right back. Don't go away.
KING: Fred, a lot of people got to know you very well. How are you doing?
GOLDMAN: We're doing fine, Larry, and thank you for asking.
I need to make one other additional comment. I find it additionally insulting that just days before, six years since Ron and Nicole were murdered, that here's the opportunity for the killer to get his -- another moment in the sun, so to speak. Obviously, he is disturbed by the death of his ex-wife, and he wouldn't want to insult that for the sake of his kids or anything, so he picks this time to have a showing in the world. You know, it's ludicrous.
KING: But his life can't be much, can it, Fred? With ninety- five percent of the people walking around thinking you did it, it can't be the happiest of existences?
GOLDMAN: Larry, you're 100 percent right. But he's walking free. This is six years longer than Ron and Nicole had to live. He's walking free, laughing at the world and playing golf. Murderers don't belong on a golf course; they belong in death row.
KING: Now, you're the kind who would certainly favor DNA evidence. You don't want to see anyone on death row who doesn't commit it. You think people should be let out if they didn't do something. You are certainly not of the wacko element that is in favor of executions, even if they didn't do it?
GOLDMAN: Absolutely, I would agree. I think that if someone has been wrongfully accused, if someone is wrongfully in jail, on death row, and there is in fact real evidence to prove that they didn't commit it, then they ought to have that opportunity. The sad reality is, -- not the sad reality, the reality is vast majority of people sitting on death row are in fact guilty, and by Scheck's acknowledgment, I think he said seven or eight, you know, are off of death row because of DNA.
KING: Topeka, Kansas for Fred Goldman, hello?
CALLER: Hi, Larry King. I have a question for Fred Goldman.
I was curious how much of the money has he recovered from O.J. Simpson, and does he still keep contact with the Browns?
GOLDMAN: I'll answer the last part first. I haven't talked to the Browns in a while. I spoke to Denise for a few moments some many months ago. In terms of the money, there has never been a dime that the killer has taken care of in terms of the judgment. There was a small amount of money that came to the two families through the sale of the killer's property that was taken by the judge.
KING: So, in other words, the income that he gets, you don't get a piece of?
GOLDMAN: He's got something to the tune of $4 million in pension fund, which is judgment proof and it's not hard to figure out if he only makes 10 percent interest on it, he can live very nicely on $400,000 a year.
KING: So you don't expect anything else to come your way?
GOLDMAN: Well, the answer is probably not. But you know, it's surprising, Bailey said that the killer didn't want any of the money, but the killer said that he would donate part of it to charity, and obviously, the other part he would take. But the stories keep changing.
KING: Why don't you say his name?
GOLDMAN: The thought -- first of all, the thought of him walking free is disturbing enough. I can't utter his name. He makes me sick. Visually he makes me sick. And to spend a second of my time saying his name is that much more disturbing.
KING: We first met about five years and eight months ago.
KING: And you and I, we had lunch.
GOLDMAN: We did,
KING: And you told me at that time, no matter how long you lived, no matter what happens, Ron will never be out of your thoughts. Does that remain true?
GOLDMAN: Absolutely. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about my son, that I'm not reminded of the joys that he -- that were taken from him, the future that he had that he could have shared with the rest of us. Ron would be 31 now. He might be married, might have a child, with a wonderful future, and with all of his family to be able to share his life. And that was taken away by Bailey's client six years ago.
KING: Thanks, Fred.
GOLDMAN: Thank you, Larry.
KING: Thanks for being with us.
Fred Goldman from Phoenix, Arizona.
Stay tuned now for CNN "NEWSSTAND." They're going to look at the Microsoft decision made by the judge today. Tomorrow night, Leeza Gibbons is going to host this program, and she's going to have five terrific actresses on, all of whom over the age of 50. Aging in Hollywood is the topic.
Thanks for joining us. I'm Larry King. For all of our guest, good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|Back to the top||
© 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.|
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.