Free Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi Page A

reputation; that just as a wise man can say a foolish thing, a fool can say something wise.
    In effect, Ito told Goldberg not even to bother cross-examining Lee because, as Margolick said, he was essentially “unassailable.” (Oh, yes.
Newsweek
’s assessment of Dr. Lee, even after he had been discredited by William Bodziak? “The best witness money can buy.”) So in an indirect, insidious way, because the much greater part of mankind only hears the music, not the lyrics, of human events, the jury’s viewing the defense attorneys as stars, the Dream Team, the best in the legal profession (as they viewed Dr. Lee to be the best in his profession), most likely contributed to their perception of the evidence and what was taking place before their eyes.

    T he other significant influence that was not only “in the air” but “on the air” was the outlandish spectacle of the TV talking heads. This influence came into play not before but during the trial, and if it reached the jury, as it almost undoubtedly did (osmosis and conjugal visits), it could only have been harmful to the prosecution’s case. These commentators, nearly all of whom were also quoted in the print media, were always talking about the enormous problems the prosecution was having, frequently suggesting their case was falling apart. But if you look at things
objectively
, how could the DA’s case be falling apart—which means the prosecution couldn’t win, doesn’t it?—when the evidence put Simpson’s blood at the murder scene and the victims’ blood inside his car and home? Unless the defense was able to remove that blood, which it never did, objectively speaking you have the strongest case in the world. Yet the talking heads, as well as (though to a lesser degree) the print media, never looked at the case in its totality. Instead they looked at each day’s testimony and events as if they were entire trials unto themselves, and were sending out a steady stream of distress signals about the prosecution’s case. “Lots of seeds of doubt
have
been planted” was the
USA Today
headline after Cochran’s opening statement on January 26, 1995, before even one witness had been called by either side—which is like saying that unless the prosecution does something about it, the case is already a reasonable-doubt case.
    To me, the whole premise of the talking heads discussing the case throughout the day and on evening shows made no sense. Television coverage of the trial, while I was opposed to it, at least allowed anyone who was interested in the trial to watch it and see what was actually happening. And certainly, for those who wanted to watch the trial but couldn’t because of work, commentary on the evening news describing what took place that day in court is not only an established practice and custom, but it makes sense. That’s what the news is: someone telling you what happened that day in the courtroom, in Congress, in Bosnia, etc. But what conceivable purpose was there in having these silly talking heads sitting around the campfire every night chatting about the case? People didn’t need the talking heads to tell them what happened that day, because they could get that on the news. All these legal commentators did was argue with one another over their interpretation and analysis of the significance of what had taken place that day in court. However, since their interpretation and analysis were for the most part only speculation and theorizing, and because their remarks, by definition, couldn’t change what had taken place, these shows amounted to nothing but light entertainment for Simpson addicts. But needless to say, these shows were never presented as such, being offered as serious exercises.
    Moreover, the whole notion of using these particular talking heads for legal analysis on the Simpson case was ludicrous on its face. In those situations where analysts are used to discuss a newsworthy event, the analysts almost always are or have