Skip to main content
U.S. Edition
Search
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

Return to Transcripts main page

NANCY GRACE

Excerpts from O.J. book "If I Did It" Published

Aired January 15, 2007 - 20:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, GUEST HOST: Tonight: He just can`t stay out of the headlines. New disturbing details emerge from O.J. Simpson`s alleged tell-all confession on how to commit murder. "If I Did It," the controversial book shelved after a public outcry, is reported to contain accurate accounts from O.J. himself on the gruesome slashings of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ron Goldman. And just when you thought it couldn`t get any more tasteless, Simpson is now reportedly planning to write another book about his life with Nicole. We will have reaction.
And tonight, miracle in Missouri, two young boys who vanish into thin air found alive, one of them four years after his disappearance, 13-year- old Ben Ownby and 15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck found safe inside the apartment of a 41-year-old pizza shop manager in Kirkwood, Missouri. Tonight, the latest on the investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRED GOLDMAN, RON GOLDMAN`S FATHER: We`re going to be an albatross around his neck for the rest of his life. He`s never been punished for a single act of violence in his whole life. He`s never himself paid one single penny toward this judgment. Never. He`s flat-out admitted that he did it for money, and received the money.

O.J. SIMPSON: Stop being so naive! Of course I got paid. I spent the money on my bills. It`s gone.

Goldmans and them, they`ve got to stop being professional -- professional victims.

GOLDMAN: Whatever he does, we`re going to be looking over his shoulder and trying to make certain that one way or the other, he gets punished.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, in for Nancy Grace. We begin with the tragic saga that just keeps getting more and more bizarre, as O.J. Simpson returns to the scene of the crime, at least on paper. We`re talking about double murders that happened more than a dozen years ago. But just hours ago, the bombshell announcement that Simpson plans to write another -- yes, another -- book about his life with his murdered ex- wife.

This comes on the heels of stunning new details being published by "Newsweek" about Simpson`s first book, called "If I Did It," which was so grotesque, it was actually canceled. "Newsweek" says it got ahold of a key chapter in which Simpson details Nicole and Ron`s murder, all the while insisting it`s hypothetical.

For the very latest on these astounding developments, let`s go straight out to my colleague and good friend, investigative reporter Pat Lalama. Pat, what does Simpson say happened that night, and of course, hypothetically?

PAT LALAMA, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Oh, Janie, of course, it`s hypothetical. Here we go. Here`s the story. As you know, "Newsweek" was able to get this particular chapter of the -- you know, "on that given night" business. There are so many similarities, it`s quite eerie. He talks about being very angry at Nicole, which he was, in fact, that night, according to testimony, because, basically, at this point, Nicole was done with him.

And when her daughter had a recital that night, she had closed the door on him, which is something he just was not accustomed to. He wasn`t allowed to sit with the family at the recital and he wasn`t allowed to go to the restaurant afterwards. And so he was just beside himself. That is there in that chapter. Then he`s so outraged, he goes to her house.

Now, the one difference is, he says he comes in through a gate in the back that was unlatched or broken, and when, in fact, the testimony was that it was the front of the house. He says he confronts her, that she`s coming at him like a "banshee," which we, of course, have not heard in the past, angry at him. And then he sees Ron, who believes she -- he believes she`s going to have an affair with Ron. Ron does a karate kind of action at him.

And then -- now, this is where it gets interesting. Then next thing he knows, he doesn`t know how it happened, but he`s got blood all over him. And he tells the, quote, "ghost writer" that the reason he would only do it that way is because he didn`t want his children to have to read anything gruesome.

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Doesn`t that imply that he kind of went into some sort of blackout? There`s sort of an implication that he kind of just comes out of this daze and the murder`s been committed.

LALAMA: Wouldn`t you say -- I`ll throw back a rhetorical question. Wouldn`t you say that`s a convenient way not to have to go to -- I mean, it`s too late for them to be incriminating now, in terms of the law...

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I agree with you, Pat.

LALAMA: ... blacks out, and then, Oh, all of a sudden, I`ve got blood on me. Gee, I wonder where that comes from? And that`s how the story goes in the chapter.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, you`re absolutely right, Pat. And not only that, you can`t have it both ways. You can`t say, Well, I don`t want to go into details because I don`t want to offend my kids, but, oh, actually, I went into a blackout and I don`t remember the details.

LALAMA: Well, how about -- how about, Jane, if he`s worried about offending his kids, they happened to be there the night this true story did happen. So how about that one?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You are absolutely right, they were there in that condominium in Brentwood, on Bundy.

We`re going to go to Jonathan Polak, Fred Goldman`s attorney. But first, let`s hear from Fred Goldman himself, the father of murder victim Ron Goldman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOLDMAN: He`s flat-out admitted that he did it for money and received the money. First he said that he did it for the sake of his children. And then later, in that same interview, he said that he used it to pay bills and pay off tax obligations. So there`s no question he received the money.

We`re fairly certain that he was to be paid in total about $1.1 million and that he received about $880,000.

He set up a shell corporation to receive the money and then ultimately to funnel it to himself. So there`s no question there was a fraudulent conveyance of money so that he could avoid the judgment. Now, who else was involved in that fraudulent conveyance? We`ll find out. But the bottom line is, we certainly know he was and this shell company were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let us go to Jonathan Polak, the attorney for Fred Goldman. Thank you for joining us, sir. I`ve got to ask you about the reaction to the publication of this, the most tasteless aspect of a very tasteless, ghoulish book. Obviously, there was an uproar when this book, "If I Did It," came out, to the point where Fox affiliates revolted. It was ultimately yanked. The publisher was fired. And yet now, sort of the worst part of it comes out in a very reputable magazine.

What is Mr. Goldman`s reaction to that and to the stunning news that O.J. Simpson now, reportedly, according to ABC News, plans yet another book about his life with Nicole?

JONATHAN POLAK, GOLDMAN FAMILY ATTORNEY: It`s deja vu all over again, Jane. I -- I -- how do you explain someone who really is unexplainable? This is a guy who continues to thumb his nose at the law, at the courts, certainly continues to thumb his nose at the Goldman family and the tragedies that they`ve had to endure. This is just yet one more of another series of outrages that we`ve all had to endure in a very public way.

And we wish it would stop, but as long as the media, as long as others out there continue to want to throw money at this guy, we`re going to be having to chase it and chase the money again and again and again.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But you haven`t successfully chased it. I mean, this has been a saga to try to get one red cent, and you are owed more than $30 million -- your client is, certainly. Now, ironically, if you were to go after the copyright of this book, which we`re being told in published reports could revert back to O.J. Simpson himself, in order to make money from it, you`d have to have it published. That`s how it would generate money. So isn`t it a Catch-22 for you?

POLAK: No, not at all. If we are successful in capturing these rights, there`s no requirement that it has to be published. I truly believe, at the end of the day, certainly one option available to us is to capture it, go lock it up in a safe deposit box, and never let it see the light of day.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But how does that give you money?

POLAK: Well, look, it`s not just about the money. It`s never been about the money. Would the Goldmans like to get financial justice? Absolutely. But that`s not going to give their son back and it`s not going to give them the type of satisfaction that I know that the Goldman family wants.

The Goldman family wants to place O.J. Simpson in a virtual jail cell, a jail cell that he should have been placed in many years ago, but the court system failed to do that. It is now up to us, not only as attorneys, as a court, but it`s also up to us as a society to place him in that virtual jail cell, don`t let him leave it, and certainly don`t let him publish the filth that he wants to.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we would like to go now to Gloria Allred, who is not only the author of "Fight Back and Win," a great book that I read -- Gloria, good work on that.

GLORIA ALLRED, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON`S FAMILY: Thank you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... but also a victims` advocate. And also, at one point, you represented the family of murder victim Nicole Brown Simpson, Denise Brown and the rest of the family members. How violated will they feel if O.J. Simpson goes through with this threat -- and I do consider it a threat -- to write a book about his life with Nicole, with her, of course, not there to be able to tell the truth, and him able to spread whatever lies he wants in this book?

ALLRED: Yes, I did represent the family of Nicole Brown Simpson during the criminal case, and I know that O.J. Simpson has inflicted an enormous amount of pain, Jane, on that family, and that every time that he even talks about Nicole, it must be so painful to them to hear it because this is the man who almost decapitated their loved one, who did that, as was pointed out by Pat, while the children were sleeping inside of the condo, and then who regained custody of the two children, and maybe that was the prize he was seeking. I don`t know.

But the idea that he would even participate in the writing or the publication of this book, get paid for it, knowing that it`s going to inflict pain not only on Nicole`s family but on his own children, and then, you know, use the money and be so blatant about it -- it`s just really is disgusting. This is a man who obviously has no shame. If he had any, he couldn`t have killed Nicole Brown, the mother of his own children.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Gloria, you talk about victims. I`d like to go to Mike Brooks, former D.C. police officer. The first thing that occurred to me when I was reading this "Newsweek" account this chapter were the police officers. I mean, they were dragged through the mud. They were raked over the coals, accused of creating a conspiracy to plant evidence against O.J. Simpson.

The famous line in the closing arguments uttered by the late Johnnie Cochran was, "If it doesn`t fit, you must acquit." He was talking about the gloves. Well, in this chapter, O.J. Simpson talks about, hypothetically, putting on gloves.

MIKE BROOKS, FORMER D.C. POLICE, SERVED ON FBI TERRORISM TASK FORCE: Hypothetically. Yes. Exactly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, hypothetically putting on gloves.

BROOKS: Exactly, put on the wool cap and the gloves. And he also talked about taking the bloody clothes and wrapping up the knife that he had inside the Bronco, which was never recovered, Jane, and neither were the clothes. But he stopped there. He didn`t go any further to say what he did with this.

Again, he said on Sunday, Oh, if there`s so many holes in this story, that if -- that people would know that I couldn`t have written this. I didn`t write it, it was a ghost writer. You know, that`s a crock. This sounds more like a confession than anything we`ve heard so far, Jane. And I tell you what, it just makes me sick.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I have to agree with you. It is an oblique confession. At least, that`s how it seems to read, according to the "Newsweek" article.

Let`s go to the phone lines. They are lighting up. Lauren from Utah, your question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Thank you for having me. I was thinking that it seems that O.J. is trying to confess out of guilt, in a strange way, maybe (INAUDIBLE) just needing the money, but he`s telling on himself on purpose because he can`t live inside his body because he`s guilty.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, I have to agree with you 100 percent. Let`s direct this question to Patricia Saunders, clinical psychologist. I just did a whole year of research on secrets and its connection to crime. And what I learned was that a secret is a piece of unfinished business that you carry around with you 24/7, 365, like an albatross. And it gets heavier and heavier. And there is an urge, when somebody has a secret, to purge it, to tell the world. He is walking around, if, in fact, what he has written is correct, with this secret of having murdered two people.

PATRICIA SAUNDERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I really have to disagree with you, Jane. I don`t think there`s any indication that O.J. Simpson experiences guilt or shame of any sort. If he did, then he wouldn`t appear at slasher conventions and get paid a lot of money for his autographs, or the blatant hypocrisy of saying he doesn`t want his children to read about the gruesome details of his wife`s murder, and yet he publishes it and gleefully is telling the world about it.

I think for people who don`t have what is pathological narcissism that Mr. Simpson seems to display, then the idea of a secret weighing on them works. Not for this man. I think we`re talking about a whole other order of personality problems and really anti-social behavior.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I respect your opinion. What I meant was not necessarily that he`s experiencing guilt, it`s that he`s walking around, especially with a secret that basically the whole world knows. So it`s like this giant elephant in the middle of the room that keeps getting bigger and bigger. Imagine walking around, knowing that everybody around you, the vast majority, according to polls, think you did commit this murder. So there could be this intrinsic sense inside of him not out of guilt, but out of sort of matching the reality that he experiences every day of, like, Let`s get this out, because I think, actually, the fact that he keeps coming back with the Judgeoj.com, with the "juiced," with all of his comments, it`s like returning to the scene of the crime.

SAUNDERS: It`s also a money maker for him, Jane. And I think that, psychologically, we`re talking about primitive mental states, and I think there`s great pleasure that Mr. Simpson gets out of defying the world and basically going, Nyah, nyah, nyah, I got away with it and you can`t touch me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think you have a very good point.

Pat Lalama, investigative reporter, let me ask you about the veracity or the validity of this story in "Newsweek." Does it match with the evidence in the case as it came out during the trial, which you covered?

LALAMA: Some of it does, some of it doesn`t -- as I mentioned, you know, the back door/front door thing. There`s one, Jane, very interesting aspect that occurred to me, and that`s that in the hypothetical story, there is a second person, a reluctant friend who`s begging him not to go forward with this, who -- and they name him Charlie, I believe, in the hypothetical.

And you know, I won`t name any names, but there`s a certain person who was actually in the courtroom during the verdict and he`s now deceased, a real good friend of O.J., so there were rumors going around, and I will say rumors. There is absolutely -- I cannot substantiate this. But a lot of people felt that this person may have assisted with the clothing, may have gone out, you know, to pick up his -- I`m sorry?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I agree with you.

(CROSSTALK)

LALAMA: I heard something in my ear. I thought it was you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Pat, you raise some very important questions about this mysterious Charlie.

LALAMA: Right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to get to them right after this break because that could be a key to really understanding this bizarre mystery that just gets more and more bizarre as time passes.

To tonight`s "Case Alert," the alleged kidnapper, twin babies who were snatched away and then found outside the United States, facing another court appearance. The suspect, the twins` own mother. Their own mom. Allison Quets (ph) charged with international kidnapping after giving up the twins for adoption. Quets faces a detention hearing in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the babies were abducted.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIMPSON: I don`t know what happened. I can`t tell you. I understood that this lady, Judith Regan, obviously thought, Oh, he did it. Oh, he knows how to confess. Oh, he`ll just confess. The writer, when I first met him, he said, Well, she said it`s going to be a confession book. I said, Well, I have nothing to confess. So they all negotiated and negotiated and negotiated and they came up with this book, make it a hypothetical.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, in for Nancy Grace tonight. The focus is on one of the most frustrating crimes of our lifetime, the double murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ron Goldman. And now "Newsweek" magazine has gotten ahold of the most sensational chapter of Simpson`s banned book, "If I Did It." It`s a book that was supposed to be recalled and destroyed, you may remember. Most of us expected it to pop up on the Internet, but instead, it`s in one of America`s top magazines that is breaking the sordid details we all have been wondering about.

So my question to Jonathan Polak, the Goldman family attorney, is "Newsweek" crossing the line by even publishing this? And I have to say, as a journalist, I personally think not because it wasn`t their idea. They didn`t come up with this concept. They got a scoop and they`re running with it.

POLAK: Well, look, you can`t blame "Newsweek" for not running with the story. But certainly, they contacted us and asked what we thought about it. I said, Well, you can`t be publishing something that we`ve spent so much time and effort to prevent the publication of, because it`s almost now as if the book had been published in the first place.

Let`s think about it. O.J. got his money. The story is out. And where are the victims, or the families of the victims? Where are they in this whole picture? They`re right back where they were to begin with. We`ve never been able to collect any money on the judgment. I think we`re getting closer. I think the aggressive strategies and tactics that we`ve employed lately are starting to box him in more. But the reality is, is that O.J. Simpson has never paid a penny personally towards the judgment against him in favor of the Goldman family.

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... he had a company that got paid, that was named after his kids in this case. But in the book that`s coming up -- you`ve got advance notice that he`s going to be writing this book. What are you going to do to try to get proceeds from this new book that he`s writing, to make sure he doesn`t do this time what he did the last time?

POLAK: That`s what`s so frustrating about the court system. And me, as a lawyer, it`s hard for me to say that. But it`s a frustrating experience because we went to court back in September, you`ll recall. We were on your show. We came into court and we asked for an assignment of the right of publicity. That is the thing that allows him to write these books, to make commercial exploitation of his image, his persona, his stories. And the judge denied us that because, of all things, she claimed that if she gave us that, we would be invading his privacy.

Now, regardless of whether or not her reasoning was sound -- it`s up on appeal right now -- but it makes it very difficult in this legal environment to go collect against something that doesn`t exist yet. And that`s, in essence, what we`re having to do. We have to go collect against something that doesn`t exist.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s either like you`re too early or you`re too late.

POLAK: Well, that`s the problem because this is a guy who hides assets like he hides Easter eggs. I mean, this guy is out there creating sham entities, doing all sorts of things to frustrate us.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got it. OK. We`re going to be right back after this.

To tonight`s "Case Alert." Yet another legal battle over insurance payouts to Katrina victims, State Farm Insurance ordered to pay a Mississippi couple close to $3 million for damages to their home. Although the company agreed to settle hundreds of homeowner lawsuits, this is the first jury trial over Katrina`s damage, and it could affect other lawsuits and other insurance claims. The issue in both cases, State Farm`s claim that their insurance policies on thousands of homes covered damages from wind but not flooding. Despite recovery efforts, residents say these parts of this area will never be the same.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIMPSON: I don`t have any bank accounts in the Bahamas. I don`t have any extra money anyplace. The Goldmans -- I don`t have the obligation to make money and take it to the Goldmans. I don`t have those obligations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, sitting in tonight for Nancy Grace. Just when we thought the O.J. Simpson saga couldn`t get anymore tasteless, there`s another new low. "Newsweek" has reportedly published the most controversial passages of Simpson`s canceled book, "If I Did It," in which he explains hypothetically how he went to Nicole`s home that night and what happened before and after the murders of Nicole and Ron.

Let`s go straight out to Jonathan Arden, medical examiner. In this chapter, Simpson says Nicole came at him like a banshee and fell, and tripping, cracked her head. Is there evidence of a head injury in the autopsy?

DR. JONATHAN ARDEN, MEDICAL EXAMINER: Yes, actually, there is. And that was one of the controversial points during the trial, that the external evidence of the bruising to the right side of the head was noted in the autopsy report, but the internal evidence, the bleeding on or around the brain that was unfortunately omitted from the autopsy report, had to be filled in later by the chief medical examiner testifying.

So there was evidence of at least one impact site to the head, other than any of the other injuries that related to the knife, the stabbing and the cutting injuries. So that is certainly one of the possibilities as to the scenario of, How do you kill two people without one of them overcoming you?

Of course, you also have the other phenomenon that the assailant could be larger and heavier and stronger and faster, and he can overcome a woman and one man.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The scenario he describes is one where he goes over to Nicole`s house, only to scare her, he writes. Once he gets there, he says Ron Goldman comes through the gate, and O.J. is standing there with his accomplice. And the accomplice is holding the knife. O.J. writes that he got angry at Goldman, and thought Goldman was having an affair with Nicole. And basically then talks about how the rest is a blur.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell in for Nancy Grace. O.J. Simpson`s highly criticized book, "If I Did It," was never supposed to see the light of day. But "Newsweek" says it got a hold of the bombshell passages that talk about this confrontation between Simpson, Nicole and Ron Goldman, where Simpson accuses Ron of planning a sexual encounter with Nicole. Then Nicole`s dog comes out and greets Ron. Then Simpson screams, "You`ve been here before." Nicole comes at Simpson and falls, cracking her head. Ron goes into a karate stance, and then Simpson allegedly writes, quote, "Something went horribly wrong. And I know what happened, but I can`t tell you exactly how," end quote.

And when he comes out of his daze, he`s covered in blood and holding a bloody knife. At least this is what "Newsweek" says is in the book, which is supposed to be hypothetical.

Let`s go to the lawyers for a face-off on whether or not this is, in fact, a confession. On one side, we`ve got Alan Ripka, defense attorney, and on the other, Danielle Caminti-Aidalla, former King`s County assistant D.A.

Danielle, let`s start with you: Is it a confession?

DANIELLE CAMINTI-AIDALLA, FORMER ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Absolutely it`s not a confession. If it was a confession, he wouldn`t have come so close to the line without crossing it. He would have given every explicit detail about how he did it. Again, it`s O.J. thumbing his nose at the legal system. He is untouchable. He beat the criminal charges and, again, he`s trying to avoid paying any money to the Goldman families.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Alan Ripka, are we going to have a face-off, or do you also feel this is not a confession?

ALAN RIPKA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We are going to have a face-off. I believe it is a confession. You know, the devil`s in the details. And he may claim he learned a lot during the course of the trial, but he didn`t hear any of the things that he said. And those things would only be known to the killer, or a witness, and there are no witnesses alive. So, therefore, it`s O.J. Simpson speaking and narrating what happened at that time.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Danielle, you heard it. I`ll give you a chance to fire back.

CAMINTI-AIDALLA: I don`t buy it. I don`t buy it, because if it was a confession, again, he would have described exactly how he slashed his wife`s neck and he slashed Ron Goldman`s neck. He would have not kept out those significant details.

And again it`s O.J. just being O.J. It`s him saying, "I`m invincible. You can`t touch me. I have the dream team, and now I won`t pay any money."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Everybody`s got an opinion on this one. Let`s go to the phone lines. Theresa in Kentucky, your question?

CALLER: If O.J.`s book is leaked, or part of it is leaked, and there`s a detail in the book that is known only to the police, can he be retried?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That is a very good question. And let`s go to former King`s County assistant D.A., Danielle Caminti-Aidalla. Obviously, we all know about double jeopardy. And once you`re acquitted in a criminal case, as he was, even though he was found liable in the civil case, you can`t be tried again for the same crime.

But if, in fact, let`s say more details came out about this, could there, hypothetically, be some other charges that he could face?

CAMINTI-AIDALLA: Hypothetically, maybe only on the federal level. As we know, in California, the California state tried him and he was acquitted. So, therefore, no other charges can be brought. But if you know if the feds want to get you, they`ll get you. And they waited 10 years, that probably means they`re not going to bring in any more charges against him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, Pat Lalama, we`ve all been talking here about details only the criminal would know. But, of course, we all sat there and watched this trial, the entire nation, the entire world. So how many details are still left that only the criminal would know? And are any of them contained in this book, according to "Newsweek"?

PAT LALAMA, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Well, I mean, like we said, the only person who could possibly know that would be -- we`re assuming O.J. did it -- O.J. or perhaps the second person that we started to talk about earlier, whoever that may or may not be. Look, I mean, you asked the question, is it a confession? If you look at it this way, Jane, I`d like to think that whatever`s true in that chapter is a confession, and whatever`s not is the hypothetical.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s always a possibility. That is.

And, Mike Brooks, I want to ask you a question, because some of the writings do explain things that have never been answered. For example, O.J. Simpson in this chapter, according to "Newsweek," says, when he came out of his daze and he realized that he was covered in blood with the knife, he stripped down to his socks, and then wrapped the bloody clothes, wrapped the knife in the bloody clothes.

Now, of course, we know from the trial that the clothing that was found inside his Rockingham estate were the bloody socks that were found in his bedroom that actually contained blood from Nicole Brown Simpson on the socks. And that is why the defense had to argue that it was a conspiracy to plant evidence, because otherwise that would be overwhelming evidence of his guilt, Nicole`s blood on his socks in his bedroom.

MIKE BROOKS, FORMER D.C. POLICE: There was no conspiracy at all, Jane. You know, the only thing they didn`t recover were the clothes that he stripped off that he talked about and the knife. That was never recovered.

And, you know, we talk about this second subject, Charlie. If I recall correctly, there was not any evidence on the scene, any footprint, blood transfer, anything at all that would suggest that there was a second subject. It was only rumored. And I tell you what, Jane, I hope the Goldman family dogs this guy for as long as he lives, until they get what`s coming to them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We all do. Debbie in New York, your question?

CALLER: Yes. I was wondering, Jane, did O.J. ever want to submit to a polygraph to exonerate himself at all?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s go to Gloria Allred, victim`s rights advocate, who was a former Brown family attorney and the author of "Fight Back and Win." You were deeply involved in the case. Tell us about the polygraph.

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY: Well, there`s some question about whether he did in fact take a polygraph. But I can tell you, Jane, I think what`s important is, the best lie detector of all is that he had to testify in the civil case. And he did testify under oath.

And, in fact, the jury did not believe his account, because they awarded a huge verdict against him. That`s the $33.5 million verdict, which, by the way, has increased with the interest, all of those years. And so they didn`t believe his account, and that is the most important thing.

Whatever he says now, whether it`s fiction or it`s nonfiction, most of this -- by the way, Lawrence Schiller, who wrote another book, a detailed book on this case, says there`s nothing in this book that hasn`t previously been either printed or wasn`t available in trial discovery materials.

So it really doesn`t matter what`s here, because the true test was when he testified, at all the evidence was presented, and the civil jury heard him and did not believe his account.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, Alan Ripka, defense attorney, I was also wondering what the late Johnny Cochran, who you see there on the screen, who was the head of the dream team that defended O.J. Simpson, would be thinking today with this whole new controversy about this book, because he did launch a very effective defense. And, of course, the most memorable line, if it doesn`t fit, you must acquit.

And now here is O.J. Simpson making a mockery of that defense by saying in his book, "I put the gloves on, and I put the knit cap on, and I went through the broken gate, and ended up killing Ron and Nicole"?

RIPKA: Well, I`m quite certain that, if Johnny Cochran was alive today, he`d be advising O.J. to keep his mouth shut. And the fact that he got away with it once, he shouldn`t be back in the public eye trying to get away with it over and over and over again. And, quite frankly, it is throwing it back in Johnny`s face. And he has nothing to say now that he`s gone.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, Gloria, is he also, in a sense, making a mockery of everyone in the African-American community who stood by him and believed the very ferocious defense mounted by his very, very efficient dream team, that he was framed in a sense? Is he sort of making a mockery of their allegiance to him?

ALLRED: well, I think that some of them might feel embarrassed at this point about their allegiance to him and how they tried to help him, how they tried support him. And, by the way, in my book, "Fight Back and Win," I have a whole chapter about O.J. Simpson, and about his testimony under oath, and about how he testified that he never beat, struck, kicked punched Nicole, and while he was sitting next to a huge photograph of her with a black eye and a swollen cut lip. And that was when he had been later prosecuted for spousal abuse.

So this is a man that I think no one should be supporting.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And one thing we can say with certainty: This story is not over yet, that is for sure.

Up next, it`s an amazing story, a happy story. Two missing Missouri boys found alive, one of them four years later. The very latest on the investigation, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our agents entered the apartment. Young Ben, as he was sitting there, he looked up at one of the agents and said, "Are you going to take me home?"

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ecstatic. We don`t want to let him go or out of our sight. He doesn`t want us to hold onto him, but we have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Obviously, this is probably the best day of our lives. It`s hard to even come up with words that can express the feeling that we`ve been going through.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As far as we`re concerned is that the successful conclusion, but there`s still a lot of groundwork to be done, a lot of legwork.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Good evening. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell in for Nancy Grace tonight.

As two Missouri families joyously celebrate the return of two missing sons, questions mount about the man at the center of the storm, 41-year-old Michael J. Devlin, who sits behind bars with bail set at $1 million. Both boys were discovered inside Devlin`s apartment at a complex in the suburbs of St. Louis.

One neighbor described the 300-pound pizzeria manager as a road rage weirdo. Another said he had a hair-trigger temper. Now, those qualities just might explain why 15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck failed to run away, despite many apparent opportunities over four years. For the very latest on this fast-developing story, let`s go straight out to KTRS radio reporter Melanie Streeper who has been covering this case from the start.

Melanie, what is the very latest?

MELANIE STREEPER, KTRS RADIO: Well, good evening to you, Jane. I can tell you from the headlines, the weekend headlines, well, they say it all. It is a miracle, the recovery of these two missing boys. You can see the paper here over the weekend. Yes, Michael Devlin, we are hearing, could be arraigned...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold it up a little higher. There you go.

STREEPER: ... could be arraigned as early as tomorrow. That`s what we are hearing.

Meantime, over the weekend, as you just saw, the parents for those boys holding two separate press conferences. Those boys were allowed to attend those conferences, Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby, but they were not allowed to speak to the media.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, these boys were kidnapped, allegedly, from two separate counties, and so there are two separate counties involved in the prosecution of this case, as well as potentially federal authorities. So give us kind of a rundown of what we can expect when, because until he goes to the arraignments and we hear what he`s charged with, right now he`s only charged with one count of kidnapping, but they expect far more charges.

STREEPER: Right, that`s correct. Well, I can tell you, in Franklin County, he is charged with kidnapping. That is in regard to Ben Ownby. But we are hearing that charges could be expected from Washington County; that`s where Shawn Hornbeck was kidnapped from back in 2002. So we are expecting charges could come from them as early as this week.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And let`s listen to Shawn`s very happy dad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRAIG AKERS, FATHER OF SHAWN HORNBECK: Obviously, this is probably the best day of our lives. It`s hard to even come up with words that can express the feeling that we`ve been going through since 4:00 yesterday afternoon when we received the phone call.

We were on our way home from work yesterday, driving home in the miserable rain and nasty stuff, when we got the call that they believed that Shawn had been found and that he was OK. I think that`s probably the phone call that I`ll remember most for the rest of my life. Since then, it`s been like a dream.

PAM AKERS, MOTHER OF SHAWN HORNBECK: I do want to give the other family members out there hope that their child can come home, also. Shawn is a miracle here. We`re glad to have him home. I still feel like I`m in a dream. Only this time, it`s a good dream. It`s not my nightmare that I`ve lived for four and a half years. We`ve got a lot of catching up to do. He`s grown up on me, that`s for sure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we are so delighted to have with us tonight on the phone, Lloyd Bailie, who is the other boy`s uncle, Ben Ownby`s uncle, the 13-year-old who was missing for about four days. The NANCY GRACE show and all the viewers here are so happy for you. Share your joy with us. What was Ben`s reaction when he got home? What did he do? How did the family celebrate his safe return?

LLOYD BAILIE, UNCLE OF KIDNAPPED BOY: Oh, Ben, when he walked into the door -- of course, you know, he had to have the -- he had to go to the hospital with Shawn. And they got home late that evening. And the first thing he did when he walked in the door, he says, "Mom, I`m hungry," and he headed straight to the refrigerator and grabbed a piece of cold chicken and devours that. And that didn`t take very long. The next thing you know, he`s wanting immediately to go play a video game.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, we`re so happy for you, so very happy for you. It`s just a wonderful story.

BAILIE: Thank you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: A lot of times we don`t get a chance to report happy endings, so it`s a thrill for us, too.

Kim Evans, office manager for the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation, and a family friend of the Hornbecks, the Hornbecks represent the other boy, the 15-year-old boy who was missing for four years, a lot of people are wondering why Shawn didn`t take the opportunity to run when he apparently had the chance.

Apparently, there were at least three times where police stopped him when he was riding his bike late at night, and he did not indicate to him, to the officers, that he was in distress. And I say this with the caveat that we are not here in any way, shape or form to judge. This young man is a survivor. He`s a hero in my mind for having made it through this ordeal, but we`re trying to understand maybe what was going on.

KIM EVANS, SHAWN HORNBECK FOUNDATION: I don`t think...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Kim?

EVANS: Yes, I`m sorry. I don`t think any of us have any idea what went on with Shawn. He`s not talked about it. We`re not pushing. But I can`t even begin to imagine what must have caused him not to call home.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And let me ask Patricia Saunders, clinical psychologist, about what the explanation might be. We`ve heard everything from Stockholm Syndrome to going into survivor mode.

Let`s face it: This guy that he was dealing with is 300 pounds, had a hair trigger temper. There was a lot of shouting apparently coming from the apartment. Who knows what this man said to this young boy to keep him terrified? Because his family did say that he was threatened with his life. This is from the family.

DR. PATRICIA SAUNDERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Yes. You know, Jane, we`re talking about extreme state, an extreme mental state. This is about power and domination. These boys` life were on the line, especially Shawn. It was four years. And what happens in these situations is that -- it`s trauma and association, where people focus in on the narrow reality to absolutely survive, and they will submit to their captor.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell sitting in for Nancy Grace. Thousands across our nation pay tribute to the man who led the fight for freedom and rights of African-Americans and all Americans. Tonight, we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his dream.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In 1929, God sent America a child who became a messenger of hope and healing. The child would become a man who would lead millions to liberation, inspire freedom-loving people in every nation, and set an example of non-violence for humanity. Truly the God of all faiths works in wondrous and mysterious ways.

Many eloquent words have been spoken about Dr. King and Mrs. King, an American couple who represent the best of family values. They inspired, nurtured, and encouraged four wonderful children. And together, they literally changed the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know the truly great ones, the leaders who, throughout time, have tirelessly stood up to champion justice, the ones who, no matter the consequences, never bowed under pressure, never sacrificed their ideals, never gave up hope in what they knew would be divine justice. These great ones never had a day off. Dr. and Mrs. King were great ones.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... remember Marine Lance Corporal William Koprince, Jr., just 24 from Lenore City, Tennessee, killed in Iraq on his second tour of duty. Koprince enlisted straight from high school. He loved hiking and golfing and watching professional ice hockey and planned on attending college after the military. He leaves behind grieving and proud parents. William Koprince, an American hero.

We want to thank all of our guests tonight for their insights, and thanks to you at home for tracking these very important cases with us. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell sitting in for Nancy Grace. See you right here tomorrow night, 8:00 sharp Eastern. Until then, have a terrific and a safe evening.

END

CNN U.S.
CNN TV E-mail Services CNN Mobile CNNAvantGo Ad Info About Us Preferences
Search
© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines