pablo fenjeves | Porkins Policy Review

Tag Archives: pablo fenjeves

Porkins Policy Radio episode 121 F Lee Bailey and Pat McKenna on OJ Simpson and Criminal Justice

December 13, 2017 – 11:27 am

Today we are joined by private investigator Pat McKenna and legendary attorney F Lee Bailey for a discussion of OJ and the criminal justice system. We begin by discussing some of the recent media reports about OJ that have come out in the tabloid press. The three of us address these bogus claims that OJ was thrown out of the Cosmopolitanism hotel in Las Vegas. Lee also tells us about his background in the Marine Corp and how he became one of the most famous trial lawyers. We then move onto some new research by Brian Heiss looking at a forgery in Nicole Simpson’s dairy. We discuss how Fred Goldman helped lobby California’s legislature to allow the diary and the forgery into the civil trial. Lee gives us his legal perspective about the civil trial and the ways in which it was conducted. He talks about the numerous instances in which false information was introduced as evidence, and how this has convinced many that the civil trial was the “good trial.” We explore how the media treated the criminal jury and how this influenced the civil juries verdict. Later Lee and Pat discuss the criminal trial itself. Lee talks about his cross examination of Mark Fuhrman. He talks about the moment he knew he had caught Fuhrman in his own web of lies. Pat and Lee also touch on how Judge Ito wouldn’t allow several witnesses who were willing to testify that Fuhrman was a virulent racist.

In the second hour Lee and Pat discuss their book project which deals with both OJ’s criminal and civil trials. They talk about how their book will differ from the plethora of OJ related books. Lee in particular touches on several important aspects that will be included in the book that were not widely know during the trial. Lee and Pat discuss the continued importance of truly understanding this case, and their hopes for the future generation. Lee also talks about his own theory as to the motive of the murders: a drug killing that meant to target Faye Resnick. Later Pat and Lee discuss the school they have founded for teaching investigative skills. Lee talks about the need for teaching trial lawyers how to turn facts into evidence, and how many lawyers are not fully equipped to carry out investigations. Pat talks about a similar problem facing private investigator’s and what he will be teaching. We also talk about the role that Hollywood has played in crafting our understanding of criminal justice. Lee talks about the problem that show’s like CSI have had on the criminal justice system. We round out the show by talking about some of the problems with forensic evidence. We talk about things like shoe print analysis and how that played a role with OJ and the infamous Bruno Magli shoes. We also touch on the problems with hair and fiber analysis.

Download PPR episode 121

Show Notes:

baileyandelliott.com

The Simpson Verdict by F Lee Bailey

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Nicole Brown Simpson’s 1994 Diary Entry Was Forged

EXCLUSIVE: Additional Entry from Nicole Simpson’s Diary Determined to Have Been Fabricated

By porkinspolicyreview | Posted in Porkins Policy Radio | Also tagged brain heiss, Bruno Magli shoes, Bundy, cocaine, criminal justice, CSI, daniel petrocelli, denise brown, diaries, domestic abuse, f lee bailey, faye resnick, forensic analysis, fred goldman, fuhrman tapes, glove, Hollywood, johnny cochrane, LAPD, law and order, Malcolm lavergne, Mark Fuhrman, n word, nicole simpson, nicoles diary, oj civil trial, oj simpson, pat mckenna, paula barbieri, philip vannatter, robert shapiro, Ronald goldman, timeline, TMZ, tom lange | Comments (1)

Porkins Policy Radio episode 98 Pat McKenna on OJ Simpson Timeline and Listener Questions

June 21, 2017 – 12:35 am

Pat McKenna joins us again for another in-depth discussion of the OJ Simpson trial and his first hand experiences investigating it. We begin by focusing on one of the most basic but largely overlooked aspects of the case: the timeline. Pat and I dissect the numerous problems with the prosecutions time line of events. Aside from their reliance on questionable characters like screenwriter Pablo Fenjeves, Pat and I break down how no one, let alone OJ could have physically committed these murders in the time allotted by the prosecution. Pat demonstrates that OJ would have had to have murdered both Ron and Nicole, driven home, banged on Kato’s air conditioner, dropped the glove, washed off all the blood, changed clothes, and gotten in the limo in roughly 22-25 minutes. Pat and I talk about the ways in which the prosecution leaned on and pressured witness to present their testimony in such a way as to fit into this rushed timeline. Pat and I discuss the fact that OJ and Kato went and around back to investigate the mysterious three thumps and at no point does either one of them see a glove or move a glove. We also focus on how the prosecution’s version of events often leads one to posit that there was a larger conspiracy in which one or more person’s helped OJ in the murder. Pat and I also talk about the need to approach the timeline in a logical manner.

In the second hour Pat and I discuss Brian Heiss’ timeline and present evidence that logically has the murders taking place much later than the 10:15pm clock that the prosecution claimed. We talk about Ron’s movements on the night on June 12, and show how he could not have left his house until 10:30pm at the earliest. Pat demonstrates how this would have Ron arriving at Nicole’s closer to 10:36 which lines up with ear witness Denise Pilnak. Pat and I also talk about the physical act of the murders which by all accounts was much longer than the prosecution wanted to admit. Pat also answers several listener questions including: who was the intended target, how do Brett Cantor and Michael Nigg’s murders fit in, the alleged break in of Jennifer Ameli’s office. Pat also talks about meeting with Anthony Pellicano who had been hired by Mark Fuhrman to acquire the infamous Fuhrman tapes, and the role that the now incarcerated PI played in the trial.