By: T.H. Johnson, Investigative Team Coordinator, OMIG

The Harvard laureate, Conservative D.C. insider and founder of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol (L) and the author of the Trump and OJ Defense article and nostalgic Jazz entertainer, Eric Felten (R).

Despite the hyperbolic endorsement by Bill Kristol this week on MSNBC of Eric Felten’s article “DONALD TRUMP AND THE OJ DEFENSE” in the Weekly Standard there are some major flaws in both journalists’ assumptions.    Felten provides a comparison of the denunciation of the Donald Trump Federal Investigation to that of an alleged canard of O.J. Simpson’s lawyers denouncing the integrity of investigators in the OJ Simpson case.   Felten’s examination in the Weekly Standard despite what he thinks he knows about the Simpson case is completely off track.   He knows what he knows regarding the Simpson case only because what he thinks he knows is based upon a fraudulent and/or false narrative.

As a 22 year investigator of the alleged evidence of the infamous Simpson case the denunciation by Simpson lawyers of corrupt actors like the LAPD’s  Detectives Mark Fuhrman and Vannatter  I contend was not a canard and still has a real basis in fact.   However, I’ll save the reasons why for an another chapter since what is important in regard to the above Felten article is the reasons behind his failure to understand and a willingness to accept fraudulent assertions by corrupt officials in the Simpson case.

LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman with Deputy D.A. Marcia Clark (L) and LAPD lead Simpson Detective Phil Vannatter (R) both men convicted of perjury in the Simpson trial.  Questions not only surround the detectives acts of malfeasance those questions surround the prosecutions publicly undisclosed actions as well, hidden by judges sealing their actions by misusing the color of authority.

Thus, Felten’s allegations of Trump taking a page out of, in reference to O.J. Simpson, “the Juice’s book” is completely misguided but understandably so because Felten and predominantly other mainstream  journalists have never done any meaningful due diligence regarding the actual evidence in the Simpson case; now the missing evidence, as of April 24, 1998.   What has been taken we believe is exculpatory and our cries for the media to take a look has largely fallen on deaf ears, at least in the US, but not abroad.  Thus, the interlopers of justice began to tremble when the independent investigators of OMIG (Ocean Medical Investigative Group) led by Dr. Henry S. Johnson came on the seen a year earlier in latter 1996 and began applying pressure to examine certain crucial evidence in the Simpson case.   The statement independent investigators may sound like an oxymoron to some because there is an assumption that such an entity is uncalled for, since in this nation we do have district attorneys, and FBI, and local police, and also the press but what happens when one group is willfully engaged in clandestine malfeasance, fraud and obstruction of justice, and given carte blanche due to an ambivalent press?   Thus, OMIG was born out of those circumstances while realizing the vitriol being poured back into the mainstream of society in the arenas of public discourse was not healthy for our nation, and certainly not for minority groups within the nation.   What the Trump/Russia matter and the Simpson matter do have in common is the animus that is intentionally manufactured as a diversion, in the case of Trump/Russia political animus, in the Simpson case racial animus.  Either one undermines the stability of a nation.

The press by engaging in rapid tabloid release gave an errant and corrupt government the privilege of presumption in the Simpson case that they refuse to budge one inch for detractors in the Trump/Russia probe.   I doubt that it would have stimulated journalists to act in OMIG’s effort had we condemned them loudly over the last 22 years for offering “fake news” in the Simpson matter, though it may have been the factor to turn the switch of investigative journalism back on in the Trump matter.    Hence, there lies a comparison worthy of Felton’s examination.    Trump’s berating of the press has brought him little broad support other than from what appears to be a feeble minded base that seems not to care about the intentional erosion of federally protected guarantees by the Trump administration.  Whatever Trump says and whomever he attacks his base appears to be with him.   Nevertheless, the press and the FBI must act ethically and  continue to conduct the in depth investigation of the Trump matter until the rest of us beyond his base and his Congressional Republican flunkies who act like scared bunnies are satisfied that there was no collusion, fraud, or any major acts of malfeasance.

Thus, in this nation Trump’s base may have reason to feel as they do since for the last 200 years they’ve never figured out why their condition continues to worsen while others who look like them advance.   For too long the diversion of racial politics was central to weakening their position.  They were always told by the fat landed gentry that at least their being white made them better than a N-word.

With that they turned a blind eye towards those that were tricking them and turned against others who wished them no malice at all.  Then there comes the moment when another slap in their face appears to be the ultimate betrayal for those echoing Trump’s  chant of “Make America Great Again” that of elevating a suave and sophisticated black man and his family to the Whitehouse.

Thus, the “Obama” card appears to be the only effective card that Trump has to play but a solid one because that portion of his base that respond to such dog whistles does not seem to budge.  They will act against their own best interests and probably shoot themselves in the foot for Trump based on that subliminal race based message alone.  Go figure!

We still have hope that in this quarter century saga called the O.J. Simpson case that at some point lightening will strike the consciousness of the press to do the same intense due diligence for that case as it is doing with Trump’s case but in the meantime the press must know it has failed to conduct an objective examination of the evidence in the Simpson matter.   The dichotomy of that national journalistic failure alone is worthy of intensive psychological examination at the Ph. D. level.  The abandonment of the powers entrusted in the press of the 4th estate, to maintain a check and balance over governmental abuse failed in the Simpson case.  Was the perennial boogeymen of race an underlying factor in this journalistic lethargy involving Simpson ?   Why the disparate treatment in two high profile cases?

In one, the Trump case, going on now members of the press dig down and dig in to do their due diligence so much so that it appears that they are often neck and neck in regard to objective evidence with the Feds in revealing indications of malfeasance in the Trump/Russia affair.  However, in the other, the Simpson case members of the press became lethargic fattened with congestive tabloid hype served up to them by corrupt officials of the governmental subdivision of Los Angeles County causing a severe breakdown of the integrity of journalism.   Without questioning prosecutorial allegations, stipulations, or evidence relative to the Simpson matter journalists gave a pass to a local government that had a sordid past of lying and a subsequent future where its justice apparatus would be temporarily controlled by the US Department of Justice.  This came after revelations of police misconduct resulting in revealing thousands of innocent men imprisoned over the years by planted evidence in the Rampart Scandal by year 2000.   The massive release of framed innocent men caused California legislators to scurry to Sacramento to adopt midnight legislation to limit the extent of liability exposure of the states political subdivisions once again due to the historical malfeasance promulgated in Los Angeles County.  Yet the media and/or press failed to take notice relative to the same accusations in the Simpson case.

Thus, what Felten has done with the reigning endorsement of Kristol is violated a primary rule of investigative journalism by giving certain people the privilege of presumption relative to crucial evidence or statements without doing one’s due diligence in the Simpson case.  However, that is not true regarding journalists in the Trump/Russia matter.  Journalists are raising cogent questions regarding the veracity of times, dates, and prior remarks uttered by arrogant Trump associates and Trump himself that quietly lends to the FBI and Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller, continuing to follow the smoke in their serpentine investigation.

Felton opines something that we know as investigators regarding the Simpson case that is not so and that is his opinion that

>>>The conspiracy theory suggested that LAPD cops planted blood evidence to frame Simpson; but far more plausible, Occam’s razor-wise, is the simpler scenario of investigators’ habitual sloppiness<<<

Again, how would Felton know any of the above since he’s done no due diligence whatsoever?   Furthermore, the article written by Felten is shallow because the only quoted source of credibility Felton continuously interjects into his narrative are excerpts from a book written by Jeffrey Toobin.  If he did any due diligence himself as an investigative journalist, which is what was sorely missing in the Simpson case, he would be critical of the veracity of Toobin’s conclusions.

Felten, by your blindly following Toobin’s line you have continued to cultivate the seeds of a dangerous subliminal racism in this country that has perennially hovered just underneath the surface that is associated with the Simpson case.  It is reflected in this remark of yours below.
>>>>>What (Johnnie) Cochran might have added was that he had this other significant advantage: The jury, for the most part and from the get-go, was disinclined to do what the prosecutors asked. <<<<<

Now Felten, how would you know that?  Furthermore, that’s not what the predominantly African American female jurors expressed in their book Madam Foreman.

They stated that they all were willing to give the prosecution all of the opportunity in the world to present a solid case of guilt but the prosecuting attorneys led visually by Marcia Clark and Chris Darden did not do that.   They are not the only ones that came to the conclusion that this case was not a “beyond a reasonable doubt” case against Simpson.   Thus, why would you who I presume are an intelligent man, attempt to distort the standard of our common law court system and how criminal justice is rendered in the United States.  Would you not want the same presumption of innocence if you were to be accused of a criminal act for which you felt you were innocent?

Your remark immediately below, Felten, is simply another erroneous assertion that veils the subliminal racism >>>-“with a straight face”-<<<hidden in your message.

>>>>The defense team recognized that their job wasn’t to persuade jurors of their case: They just needed to give the jury a respectable reason to bring in—with a straight face—a verdict of not guilty.<<<<<

Both the defense and the prosecution were obligated to present their best cases to the jury and that again is what these women on the Simpson Jury stated they all ultimately felt in the jury room the prosecution failed to do.

Here you go again, Felten, following in Toobin’s foot steps instead of doing your own objective examination.

>>>>remember that the Simpson team’s conspiracy theory that L.A. police planted evidence was hatched long before the O.J. trial began. Toobin reported in the middle of July 1994 that the Simpson defense was already angling to paint detective Mark Fuhrman “as a rogue cop who, rather than solving the crime, framed an innocent man.”<<<<<

Here again you have done no due diligence to know the genesis of the above and how it came about.   By mid-July 1994 there were multiple police officers from the LAPD who’d come forth to the internal complaints officer within the L.A. County D.A.’s office, and told their stories regarding Marc Fuhrman to Deputy D.A. Lucienne Coleman and her associates.  The officers spoke about Fuhrman’s questionable credibility based upon prior bad acts.  The three LAPD officers who came to the D.A.’s office were from different precincts in which Fuhrman presently and previously had worked.  One told Coleman that Fuhrman had described to other officers at a social engagement how nice the medical breast enhancements “boob job” were that Simpson’s ex-wife, Nicole, had received.  Now we at OMIG know Nicole Brown Simpson had breast enhancements because as an investigative research organization the autopsy reports were the first piece of evidence given to us pointing to malfeasance in the medical testimony that we received in the fall of 1996.  The second officer also reaffirmed hearing Fuhrman give intimate details about Simpson’s ex-wife’s breasts well before she was killed and an autopsy report published.

The initial LAPD officer in the same precinct with Fuhrman, Andrew Purdy,  had maintained a diary of Fuhrman’s corrupt acts that he’d later tell Coleman and defense lawyers he’d burned out of fear of being subpoenaed to testify.   He mentioned his fear of a special unit within the LAPD that he either knew or believed to be physical enforcers of their silence of the blue line.  However, he was in Coleman’s office on that day in July 1994 when the information came over the television that Simpson’s lawyers felt that they were dealing with a corrupt cop.  That officer, Detective Andrew Purdy, told Coleman who dismissed such claims that he would not put anything past Fuhrman and he was there to submit a complaint about Fuhrman planting swastikas in his locker because of his disenchantment with Purdy becoming engaged to a Jewish woman.  Although it was played down in the FX televised American Crime Story: The People v. OJ Simpson, Purdy spoke of Fuhrman parading around the precinct on weekends wearing Nazi paraphernalia.

This is what the Denver, Colorado based author of Legacy of Deception, Stephen Singular, would also affirm within the subsequent two weeks by August 8, 1994 when he received a rare audience with the Simpson defense team.   Singular would come to the defense with solid evidence of what would be found at Simpson’s Rockingham estate with the glove Fuhrman allegedly found that he and others claim Simpson dropped on his own property.    This was evidence that neither prosecutors nor the defense were aware in August of 1994, but evidence that both Cochran and F.Lee Bailey would acknowledge during cross examinations of police officers.  However that evidence was not hammered into the psyche of America to Singular’s chagrin as to his dismay the racial aspects of Fuhrman’s background.  The internal affairs investigation allegedly confirmed the swastikas were placed in Detective Purdy’s locker by Fuhrman despite his denial.  Chris Darden was introduced to Singular vicariously via a third party introduction when the owner/Publisher of Dove Books, Michael Viner, came with his attorney to Darden’s office the first week of November 1994 almost two months before the Simpson trial.  Viner felt it was his obligation to violate the NDA agreement signed with Singular to alert the prosecution about what Singular was alleging regarding Fuhrman in his treatment for LEGACY.  Darden downplays the identity of Singular in his 1997 published book IN CONTEMPT but dedicates four pages, 174-178 discussing how Singular provided the basis for the defense’s case.

What is outlandishly disconcerting to me as an investigator is how Deputy D.A. Marcia Clark would angrily attempt to impede an internal affairs investigation of what another deputy D.A. Lucienne Coleman, in charge of internal complaints, advised her should be done to protect the integrity of the LADA’s office regarding Mark Fuhrman’s neo-Nazi involvement and the allegations of their being neo-Nazi sympathizers in higher command positions protecting corrupt officers like Fuhrman.

It is most difficult for me to get beyond Clark’s act as being one of the most egregious acts of perfidious conduct in the history of the United States based on the damage it has done and continues to contribute in this country.  Considering what we at OMIG predicted 22 years ago would be the lives lost due to the racial animus engendered surrounding the Simpson case and the unwarranted vitriol unjustly injected nightly into the arena of public discourse.   We knew back then the future complications of such recklessness.

These acts were for selfish pecuniary gain that Clark and others promulgated to cover up their own malfeasance in the Simpson case and in my opinion it rivals those acts of betrayal cited in Ben Hechts examination of the 1944 Kastner Affair and the insidious betrayal of the Hungarian Jews by their brethren in Palestine/Israel so brilliantly articulated in his book PERFIDY.

The damage that Clark’s actions along with others have done in this conspiracy of promulgating a false Simpson narrative that has not only destroyed an African American sports icon but dangerously damaged the delicate racial relations in the United States was equally as insidious in its betrayal and should certainly be considered by the press as an obstruction of justice and inspire them to look into the concealed evidence that we have uncovered in the Simpson case.   This response to you is no more than the tip of the ice berg regarding the plethora of chapters we at OMIG could produce concerning the cover up and betrayal of justice in the Simpson case.

 Florida

Ohio

Minnesota

Louisiana

Oklahoma

New York