|
|
The Bruno Magli Shoes
copyright: Bill ElisburgA good journalist is supposed to be able to report on a story objectively regardless of his or her own bias ... and without the reader being able to detect that bias. I think I am a good journalist. Good enough so that during the trial, many members of lawsig (for all I know, all of them) considered me a fair-minded, fact-oriented OJG; over in the OJForum, I was generally accepted as a fair-minded, reasonable, fact-oriented OJI. The fact of course, as you are now aware is that I am an OJ-Don't Know ... and I can defend my position and my doubts with facts and without straying far from objectivity. It was and is my journalist's training and my commitment to journalistic ethics that made my position during the trial and since possible. And it is that same training and commitment that makes me highly intolerant of journalists who abuse their access to newspaper columns and radio/tv microphones by allowing their personal bias to color and distort their reports and comments on a news event. Far too many of them did so -- and continue to do so -- in the OJ matter.
As to the effect this journalistic bias had on either the civil or criminal trials, I don't think you can say it affected either verdict. What it did that was so destructive of justice was to destroy or damage by their biased and often unfair, incorrect or incomplete reporting and commentary the public confidence in and understanding of the respective verdicts and their relative importance and weight to the question of guilt or innocence.
Let us consider, for example, the infamous Bruno Magli shoe issue. Much of what you know and/or believe with regard to these shoes and their evidentiary value is based not on your own knowledge of the testimony about them in either trial, but upon what you read in your newspaper or obtained from tv news and the talking head brigade. But let us see what might or might not be the facts.
1. The shoeprints at the crime scene were more likely than not made by Size 12, Bruno Magli, Lorenzo Model casual boots. But this is not certain. Assuming the expertise of Agent Bodziak of the FBI is equal to his curriculum vitae, the thing we are more or less certain of is that those prints were made by a Size 12 Silga molded sole. From the somewhat confusing testimony by Agent Bodziak regarding his visit to the Silga plant in Italy and the incomplete records Silga had of what they had shipped where, it appears possible, even likely, that several thousand pairs of these soles were shipped to shoe manufacturers other than Bruno Magli in Italy and Ireland. In other words, there may be other shoes, not Bruno Magli, that could have made those bloody shoeprints.
2. Assuming that Bruno Magli made the shoes that made the bloody shoeprints (as Bodziak and LAPD did), there is only one importer of these shoes in America. His records show that he shipped Bruno Magli shoes of the style that used the Silga soles to only 40 retailers in America. A total of 299 pairs of size 12 shoes were shipped. The FBI examined the records and interrogated the owners and employees of every single one of those retailers. No records exist of a pair of these relatively expensive (approx. $160) shoes ever being sold to O.J. Simpson. From my own personal experience both as a customer and through employment as a marketing specialist with a menswear trade association, I am aware that even when the transaction is in cash, high end stores make every effort to capture the customer's name for future mailings and personal contact. O.J. Simpson's name appears on no such lists at any of the 40 retailers. O.J. Simpson was, even before the trial, one of the most recognizable people in America. Yet none of the employees of those 40 retailers remember the appearance of this famous man in the store -- except for one: Bloomingdale's in New York, where O.J. was a regular customer and did purchase shoes. But the manager of the men's shoe department does not remember Simpson ever buying Bruno Magli shoes. In fact, in his trial testimony he specifically said that on the one occasion that he recalls Simpson coming in to buy a pair of casual boots, he, the shoe manager did not show Simpson any Bruno Magli casual boots because he considered them unsuitable for Simpson's need ... which need was for casual boots to wear at football games in Buffalo! Do keep that point in mind.
3. None of Simpson's friends or associates (hundreds of people -- many of them quite fashion-conscious and observant of what people, especially fashion plates like Simpson, wore -- have any recollection of Simpson ever wearing Bruno Magli shoes ... with one exception: more than a year and a half after the criminal trial and several months after the civil trial, during both of which she managed to say nothing on this subject, Denise Brown announced that she remembered Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes. You may put what weight you fancy on this testimony. Then there are the thousands of people who met and recognized O.J. Simpson during the period when he could have worn those Bruno Magli shoes. And as O.J. has pointed out, everyone he ever met who had a camera handy wanted a picture of himself with O.J.'s arm around him. But despite the immense publicity of the criminal trial and an awareness of the Bruno Magli shoes that probably equalled or exceeded the awareness of the Major League baseball standings, no one ever came forward to say they had seen Simpson in those shoes; no one ever came forward with a picture of Simpson in those shoes.
4. AFTER THE CRIMINAL TRIAL WAS OVER a photographer in Buffalo suddenly turned up with a photo showing OJ in what might have been Bruno Magli shoes (the uppers of BM shoes actually are very similar to a number of other brands and styles of footwear), and which certainly appeared to feature the Silga molded soles. Although the photo first appeared in the National Inquirer, and from what little could be gleaned of its provenance, apparently made a trip to London for some unknown purpose before its publication in the Inquirer's pages, press and public embraced it unquestioningly as the real McCoy. Why it never came to the photographer's mind that he had a photo of OJ at a football game in Buffalo -- or even that he had taken any photos at a football game in Buffalo where OJ might have wandered into camera range -- during the most talking about and heavily news covered trial since Bruno Richard Hauptman, remains an unanswered or somewhat vaguely answered question.
5. The photo of OJ wearing what appear to be Bruno Magli shoes possessed some other curiosities besides a questionable (but not necessarily false) provenance. Despite being taken -- according to the photographer -- from a distance of 75 yards, on 35mm film, using a 500 mm. lens on a monopod, the photo shows with stunning clarity and detail the molded pattern of the Silga sole. Said sole is black, despite which, there is sufficient reflected light from the astroturf (or whatever the end zone surface at the Buffalo stadium is or was) to illuminate every detail of the pattern, which appears to show no dirt or scuffing or any sign of wear. Indeed these shoes, the sole especially, look like they just came out of the box. Some questions have also been raised about the shadows of other objects in the picture, which appear to be the result of a different angle light source than that which illuminates the Silga soles on the shoe on OJ's foot. The photo was authenticated by an expert from a respected photographic research center in Buffalo or Rochester (I forget which). But he has said that his examination was an "eyeball" examination in his office. None of the specialized equipment for examining photographs and film available in the research center' laboratory (color densitometers and such) was used in the examination. Neither would the photographer or his agent release the film to the lab for detailed examination. I submit that if the sympathies of the press had been with OJ, or even if those sympathies were neutral, the press would have been all over this photo, its provenance, and its cursory examination for authenticity like, to purloin a lovely phrase used here by Regina Goodwin, white on rice. They would have asked questions ... and obtained answers. But on this occasion, despite the importance of this new evidence to a case being covered to a point somewhat beyond saturation, they accepted this photo and its remarkable sudden appearance without question.
6. In the civil trial, when the photo was challenged, which, under the law immediately put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to demonstrate the photo's authenticity, Judge Fujisake allowed the plaintiffs to effectively shift that burden of proof to the defense. And when the defense, despite the questionable expertise of its expert, managed to raise a number of unanswered (possibly unanswerable) questions about the photo, SUDDENLY another photo appeared. Indeed a whole role of photos. Not only that, but one of these photos had appeared in the Buffalo football team's newsletter. Yet another miracle appearance. And somehow, despite all the publicity about photos of OJ in Bruno Magli shoes, this photographer also had not remembered taking these photos, even though he had the same agent as the first photographer. Did this raise the suspicions of the press? Not so you would notice. And this newsletter photo seemed to cap the matter. FBI agent Bodziak identified the shoes in the low resolution, black and white newsletter photo as the Bruno Magli shoes. Of course, the sole, the single most important part of the shoes so far as this case was concerned, could not be seen in the photo. And then, there was that whole role of color photos from which the newsletter photo had been taken. The question of why any photographer would feel the need to take a whole role of the same static group photo was never raised. Also never raised, nor even reported so far as I know, in the press was the curious fact that the FBI expert, agent Bodziak was discovered to have in his office, otherwise almost bare of photos, a nice photo of Fred and Kim Goldman.
There may be more to be said about the Bruno Magli shoes as evidence, but I think I have said more than enough to make my point. The point is not to push you into changing your mind about OJ's guilt or innocence, but to raise the question: how much of this information did you see in whatever newspaper(s) you read, hear on whatever radio broadcasts you listened to, or see and hear on whatever tv news and/or talking head tv shows you watched? How much do you, despite your conviction as to OJ's guilt, think the press should have told you?
My basic point was and is: the press, not all of course, but an inordinate number of its members, because of bias, failed to cover the civil trial especially in an objective manner. Additionally, many members of the press who didn't cover the trial, still sounded off on tv and radio and in newspapers with their biased and generally uninformed opinions. This press performance bordered on propaganda. It influenced the public opinion of the criminal trial, the jury in the criminal trial, and the civil trial. And it influenced it badly.
| ||||
© 1996, 1997 William Schreck © 1996 Source Interactive Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
