O.J. Simpson Accused of Casino Robbery

Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007 2:00 PM

Post staff writer Paul Farhi took your questions about the latest charges against O.J. Simpson, accused of robbing a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

Farhi was online Monday, Sept. 17, at 2 p.m. ET.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Paul Farhi: Greetings, everyone, and thanks for stopping by. I'll try to tell you what I know, and don't know, about the ongoing O.J. saga. Love to hear your thoughts on this, too. Let's go right to your questions and comments..

_______________________

Tysons Corner, Va.: Seems like OJ would make a great collection agent for overdue library books and video rentals! He himself is certainly overdue for some prison time.

Paul Farhi: I think, of course, that that's why this story has such resonance. There is so much pent-up anger at O.J., and at the justice system, that dates back to the first reports of the murders in Brentwood in 1994...

_______________________

Baltimore: Paul: Assuming the case ever gets to trial, is it possible to assemble an impartial jury? Might not the citizens of Las Vegas take it upon themselves to convict Simpson of this armed robbery simply to, in some small way, equal the score about the results of the murder trial?

Paul Farhi: Exactly. First, is there anyone left in America who hasn't heard of O.J.? And second, is there anyone who doesn't have an opinion about him, in either direction? Assuming this does go to a jury trial, selection will be very problematic.

_______________________

Colorado Springs, Colo.: I am certainly no O.J. fan, and share the opinion of many people that he got away with murder. However, it struck me as odd that he was being held without bond, when one of his alleged accomplices was released with no bond whatsoever. As far as I can tell, the charges were virtually identical. It does seem to support his contention that he is not treated equitably by law enforcement agencies. What's your take?

Paul Farhi: His behavior in 1994 would seem to be relevant here. Remember the Bronco "chase"? I think the Las Vegas cops could argue that he's a flight risk. On the other hand, where could O.J. go to/hide where he wouldn't be recognized instantly?

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: While I cannot seem to get the straight story on this (O.J. did/did not have a gun), and while you cannot get into O.J's head, I wonder if you think Simpson thinks he can get away with things like this because "a jury will never convict me," In other words, with the numbers of people who want their picture taken with O.J., and/or would be thrilled to play golf with him (or other signs of his popularity among certain people), he seems to live in a world that contributes inappropriate (if not downright criminal) behavior inappropriately never pay for it, so he just keeps doing it.

Paul Farhi: Well, first, O.J. did NOT have a gun, according to all accounts, including the police and the alleged victims...But O.J. does seem to have a weird blind spot; surely, he knows he's under a microscope every minute. Surely, that would have dissuaded him from doing something that could be misinterpreted/misconstrued. This is surely an instance like that, even if he's completely innocent.

_______________________

Chelmsford, Ma.: Thank you for doing this chat

Given the civil judgment against him, can O.J. come up with bail money or lawyers fees without admitting he has been hiding assets?

Paul Farhi: I don't know for sure, but O.J. does have resources--pensions and other income that he and his lawyers have legally shielded from seizure by the Goldman family. He received $684,000 from Rupert Murdoch's publishing company for writing "If I Did It," for example. He's not broke.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Is O.J. the stupidest man on the face of the Earth? He should just move to a tropical island and stay out of the limelight.

Paul Farhi: Again, the blind spot, I think. He seems to want to be in the spotlight, or at least in public, for reasons that I can't fathom.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: One simple question: Why didn't OJ hire the police to get his items back? Did he think he wouldn't get caught?

I'm baffled why after all these years he decides to do something stupid like this. I guess some people never learn.

Paul Farhi: I am baffled by that, too. You or I would have done that, but not him. O.J.'s explanation is that cops never help him when he calls. In fact, he feels they are counter-productive--i.e, "out to get" him. So, I guess he figured he could handle this himself. But not very well, apparently.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Is this truly important? Have you had a discussion on the Jena 6?

Paul Farhi: On some level, yes, this is important. It's about celebrity and justice and race and fairness and the mysteries of human behavior. And Jena is important, too. We can handle more than one important story at a time.

_______________________

Los Angeles: How do we know this all isn't just part of a police conspiracy to get O.J. Simpson and that the glove used to commit the burglary won't fit and that the real burglar is still out there?

Paul Farhi: There's no doubt that O.J. was involved in this. The only question was whether a crime was committed and by whom.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: So, when do you think he will start looking for the real thieves?

Paul Farhi: I know you think that's mighty clever, but O.J. would say that the real thieves were the ones who took his stuff in the first place.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: How can OJ claim that anything of any real value is his, when the courts have awarded everything to the Goldmans and the Browns? Didn't he sell all of his memorabilia to pay on the civil suit, including his Heisman? Seems to me that if these items really were 'his', then the items now belong to the Goldmans and Browns.

Paul Farhi: That's exactly what Fred Goldman's lawyer was saying when the police first brought O.J. in for questioning on Friday. He said all of the items, if they have any value at all, belong to either the dealers or to the Goldmans and Browns, but in no case do they belong to O.J. However, as noted, O.J. has constructed a very elaborate legal moat that has kept the Goldmans and Browns from seeing anything but a few thousand dollars on their multi-, multi-, multi-million dollar civil judgment against him.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Will this turn into another racism issue where black people think the charges are made up by white people and white people think the charges are not made up?

Paul Farhi: There's plenty of room for doubt here. I don't care if you're white or black, the man gets the presumption of innocence. And based on what's been revealed so far, I wouldn't be so quick to convict him of the very serious felony charges he's facing...

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: If Beardsley does not wish to press charges, is "on O.J.'s side" (aren't we all), then doesn't that pretty much let the air out of the bag on this?

Paul Farhi: Not necessarily, although it does seem to weaken the prosecution's case somewhat. There are other witnesses (the other dealer, O.J.'s associates) who could testify. And even if the guy is on O.J.'s side, he may still be called to testify about what he saw and heard. His testimony could conceivably put O.J. away.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Will O.J. be able to hire a dream team of lawyers or is he too poor to afford one? Or, will some big-shot lawyer give him a break to get a piece of the publicity?

Paul Farhi: I'd go with the latter possibility, although again, O.J. does have some assets. We can say for sure that the old "Dream Team" isn't coming back. Johnnie Cochrane and Robert Kardashian are dead; F. Lee Bailey has been disbarred. Barry Scheck is still around, but I'm not sure he'll take this one on...

_______________________

Woodbridge, Va.: So the audio recording of the event was provided to the media by the man who told O.J. about the items being for sale and arranged the hotel meeting. Me thinks that the sting was actually against O.J. himself.

Paul Farhi: I heard that tape several times this morning. I'm not sure if it helps or hurts O.J.'s case. He's obviously mad, but that's hardly a crime....

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: More an observation than a question but isn't it ironic that O.J. would state, "I'm O.J. Simpson. How am I going to think that I'm going to rob somebody and get away with it?" When in fact, he murdered two people and got away with it.

Paul Farhi: Thanks for the observation. I'll leave it at that.

_______________________

Say it isn't so. . .: Who carries a recording device to a stick-up? Was OJ set up by this sports memorabilia guy who tipped him off to this auction that was going on in Vegas?

Paul Farhi: Well, you'd have to assume the auction-house guy knew something bad was going to happen and brought along the recording device to try and prove it. But why should we assume that? There are no indications that the guy had a grudge against O.J. And again, he might have been recording it to prove that NOTHING bad happened...

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: As we chat, OJ is in jail, bail hearing tomorrow (I think). So, why is the media going into overdrive? Is there nothing else to cover, like Danilynn's first birthday, or Britney not wearing panties? Please, people, FOCUS! Americans are dying overseas, the dollar is in the toilet, and the Justice Department is knee deep in corruption! I'm thankful that baseball season still has a couple of weeks of life in it, so I can change the channel when the talking heads start yammering about OJ.

Paul Farhi: I certainly think the O.J. story needs to be put into its proper context, which is NOT hours and hours of talking heads speculating on this, that and the next thing. The cable news networks (as is their wont) massaged about four facts into an entire afternoon of programming yesterday. I hope we're not in for more of that.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Do you think the publicity surrounding the release of the book by Goldman somehow made O.J. want to get back in the limelight, even if it meant doing something stupid, like armed robbery? Maybe the pressure made him crack, in a weird way

Paul Farhi: I've heard speculation to that effect, but it's the sort of thing they gab about on the aforementioned cable networks. So, short answer: I don't know, and unless he 'fesses up to it, let's call off this part of the guessing game.

_______________________

Denton, Tex.: I doubt many people out there have looked directly into OJ's eyes. While boarding a plane in Ft. Lauderdale, I noticed a large, black man squeeze his way into line ahead of me and my wife. It was OJ! On our plane! I had a huge grin on my face. Wow, OJ! He turned and notice my ear to ear smile, then he mocked my smile by exaggerating the smile back to me. Then, the smile turned to a snarl and he frowned at me with a look of, "You better wipe that smile off your face, boy."

Wow! OJ wanted to kill me!

By the way, he sat in coach.

Paul Farhi: Wow, is right! But maybe you misread his expression (and, yes, maybe you didn't). Well, in any case, I can't imagine what it must be like to be O.J. and be out in public. I'm NOT being sympathetic, by the way. I'm just sayin'...

_______________________

Newark, N.J.: To get the book thrown at O.J., the DAs will need to turn the other witnesses via plea bargains. Then they will have to use the civil conviction (admissible) to show that, perhaps uniquely in that room, O.J. is prone to intense homicidal rage, and demonstrably capable of hideously violent murder of anyone who gets in his way when he is angry. THAT'S why the sentencing range for armed robbery and burglary is so wide -- when committed by the wrong person it's a very dangerous crime due to potential for escalation. I think the idiots here are not O.J., they're the fools who would participate in a potentially violent confrontation with him, involving guns.

Paul Farhi: VEry interesting. Certainly, the audio tape would be helpful in reinforcing the idea that he was very, very angry. But it's also possible that O.J. was just mad, and really did NOT intend to become violent. On the other hand, if you beleive that his cronies were packing (O.J. denies it), you wouldn't want to cross him (hence, the conspiracy to commit burglary charge).

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Not making excuses... but have you ever met OJ? I am curious whether he comes off as a bright knowledgeable guy, or whether it is possible that he just isn't very smart and has had a lot of people around him giving him bad advice and taking advantage of him over the years.

Again, not making excuses, just trying to find a rational explanation amid all this mess.

Paul Farhi: Funny you should mention it--I did meet O.J. once. I was a kid, maybe 13, and was visiting a friend who lived down the street from O.J. in Bel Air (super-posh section of west Los Angeles). We were tossing a football around in the street, and my friend stopped as a Rolls Royce came up the block. He stood right in front of it, and out stepped O.J. (he was pals with my friend). It was thrilling, because all of us kids idolized him. But that was a long, long time ago.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Regarding bail, the unfortunate fact exists that he was found not guilty in a court of law on the previous charges. The cops really can't use information from those charge in this case, can they?

And I agree with you. It may seem silly to focus on yet another celebrity story, but it does say a lot about our culture, race, and equality under the law.

Paul Farhi: I'll defer to better legal minds than my own on the admissability question. But there isn't a hearing judge in America who isn't aware of the Bronco chase...

_______________________

San Francisco: Hi Paul,

You reference the Bronco chase as possible connection to the no-bail decision.

On a similar track, can the civil decison against OJ for the murders of Nicole and Ron Goldman impact ruling(s) if this case goes to court?

Paul Farhi: Good question. Legal eagles, please weigh in...

_______________________

Falls Church, VA: Because of the 1994 murder case, OJ's status has sunk so low that he is almost forced to associate with other disreputable types--such as the gun toting "hitmen" in this particular alleged robbery (even though OJ was apparently not carrying a gun). The company he now keeps is part of what's getting him into trouble, as well as his own pampered mindset.

Paul Farhi: Who ARE those guys? That's going to be one of the things we find out in the next few days. And why would anyone want to hang around with O.J. in the first place?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why is the state of Nevada using its tax payers money and resources on a case where the alleged victim doesn't want to press charges... does this smell like a witch hunt to you... I mean who really cares except the people who believe OJ got away with murder... haven't we all gotten away with something? When is this going to end and we are we going to tire of this type of foolishness from our elected officials? I guess when we stop watching....

Paul Farhi: Well, um, if a guy is stealing merchandise at the point of a gun, don't you think that's something law enforcement should look into? It may turn out that he wasn't stealing anything, and had no idea there were guns involved, but the accusation is certainly worth investigating.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The resonance of O.J.: You may have to be over 50 years old to understand why the Simpson murder case was such a huge deal in the 90s and why this bizarre Vegas thing has such strong echoes.

O.J. Simpson was an American icon. Heisman Trophy winner, first running back to gain 2,000 yards in a single season. He parlayed a winning, affable presence into a successful TV commercial career, then feature films ("The Towering Inferno," the "Naked Gun" movies and quite a few more). And out of the blue, the police say he brutally murdered his wife and some poor hapless guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was so utterly at variance with his public history that people were shocked. It was like discovering that Andy Griffith was secretly a Colombian drug lord. That disconnect carries through today.

Paul Farhi: Well, I agree with everything you said up until the last sentence. We have been disabused, over and over, of the idea that O.J. is/was some kind of all-American hero. Say what you will about him, but he ain't exactly that.

_______________________

Maryland: So what are the odds of some lawyer getting a call from OJ and saying "uh, sorry but I'm booked - can't take the case."

Or does publicity trump the ick factor?

Paul Farhi: O.J. will have lawyers standing in line to take his case, for free. The photo ops, the guest shots on CNN, the reporters dogging you every step of the way...the publicity is golden. And what you call the "ick" factor can easily be rationalized/refuted by any lawyer who takes the case: Every American is entitled to the best representation possible, and I'm the best representation possible.

_______________________

Atlanta: Took his stuff? Who took his stuff? Thought he sold all this stuff, which makes it no longer his stuff.

Paul Farhi: O.J. says the "stuff" was stolen from him and is his personal property. Others, of course, disagree.

_______________________

Paul Farhi: Folks, thanks loads for the chat. There are obviously many more shoes to drop in this one. We'll try to stay abreast of the latest. In the meantime, regards to all....Paul.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.