With the reading of the Verdicts of the Century, the O.J. Simpson circus may have folded its tent and sent the clowns home to write best-selling books. But the show, it turned out, wasn't over.
Although many said the world should just leave the guy alone - that Simpson had his day in court, played by the rules and was acquitted by a jury of his peers - there was still, for others, a nagging sense of business unfinished, of justice unserved.Now, on the second anniversary of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, a second trial nears. For some, the insult will be cruelly perpetuated. For others, a void may soon be filled.
The civil case is scheduled to start Sept. 9, though it may be delayed. Attorneys are completing preparations for the wrongful death suit with a colorful cast of new characters, a fresh look at some old faces and enough plot twists to keep the public riveted - and Simpson's fate in doubt.
"This case hit a raw nerve with many people for a variety of different reasons," said Southwestern University law professor Myrna Raeder. "I do believe that there would not have been this sustained interest in the civil case except for the fact that so many people feel that O.J. Simpson will be found liable for the murders - that, in essence, what the criminal case didn't do will happen in the civil case."
Maybe, maybe not. The Simpson case has confounded the pundits before, and, as the slow-speed Bronco chase so surrealistically showed, the only thing predictable about the Simpson case is its unpredictability.
But some themes have developed, and the case - the new case - has begun to take shape:
The motive
At the criminal trial, prosecutor Chris Darden described Simpson as a powder keg of jealous rage, with the fuse burning ever shorter, until - BOOM! - he committed the murders.
But, as bomb metaphors go, this one was a dud. Jurors said Darden didn't have the evidence to back up his imagery.
Plaintiff attorneys hope to change that, dedicating most of their pretrial efforts toward bolstering a motive for double-murder.
The plaintiffs have elicited the testimony that portrayed Simpson as a controlling, jealous, violent man prone to irrationality in matters involving Nicole Simpson, the ex-wife he couldn't let go.
Nicole Simpson, the witnesses said, lived in fear of Simpson, describing his threats of murder if she ever saw other men - and she was certainly seeing other men, perhaps even one of Simpson's best friends, Marcus Allen.
Simpson was pushed into violence, a plaintiff theory goes, by two events: his answering-machine dumping by girlfriend Paula Barbieri, and by something - nobody's sure what - that happened at his daughter's dance recital.
Such evidence wasn't introduced in any detail at the criminal trial, perhaps because it suffers some problems, especially witness credibility.
Defense attorneys are relishing the opportunity to cross-examine the likes of friend Faye Resnick, therapist Jennifer Ameli, houseboy Brian "Kato" Kaelin and sister Denise Brown, whom the defense will try to paint as a collection of flakes and liars.
Also, much of the motive testimony comes from people recounting what Nicole Simpson told them. The law calls that hearsay, and it's usually taboo at trial, unless the plaintiffs can figure out a way to get around it.
O.J. speaks
What won't be taboo this time is the voice of Simpson. Largely silent during the criminal case, his acquittal of murder means he can't be retried on the charge and no longer enjoys Fifth Amendment rights to keep quiet.
In a marathon deposition session, Simpson laid out his story, including his alibi, for the first time, and in excruciating detail. Plaintiffs laughed off much of his testimony, including the oft-reported claims he was hitting golf balls in the dark.
But still, Simpson never seriously contradicted himself. He stuck to his story from the criminal trial and almost never wavered in either deposition or in numerous media interviews.
Also, the defense will be relying at trial on Simpson's charm-wrapped believability, a force not to be underestimated. It was a commodity that helped make Simpson a rich man and may serve him well on the witness stand in what is still a case built on circumstantial evidence.
Physical evidence
It hasn't been mentioned very often in the course of the depositions, but it's all still there - the vials of blood, the cap, the gloves, the socks, the hairs, the fibers and all the accompanying scientific analysis, such as DNA tests placing Simpson's blood at the crime scene and the victim's blood at his house.
And, there may be one new piece of physical evidence: a photograph purporting to show Simpson wearing the same Bruno Magli shoes that the killer wore, a pair of shoes Simpson had said were too ugly for his tastes.
All this will make up the plaintiff's own mountain of evidence, and no matter how one looks at it, it is impressive. Yet, the defense at the criminal trial proved how a mountain can crumble, and Simpson's lawyers are gearing up for another attack on the physical evidence.
The burden of proof
The Simpson camp's efforts last time were classic criminal trial strategy: poke holes, raise provocative questions. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not so in the upcoming civil case. Since the stakes are Simpson's money, not his liberty, the plaintiffs need only show that a preponderance of the evidence points to Simpson's liability for murder. In addition, the verdict need not be unanimous. A vote of 9-3 suffices.
And these new ground rules, legal analysts say, may haunt Simpson most. It won't be enough to raise doubts. Simpson, they say, must offer plausible explanations in his defense.
"I personally think they can't do it," said Loyola University law professor Stan Goldman. "I think even some of the jurors who voted in Simpson's favor in the criminal trial said, `We thought he probably did it but they didn't prove it.' Well, `He probably did it' is the standard in the civil case."
*****
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Highlights of deposition testimony in the O.J. Simpson civil trial:
"If O.J. would ever kill me, he'll get away with it because he's O.J. Simpson." - Nicole Brown Simpson, according to Brian "Kato" Kaelin.'
"Between work, the kids, golf, my schedule, it was just too difficult to work things out, something to that effect." - Paula Barbieri, on the substance of the breakup message she left for Simpson the morning of the murders.
"It was very foreboding, dark, black eyes." - Nicole Simpson's father, Lou Brown, on Simpson's demeanor at his daughter's dance recital, the night of the murders.
"Oh, she's playing hardball with me" - Simpson after the dance recital, referring to his ex-wife, according to Kaelin.
"At that time Nicole was leading, like, a dangerous life" - Cora Fishman, on Nicole Simpson's final weeks.