Famed attorney Johnnie Cochran dead at 67

[canadateck]

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Famed attorney Johnnie Cochran, 67, perhaps best known for his defense of O.J. Simpson, died Tuesday at his home in Los Angeles.

"Johnnie Cochran was a loving, heartful human being who cared about everybody," said Pastor William Epps of the Second Baptist Church in Los Angeles, which Cochran attended for 18 years.

Cochran had been in a hospice suffering from a neurological problem, Epps said.

Simpson told CNN: "I loved him as a good Christian man. I look at Johnny as a great Christian. I knew him as that. He was a great guy."

Simpson said he last saw Cochran at an L.A. Lakers basketball game a few months ago and found the flamboyant lawyer to be in good spirits. "We were praying for him then, and I still am," Simpson said.

Simpson added that he knew Cochran long before he hired the African-American lawyer to lead his 'Dream Team' defense. "I was in social circles with Johnnie and we knew each other in that way," he said.

In 1994, Simpson was accused of killing his second former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her boyfriend Ron Goldman.

As Simpson's lawyer, Cochran famously quipped, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit," when Simpson tried to -- but couldn't -- fit his hands inside the killer's gloves.

Cochran's successful defense led to Simpson's acquittal.

Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. was born in Shreveport, Louisiana on October 2, 1937, the great-grandson of a slave.

He grew up in Los Angeles, went to UCLA for college and received his law degree from Loyola Marymount University. He passed the California bar in 1963, took a job in Los Angeles as a deputy city attorney in the criminal division.

Two years later, he entered private practice and soon opened his own firm, Cochran, Atkins & Evans. By the late 1970s, he had made his name in the black community, and was litigating a number of high-profile police brutality and criminal cases. In 1978, he joined the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, but returned to private practice five years later.

The People v. O.J. Simpson brought Cochran worldwide fame, but while he went on to defend other celebrities he would also accept less high-profile names, particularly when alleged police misconduct was involved.

CNN Producer Dree DeClamecy contributed to this story.

[lumis]

boy will his face be red when nicole tells him who killed her.. :P

[adam]

What makes you think they are going to the same place?

[lumis]

i dont think, i know.. for i am god.

p.s. - you're going to hell :P

[AlecWest]

boy will his face be red when nicole tells him who killed her.. :P

[conspiracy theory]
Nah ... OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ronald. He just knew who did and was protecting him. The bloody glove didn't fit. But, who wasn't asked to try it on? Who worked in the same industry as Ronald Goldman and may have been recognized by him ... necessitating that he die, too? Who was the only person waiting at the Rockingham mansion when OJ was acquited, embracing him as he passed through the gates? And who had previous violence in his legal history, as well as court appearances related to drug use, and previously stated that he hated Nicole - blaming her for the breakup between OJ and his mother (OJ's first wife)?

Answer - Jason Simpson, OJ's son by his first wife!

One more teaser (grin). When Dr. Lee, the defense team's forensic expert, flew home, one reporter asked him, "Dr. Lee, what was the prosecution's biggest forensic mistake?" Dr. Lee answered, "They went after the wrong Simpson." Later, when asked to clarify that comment, he denied even making it. And when CBS News asked attorney Alan Dershowitz about Dr. Lee's comment the next day, he just smiled and said, "You'll have to ask Dr. Lee." Woo Woo.
[/conspiracy theory]

[zzyzzx]

I'm glad he's dead!

[AlecWest]

I'm glad he's dead!

I heard he was being considered for Saddam's defense team (grin). Oh well, they can always get Mark Geregos after Michael Jackson's trial is over.

[the bomb]

boy will his face be red when nicole tells him who killed her.. :P

[conspiracy theory]
Nah ... OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ronald. He just knew who did and was protecting him. The bloody glove didn't fit. But, who wasn't asked to try it on? Who worked in the same industry as Ronald Goldman and may have been recognized by him ... necessitating that he die, too? Who was the only person waiting at the Rockingham mansion when OJ was acquited, embracing him as he passed through the gates? And who had previous violence in his legal history, as well as court appearances related to drug use, and previously stated that he hated Nicole - blaming her for the breakup between OJ and his mother (OJ's first wife)?

Answer - Jason Simpson, OJ's son by his first wife!



One more teaser (grin). When Dr. Lee, the defense team's forensic expert, flew home, one reporter asked him, "Dr. Lee, what was the prosecution's biggest forensic mistake?" Dr. Lee answered, "They went after the wrong Simpson." Later, when asked to clarify that comment, he denied even making it. And when CBS News asked attorney Alan Dershowitz about Dr. Lee's comment the next day, he just smiled and said, "You'll have to ask Dr. Lee." Woo Woo.
[/conspiracy theory]

Where did you get this information? I'd like to read more

[ViRaL1]

Everybody knows it was Kato!

[zzyzzx]

[AlecWest]

Where did you get this information? I'd like to read more

Note that I surrounded that post with "conspiracy theory" in brackets (grin). I heard this theory years ago. I checked out some of it, like the allegations surrounding Jason's violent past (true). He actually broke someone's nose during a brawl at a gas station. And, I actually SAW the Dershowitz interview on CBS with my own eyes and watched him smile when they asked about Dr. Lee's comment ... which I'd not heard of until then. And, I also saw Jason greeting OJ at the gate of the Rockingham estate and embracing him (from a helicopter's viewpoint on TV) when OJ was released. And, both Jason and Ronald Goldman worked in the local "upscale restaurant" biz ... Goldman as a waiter, Jason as a chef. They could have socialized in the same circles and known a lot of the same people (as well as each other).

But, it was no secret how Jason felt about Nicole. I suspect he was hoping for a reunification between his mom and dad, like many kids do in a divorce situation. And every time OJ tried to make nice with Nicole, it must have given Jason moments of rage.

But, in the end, it's just a conspiracy theory ... though it is one with at least some basis in fact. Before the incident, one of the things that could be said about OJ was that he was an astute businessman. He was very wise about his money. And, one has to wonder why a man with his savvy would go out of his way to point the finger of guilt at himself unless he felt that he could "get off." Also, after the humiliating defeat for prosecutors (and the threat of riots in the African-American community if OJ was found guilty), it was a foregone conclusion that the prosecutors weren't going to exacerbate things by going after the next logical suspect.

In any case, I'll always wonder about this. The theory may be a crock. But, then again...

[lumis]

okay, you get a violent past just for breaking someone's nose at a gas station? thats bullshit.

what if the guy was trying to rob him and he threw a straight left to the nose, broke it, dropped him & restrained him until the police could arrive?

there needs to be more details in your evidence, or actual evidence in a supporting "fact" that you present for a murder conspiracy theory.

what if someone beat you in to a coma with a lead pipe while stealing your car? does that mean you have a violent past?

[AlecWest]

there needs to be more details in your evidence, or actual evidence in a supporting "fact" that you present for a murder conspiracy theory.

Uhhh ... it ain't my theory. I just heard it years ago. And, the fact I surrounded it in "conspiracy theory" brackets means I don't necessarily buy it. But, I don't discount it either. I still wonder how good of a fit that bloody glove would have on Jason's hand ... but I guess we'll never know.

[garman]

Well, if the coffin fits there Cochran sits!

I just thought the devil finally collected on his agreement.

-garman

[Noahtuck]

Well, if the coffin fits there Cochran sits!

I just thought the devil finally collected on his agreement.

-garman

[the bomb]

there needs to be more details in your evidence, or actual evidence in a supporting "fact" that you present for a murder conspiracy theory.

Uhhh ... it ain't my theory. I just heard it years ago. And, the fact I surrounded it in "conspiracy theory" brackets means I don't necessarily buy it. But, I don't discount it either. I still wonder how good of a fit that bloody glove would have on Jason's hand ... but I guess we'll never know.

I never heard this before but it sure does make you think. I don't understand why they didn't question Jason and didn't they also close the case?

[AlecWest]

I never heard this before but it sure does make you think. I don't understand why they didn't question Jason and didn't they also close the case?

The prosecutors were in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation. If they pursued any other suspect too quickly (Jason included), it would be like admitting they'd just spent millions of tax dollars prosecuting the wrong man. They chose to not rock the boat ... preserving the belief (or illusion) that they were "sure" OJ was guilty.

And who knows, maybe OJ was guilty. But, the "bloody glove" not fitting was a "reasonable doubt" and Cochran was wise to present it as such. And if it didn't fit OJ, who would it fit?

[lumis]

there needs to be more details in your evidence, or actual evidence in a supporting "fact" that you present for a murder conspiracy theory.

Uhhh ... it ain't my theory. I just heard it years ago. And, the fact I surrounded it in "conspiracy theory" brackets means I don't necessarily buy it. But, I don't discount it either. I still wonder how good of a fit that bloody glove would have on Jason's hand ... but I guess we'll never know.

you presented the murder as a conspiracy theory, but not the supporting evidence (violent past).

[AlecWest]

you presented the murder as a conspiracy theory, but not the supporting evidence (violent past).

http://www.rense.com/general4/oj.htm

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/_Iago03/000000cd.htm

Most of the original stuff I saw doesn't seem available ... just reprints of stories that appeared elsewhere.

But, the basis for the theory comes from a BBC documentary, as mentioned on this page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/954700.stm

Then, there's this article from the Dallas Observer:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-04-12/news/feature_print.html

Here are excerpts from the article ... and things I didn't know about until now:

"My investigation," he writes, "uncovered the fact that the day after the murders...O.J. retained a high-profile criminal defense attorney who specialized in death penalty murder cases to represent Jason Simpson. Why would he hire a criminal attorney to represent Jason, who was not even a suspect at the time?"

The police, Dear says, had, from the outset of their investigation, been convinced that Jason had an alibi for the time--shortly after 10:15 p.m.--when the murders were committed. Jason Simpson was a chef at a trendy Beverly Hills restaurant called Jackson's, and he had allegedly worked until 11 p.m., then was picked up by a girlfriend who was driving his Jeep. They had gone directly to her apartment to watch a movie on television.

However, when Dear located the girlfriend and interviewed her, she told a different story. Because business had been slow that evening, she said, Jason had closed the kitchen early and left work at 9:45. According to her account, Jason had left her place at approximately 11 p.m.

Then, in his civil deposition, Jason provided yet another version: He indicated that he left the restaurant between 10 and 10:30 p.m., drove his girlfriend to her apartment, kissed her good night in the Jeep, then went directly home where he watched TV alone until three in the morning.

"All three versions," Dear says, "can't be right." One thing that is consistent in each version, however, is that Simpson did have his set of chef's knives with him when he left the restaurant.

... and ...

On at least two occasions, Jason Simpson, diagnosed by his doctor as suffering an intermittent rage disorder that was being controlled by the drug Depakote, had physically assaulted ex-girlfriends. One, who Dear quotes at length, described Simpson as being gentle and loving at one moment, then angry and out of control the next.

In the book, she describes one of many violent incidents that occurred between them: "He [Jason] grabbed me and pinned me down on the bathroom floor. Then he grabbed for my braids. He started whacking off my hair with his chef's knife." Several times, she told the private investigator, Simpson had attempted suicide. On one occasion, she recalled, he had broken a plate-glass window, had picked up one of the shards and began slashing at his wrists. "He was yelling, 'See what I'm going to do? I'm going to kill myself.' It was all so crazy. He was acting like a madman, somebody else, somebody I didn't know."

The violence and anger, she told Dear, generally occurred when Simpson was not taking his medication. She said that she had seen Jason two months before the murders occurred, and he had told her he was no longer taking the Depakote. "I asked him," Dear quotes her as saying, "and he told me, 'No, that medication was ******* me up in the head. I'm not taking that shit anymore.'"

As one forensic psychologist who reviewed Dear's findings stated in Dear's book, Jason Simpson was, at the time of the Bundy murders, "a walking time bomb."

[AlecWest]

BTW, did you know Johnny Cochran was a respondent in a lawsuit against him that is still pending in the Supreme Court? Not an April Fools joke, either:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/11283214.htm

No rest for the Surpreme Court, eh? The go right from a case involving a dying woman into a case involving a man who's already dead.

[Kunta Kinte]

What makes you think they are going to the same place?

Did you send him to another destination? For all you know, she could be ecstatic with his defense of her ex-husband, saying something like, "Glad you won, Johnny, the police had the wrong guy."

[adam]

It was just a joke alluding to the fact that alot of people didn't like the guy, not a comment on the O.J. Simpson trial at all.

[Kunta Kinte]

BTW, did you know Johnny Cochran was a respondent in a lawsuit against him that is still pending in the Supreme Court? Not an April Fools joke, either:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/11283214.htm

No rest for the Surpreme Court, eh? The go right from a case involving a dying woman into a case involving a man who's already dead.

It's old news knowing you can sue the deceased. His estate is still attachable in civil suits, so sense you can't take it with you, the courts can and will take it from you, whether you're alive to see it or not.

[adam]

No one is trying to get any money from him or his estate, well at least not in the case mentioned. The complaintant was sued multiple times by Cochran for defaming him but he was judgment proof (no money) so Cochran somehow got a judge to agree to a ridiculous injunction which prevented the guy from saying anything about Cochran anywhere for any reason. This injunction is being reviewed to determine whether it is too broad and the reason why the issue isn't moot now that Cochran is dead is because the injunction doesn't end at his death.

This will hurt the Complaintant's case though because one of their big arguments was that Cochran was a viable candidate for political office and the injunction would therefore limit free political speech.

[Kunta Kinte]

Sorry, but the recently deceased can and has run for office, and some have even won. Democrats Clement Miller of California, Nick Begich of Alaska, and Hale Boggs of Louisiana were incumbents who died in plane crashes weeks before Election Day. So the Constitution doesn't outlaw the dearly departed from seeking office. So that legal argument is "dead" to say the least.