Among the things I found in the case file for Shively's March 1995 suit against Clarke, a fragment of a deposition involving Clarke is likely the most provocative I will discover.
HOW TO DO IT: Before describing the document, I should address the question of access. Some in the newsgroup have been critical of me for asserting things on my own authority (I am hardly alone in this failing) and so I think it would be useful to describe the process that anyone who lives in Southern California could use to find the same information I have found.
The records I will describe (here and later) are in the L.A. County Courthouse at 111 North Hill Street, in downtown Los Angeles. Parking in the vicinity is astronomically expensive (I saw one sign for $1.35 per 10 minutes) but the new L.A. subway is conveniently near. Get off the subway at the Civic Center exit, and that will put you on the southwest corner of Hill and 1st streets. The big building on the west side of Hill immediately across 1st Street to the north is the courthouse. Entering through the front door (no metal detector) one is confronted with a long hallway stretching to the west. Go down that to Room 112 (on the left). At the first counter you find, ask for the file. You will be given a small (3" by 5") yellow form on which to write the case file number (BC124652) and identify yourself. Give that to the clerk, and she will give you a "take-a-number" ticket. After about ten minutes, your number will be called.
The clerk will tell you that the file is an "Odd File" and direct you to another counter about 40 feet to the west, and give you back your yellow form. Take the request there, and after a few more minutes you will get a packing box full of documents. Take that box to a glassed-in area with tables and chairs located halfway back to the original window. That is the place where you will study what you have found.
You will find that the contents of the box are bound into four "Volumes" (ACCO fasteners). Look in Volume 3. About two thirds the way down in that volume, you will find a file folder with numbered index tabs on the bottom, titled, "Carol Hickman Declaration." Go to Part 6 of that, which is identified on the cover page as "Excerpt of Brian Patrick Clarke Deposition." (Carol Heickman was Shively's attorney in this action.) Part 6 is four pages long and is identified in the footer as being pages 143 through 146 of that deposition; the footer also bears the identification, "RAY WEBB & ASSOCIATES". There is no indication of the date of the deposition or the identity of the interrogator. The format of the four pages looks like an authentic deposition fragment. This is what it says (verbatim after the title, line numbers and footers omitted; first two lines from previous discussion omitted.):
BRIAN PATRICK CLARKE DEPOSITION FRAGMENT:
Q. WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU LEARNED THAT JILL SHIVELY WAS INVOLVED AS A WITNESS IN THE SIMPSON CASE? A. JUNE 21ST, 1994. Q. AND HOW DID YOU BECOME AWARE? A. HER APPEARANCE ON HARD COPY. Q. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO AFTER YOU SAW HER ON HARD COPY? A. I MADE TWO PHONE CALLS. Q. AND WHO DID YOU CALL? A. I CALLED ROBERT SHAPIRO'S OFFICES, AND I CALLED PAMELA BOZONOVITCH FROM THE D.A.'S OFFICE. Q. AND HOW DID YOU KNOW PAMELA BOZONOVITCH?
MR. RING: OBJECTION. LACKS FOUNDATION THAT HE KNEW HER BEFORE HE CALLED HER, BUT YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU. SHE WAS MY EX- SISTER-IN-LAW.
Q. HAD YOU EVER -- PRIOR TO JUNE 21, 1994, WERE YOU A FRIEND OF O.J. SIMPSON? A. YES Q. HOW LONG HAD YOU KNOWN O.J SIMPSON? A. PERSONALLY KNOWN HIM? Q. YES. A. APPROXIMATELY, 10 YEARS. Q. HAD YOU BEEN TO HIS HOUSE? A. YES. Q. BEEN OUT TO DINNER WITH HIM? A. BEEN OUT TO DINNER WITH HIM? Q. YES A. NO. Q. WERE YOU AT HIS HOUSE FOR PARTIES? STRIKE THAT.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE WERE YOU AT HIS HOUSE?
A. FOR A PARTY AND SOFTBALL GAME, BARBECUE AND SOFT BALL GAME. Q. AND APPROXIMATELY WHEN WAS THAT? A. 1986 AND 1987. Q. WHEN YOU TELEPHONED ROBERT SHAPIRO, WHAT DID YOU SAY?
MR. RING: OBJECTION MISCHARACTERLZES THE WITNESS TESTIMONY. HE SAID HE CALLED ROBERT SHAPIRO'S OFFICE.
Q. BY MS. HICKMAN: WHEN YOU TELEPHONED, ROBERT SHAPIRO'S OFFICE, WHO DID YOU TALK TO? A. HIS ANSWERING SERVICE. Q. DID YOU LEAVE A MESSAGE? A. I DID. Q DID YOU EVER TALK TO ROBERT SHAPIRO? A. NO. Q. DID YOU EVER TALK TO ANYONE IN MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE OTHER THAN THE ANSWERING SERVICE? A. YES. Q WHO DID YOU TALK TO? A. BILL PAVLICK. Q. IS THAT THE ONLY PERSON IN MR. SHAPIRO'S OFFICE YOU TALKED TO? A. THE ONLY ONE I RECALL. Q. AND WHAT DID YOU TELL BILL PAVLICK? A. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD AN EXTENSIVE HISTORY WITH THIS WITNESS, WHO HAD SUDDENLY SOLD HER STORY TO HARD COPY, AND THAT I THOUGHT THEY WOULD WANT VERY MUCH TO SPEAK WITH ME. Q. AND DID HE SEND SOMEONE TO YOUR HOUSE TO TALK TO YOU? A. HE SPOKE WITH ME ON THE PHONE. Q. IS THAT THE ONLY CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH MR. PAVLICK? A. NO. Q. WHEN WAS THE SECOND CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH MR. PAVLICK? A. THE NEXT DAY. Q. AND DID HE CALL YOU, OR DID YOU CALL HIM? A. HE CALLED ME. Q. AND WHAT DID MR. PAVLICK TELL YOU ON THE SECOND DAY, SECOND PHONE CONVERSATION? A. HE THANKED ME VERY MUCH, AND TOLD ME THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION I HAD GIVEN HIM THAT THEY WOULDN'T NEED A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM ME. Q. WOULD NOT NEED A WRITTEN STATEMENT? A. THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. RING: WHAT TIME DO YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE METER? THE WITNESS: IN ABOUT THREE MINUTES I'VE GOT TO MAKE A MOVE.
Q. BY MS. HICKMAN: DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. PAVLICK? A. NOT THAT I RECALL. Q. AND WHEN DID YOU CALL PAMELA BOZONOVITCH? IS THAT CLOSE ENOUGH? WHEN DID YOU CALL HER? A. SAME EVENING, JUNE 21ST, 1994. Q. HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS DID YOU HAVE...
Note: Bosco spells Pamela's name, "Bozanich;"; so does Marcia Clark.
INTERPRETATION: To interpret this correctly, it is necessary to know that there was a long running feud between Shively and Clarke at the time of the June 21st incident. By that time there had already occurred the small claims action that has been previously hinted at, and there had also been petitions for restraining orders in which Shively alleged that Clarke had engaged in harassment, assault, stalking, and threatening against her and her mother. In saying this, I do not take a position as to who was right and who was wrong in the Shively/Clarke dispute, but only to indicate that there was an ongoing state of hostility between them.
So, Clarke was already set to commit an act of hostility against Shively, when she appeared on television on June 21st, 1994. My own interpretation is that he formulated a plan to throw a monkey wrench into Shively's testimony for this reason alone, and called Shapiro's office to bounce the idea off a legal type. From somewhere he got Marcia Clark's fax number -- either from Pavlick or from Pamela -- this is not a resource that we would have expected him to have on the morning of June 21st. It seems likely that Pavlick also gave him encouragement to circulate his tale (and perhaps embellish it) to the prosecutors. (I would frankly like to think that Clarke's participation in the matter was engineered out of Shapiro's office, but at the present state of the evidence, it does not look that way.)
In any event, Clarke's personal motivations emerge from this, and cause one to think that those - and not a desire for justice -- motivated him to contact prosecutors. Furthermore, our primary interest in Clarke is that he is the source of claims about Shively's bad character and her untruthfulness. We can see from the above that he was not a neutral person with regard to Shively, and are led to believe that we will have to look elsewhere for any indication of her bad character. The basis on which the prosecutors (and Bosco) disbelieved her is very suspect.
Dick Wagner Van Nuys, CA (10/02/98) NG423