by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 9, 1999
All Rights Reserved.

ou can’t trust the messenger," argued evangelical Johnnie Cochran to battle-fatigued, sequestered jurors during the O.J. criminal trial, "they [the police and district attorney] believe in 'winning at all costs.'" Former public defender and district attorney Johnnie Cochran carried abundant credibility with jurors, weighing out the avalanche of compelling evidence during the criminal trial. Accused of playing the 'race card,' Cochran pleaded with jurors to doubt the veracity of police accounts during all phases of the Simpson criminal trial. Though the D.A. and a skeptical public dismissed the argument as tactical spin, he introduced just enough doubt — not about Simpson’s guilt or innocence — to impeach the credibility of the police. "A rush to judgment" and "you can’t trust the messenger" were Cochran’s favorite mantras undermining the D.A’s bullet-proof case. Placing the LAPD on trial brilliantly turned the O.J. trial on its head. Judging by the outcome, it worked like clock work.

       Once viewed with suspicion, Cochran’s 'rogue cop' theory takes on new meaning in the wake of 'shocking' revelations in LAPD’s Rampart division. When rogue narcotics cop Rafael Perez was snared for stealing and reselling 8 pounds of cocaine, he began 'singing like a canary' to save his hide. Plea bargaining for a 'lighter' sentence, Perez admitted to shooting — with his partner, Nino Durden — unarmed gang member Javier Francisco Ovando in the back, planting evidence, and then framing him. When an internal probe corroborated these facts, Ovando was released from prison, an injunction against the dangerous 18th Street Gang was rescinded, and a dozen officers were fired or relieved of duty. "This is devastating," said an unnamed, high-ranking official, turning back the clock to the corrupt bygone era of Los Angeles, Mafia-style mayor Frank Shaw in the late 1930s.

       While the Ovando case raises new concerns about police corruption, it opens up a can of worms about the sacrosanct nature of law enforcement. Was Johnnie Cochran right when he questioned the integrity of the police and district attorney? Is Ovando’s case an isolated incident or the tip of the iceberg within the LAPD? Despite these revelations, LAPD police chief Bernard C. Parks resisted surrendering control to Gerald Chaleff and the Los Angeles Police Commission, and the appointment of an inspector general. When federal authorities widened their probe and the Los Angeles City Council weighed in on the issue, he abruptly acquiesed. "This is just the beginning of the investigation," said Chief Parks, "we may wind up with a lot of information we can’t prove . . ." After the scandal broke, why did LAPD officials act as if they were clueless? Who’s been asleep at the switch? Or is this just more 'smoke' and what’s meant by the 'code of silence'?

       Beyond the immediate incident, does it expose a dangerous illusion that law enforcement is immune from the same type of corruption or criminal conduct found in other industries? Are there any sacred cows left? Is it politically correct to question manipulation and corruption behind the scenes in any field? No one wanted to believe that tele-evangelists Jim and Tammie Baker fleeced their unsuspecting and devoted ministry. Nor could anyone imagine that charismatic preacher Jimmy Swaggart succumbed to earthly temptations. Blaming his indiscretions on personal 'weakness,' showed at least some measure of contrition. Compare that admission to certain celebrities whose blame focuses on incredulous explanations, 'yellow journalism,' or farfetched conspiracy theories. Does spin, deception and hidden agendas all go with the territory?

       "I never fleeced anyone," said a defiant Charles Keating Jr., the former president of the now defunked Lincoln Savings, standing accused by federal regulators and his board of bilking millions of dollars from unsuspecting investors in phony junk bond deals. "How could this be," said one stunned depositor after learning he had lost his entire life savings, "bank officers and personnel are bonded and totally above board." Mind blowing surprises to many naive investors placing unquestioned trust in sacrosanct institutions. With the collapse of Millkin’s junk bond empire in the late ‘80s, investors developed a modicum of suspicion about fraudulent investment schemes. But how many of today’s investors still lose their shirts 'believing' their investment advisors with evangelical faith?

       With the scandal crazed ‘90s, many people have long since abandoned their illusions about public servants. Since Watergate, the public has a healthy skepticism about the unexpected, behind the scenes behavior of elected officials. If nothing else, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal proved that even presidents are more 'human' than anything else. Despite the public’s need to idealize their elected representatives, judicial appointees ["For heaven sakes, not judges!"], physicians ["Oh my God, no!"], scientists ["No way!"], clergy [‘Not them!"], and, yes, journalists ["You’ve got to be kidding!"] are not immune to lying, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, compulsive gambling, even sexual perversity or anything else. Sorry to burst the bubble, but no matter how you slice it, human beings are still composed of the same protoplasm. And yet the spin and illusions go on.

       "Religion is for weak-minded people," said politically incorrect Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura. Minimizing the fallout, Ventura explained, "his statements were taken out of context." Really. "People elected me to tell the truth . . .," chattered Ventura, lending some tenuous explanation for why people should dismiss his deeply offensive remarks. What Ventura doesn’t get is that the public wants to be spared from exposure to his eccentric, personal views. Whether offending people with reckless statements about religion or incendiary interpretations of U.S. history, clever propagandists advance their agendas in different ways. Saying there are bad apples in every barrel doesn’t excuse us from looking squarely in the mirror and facing reality. Turning a blind eye is risky business. Today law enforcement is under the gun, tomorrow it might be you.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.