O.J. HOLDS THE LINE

By ELIZABETH GLEICK

The plaintiffs gave it their best shot. For nine hours and two minutes, their lawyers tried to shake the defendant, to provoke an outburst, to spark a defining moment that would convince a majority of the 12 jurors that O.J. Simpson was guilty of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. But the former football star never lost his cool. Asked by plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Petrocelli, who did the bulk of the interrogating, if he had an explanation for how the blood of his ex-wife and Goldman might have ended up in his Bronco, Simpson responded, as he had dozens of times already, that he had no idea. Dismissed juror Ann-Marie Jamison, though, did not buy his claims and told CNN, "It seemed a little unbelievable."

Whether one believes that Simpson was telling the truth depends, like so much else in this bog of a case, on perspective. What is incontrovertible, however, is that he remained unwavering as he wove a net of denials and declarations of innocence. O.J. will get another chance to speak in his own defense; his attorneys in the wrongful-death suit brought by the victims' families will recall him to the stand to answer friendlier questions when they present their case. But as in the criminal trial, it may be hard to recognize a defining moment when it actually occurs. Detective Mark Fuhrman's testimony that he had not used the word nigger in the past 10 years at first fell with an anticlimactic thud; it was only later, when he was revealed as a liar, that the case shattered open. Simpson may find himself caught in a similar trap. For if his testimony is right, so many people--and so much evidence--must be wrong.

The plaintiffs plan to wrap up their case by the end of this week or next, but not before they bring on witnesses who they hope will impeach Simpson's testimony. They may parade six or seven people who claim they saw O.J. hit Nicole. They will introduce into evidence notes taken by domestic-violence expert Lenore Walker, who was brought in by the original defense team and who wrote that Simpson told her he called former girlfriend Paula Barbieri from his Bronco the night of the murders--not from home, as he insisted last week. Barbieri is expected also to say that Simpson called her from the Bronco the day of the murders and that he was distressed by her attempts to break off their relationship. Placing Simpson in the Bronco between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. would shred his alibi that he was at home when the killings occurred.

As the case continues--and perhaps even after it concludes--another central bone of contention is the lie-detector test. Last week Simpson claimed that although he went to the office of Los Angeles polygraph expert Edward Gelb and answered questions while "wired up," he never officially took a lie-detector test and had no idea that the results were a dismal minus 22. Simpson's buddy Robert Kardashian, however, revealed to author Lawrence Schiller that O.J. was devastated by those results--and Kardashian may be called to repeat that information to the jury. But because polygraph results are not admissible in California courts, some experts speculate that if Simpson is found liable, the mention of the lie detector will be seized as grounds for appeal--despite the fact that the test was first brought up by defense attorney Robert Baker in his opening statement. Just thinking about the prospect of Simpson Redux Redux induces weariness. "My own sense is that the appellate court would be as unhappy about seeing a third O.J. Simpson trial as most of the rest of us," says University of Michigan criminal-law professor Yale Kamisar. "If there's any way to avoid reversing a decision, I think they will find it."

In the meantime, O.J. buffs may be most intrigued by one new item that emerged last week: a transcript of Simpson talking by car phone to detective Tom Lange during the infamous Bronco chase. In low, urgent tones Lange--later demonized in the criminal trial as a sloppy detective--pleaded with Simpson to throw the gun away, to think of his children, to return to his Rockingham home. But the most telling revelation may be what was not said during that emotional conversation. For at no point did O.J. protest his innocence or express fear that the police were framing him for a crime he did not commit.

--Reported by Elaine Lafferty/Santa Monica

With reporting by ELAINE LAFFERTY/SANTA MONICA