O.J. Simpson's call to Court TV Anchor Carol Randolph during the network's coverage of the of Massachusetts v. Woodward

OCTOBER 17, 1997 AT 1:07 PM

O.J. Simpson called Court TV during the lunch break of Massachusetts v. Woodward, the trial of the 19-year-old au pair charged with murdering a baby. Below is the transcript of his live televised conversation with anchor Carol Randolph:

Carol Randolph:

There have been a lot of conversations today and throughout this trial about Barry Scheck and his very aggressive cross examination in the prosecutions' case of many of the expert witnesses. Someone who knows first hand about Barry Scheck is our next caller who wanted to give an opinion about Barry Scheck, Mr. O.J. Simpson. Good morning Mr. Simpson. What is it that you want to add about Barry Scheck?

I find it curious that so many of your callers are calling in and your resident experts. I watched the case last week and this week before I go off to play golf and the comment that the general public seemed to have an attitude about Barry because of the outcome of my trial, I beg to differ with that. When I was in the courtroom I would read all the lawyers' letters. From day one, Barry, from the first appearance he in made in court, got some very diverse letters, I would say 60/40 pro and con, pretty much like your callers have been, and most of the con towards Barry had to do with his, what I call Jewishness, and his style - I thought it was more rooted in maybe a certain animus towards his New York style Jewish style more than what he was actually doing in the courtroom.

When my trial was over I had one of my lawyers who was very against Barry presenting closing arguments b/c he felt that despite the length of the trial, Barry's style really didn't play to our juror. But when the trial was over and the jury talked, almost unanimously, Barry was their favorite lawyer in that courtroom. and I think people are kind of overlooking it and using the result of my case as excuse to blame this controversy about Barry. I think it's more rooted in, possibly, in some people's animus toward that New York Jewish style, Brooklyn style, more than his ability. I don't know anyone in America, if they ever got in trouble that wouldn't want him on their defense team.

Are you surprised that people would connect the outcome of your trial with Barry Scheck, or at least verbalize some animosity?

No not at all. Just about everything that happens - the El Nino out here in CA - is my fault. I think Barry Scheck is well respected. I spent some time with my entire defense team a few weeks ago celebrating the October 3 verdict in NY. I think the good that has come for Barry and many of those members of the entire defense team has far outweighed the negative that has come out. Once again, I want to stress from day one I would sit there in the courtroom and open all the lawyers' mail, and the reaction to Barry was immediate long before there was a verdict in my trial. and most of the reaction to him was to him and to his what I call his Jewishness and that New York style of his more so than the job he was doing in the courtroom.

You also said that the jury said he was one of their favorites, did they say why?

I didn't read the jury books, but I saw them on TV. I think it was that fieriness of his; the fact that court can be boring. From last week and this week I've watched this trial because of Barry's involvement and it is boring. I was bored at times even in my trial. and Barry has a style that gets you interested immediately - like him or dislike him, he makes it a little more interesting in that courtroom. I believe unanimously every juror who spoke out after my trial --- even on my defense team despite reservations about his style and how it played towards that jury - every member of that jury said that he was their favorite lawyer. And I think you'll be surprised when this trial is over and you poll that jury - one thing about Barry it won't be boring - I think he's always interesting.

Any speculation about the outcome of this trial?

No really; I haven't watched it that much. I've watched it from time to time last week and this week. I still believe in America you should have the presumption of innocence and to see a nineteen year old's life destroyed by a possible mistake. I don't know. I have kids. I had an English nanny once and she picked up my son Justin by the arms once and my wife and I fired her immediately. So I know it can happen. But on the other hand I've had some great girls. On at least 5 occasions I got a call at the office or out of town - my wife was at the emergency ward b/c my daughter Sydney or Justin had stitches or fell and bumped their head; it happens with young kids and unless someone sees it happen or someone has first hand knowledge I don't know if you can convict a young girl for doing something that no one saw. Kids fall kids, kids get hurt. I've had four kids and I've spent as much time in the emergency ward as anybody.