Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

O.J. Simpson killed ex-wife, Kaelin says

O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, says one of the more prominent witnesses in the criminal trial in which the former football legend was acquitted in the 1994 double murder.

Brian "Kato" Kaelin, who lived in Simpson's guest house at the time of killings, identified Simpson as the killer in an interview with the New York Post.

"The statute of limitations has now passed ... so I can now say ... yes, he did it," Kaelin told Cindy Adams of the Post. Asked why his testimony did not help convict Simpson, he replied, "I was too scared. I was terrified."

But Kaelin, in an interview with, denied the statute of limitations comment and said he only thinks O.J. Simpson did the killings and does not have specific knowledge.

Kaelin became a minor celebrity after testifying in the criminal trial in which Simpson was acquitted and the civil trial in which he was found liable for the wrongful deaths.

He testified he left Simpson standing in the driveway after a burger run to McDonald's at 9:37 on the night of the killings and that when he saw him at 11, he had no cuts on his hands, as prosecutors had maintained.

During the criminal trial, prosecutors declared Kaelin a hostile witness, as he provided rambling, unclear answers. He played down Simpson's dislike of his ex-wife, and prosecutors briefly talked of pursuing a perjury allegation.

by Anonymousreply 11410/09/2012

He has since insisted he said no such thing.

by Anonymousreply 210/01/2012

Attention whore. Why bother speaking up now?

And what the fuck was he 'afraid' of?

by Anonymousreply 410/01/2012

He could not have testified that he thought O.J. was guilty if he had no personal knowledge. Evidence doesn't work that way. Nothing he said suggests he lied under oath.

by Anonymousreply 810/01/2012

Again, all the really deranged shit comes at the "Mething Hours."

by Anonymousreply 910/01/2012

R1, I can feel your anger. It gives you focus, makes you stronger.

by Anonymousreply 1010/01/2012

From what I recall, although Kaelin made an impression on the public - why I couldn't tell you - he was a witness for the prosecution and his testimony was very limited. And he had very little to offer except circumstantial evidence about the argument that happened at the recital and about a bag that O.J. took on his flight.

It would be very odd if Simpson told Kaelin that he was going to kill Nicole.

So this is much ado about nothing and only Kaelin coming to the conclusion a great many people have, that O.J. did commit the murder.


by Anonymousreply 1110/01/2012

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

by Anonymousreply 1210/01/2012

Didn't we have a thread on this last month?

by Anonymousreply 1310/01/2012

Worked a couple of days for a man selling lousy copies of OJ's authorized defense statement on vid. Boss asked anyone if they wanted to meet OJ personally. Said I had, and that he was very verbally abusive and a rageaholic. "Yes," I was told, "but that's before he sliced up 2 people."

by Anonymousreply 1510/01/2012

Several years ago, OJ went to the Kentucky Derby and made a pile of money selling autographed photos.

by Anonymousreply 1610/01/2012

R17, no one with half a brain could watch that car chase and the subsequent trial and believe OJ didn't slit their throats. Black people know he did it. They just don't care.

by Anonymousreply 1810/01/2012

There is so much animosity about black men with white women from black women, that many of them were like "the white bitch deserved what she got." As if OJ was ever going to be with a black woman.

by Anonymousreply 2010/01/2012

Remember at the beginning of the trial, a black retiring LAPD telling me that "they don't put celebrities in jail in Hollywood, not even black ones. There's just too much money involved." I believe RDJ changed that policy.

by Anonymousreply 2210/01/2012

Mark Furhman got the Martha Moxley murder case reopened after his book about it. That resulted in the arrest of the Kennedy cousin. Now, he needs to do a book on the Robert Wone murder case to seal the fate of the DC trouple.

by Anonymousreply 2510/01/2012

Some comedian said OJ turned Nicole into a human Pez dispenser. I wish I could remember who.

by Anonymousreply 2610/01/2012

R21, I considered renting an apt in Beverly Hills at that time. I was told no Black visitors allowed, not even my very conservative Black female boss.

Remember a story about a Black man walking towards the bus stop, carrying his tools, after his night shift at a gas station. His boss had to bail him out of jail. Police assumed he was a thief.

by Anonymousreply 2710/01/2012

R28, LA is the most racist major city I've ever visited. Clubs have quotas on the amount of black people they let in. The neighborhoods are segregated and the cops are vile and openly racist.

by Anonymousreply 2910/01/2012

[quote]Given Federal Fair Housing laws that have been in effect since...oh, I don't know....1968, why didn't you just sue?

Just because laws "have been in effect" sometimes, it doesn't mean they're obeyed or enforced. r28.

Look at how many years ago the Supremes did away with sodomy laws, yet they're still on the books in many counties in the South.

The day after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act (not exactly a secret or unnoticed event), Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested in St. Augustine, Florida for attempting to get served in an all-white restaurant. The same day in the same city of hate, a man poured acid into a pool that people were attempting to integrate.

Now, r28, why don't you give out with another assholey: "Hmmm......could it be because your stupid story never happened?"

by Anonymousreply 3010/01/2012

R28, I've never been able to afford a decent lawyer, so suing has never been an option when I've been wronged. My "adopted sister" is Black, an "oreo cookie," and a paralegal at a top corporate LA law firm. She also realizes the futility of suing in discrimination cases. Laws in the US are only as good as your ability to sue. And I'm offended that you think that I would lie on DL.

by Anonymousreply 3110/01/2012

R29, A WASP girlfriend's family was a member of the old blood Jonathan Club, known for it's business networking. For years never saw a non-WASP as a member. Sororities at USC, that originated in the South, had charters preventing Black membership. Wonder if this has changed in the last few years. Yes some places in America, it is still the 1950's.

by Anonymousreply 3210/01/2012

[quote] Look at how many years ago the Supremes did away with sodomy laws

I had no idea Diana Ross was involved in that!

by Anonymousreply 3410/02/2012

There is no statute of limitations and Simpson has already been acquitted so he cannot be prosecuted for the murders.

by Anonymousreply 3510/02/2012

[quote] A WASP girlfriend's family was a member of the old blood Jonathan Club, known for it's business networking. For years never saw a non-WASP as a member. Sororities at USC, that originated in the South, had charters preventing Black membership. Wonder if this has changed in the last few years. Yes some places in America, it is still the 1950's.

I can't understand why there aren't riots in the streets over this. White women everywhere should be decapitated until every waspy country club and sorority is free of discrimination.

by Anonymousreply 3610/02/2012

R33, Stop with your insults when you don't know the facts. ACLU in NV&CA takes a very tiny per cent of cases presented, usually those that have already made the news. Regrettably I've still wasted a great deal of time trying to solicit their help. I could tell you numerous horror stories of things that I've seen involving blatant racism, especially in terms of housing discrimination. Realistically many of the laws in the US are blatantly ignored. Why do you think some of us fear an R/R Administration?

by Anonymousreply 3710/02/2012

Both sides (prosecution & defense) used separate jury consultants.

The report back to both sides stated middle aged Black women would acquit O.J. even if video was presented showing him doing the crime.

Marcia Clark didn't buy it, and felt Black Women would be sympathetic to Nicole because of the domestic violence angle.

So she stacked the jury with 2/3rds consisting on middle aged Black Women.

by Anonymousreply 3810/02/2012

[quote] Bugliosi would have had a conviction.

Bugliosi did a mock trail on Hard Copy for a jury of middle aged Black women. he even used evidence that wasn't allowed in the trail.

They still voted not guilty.

by Anonymousreply 3910/02/2012

R36, I'm just trying to point out that discrimination still exists, despite the laws supposedly preventing it. For example there are rules prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and then there's the practice.

by Anonymousreply 4010/02/2012

[quote]Marcia Clark didn't buy it, and felt Black Women would be sympathetic to Nicole because of the domestic violence angle.

What an idiot. Black women aren't sympathetic even to other black women when it comes to domestic violence. They either think the 'stupid ho' was weak to put up with it or they think she deserved it.

by Anonymousreply 4110/02/2012

True, r41. Maybe Marcia Clark was trying to be PC or maybe she really was that ignorant. I was a dumb teenager at the time and I could have told her that black women look at this sort of thing A LOT differently than white women. And they would never find an attractive black male celebrity guilty of anything, even if it was taped. White women and black women are totally different about these kinds of things. Hell, I knew that at 19, but a prosecutor in a major metropolitan city didn't? I never understood that.

by Anonymousreply 4210/02/2012

[quote] she really was that ignorant.

She was. Before O.J. she had a fan club of sorts consisting of Black Women who were victims of crimes she prosecuted.

She felt those women, black women, are my women. And they would speak for Nicole.

by Anonymousreply 4310/02/2012

Hey, Cindy.

I wasn't cancelled after a few days!

Haha! You're not always right!

by Anonymousreply 4510/02/2012

All of his supporters amongst the public knew he did it and and were glad that he got away with it. They'd even admit to it!

by Anonymousreply 4610/02/2012

O.J. Simpson killed ex-wife, Kaelin says

.......... and the rest of the world responds.. "Well, Duh !"

by Anonymousreply 4710/02/2012

In fairness no one knew the racial implications of the trial. Clark went with what she knew.

by Anonymousreply 4810/02/2012


by Anonymousreply 4910/02/2012

Except for millions of people, R48.

by Anonymousreply 5010/02/2012

"I was a dumb teenager at the time and I could have told her that black women look at this sort of thing A LOT differently than white women"

Not all black women have the same beliefs.

by Anonymousreply 5110/02/2012

Sorry R51, but we all know that Nicole was just too good looking for that jury to side with her.

by Anonymousreply 5210/02/2012

Sorry r50 but the trial turned into something much different during not before. In fact it was perceived as something of a slam dunk and would have been had it been kept in Santa Monica where it belonged. Gill GarcettI moved it for the publicly and he was voted out during the next election.

by Anonymousreply 5310/02/2012

[quote][R43], I've met many WHITE woman TODAY of ALL ages who would blame Nicole as well. "Repulse-i-cLans" are white women too. They would claim Nicole was with OJ, as he was rich and famous and a baller. Even if he wasn't, many women blame the victim for not leaving "if it was that bad." Or "she must have done something to make the man act that way."

Oh dear.

by Anonymousreply 5410/03/2012

I was as naive as Marcia at the time of the trial, but I was only 12 then, so I guess that will have to serve as my excuse.

I have learned since then that there is a certain type of woman - spanning all ages, races, and backgrounds - who routinely and consistently holds women accountable for men's actions, even the most heinous actions. As depressing as I find it, I am hardly ever surprised by it anymore.

by Anonymousreply 5510/03/2012

Remember, this trial was televised on all major networks from gavel to gavel. It killed the soap opera genre and ushered in the Judge shows. It was hard to find anyone who didn't watch even occasionally and many in the country were hooked.

It became a modern day Othello with OJ the "innocent" victim of a white lynching.

by Anonymousreply 5610/03/2012

R55, Not to derail the thread, but those delusional women who tend to "blame the victim" are the same ones that consistently vote Repub. I've met educated women in law and medicine, some of whom actually working with the battered victims, who also lack sympathy. How can we change this antiquated mentality?

For the men reading this thread, I am well aware that there are women that are physical and emotional abusers of men too.

by Anonymousreply 5710/03/2012

[quote]some of whom actually working with the battered victims, who also lack sympathy. How can we change this antiquated mentality?

For those that work with them, it's burn out. They get tired of seeing women keep making the same bad choices, and not grabbing the life rafts that are constantly being thrown to them. It's hard to watch a person decide over and over again to stay with an abuser who hurts them and their children.

by Anonymousreply 5810/03/2012

R58, Having tried to help abused women, I'd compare them to those that are brainwashed by cults. They can no longer think logically, or see realistic alternatives, hoping their situation will improve. Instead of offering "life rafts" which may or may not appear practical, an intervention, forcible if necessary, is the ONLY alternative to those mentally if not physically trapped in cults and other abusive situations, domestic or not.

by Anonymousreply 5910/03/2012

r60, this was well-documented, and studied to death by researchers. It's nice that you weren't one of the people who couldn't see through the bs, but you're in the minority on that one.

This wasn't only in LA, it was nationwide. "In your face!" was shouted everywhere. Even Oprah did an entire show on this, even defending blacks being in OJ's favor, even though they knew that he was guilty.

It's not hate. It's not race. It's sociological fact. It was the "Trial of the Century," and it brought out the worst in people. This is why so many scholars continue to study and analyze what went on during that period to this very day. The case hits on everything, every facet of human nature.

Black women do have a really big issue with white women, especially when they're dating black men. White women, and homosexuality is not treated kindly in the black community especially among black women. Anything that can take a black man away from his family is a threat. The down-low was coined by the community for a reason. It's not merely "closeted."

With the OJ case: you had the Rodney King beating still fresh in everyone's minds, which involved the LAPD, you had people angry that 'black males are found guilty unjustly,' and you had a white woman involved. It's not hard to figure out why black women responded the way that they did.

You have to remember that the last time there was a big racial uproar, it was just four years prior to the OJ verdict, when the LA Riots broke out. Race tensions across the country were high.

I hope Johnnie Cochran is rotting in hell.

by Anonymousreply 6210/04/2012

r56, Nancy Grace, and Star Jones owe their careers to OJ Simpson.

Ted Turner capitalized on the demand for courtroom drama, and out came Court TVs.

by Anonymousreply 6310/04/2012

One reaction not often discussed in terms of the 1990s racial tensions was the sudden relaxation of prosecuting illegals.

Companies decided they would rather have brown workers than blacks. Almost overnight, the blacks cleaning offices and making/serving food in company cafeterias were replaced by Mexicans.

by Anonymousreply 6410/04/2012

R60 Both the prosecution and defense did focus groups stacked with middle aged Black Women.

Not one focus group, but several.

They all UNANIMOUSLY found O.J. not guilty, and both Nicole and even Marcia bitches.

by Anonymousreply 6510/04/2012

Those gloves never ever fit OJ's huge hands. Those gloves were planted and I knew they were planted as soon as they started talking about them. Anyone who's ever read a mystery novel would have known they were planted.

by Anonymousreply 6610/04/2012

Many of you have no idea how evidence works. You don't put someone who knows the defendant on the stand and say "do you have an opinion about whether - in this case - O.J. Simpson committed this murder."

Kaelin's opinion is not evidence. Facts that Kaelin could testify to are evidence. He was put on the stand by the prosecution to present those facts. And nothing he is now saying suggests that he lied under oath, or even misrepresented what he was put on the stand to testify about.

Even the law enforcement witnesses didn't testify "I think he killed her." That is not competent evidence. It is up to the jury to reach that ultimate opinion, after hearing argument - not framed as personal opinion but as argument of what the evidence supports - but it i not the role of witnesses to argue the case or express their ultimate opinions about the defendant's guilt.

by Anonymousreply 6710/04/2012

[quote] Anyone who's ever read a mystery novel would have known they were planted.

I heard O.J. was also a descendant of Mary Magdelene.

by Anonymousreply 6810/04/2012

Some of you don't remember but Kaelin was a hostile witness.

Marcia Clark asked the judge 'Permission to treat the witness as hostile'

and the judge granted her request.

by Anonymousreply 6910/04/2012

[quote]Those gloves never ever fit OJ's huge hands.

Those gloves fit perfectly when he was taking his medication. By stopping the medication, his hands and feet would swell up. Can you guess why the gloves that once fit properly, didn't fit at the trial?

by Anonymousreply 7010/04/2012

Oh, please, those gloves looked like they were made for a petite woman.

by Anonymousreply 7110/04/2012

r66 is a complete and utter moron.

At the time the gloves were found, NO-ONE KNEW if OJ had an iron-clad alibi OR NOT.

THUS, any COP PLANTING the gloves risked not just screwing up a case; not just getting fired; but LITERALLY LOSING HIS LIFE, as that would be a CAPITAL CRIME.

Completely ASININE and BASELESS accusation against Fuhrman.

Oh, but let's IGNORE DNA; bloody size-12 shoe prints; bloody car prints; bloody socks; means, motive, and opportunity---shall we?

by Anonymousreply 7210/04/2012

[quote]Oh, please, those gloves looked like they were made for a petite woman.

Oh, please, you were watching a TV with a 12-inch screen. Of course they looked to petite to you.

by Anonymousreply 7310/04/2012

The gloves were 2 sizes too small for OJ. Besides that, what idiot would stand at the crime scene and take his gloves off? So ridiculous. You fools all listened to Star Jones and Nany Grace and never stopped to think for yourselves. Use your heads. OJ was successful and a winner. A winner never needs to kill his full time babysitter...losers do that.

by Anonymousreply 7410/04/2012

The blacks on the jury were racist. That is the bottom line. Look at Colin Powell he could be the Republican candidate for President right now.

But he was so racist, he supported a supposed black man (apparently blacks forget Obama is half white) and couldn't suppress his racism.

I'm so sick of racist blacks not being called out.

Yes there are racist whites. There are racists Asians and so forth. But we talk about them. But blacks are far more racist than all but the KKK.

by Anonymousreply 7510/05/2012

r75? Colin Powell isn't racist; he finally realized that the Bushes are evilly corrupt.

by Anonymousreply 7610/05/2012

Fuck you, R75. It had nothing to do with racist. I'm white. When you see that a man has been set up by the police can you vote guilty?

There are many bad cops...not just a few bad eggs but many.

by Anonymousreply 7710/05/2012

R66, 74, 77, etc. is clearly fatty "journalist" Flo Anthony, taking a break from defending Janet Jackson on the DL threads. The lousy writing style gives her away.

by Anonymousreply 7810/05/2012

Hey stupid, Flo thought OJ was guilty. If you don't know anything (you racist pig), don't open your mouth.

by Anonymousreply 7910/05/2012

r74's post defies belief as real!

First of all, the gloves weren't "two sizes" too small.

Secondly, OJ wasn't about to DRIVE while wearing BLOODY gloves; he carried them.

In the dark, in his cold-sweat fear of being seen by the waiting limo driver, OJ ran up the side of his house---in PITCH-BLACK---and ran into the AC at Kato's window, which is the "thump" Kato heard/felt. And THAT, mon cherie idiot r77, is why, where, and when OJ DROPPED his bloody gloves.

Oh, wait; somewhere Mark Fuhrman FOUND them (at Nicole's house, unseen by any other policeman?) and then PLANTED them at OJ's (but NOT in OJ's BEDroom; no, that would be too DAMNING! Bwahahaha! And NOT in OJ's vehicle, because....? And NOT on OJ's front porch because...? No, Fuhrman planted the bloody gloves outside Kato's room, because...?), not knowing whether or not it was someone ELSE who left the blood!

Dang! In a split-second, at a brutal double-murder crime scene, at night, Fuhrman could predict that OJ had no iron-clad alibi; that no eye-witness would come forth; that the Bruno Maglis wouldn't be traced to another owner; that any DNA and blood wouldn't be traced to a different man (or group); and that he, Fuhrman, could get away with planting evidence---and so he picked up the gloves, hid them on his person, and voila'!The frame-up!


by Anonymousreply 8010/06/2012

try to cry out in the heat of the moment possessed by a fury that burns from inside

by Anonymousreply 8110/06/2012

OJ Simpson is guilty, guilty, guilty!

I don't give a fuck about the gloves (although I don't believe Fuhrman planted them). It's all about the BLOOD. The blood leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that Simpson is guilty. There are other factors that show his guilt but no one needs to do more than follow the blood.

The fact that the trial was turned into an extension of the endless American race war was probably unavoidable. Still, moving the trial venue to LA and having defense attorneys who fed the race beast made it worse.

by Anonymousreply 8210/06/2012

[quote]OJ was successful and a winner. A winner never needs to kill his full time babysitter...losers do that.

It is quite possible that OJ has a personality disorder.

by Anonymousreply 8310/06/2012

OP perhaps you missed this

Of the NY Post interview where he supposedly affirmed his belief that OJ Simpson was guilty Kaelin offers the following:

Kato says he was shocked when he read the report which quoted him as saying, “The statute of limitations has now passed … so I can now say … yes, he did it.”

Kato tells TMZ … he never said any of those things to reporter Cindy Adams or anyone else.

Kato says he has expressed his opinion over the years … that he THINKS Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman … but tells us, “I have no first hand knowledge.”

by Anonymousreply 8410/06/2012

You know, I believe the case was lost, first because the picture drawn of Nicole was unsympathetic. It was pretty clear she lived a fast lifestyle both before, during, and after O.J.

It was also clear she and OJ had a very volatile relationship throughout their marriage. Wasn't it even rumored that she was having or had had an affair with Marcus Allen a former teammate and friend of OJ's ?

Those things came out after her murder, but before the trial. The fact that an attractive younger man was also murdered at her home, and her bathroom was lit with candles, etc. told the public things that reflected on her in a negative fashion, rightly or wrongly.

You also take into account that both Nicole & OJ lived lavish lifestyles.

Secondly, add in the really unsympathetic image Mark Furman projected. I mean even the people who thought OJ was guilty hated Furman. (It didn't help that his racist comments were leaked and became an issue.) So I'm not surprised OJ got off.

Those gloves gave the jury the opening they needed for a not guilty verdict. As for the gloves, I go back and forth. Right now,I don't believe they were planted.

You know, The LAPD knew OJ beat his wife. Historically, when a woman is brutally murdered like Nicole, and in such a personal way, the first place law enforcement looks is at husbands, exes, or not. KAto said he heard noise, so they went out there to look & fund the gloves.

The Prosecution did prove it was possible for OJ to kill her the go to the airport. But one thing that always bothered me was OJ's son from his first marriage. As I understood it that kid had some serious "behavioral" problems and he did not get along with Nicole.

by Anonymousreply 8510/06/2012

Nicole dated some wealthy restauranteur who had a cocaine connection. (Restaurants are great money laundering operations.) In fact weren't there some allegations that she and her friends were part of a crowd that did coke and other drugs? Faye Resnick was a recovering addict.

The other thing was that Johnny Cocoran was a very sympathetic figure in the court room. He was likeable. Chris Darden the second chairto Marcia Clarke wasn't at all likeable. The OJ team had enough sense to feature Johnny more & more towards the vulmination of the trial. F Lee Baily and Shapiro let his star shine. It was all very well orchestrated.

by Anonymousreply 8610/06/2012

Please. First they said OJ would have been covered with you have any idea how hard it is to get blood off your hands, arms, hair? It takes time. Also it was obvious that the blood was planted on his the gloves were planted and the blood was planted. The man had to make a flight...would he have choosen to kill them right before he had to catch a plane? If he would have missed the flight, he would have looked very guilty. OJ is not a stupid man, he would have known he would be the first suspect...he would have hired someone else to do it. All it took was a very sharp knife and a surprise attact, in all honesty a woman could have done it. Or a crazed slasher who was later arrested in Tampa but apparently he was also at that restaurent, just a few nights before Nicole was killed.

by Anonymousreply 8710/06/2012

As always, they left out the best parts.

Kato also confirmed the earth is not flat and on a sunny day the sky is blue.

by Anonymousreply 8810/06/2012

[quote] OJ is not a stupid man

Oh, definitely. His handling of the Vegas incident that landed him in the can proves that.

by Anonymousreply 8910/06/2012

[quote]All it took was a very sharp knife and a surprise attact, in all honesty a woman could have done it.

Except that the waiter (Ron?) came upon the scene and was also murdered.

by Anonymousreply 9010/06/2012

But you don't know what he saw before he was attacked. Maybe the killer saw him before he could get himself cut someones throat, they go down pretty quick. Normal people are not expecting violence, it's fairly easy to get the best of them. It was a terrible crime but punishing the wrong man doesn't make it right.

That judge in Las Vegas should be thrown out. She should not be allowed to judge anyone.

by Anonymousreply 9110/06/2012

I'll bet they could tell if the person who cut their throats was reaching up to cut them. It would have had to have been a tall and strong woman, r91.

Speaking of which, I think you are reaching.

by Anonymousreply 9210/06/2012

O.J. also lost the civil trial. In Santa Monica. He would have lost the criminal had it also been held there

by Anonymousreply 9310/06/2012

R93, the civil trial was easier to win. First the burden of proof is not as stringent. Second, it doesn't require twelve jurors to agree unanimously on a verdict, and thirdly, in OJ's case, the media had already convicted him, law enforcement had convicted him, so when the criminal court "failed" to convict the civil court took matters into their own hands.

And please do not forget,Nicole's family and the Goldmans were milking as much publicity for the victims as they could get. I am not unsympathetic to the anger and the sadness they felt and still feel, but Ron Goldman's father and Nicole's sister were really playing the media well. So citing the civil verdict as proof of culpability isn't real convincing to me.

by Anonymousreply 9410/06/2012

R85 I've always felt OJ's eldest son was involved and dad was covering for him.

by Anonymousreply 9510/06/2012

The civil trial also had a far better judge than the fame whore, self-loathing, little dick, Lance Ito. Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki maintained the dignity of the court and the seriousness of the case.

by Anonymousreply 9610/06/2012

Honestly, people. O.J. wrote a book where he outlined how he committed the murders, and still we have people trying to deny it.

by Anonymousreply 9710/06/2012

I've known men who have gotten their buddies together to take back something that was stolen from's really nothing new. Was it wise to be carrying guns? No. That was foolish and disgusting but to put OJ away for life...just for THAT? No. That was not right in any way shape or form.

by Anonymousreply 9810/06/2012

Clearly nothing would convince you R94 but the jurors were far more articulate than during the criminal trial. If they culled from Santa Monica they wouldn't have had people like Brenda Moran correctly nicknamed Brenda Moron who admitted that the jury didn't want to hear about domestic violence because it had nothing to do with the murder.

by Anonymousreply 9910/06/2012

Jason's reaction to the not guilty verdict compare to Arnell's is rather strange.

by Anonymousreply 10010/06/2012

This thread is bringing back fond and not so fond memories of that trial. I was always a bit disappointed that the prosecution couldn't have found some way of bringing in Kato the Akita (the Simpson's dog) as it witnessed the murders first hand and see if it would react violently to Simpson's presence in the courtroom, as if to implicate him as the real murderer. With all of the dog whisper and cat whisper type shows on Animal Planet these days they could have brought in an animal expert to ascertain the dog's emotional state or what it really saw. Admittadely it would have made the trial even more of a farce than it already was, but it would have been an entertaining moment trying to see Johnny Cocoran try to discredit a dog. Judge Ito I would like to declare the dog a hostile witness.

What happened to the dog by the way? I would guess by now it is probably dead.

The OJ trial also managed to reboot the career of another fading star Charles Grodin who used the trial as his favorite discussion topic on his nightly talk show. Once a week he would devote the hour to OJ and go off on these rants decryiing his guilt. Those rants were a real ratings draw and when the trial ended so did his short lived talk show.

by Anonymousreply 10110/06/2012

What's the story with O.J.'s son? I never heard that theory before.

by Anonymousreply 10210/06/2012

r87, who are "they"? Nicole's throat was slashed from behind; the slasher would've had little blood on him, but for the glove holding the knife.

Ron was taken by surprise and put up a fight to a frontal assault, but whether there was much spurting and apraying?

There was enough to get some blood on the dark outfit: gloves; socks; shoes; probably also a knit cap.

The gloves and socks were left behind, so that accounts for them. The rest could've been taken onto the plane, etc.

OJ took a shower before getting into the limo. Blood is not really difficult to wash out of anything (use cold water), let alone hair.

And "being on a plane" was a PERFECT set-up alibi. Except OJ didn't count on Ron's delaying him such that the limo was already at OJ's house and the driver noticed him skulking.

OJ thought his goose was cooked; hence, the attempt to flee to Mexico.

The verdict was pay-back, and everyone knows it.

by Anonymousreply 10310/07/2012

"What's the story with O.J.'s son? I never heard that theory before."

I heard that theory back during the trial. It went like this: There was Simpson DNA at the crime scene, and it could only have come from OJ or a close relative. And that OJ's eldest son hated Nicole.

I think the theory was highly implausible, myself. Very few people love their children enough to let the public believe they committed a murder commited by their child, I mean that's crazy.

by Anonymousreply 10410/07/2012

Well, I can't see OJ taking the rap for his son. He's not the type. All the killer would have needed is a pair of dark coveralls and skull cap and some gloves. Coming from behind to slit anyone's throat keeps the killer relatively clean.

Don't remember how Ron Goldman was killed. If he put up a struggle wouldn't there be DNA evidence? Wouldn't OJ have shown some evidence. Of course if he had on a ski mask and long sleeved coveralls, he wouldn't have much.

I remember OJ cut his hand, he said it was on a broken glass in his hotel room in Chicago. But disposing of the clothes was easy. He balls all that stuff up along with the knife, takes it to Chicago and ditches it. No problem. The murder weapon was never found. I think he stashed it in his golf bag. Remember, this was before 9/11 security at airports.

by Anonymousreply 10510/07/2012

[quote]OJ is not a stupid man....

Maybe not. But you are delusional, r87.

by Anonymousreply 10610/07/2012

I think OJ would've taken the bloody gloves to Chicago except he dropped them when he banged his head on Kato's air conditioner. He probably didn't think about it since time was growing short and he had to rush.

Here's the thing. Killing people doesn't take that long. He could've done the deed in less than fifteen minutes, more likely less than ten.

He lived close by, he went there to do Nicole, and was slowed by Ron Goldman wandering on to the scene. He kills Goldman, Nicole comes outside and he does her. Takes off thru the back gate. Easy peasy. I think he planned it to coincide with an out of town trip.

I have a question. Where did they find the bloody footprints? Did they find them in a traffic pattern going from Goldman to Nicole or vice versa, or did they find them further up the walk as the perp left the scene?

If Goldman had not shown up do we think OJ would've rang the bell to get her outside? Because his two kids were in that house and it wasn't that late. So yeah, maybe they were asleep but maybe not.

One more thing. Let's assume for this, that OJ did not do it. Someone called Nicole to get her to light the candles in the bathroom and prepare for a romantic evening. Did that someone set her up?

Or kill her to set up OJ? Maybe there really was some mob connection thru their shady friends. They both knew some shadey people. Both had links to drugs and "businessmen."

OJ knew a hell of a lot more than what came out. I wish someone credible would shine a light on their back story. I believe it is pretty juicey no matter who killed her.

by Anonymousreply 10710/07/2012

"That was foolish and disgusting but to put OJ away for life...just for THAT?"

Can't do the time...???

by Anonymousreply 10810/07/2012

R87, OJ was known around Hollywood, having done commercials, as a heavy drug addict and serious alcoholic. While cocaine at parties was the norm, some overindulged and couldn't function rationally. Nicole was blamed because it was assumed that anyone that would hook up with someone already so out of control, when she had economic alternatives, must also be an addict.

by Anonymousreply 10910/07/2012

I can't remember - what was OJs reason for not immediately turning himself in, leading to the chase in the white Bronco?

by Anonymousreply 11010/07/2012

If I recall correctly it was something about going to Nicole's grave but that was obviously bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 11110/07/2012

Just wanted to mention that I reread the summary of the case on some trial tv website, and he did it. Definitely.

The cops found a blood soaked glove and a knit cap by Ron Goldman's body. O J's DNA. They also found DNA evidence, blood samples in OJ's house from both Ron & Nicole.

I also learned something else. Nicole was first hit on the back of the head. She also had defensive wounds on her hands. Ron had "obviously put up a struggle" according to police & coroner reports.

He also had an injury to the back of the head from blunt force trauma. They're assuming He was killed before Nicole, but they aren't positive. Furman was a patrol officer who had once been called to the Simpson house for a domestic battery complaint years before.

by Anonymousreply 11210/08/2012

I always found a few interesting parallels of this case to the Sharon Tate murders. Both involved a pretty Hollywood blonde brutally murdered in an affluent part of L.A.; the whole black/white racial aspect; a three ring circus of a trial; and a Houseboy living on the property while the murder occurs.

Kato Kaelin was as useless a houseboy witness as William Garretson was on the date of the Tate murders . . . offering little to no useful information, despite being INSIDE the guesthouse on the night of the murders..

by Anonymousreply 11310/09/2012

OJ did it or had it done and unfairly got away due to a bitter, black female jury.

But as an aside, when it all first went down, before the evidence came out, I wasn't so sure who it could be? Nicole and her crew (Kris Kardashian, Faye Resnick) were VERY hated. They were not nice people, including Nicole (all of her maids hated her). To be brutally frank, they were a sleazy, skanky cumdumpster bunch who lived off of coke and whoring (way trashier than Real Housewives). And no, not to imply that she deserved such an awful thing, but the truth is the truth. Just because someone dies doesn't make them a postmortem angel.

by Anonymousreply 11410/09/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!