Did OJ Simpson ACTUALLY Do It? - Part 2

Join us as we finish the trial portion of one of the most outrageous cases and trials that has unfolded in US history. We will cover the many links and evidence presented including the infamous glove, as well as the verdict and some of the aftermath. The conclusion of the OJ Simpson case. Do you think he did it?

If you would like to follow the hosts

Ky - @chronic___chaos Instagram/X

Queen - @QueenReafer Instagram/X/TikTok/Twitch

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Happy 420! I'm Kai and I'm QueenRever and you're watching Stone Cold Murder.

(00:05):
Just a PSA, if you have any information to help solve a crime,
you can go to Crimestoppers.com to report any information anonymously.
This podcast contains material that might not be suitable for all audiences.
Viewer discretion is advised.
Welcome back to Stone Cold Murder, season 3, episode 9, part 2.

(00:28):
Pas toi, toi.
We're gonna get back into the trial of OJ where I left you off on part 1.
Actually what we talked about in part 1 was the crime itself, Nicole and Ron's murder,

(00:48):
the results of the coroner's examination, some of the evidence that was pointing to OJ,
the car chase that happened when OJ was supposed to turn himself in,
and everything basically leading up to the trial.

(01:10):
The whole media frenzy, all that good stuff. Good bad stuff.
So if you missed any of part 1 and you want to check it out, you can click on it right here.
I suggest watching that before this part 2, but you know, if you want to watch it out of order,
I ain't gonna stop you either, but would make more sense if you just clicked right here and

(01:34):
watched it first.
We're gonna get into part 2. This is all about the trial.
All of the defense and the prosecutions, theories and all that kind of stuff.
And yeah, so let's get into it.
If you guys haven't already packed your bowls, pack those up.

(01:55):
We're good here. We're waiting on our Minimum Souls and we're gonna get started.
Yeah, I said Minimum Souls on purpose. Don't you worry.
You're killing me, SpongeBob. You really are.
The trial began began on January 24th, 1995, seven months after the murders.

(02:25):
It was televised by a closed circuit TV camera via court TV.
And in part by another cable network and a few news outlets outlets.
I mean, and this was ran for 135 days.
Which is crazy.
That was crazy.

(02:46):
I thought that was my phone and then I was like, that's your phone.
All right, so Judge Lance Ayano presided over the trial.
The C.S. Foltz Criminal Court Building is where this took place.
District Attorney Gil Garcetti elected to file charges in downtown Los Angeles instead of

(03:11):
Santa Monica, which is where the crimes took place.
And this is because the building had severe damage from an earthquake that happened earlier that year.
So we thought it would be more fitting to have it in Los Angeles opposed to that building, which makes sense to me.

(03:32):
So now that this trial is going to take place in L.A., there are people that think it is
basically impacted the decision making of the trials outcome.
And because of this, it resulted in a jury pool that was
consistent of mostly black people. And to say that, I have no problem with that.

(03:57):
Like, I don't really think anyone would have commented on the jury had it been some white dude and a bunch of white jurors.
Like, I don't think that would have been something that got brought up at all.
But because O.J. was black and because he had a bunch of jurors that black, they thought that was a good thing.

(04:18):
But because of the jurors that black, that were black, they think that that may have impacted the result of the case.
Now, I'm not saying that it didn't for 100 percent certainty.
But I don't think had the tables be turned, it would even be a thing.
So we're going to move on from that.
In October of 1994, Judge Lance Ayato started interviewing four prospective jurors before the trial.

(04:45):
Each had to fill out a 75 page questionnaire for selection of to be selection of the jury.
That's crazy. 75 page.
75 pages. Isn't that crazy?
That's insane.
It is. It really is.
So on November 3rd, 12 of the jurors were seated with 12 alternatives.

(05:09):
Over the course of the trial, 10 were dismissed for very different reasons for all of them.
And only four of the original jurors remained for the final panel.
According to media reports, Clark believed that women, regardless of race, would sympathize with the domestic violence aspect of the case connected with Nicole's case.

(05:32):
You know, so they thought maybe if we stacked the jury with women that they would be more likely to vote against OJ because they sympathize with Nicole.
Just kind of crazy that people were trying to do this whole stacking thing.

(05:53):
But on the other hand, the defense suggested that black women would not be as sympathetic to Nicole because she was white and because tensions about interracial marriages were high around then.
I don't know if that's true or not, but I don't feel like it's fair to assume on either side.
Yeah.
It's kind of just like...

(06:14):
Just put a mix of people in.
That's how it should be. It's more fair just to randomize it.
But like, yeah, not to try and like get your people based off what you think they're going to sympathize with.
Right.
And because the judge allowed so much of this media coverage, I don't think they were going to have a fair jury selection regardless.
Like it just wasn't going to happen.

(06:36):
And that's not fair.
It's not fair for anybody put in this situation.
So both sides ended did end up accepting a disproportionate number of female to male jurors, which is interesting from the original jury pool.
Forty percent were white, twenty eight percent black, seventeen percent Hispanic and fifteen percent Asian.

(07:02):
And the final jury for the trial had ten women and two men.
Nine were black people, two white people and one Hispanic person.
Now, normally that type of thing doesn't matter, but I felt like it was important to note because it seems like they did stack the jury in either side for either favor.

(07:23):
Like, I feel like both sides had an opinion on the people that they were going to select and how that they were going to vote.
Yeah.
And they stacked it.
And I just found that...
And I just found that very odd.
Like, I just find that super inappropriate.
How is that even a thing to like for either side to choose?

(07:46):
The judge did, but I don't know why they had an opinion on it.
Yeah.
Why do you get an opinion on that?
Because like it should be a judge of your peers.
So in like that case, I would feel like you just select a random amount of people in that area, proceed that way.
But because this case was so like it was everywhere, they weren't going to find a group of people that didn't have an opinion already.

(08:18):
You know what I mean?
It just wasn't going to happen.
And then on top of that, they went ahead and stacked it.
Yeah, I'm sure they won't say that that's the case, but like I feel based on the fact that there was nine or ten women and two men.
And then they had already said that they thought that women were going to be whatever, whatever.

(08:40):
That's weird.
It's fishy.
It's odd.
It's, you know, like, yeah, I don't know.
It didn't sit right with me.
And like we said, I'm sure it's a hard task to figure out a jury with how publicized the case was.
But regardless, here we are.
So on April 5th, 1995, juror Janet Harris was dismissed when when the judge learned that she had failed to disclose an incident of domestic abuse in her life.

(09:09):
So isn't that what they wanted?
Almost for the women to sympathize with that side.
Yeah, but he thought that because she didn't disclose it, she wouldn't have a fair judgment on Nicole or like sympathize with her, which I.

(09:31):
I don't know.
I don't think everybody that's gone through abuse automatically is going to be like, well, I don't sympathize with someone else.
A lot of abuse victims don't even see themselves being abused.
It's normal to them, so like it could go either way.
And it's not really fair to assume again.
Yeah, a lot of assuming it is going on.

(09:54):
So after she was dismissed, Harris gave an interview and accused the deputies of racism and claimed that the jurors were dividing themselves along racial lines.
There's a lot of this going on.
So then the judge met with the rest of the jurors, who all denied Harris's allegations of the racial tension among them.

(10:15):
And the following day, the judge did end up dismissing three of the deputies, regardless of them saying that none of this was happening and that it was just her kind of lashing out.
And this really upset the jurors.
They said we didn't complain.

(10:37):
The dismissal appeared to promote the fact that Harris's allegations were accurate when everybody had denied that it was true.
So they were like, well, you're feeding into this narrative that that's not true.
And we don't we're not vibing with this.
So on April 21st, 13 of the 18 jurors refused to come to court until they spoke with it, spoke to.

(11:03):
The judge about the situation, because they were just like, this ain't sitting right with us.
Like, you're not going to just fire or dismiss three of the deputies on false claims.
Like, that's not fair.
And it it does end up putting that line between us by doing that.
You know, so the judge ordered them to court and all the 13 protesters responded by wearing all black and refused to come out to the jury box upon arrival.

(11:34):
So they said, we don't give a fuck what you say.
We're going to protest.
The media described this incident as a jury revolt and the protesters wearing all black, they said, resembled a funeral possession.
So this case is just full of twists and turns.
It's not just the trial and OJ and everything.

(11:54):
It's everybody involved in it.
Just a mess, a fucking mess.
So fucking mess, my fucking mess.
So the prosecution argued that the domestic violence within the Simpson Brown marriage
culminated into her murder, citing OJ's history of abusing Nicole, and that's what resulted in their divorce.

(12:22):
And because he pleaded guilty to one court of one case of domestic violence in 1989.
So he did admit to these allegations at one point.
The prosecution opened its case by calling LAPD 911 dispatcher Sharon Gilbert and playing a 911 call from Nicole.

(12:48):
This was on January 1st of 1989.
Nicole on this call expressed fear for her life and that OJ would physically harm her.
And you can hear OJ in the background yelling at her and possibly hitting her as well, like on this call.
The officer who responded to that call, excuse me, Detective John Edwards testified that the next, testified next that when he arrived,

(13:20):
a severely beaten Nicole ran from the bushes where she was hiding, which is really sad.
And she ran to the detective screaming, he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me, referring to OJ.
So that was all the way back in 89.
Pictures of Nicole's face from that night were then shown to the jury to kind of confirm his testimony and what was being said.

(13:47):
That incident led to OJ's arrest and him eventually pleading no contest to one of the court's one count of domestic violence.
And then he received one year probation for that.
Yeah, it's crazy.
That's insane.
There's just so much evidence to this case that you're just like.

(14:10):
Well, and like one year probation for like beating someone so severely where like.
She thought she was going to die.
Yeah, she thought she was going to die and you get one year probation.
Yeah, and clearly she wasn't wrong.
She ended up dying and it was very likely from the same person.

(14:32):
Yeah, you know what I mean?
So it's just a sad situation.
And it's like she did all the right things.
She got away from the mayor and she left him.
She got a new house, all these things, and it still wasn't enough.
Yeah, yeah.
LAPD officer and longtime friend of both OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown.

(14:56):
His name was Ron Shipp testified on February 1st, 1995, that Simpson told him the day after the murders that he did not want to.
To take a polygraph test offered to him by the police because, quote, I've had a lot of dreams about killing her.

(15:17):
Yeah.
Oh, no.
Yeah, and even if it's just a dream.
I don't know.
I've never had a dream about killing someone.
I don't think I have either.
And why would you say that right after someone died?

(15:38):
I don't know.
It's concerning, right?
Yeah, no, I don't think it doesn't help your case saying that you're not the one that did it.
Yeah, by any means, it doesn't.
It doesn't.
That's so like.
If you were like on trial for a murder, why would you tell someone?

(15:59):
Oh, yeah, I had had dreams.
Yeah, I had dreams about her.
Lots of dreams about killing her.
So you're just making my suspicion even worse.
The fuck?
Yeah.
Stupid.
Yeah.
The jury ended up dismissing Shipp's claims after the defense attorney, Carl E.
Douglas, accused him of being an alcoholic and testifying against Simpson to promote his acting career.

(16:29):
What?
Which I was like, wait, what?
I don't like I didn't see anything that showed that he was really like an actor or anything like that.
But I just thought that was a wild allegation.
Like he's an actor.
Alec.
He's an alcoholic and also trying to be an actor.
So this is why he's doing this, which I'm sure some people have done.

(16:51):
Like, I'm not going to put it past nobody, but.
Crazy.
Yeah, interesting.
The prosecution then called Nicole's sister, Denise Brown, to the witness stand, and she testified to many incidents of domestic violence, one in 1980, where she saw OJ physically abuse Nicole and throw her out of their house during an argument.

(17:14):
She said that OJ was agitated with Nicole on June 12th.
And this was the night of the murder.
And a home videotape was taken immediately after the dance recital that they had all went to that evening.
And it showed it's very tearful, happy OJ being given a kiss by someone.

(17:35):
Not at all an angry person.
So it is interesting that he could flip so quickly, but.
They did say that both Denise Brown and Cato Cailin corroborated the claim that Simpson was upset with Nicole because he had seen her in a black dress that she wore that evening.

(17:58):
He said it was really tight and it really upset him.
Why does that concern him?
He's a control freak.
They're not together.
No, he's not, but.
Through their whole relationship.
He's been a control motherfucking freak that can't let her have any friends or any of that kind of stuff.
I don't like him.

(18:19):
No.
The prosecution planned to present 62 separate incidents of domestic violence and abuse, including three previously unknown incidents.
Nicole had documented in several letters that she had written and placed in a bank safety deposit box.

(18:40):
Geez.
So that's like.
That doesn't just happen after one incident, you know what I mean?
That is a lot of abuse that you have to withstand to be like I have to write these letters and put them in a safety deposit box in case I get killed.
What the fuck?

(19:03):
Yeah, no, that's insane.
So the judge denied the defense's motion to suppress the incidents of domestic violence, but only allowed witness accounts to be presented to the jury because of OJ Sixth Amendment right.
And what is the Sixth Amendment right?
Well, I'm glad you asked.
I was literally about to ask.

(19:24):
Yeah, good.
I do.
So the Sixth Amendment is a series.
It gives citizens a series of rights in criminal trials.
It's a right to a speedy and public trial right to an impartial jury right to be informed of charges right to confront witnesses right to have witnesses appear and the right to illegal representation.

(19:51):
Can you go back up real quick?
Yep.
I just think it's so funny that they said a right to impartial jury.
But stack the jury.
Isn't it crazy?
So what?
I know.
And they'll never admit that they stacked that jury, but they had to.
There's no way that they didn't.
With the way that they were talking about that back and forth, there's no fucking way.

(20:13):
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
When you said that part, I said, wait a minute.
I know.
I said the same.
That doesn't check out.
No, it does not.
It does not.
It does not. It does not. So Nicole's statements to friends and family, unfortunately, were ruled in a missable as hearsay because Nicole was dead and unable to be cross examined.

(20:34):
What about the letters?
Those were like one of the like a couple of the only things that were admitted.
Anything that was from a witness such as her friends, her family, anything like that was not admittable.
Despite this, the prosecution had witnesses for 44 separate incidents that they planned to present to the jury.

(20:57):
So that's still a shit time.
However, the prosecution dropped the domestic violence portion of their case on June 20th, 1995.
Why?
Yeah, right.
Because Monica Clark stated.
That doesn't say Monica.
Marsha Clark stated, so Marsha Clark stated it was because they believe that the DNA evidence against OJ was insurmountable.

(21:27):
But the media speculated it was because of the comments by the dismissed juror, Janet Harris.
Christopher Darden later confirmed that to be true.
And like I mentioned before, Harris was dismissed on April 6th because she failed to disclose that she was a victim of domestic violence from her ex-husband.

(21:52):
So.
Afterward, she gave an interview where she said, just because OJ had abused Nicole, that doesn't mean that he's guilty of murder.
No, but I feel like that should still be considered.
Yeah, as a probable cause.
Right.
So because she made this statement and because she dismissed OJ's abusive behavior and because she was a female juror, they were like, oh, fuck.

(22:23):
We're it's really not going the way that we thought it was.
We really thought that all these females were going to side with Nicole because they empathized with her.
But clearly not everybody.
Right.
But they were like, I don't know, like she was a victim like persuade.
I know they shouldn't have been.

(22:45):
They shouldn't have been.
They shouldn't.
They really, really, really should take the evidence and just give it as it is and not try and be like, oh, they might think this way if we give this evidence in.
That's why this trial is a fucking mess.
They didn't do anything right.
In my opinion, on a lot of these things.
So, yeah, so they said because she was a victim by her husband, her own husband's abuse, that most of the jury they thought was not going to be receptive to the domestic violence argument.

(23:17):
So they dropped it.
What the fuck?
Yeah, it's wild, isn't it?
What the absolute fuck, bro?
Because that's 44 pieces of evidence that they could have had on top of it.
On top of the other evidence that they had.
That's like, I feel like a huge amount that they just said, we're just going to drop it because I don't think that's.

(23:40):
Yeah, like I could see if it maybe it was like a one time thing.
Even then, like, no, you should still bring that up.
But I could see if it was like one little tiny spat, you know, but 44.
Yeah. And that was the only ones that were allowed to be admitted.
There was plenty more of that other people had talked about.

(24:02):
So, yeah, that's it's not just a tiny little blip.
This is big information in my opinion.
But that's crazy to me.
That is so crazy.
Yeah. So they dropped it.
So on the night of the murders, OJ attended a dance recital for his daughter and he was reportedly angry with Nicole because of that black dress she wore, which he said was too tight.

(24:28):
Yeah, I roll of the century.
OJ's then girlfriend, who is Paula Barbadier, wanted to attend the recital with Simpson, but he did not invite her that night, to which she was pissed.
So after the recital, OJ returned home to a voicemail from Paula in which she broke up with him.

(24:50):
She was done with his shit.
Yeah. She said we're done.
Good for you, Paula.
Yeah. According to the prosecution, OJ then drove over to Nicole's house in his Ford Bronco to kind of like make up with her because his girlfriend's there.
Maybe he can persuade her into getting back together with him or whatever.

(25:13):
And when Nicole refused, OJ killed her in his final act of quote unquote control.
That's when Ron Goldman came up to the scene and was murdered in order to silence him and remove any witnesses from the situation.
OJ then drove home in his Bronco and went into his home.

(25:37):
He took his bloodstained clothes off, put them in a bag, except for his socks and the infamous glove.
Then he put clean clothes and socks on and left towards the limousine and headed to the airport.
Which is a lot to do, I will admit.
It's a lot of stuff to do to get to the airport in time.

(26:00):
But at the airport, OJ opened up the bag, he removed his clothes, his Bruno Magali shoes and the murder weapon.
He threw those in the trash at the airport before placing the bag in one of his suitcases and then heading towards his flight.
So he dumped all that, went to his flight, flew to Chicago.

(26:24):
He was informed once he got to Chicago about everything.
I'm confused though.
Yeah.
Because at the very beginning, you said that they called OJ after the murder to come pick up the kids.
Yeah.
So was he already back from Chicago by then?
He didn't return until the next day.
So they called him, but he was in Chicago.

(26:46):
So he didn't come pick up the kids until the 13th.
But wouldn't they have known that when they went to his house to look for him?
Yes.
Which is why they, well after they broke in and confirmed that he wasn't injured in the, like a double attack or whatever.
So then they were like, they asked Kyoto or whatever his name is that's living in the guest house there.

(27:12):
Where OJ was, he told them that he went on his flight.
But wouldn't they have already known where he was if they called him?
Yeah, but- He might have been like, come pick up your kids and he's like, I'm not there.
Yeah.
Well, this was the same day of the murder.
So I'm sure they still called him regardless if they knew just to try and see how he reacted.

(27:33):
If he freaked out, if he had already a plan in place for the kids, that kind of a thing.
If it freaked him out basically.
So maybe they did know he was in Chicago, but was still like, let's try it, you know, type of a thing.
But yeah, he didn't come back home till the 13th the next day.

(27:54):
Los Angeles County Chief Medical Examiner testified on June 14th of 1995 that Nicole's time of death was estimated at about 10 p.m. to 1030 p.m.
Coyote O'Kaelin testified that on March 22nd, 1995, that he last saw Simpson at 9.36 p.m. that evening.

(28:19):
So it would kind of make sense.
A phone call was made from Simpson's Bronco to Paula at 10.02 p.m.
OK. OJ was not seen again until 10.54 p.m. when he answered the intercom at the door for the limousine driver Alan Park.

(28:41):
Simpson had no alibi for one hour and 18 minutes during the time the murders took place.
Because he don't got one. He don't have one. Of course not. There's no way.
O'Kaelin Park testified on March 28th that he arrived at Simpson's home at 10.25 p.m.

(29:03):
He stopped at the Rockham entrance because he's got a giant house and there's two entrances on either side of his home.
OK. OJ's Bronco was not there.
I wonder who it was.
He then drove over to the Ashford entrance. So the other side.
He rang the intercom three times. Ding ding ding. No answer.

(29:28):
This started at 10.40 p.m. that night. OK.
That's when he then saw someone arrive at the Simpson's home through the front door.
O'Kaelin came in through the front door.
The lights then turned on. OJ answered the intercom.
He said I'll be right out.

(29:51):
Park's testimony was significant because it explained the location of the glove found at Simpson's home because the blood trail from the Bronco went to the front door.
And that was easily understood. But the glove was found on the other side of the house in the back.
Park said that the shadowy figure initially approached the front door before going back to the back door, which is where the glove was found.

(30:20):
But the prosecution believed that Simpson could not get into the back door because it was locked and there was an alarm set.
So he had to go around back to the front door. And that's when he felt saw him turn on the light and to the intercom.
So they believe that Simpson had driven to or driven his Bronco to and from Nicole's home to commit the murders.

(30:44):
Saw Park there and then changed his mind to enter through the front door, deciding to enter through the back door instead.
He panicked and made that sound that Kaelin had heard his housemate and then realized the security system would not let him enter through the rear entrance and then discarded the glove in the back.

(31:05):
Came back through the front door, answered the intercom.
That's how Park was able to talk to him. And he pretty much saw all this.
I don't think he confirmed that he saw him go through the back door. But during the cross examination, Park admitted that he could not identify the figure.
But he said that the person he saw entered through the front door.

(31:31):
Park said that he did not notice any cuts on Simpson's left hand, but added I shook his right hand, not his left.
So I didn't see his left hand.
The prosecution presented a total of one hundred and eight exhibits, including sixty one droplets of blood.
DNA evidence that was linked to Simpsons that linked Simpson to the murder.

(31:55):
So there were sixty one drops of blood and it had DNA to link him to these murders.
There was no witnesses to the crime, which made the prosecution very dependent on the DNA as the only physical evidence linking Simpson to the crime.
But the Bronco chase, the suicide note and items that were found in the Bronco were not presented as evidence in the criminal trial.

(32:26):
Why?
The clerk conceded that such evidence did not imply guilt, yet she defended her decision, citing that the public's reaction to the chase and the note as not proof that the trial had been as proof that the trial had been compromised by Simpson's celebrity status.

(32:50):
So they didn't really think it was fair.
To do that, which I don't know, most of the public, including Simpson, Simpson's friend, Al Michaels, interpreted his actions as admission of guilt.
Yet thousands of spectators were seen expressing sympathy for him and encouraging him to flee from police.

(33:12):
So it was like one of those things.
It's like, no, not everybody saw it as that, which is crazy.
So we're going to take our last smoke break there.
And we'll be right back.
And this smoke break is brought to you by cinnamon rolls.
Cinnamon rolls.

(33:35):
And we are back from our smoke break.
So the volume of DNA evidence in this case was unique, and the prosecution believed that they could reconstruct how the crime scene was committed with enough accuracy to resemble an eyewitness account.
That is crazy.
That is crazy.
Yeah.

(33:56):
Marcia Clark stated in her opening statements that there was a trail of blood from the Bundy crime scene through Simpson's Ford Bronco to his bedroom at Rockingham.
So she said we can connect the dots fairly easily from this.
Simpson's DNA found was found on blood drops next to the bloody footprints near the victims at the Bundy crime scene.

(34:25):
The prosecution stated that the probability of error on this was one in nine point seven billion.
Yeah, Jesus.
Oh, pretty accurate on that one.
Simpson's DNA was also found on a trail of blood drops leading away from the victims toward and on the back gate of the Bundy house.

(34:50):
The prosecution stated that the probability of error was one in 200 on this one.
So little less probable.
Still there.
Simpson, Goldman and Brown's DNA was found on blood on the outside of the door and inside Simpson's Bronco.

(35:11):
The prosecution stated that the probability and error of error was one in 21 billion on that one.
Simpson's DNA was found on blood drops leading from the area where the Bronco was parked and Simpson's Rockingham home to the front door entrance.
Pretty obvious there.

(35:34):
Simpson, Brown and Goldman's DNA was on a bloody glove found behind Simpson's home.
Simpson and Brown's DNA was found on.
I'm sorry. Simpson and Brown's DNA was found on blood and blood on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom.

(35:56):
The prosecution stated that the probability of error on this one was one in six point eight billion.
So pretty evident.
Yeah, it's it's there.
The evidence is there.
LAPD criminologist and hair fiber expert Susan Brockbank testified on June 27th, 1995.

(36:23):
And FBI Special Agent and fiber expert Doug Diedrich testified on June 29th.
The fibers from the glove found at Simpson's home were microscopically similar to the one found at the crime scene.
Wow. Yeah, crazy, honestly, isn't it?

(36:44):
Both the victims, the two gloves and the blue knit cap worn by the killer had hair consistent with OJ Simpson.
Wow. Wow. Surprise, surprise, right?
The hair in the blue knit cap worn by the killer was embedded in the seams indicating.

(37:05):
That it had been worn repeatedly from the killer, so it wasn't just a one time hat wearing incident.
This was a hat that was probably consistently worn by the killer, or at least for a little while.
Dark blue cotton clothing fibers were found on both victims.
And the video from the dance recital that Simpson attended earlier that night shows him wearing a similar colored shirt.

(37:31):
And Cato Kailin testified that Simpson was still wearing that shirt when they got home from McDonald's,
but not when he answered the door for the limo driver.
So he had changed at some point between coming home, listening to that voicemail, leaving and then coming back.
Well, he says he was there the whole time, but coming back to meet the limo driver. Yeah.

(37:58):
The police searched his home, but the shirt was never found.
Hair consistent with Goldman was found on Brown and clothing fibers consistent with Brown was found on Goldman.
So they believed it supported the prosecution's theory that the assailant killed Brown first,
then Goldman and then afterwards returned back to Brown to slit her throat.

(38:24):
The hair consistent with Brown that was found on the glove was also torn.
And this supports the prosecution's claim that the killer grabbed Brown by her hair and then cut her throat.
So the hair was torn, opposed to like just falling out there or cut is what they said.

(38:47):
Fibers that were only used in the 1993 through 1994 model year Ford Bronco,
the same car that just so happened OJ drove and owned were found on both victims, the knit cap and both gloves.

(39:08):
Crazy. Crazy. You wouldn't. I would never have guessed. No, me either.
That is so shocking. Just probably the most shocking thing in this whole case.
Look, this is how shocked I am. So shocked. Can you tell?
The glove found at Simpson's home that belonged to the murderer had hair and clothing fibers consistent with Simpson, Brown and Goldman,

(39:34):
as well as fibers from the Ford Bronco and Nicole's Akita dog.
So that's a whole nother piece to that. Jesus, yeah. Yeah.
And remember, this is an unsolved case. I'm just like fuming in this seat right now. I'm fuming.

(40:01):
I'm actually fuming. The more you say, the more I'm like it's. It's pretty insulting. Cool.
It's truly one of those cases that you're like, oh, what in the book happened? What the fuck happened here?
In June, FBI shoe print expert William J. Bodzak testified that the bloody shoe prints found at the crime scene

(40:26):
and inside Simpson's Bronco were made from a rare and expensive pair of Bruno Magali Italian shoes.
Wow. He determined that the shoes were a size 12.
So happened to be OJ size. That's the exact size shoe he wore. Could you imagine that?

(40:49):
That honestly shocks me so much. I know it would. I thought it would. Yeah, honestly, I'm like mind blown right now, actually.
Yeah. And so these shoes are only sold at Bloomingdale's. So it was a fancy, fancy store in California.
Only two hundred and ninety nine pair of that size were sold in the USA.

(41:10):
One of them was sold at the same store that OJ Simpson obviously are often bought his shoes from.
Just just to keep stacking it on, you know, I know, I know. Blame your dumb.
So he also testified that despite the two sets of footprints at the crime scene, only one attacker was present because they were all made by the same shoe.

(41:33):
Interesting. During cross examination, Bailey suggested that the murderer deliberately wore shoes that were the wrong size,
to which Bozak dismissed as ridiculous because he said, what? Like, why would the killer do that?
He took no effort into planning anything at all, but he would wear the wrong size shoes. You've got to be fucking kidding me.

(41:57):
Brother, what? Brother, you're pulling at straws there. Simpson denied ever owning a pair of these shoes. Of course he did.
There was only circumstantial evidence that he did, of course. They couldn't really say for sure.
But one of the Bloomingdale's employees, Samuel Poser, testified that he remembered showing Simpson those shoes,

(42:19):
but there was no sore record of him purchasing them, unfortunately.
Although the prosecution could not prove that Simpson owned the pair of shoes,
Bozak testified that similar bloody shoe prints was left on the floor inside Simpson's Bronco.
So he's like, somehow the killer got into his Bronco then. So like, tell me how to explain that one. Rule me this, Batman.

(42:47):
How? He... A ghost did it. It was a ghost. Yeah, no, it was the man wearing the shoes who was also driving the Bronco.
It just keeps getting crazier and crazier. It's maddening, isn't it? It's so maddening. I know. It makes me so angry I could spit.

(43:11):
It's bad. It's bad. God. It was suggested that Detective Furman broke into the Bronco and left the footprints there,
and he produced a photo of Furman walking through the puddle of blood. So they went to blame it on the detective.
Bozak admitted that he was not able to confirm that the shoe print in the car definitely came from a Bruno Maggioli shoe,

(43:38):
but dismissed the claim altogether because none of the shoe prints at the crime scene were made by Detective Furman's shoe.
So he's like, that can't really be a thing, truly.
Beep!

(44:01):
Wait, wait, okay. Sorry, I was a little distracted by... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, you're good. You're good.
So basically they tried to claim that it was the detective shoe print and not...
And then he framed him? Yeah. Oh, okay.
And to that they basically said, no, you can't really say that at all. It's very unlikely that he could have made the bloody shoe print in the Bronco.

(44:23):
Then why would he? He wouldn't. Exactly.
I mean, I will get into a little bit about Detective Furman here in a minute. That kind of made people think this,
but to that I say I still don't think so. But you can't... It's his blood. Right. It's his...
And his DNA is mixed in with it. So like... Yeah. It's... Brother what? It's pulling at... Stupid, stupid. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No. Immediately, no.

(44:53):
O.J. hired a team of high profile defense lawyers led by Robert Shapiro, who was previously a civil lawyer known for settling.
So just settling cases. And then later by Johnny Cochran, who at that point was known for police brutality and civil rights cases.

(45:17):
So these are both pretty high profile lawyers who were known for winning their cases, basically.
So the team included noted defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Harvard appeals lawyer Alan Derschwitz, his student Robert Blasier, and Dean of Santa Clara University School of Law.

(45:44):
Assisting Cochran was Carl E. Douglas, Sean Hawley, Barry Sheck, and Peter Newfield, who were all hired and they all headed the Innocence Project.
So, you know, these are all people who are used to getting... People who are wrongfully convicted off.

(46:08):
So like it is a good project, but I don't know if it was necessarily always used in the correct ways. You know what I mean?
Doesn't sound like it for this case. Yeah.
Simpson's defense was said to have cost between three to six million dollars and the media obviously dubbed the attorney team as the dream team. Well, the prosecution was over nine million dollars, which is crazy.

(46:40):
Yeah, it's a lot of money spent on this case.
The defense team's reasonable doubt angle was summarized as, quote, compromise, contaminated, corrupted in their opening statements.
They argued that the DNA evidence against Simpson was compromised by mishandling of Dennis Fiong and Andrea Mazzola during the collection phase of the evidence gathering and that 100 percent of the DNA of the killers had vanished from the evidence samples.

(47:15):
So the defense argued that the evidence was then contaminated in LAPD crime lab by one of the criminal analysts and that OJ Simpson's DNA from the reference vial was transferred to all three exhibits.
The remaining three exhibits were planted by the police, thus corrupt by police fraud. So this was their whole defense.

(47:41):
The defense also questioned the timeline claiming the murders happened around 11 p.m. that night when Simpson had an alibi, of course, but originally said 10 to 1030.
Yeah, but they questioned it. They said, oh, I don't I don't know if that's actually accurate.
Okay. So, yeah.
One of the physicians testified in July of 1995 that Simpson was not physically capable of carrying out the murders due to chronic arthritis and old football injuries for OJ during the cross.

(48:18):
But he was totally okay with beating her to the point where she had noticeable bruising on her faces.
Yeah, he was not her faces, but bruises on her face.
Yeah. He's but he's a feeble old man.
Oh, yeah.
During cross examination, the prosecution produced an exercise video that Simpson had made a few weeks before the murders titled OJ Simpson's minimal maintenance fitness for men.

(48:50):
So this demonstrated that Simpson was anything but frail. Yeah. Yeah.
So they admitted afterward that Simpson could have committed the murders if he was in the throes of an adrenaline rush.
I mean, you probably are if you're committing murder.

(49:14):
100 percent. You're having an adrenaline rush for sure.
Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist, testified that the murders happened closer to 11 p.m.
He stated that Brown was still conscious standing and took a step after her throat was cut and that after Goldman's jugular vein was lacerated, he continued to stand and fight his assailant for 10 minutes.

(49:41):
I don't know where he got any of this information, but he just said, yeah.
If he was fighting his aggressor, they said there was like no defense.
Right. Right. Or anything. Right.
So they're literally just pulling shit out of their ass. Yeah.
Just trying to do anything that you can. Yeah. For 10 minutes. For 10 minutes. Your jugular vein. You're joking me. Right.

(50:07):
Cut. Yeah, you're joking me.
Nobody's fighting.
I mean, maybe a little bit, but not not not 10 minutes with your arteries severed.
No, no, no, no. After the trial, Baden admitted his claims of Goldman's long struggle was inaccurate and that testifying for Simpson was a mistake.

(50:30):
So at least he admitted it. But a little too late at a certain point. Yeah.
Like, yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Right. No shit, bro.
Nicole's mother, Juditha, told police that and investigators in a sworn statement that she was speaking with her daughter on the telephone at 11 p.m.

(50:54):
that evening. So that kind of does mix things up.
I don't know how accurate that is because those phone records were completely sealed. So that's a weird like discrepancy in this case that I thought the court sealed them.
Why? I don't know. Either it proves or disproves it.

(51:16):
And I don't know. I'd really like to know because that's interesting to me.
Right. Because at 11, there's no way he could have committed the crimes because he would have been on his way to the airport.
But those dogs were barking at 10 and 1030. So I think the police were eventually called at 10.

(51:40):
All right. No. Midnight. But anyways, that's just an interesting thing.
Yeah, that doesn't. Yeah. And then they claim that there was a thing of ice cream that was still partially frozen sitting on the downstairs countertop when the police searched the house at around 1230 p.m.
on June 13th. So they said that the local weather was reported to be about 60 degrees that night, implying that by that time, the ice cream would have been thawed.

(52:11):
So they were like, see, she couldn't have been killed that long ago.
But the dog was outside for a couple of hours before that.
So I don't think we could trust that.
The defense argued that results from the DNA testing were not reliable because the police were sloppy in collecting and preserving it from the crime scene.

(52:38):
So two of the agents that collected the DNA did admit to making several mistakes during the evidence collection, which included not always changing gloves between handling evidence items,
packaging and storing the evidence items using plastic bags rather than paper bags as recommended and storing evidence in the police van, which was not refrigerated for up to seven hours after the collection.

(53:06):
OK, but yeah, they should have done their job better. But like, it's still his DNA.
It's still his DNA.
So that's not going to change anything.
Right. Unless you're really implying the police planted it, which like I'm not saying that some police departments aren't above that because look at the West Memphis 3 case.
But like, this is so much that it's just like.

(53:32):
It's like in your face.
It's like something that's so much. Yeah.
Add up like it all adds up.
This adds up. Yeah.
It's not suspicious or I don't really know.
No, I really I really think you're on the right track here.
So the defense argued that this would allow bacteria to degrade the DNA and thus make the samples more susceptible to cross contamination in the LAPD crime lab.

(54:01):
The prosecution, though, denied that the mistakes made change the validity of the results.
Obviously, they noted that all the evidence samples were testable and that most of the DNA testing was done at two consulting labs, not the LAPD crime lab where the contamination supposedly happened.

(54:23):
So it wasn't even done there.
So the prosecution also denied that the contamination happened in the LAPD crime lab because the result would have been a mixture of OJ's DNA and the DNA of the real killer.
So because the results only show DNA of OJ, this could not be a thing.

(54:49):
There would have had to be another set of DNA somewhere.
You know what I mean?
Long hair tickling my nose.
Tickle tickle.
Yeah, so they only found one DNA, one set of DNA.
OJ's.
If they had planted the evidence, there would have been a mix of both OJ's and quote unquote real killer's DNA.

(55:16):
Yeah.
Which there was not.
So the prosecution also noted the defense is the defense declined to challenge any of those results by testing the evidence themselves.
So they didn't even try.
The contamination claim was made by a microbiologist and he testified in August of 1995 that the forensic PCR DNA matching is not reliable and that the LAPD crime lab has a chronic substantial contamination.

(55:47):
So he testified that because of the LAPD's past history of contamination, he would not consider any of the PCR DNA matches in this case as reliable.
Great.
But they have other places that tested it.
Exactly.
So yeah, so he's still pulling at anything they can.

(56:09):
So he claimed that the consulting labs, PCR DNA matched were not reliable and this was not admissible as evidence.
They tested that went through the LAPD for packaging and shipping and he believes that only three of the DNA matched matches have been valid, which were the same three.
The defense alleged were the ones planted by police.

(56:33):
So it's funny and ironic that he said those are the only ones that he thought were not contaminated.
It's like that kind of just throws everything out the water there.
I should have put my foot up.
You can't see the screen.

(56:54):
I feel like Grinch when you put his foot up to hide us.
During cross examination, he admitted that there was no evidence that cross contamination had occurred and that he was only testifying to what might occur, not what actually did occur.

(57:17):
You can't do that. You can't fucking do that. Are you stupid?
Yeah, he is. So he accepted that the victim's blood was in the Bronco and Simpsons blood was not was at the crime scene and neither was due to contamination.
So it was like, yeah, I guess I could admit it.
You testify what actually did occur, not what you're.

(57:39):
It's a mess. A fucking mess.
What?
He also admitted that nothing happened during packaging and shipping that would affect the validity of the tests and the two consulting labs.
So he just went. He said rewind, rewind, rewind.
Never mind what I said is fucking stupid.
He said, no, I didn't say that. Let me go back.
Let me go back.
Okay. Well, wow.

(58:02):
The prosecution implied that he was not a credible witness.
He had no forensic experience and had only testified for criminal criminal defense defendants in the past and always said that the DNA evidence against him was not.
Reliable due to contamination.
So this was a bit that he was hired to do for multiple cases.

(58:24):
Why is he on the case if he has no like forensic experience?
They do that kind of shit all the time in cases.
I'll bring up the West Memphis three yet again.
They brought some kind of like a cult expert to the stage that apparently had, you know, all of this experience and occultism and, you know, all this research.

(58:47):
And he didn't even know what the fuck he was talking about.
He had no idea. He said he had a master's degree and all this bullshit and had nothing.
Master's degree bullshit. Exactly. Exactly.
The defense initially only claimed that three exhibits were planted by the police, but eventually argued that virtually all of the blood evidence against Simpson was planted in a police conspiracy.

(59:16):
So they not only accused the prison nurse criminalists of doing this, but they accused everybody in the case, including all the detectives on scene in participating in a huge plot to frame Simpson.
Sounds convincing. Yes.

(59:37):
In the closing arguments, Cochran called detectives Furman and Vatner twins of deception.
Vatner, the man who carried the blood and Furman, the man who found the glove.
Yeah, twins of deception.
Damn. Yeah.
Rude.

(59:58):
The defense alleged that Simpson's blood on the back gate at Bundy crime scene was planted by the police.
The blood on the back gate was collected on July 3rd, 1994, rather than June 13th.
The volume of DNA in that blood was significantly higher than any of the other blood evidence collected on June 13th.

(01:00:21):
And this is where I say, oh, for the police.
OK, the volume of DNA was so high that the defense conceded that it could not be explained by contamination in the lab.
However, they noted it was unusual for the blood to have more DNA in it than the other samples collected at the crime scene,

(01:00:43):
especially since it had been left to and exposed to the elements for several weeks and was collected after the crime scene had supposedly been washed over.
So in March of 1995, Vatner testified that he instructed Fung to collect blood on the gate on June 13th and Fung admitted he had not done so.

(01:01:07):
So that is a big oh oh on the police's part that they would even try to submit that.
The defense suggests that the reason Fung did not collect the blood is because it simply was not there that day.
And when shown a blown up photograph taken of the back gate on June 13th, he admitted he could not see the blood.
The prosecution responded that the different photograph shown the blood was present on the back gate on June 13th before any blood had been taken from Simpson's arm.

(01:01:37):
So, yeah, I don't know.
One of the first officers at the crime scene and one of the ones who pointed out the blood on the back gate to Detective Furman, who documented it in his notes that night,
and multiple other officers testified that the blood was present on the back gate the night of the murders.

(01:02:00):
So it's really one of those that I don't really know what's happening.
The prosecution also pointed out that the media cameras presented proved that Detective Vatner never returned to the crime scene because they had surveillance on it that whole time.
And where he had never returned where Simpson's blood was allegedly planted.

(01:02:24):
So they said that that was impossible because they had the video evidence, you know, very check alleged the police had twice planted the victim's blood inside Simpson's arm.
An initial collection was made on June 13th.
The defense accused Vatner of planting the victim's blood in the Bronco when he returned to Simpson's home that evening.

(01:02:45):
The prosecution, of course, responded that the Bronco had already been impounded by the time Vatner returned and was not even at Simpson's home at that point.
The defense alleged that the police had planted Brown's blood on the socks found in Simpson's home.
And the socks were collected on June 13th and they had no blood from both Simpson or Brown.

(01:03:08):
But her blood on the socks was not identified until August 4th.
So they're just basically saying they're going through and just putting blood on everything.
The last exhibit allegedly planted was the bloody glove found at Simpson's property by Furman.
Unlike the sock and the back gate, the defense provided no physical eyewitness or evidence to support their claim that the prosecution could refuse.

(01:03:40):
So they were like, well, we don't really we can't really say for sure that he found this glove.
But like, we're pretty positive that that's where he found it.
And we're going to take his word for it.
The New York published the New Yorker published an article months before the trial began, which cited the source in Simpson's defense team as saying that they intended to accuse Furman of planting the glove with motive of being racist.

(01:04:06):
So Robert Shapiro later admitted he was the magazine's source.
So he did admit to that.
Defense attorney F. Lee Bailey suggested that Furman found the glove at the crime scene, picked it up with a stick, place it in a bag and then concealed it in his sock when he drove to Simpson's home with Lang, Vatner and Phillips.

(01:04:31):
Bailey suggests that Furman then planted the glove to frame Simpson with the motive being either racism or the desire to become the hero in a high profile case.
So sheck suggested that Furman broke into the Bronco and use the glove to plant the blood onto the inside of the Bronco.
Then the prosecution denied that Furman planted the glove.

(01:04:54):
Obviously, they noted that several officers had already combed over the crime scene for almost two hours before Furman arrived and none had noticed a second glove.
Lang testified that 14 other officers were there when Furman arrived and all said that there was only one glove at the scene.

(01:05:16):
So Lieutenant Frank Spangler also testified that he was with Furman for the duration of his time there, saying that he would have seen Furman steal the glove.
He said, I simply would have just noticed if he did something like that.
Like nobody's putting a glove into a bag and then into their sock and then taking it to a new crime scene.

(01:05:37):
Like that's not happening.
Clark added that Furman did not know whether Simpson had an alibi and if there was any witnesses to the murder.
So whose blood was on that glove?
He didn't know at the time.
So he didn't even know that the Bronco belonged to Simpson or whether Kalin had already searched the area where the glove was found or any of that.

(01:06:04):
So it's kind of hard to believe.
Yeah.
During the cross examination by Bailey, Furman denied that he had used.
So this is where the racism stuff comes in, because there is some stuff that Furman did that could kind of point to it.
So during the cross examination by Bailey, Furman denied that he had used the N word to describe black people in the 10 years of him working as a police officer.

(01:06:33):
So a few months later, the defense presented audio tapes of Furman repeatedly using the word eight years before the murder.
So they were like, well, clearly he's not, you know, he's using this word, this derogatory word.
Like he clearly he's racist, which I'm not going to deny that he's not racist by any means.

(01:06:56):
But I don't think that that means he also planted this.
Yeah.
But that doesn't also mean eight years prior to him using that word means.
Yeah, he planted this.
Right.
Like I wouldn't I think that's a little bit much to assume that he's going to take all of this time to frame him, even if he is racist, which he probably is.

(01:07:18):
So yeah, I'm not like denying that.
I'm just saying.
No, no, no, I know you're not.
Eight years prior to use a recording of that to say it was him was like.
What?
Yeah.
But you don't want to take the domestic abuse case prior from OJ.
OK, probably not.
It works in their defense, you know.

(01:07:40):
So his tapes became the cornerstone of the defense's case, obviously, and that his testimony lacked credibility.
Clark called the tapes the biggest red herring ever.
So basically use that as like a look at me instead of look at this type of a thing.
You know, after screenwriter Laura Hart McKinley handed over the tapes to the defense, Furman said he asked the prosecution for a redirect to explain the context of those tapes.

(01:08:11):
But the prosecution and fellow officers abandoned him after IOTO played the audio tapes in open court.
And the public reaction was explosive.
They obviously were not happy about these tapes at all.
I would not be either.
After the trial, Furman said that he was not a racist and he apologized for his language, claiming that he was I don't even want to use play acting for a screenplay.

(01:08:41):
I'm not racist.
I was just pretending because I wanted to be in a play when he made those tapes and he had been asked to be dramatic as possible.
So to be as dramatic as possible, I had to say the N word.
So, yeah, obviously I'm calling bullshit on that.

(01:09:04):
Do I think he planted the evidence?
No.
Do I think he's racist?
More than likely.
Yeah.
So on September 6, 1995, Furman was called back to the stand by the defense after the prosecution refused to redirect him.
The jury was absent, but the exchange was televised and Furman was facing a possible prosecution for perjury and was instructed by his attorney to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination and to constructive questions he was asked.

(01:09:42):
So defense attorney asked Furman if it was his intention to plead the Fifth to all the questions and Furman's attorney instructed him to reply.
Yes.
He spoke with other members of the defense and then said he had just one more question.
Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

(01:10:04):
Following his attorney's instructions, Furman again invoked the Fifth.
Cochran responded to Furman's pleading the Fifth by accusing the other officers of corresponding to protect Furman.
He asked the judge to suppress all of the evidence that Furman found.
Obviously, the judge denied that because there was a lot of evidence found by Furman stating that pleading the Fifth does not imply guilt and that there was no evidence of fraud, which I agree.

(01:10:35):
Okay, so they did something right.
Cochran asked the jury to be allowed to hear Furman take taking the Fifth and again it was denied.
The judge criticized the defense's theory of how Furman allegedly planted the glove stating it was illogical.
On June 15th, 1995, Durden surprised Clark by asking Simpson to try on the glove found at the crime scene and his home.

(01:11:05):
I don't like that.
Yeah, so I guess their their whole thinking was like, well, you know, if the glove doesn't fit, then it can't be him.
There's no way.
So the prosecution had earlier decided against asking Simpson to try on the gloves because the gloves had been soaked in blood from Simpson Brown and Goldman and was frozen and unfrozen several times.

(01:11:35):
I was going to say it like, could you imagine putting that glove back on?
No, and it's a leather glove. So leather shrinks.
That's a huge part of this.
True.
Instead, they wanted to present a witness who testified that Brown had purchased those pair of gloves in the same size in 1990 at the Bloomingdale store for OJ.

(01:12:00):
So they were going to have that be a testimony opposed to having Simpson try on the glove.
And I like that. Yeah. Right.
Which I think would have worked better along with the receipts and photo of Simpson earlier wearing those same type of gloves.
So they had the photo. They had the receipt. They were like, we could present this.
So when he tried it on the leather gloves appeared to be too tight to put on easily, especially over the latex glove they had him wear because they weren't going to let him just put on evidence without having some kind of prediction.

(01:12:33):
So he had another glove on trying to put this glove on. Of course, a leather fucking glove is not going to easily go for a rubber glove.
I roll. Yeah.
Like I get that you don't want him to put the evidence on, but then don't do it at all.
That's why we. Yeah. That's why they should have not done it at all.
At all. At all. So Clark claimed that Simpson was acting when he appeared to struggle to put the glove on, which Cochran replied, I don't think he could act to the size of his hands, which no, you can't act the size of your hands, but you can act on how you're putting on the glove.

(01:13:10):
Like Darden then told like, OK, that reminds me real quick.
Have you seen the videos of girls like acting?
The pants. It's really hard to put pants on their ass and then their boyfriend just come up and put it on.
Yeah.
Same shit. That's what that's giving. Giving the exact same energy for sure.

(01:13:31):
Darden then told the judge of his concerns that Simpson had arthritis and that maybe they could look into his medication if he was taking it, maybe some kind of inflammatory that he was taking that would have made his hands swell up to make it hard to put on the glove.
But they did go ahead and see if he had been taking his anti-inflammatories while he was in the jail. And it was indicated that he had been taking his medication so that it was likely that his hands weren't swelling from that.

(01:14:08):
On June 28th of 1995, a memo to Cochrane came up with the famous line, If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. So that was a big thing that they made huge headlines and all this stuff.
If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. It doesn't fit, you must acquit. You know, huge.

(01:14:29):
And they kind of really banked on the fact that people would be like, well, the glove doesn't fit. It can't be okay. Like really banked on this.
In his memo to Cochrane, they noted that the phrase not only applied to the gloves, but to the evidence presented by the prosecutors.
What the memo really tries to do is play off the jury's instructions. I thought the instruction on circumstantial evidence was incredibly good for us. So when we knew that the instruction was going to be given, it just popped out of me.

(01:15:04):
It says, If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Which I want you.
Yeah, why are we making that up?
Yeah. So what he said was, what I was trying to do was just remind the jury of that moment in the trial of trying on the glove.
But the whole concept of, did the evidence really fit the story that the prosecution was trying to present, or were they just making it fit?

(01:15:35):
It fits. Yeah.
It really fits.
The prosecution stated that they believe the glove shrank from having been soaked in the blood of the victims, which it's leather. Like that could happen.
This model of glove was made out of leather, which was confirmed by Richard Rubin, and it can shrink up to 15% after being exposed to moisture and will never return to its original size.

(01:16:01):
Makes sense.
Durdin produced a new pair of the same gloves, which fit Simpson when he tried them on.
So, you know what that says to me?
Just another piece.
Another piece to the puzzle.
So Rubin was a former vice president of the company that made those gloves. And on September 12th of 1995, Rubin testified that he was 100% certain that the gloves at the murder scene and also the style of gloves, which Simpson was seen wearing in different photographs and football broadcasts between the years of 1990 and 94, were the company's rare,

(01:16:46):
the rarest light model, and that they appeared to have shrunk.
And he was an owner of that company. So I think he'd know his shit, or hopefully would.
Rubin also noted that another pair of similar gloves which Simpson could be seen wearing during the football broadcast were noticeably absorbing rainwater.

(01:17:08):
See, it's like not like he's taking good care of them. So on top of the blood, on top of the rain, on top of the freezing and unfreezing, like these could shrink.
After the trial, Cochran revealed that Bailey had goaded Durdin into speaking, or into asking Simpson to try on the gloves, and that Shapiro told Simpson in advance that they would not fit.

(01:17:31):
So they already knew that the gloves are not going to fit.
Yeah.
In closing arguments, Durdin ridiculed the notion that the police officers might have wanted to frame Simpson, which I agree.
I think that's crazy.
He questioned why, why if the LAPD was against Simpson, they went to his house eight times on a domestic violence call against Brown between 1986 and 1988, but did not arrest him.

(01:17:58):
They only arrested him on charges of abuse in January of 1989.
Durdin noted that the police did not arrest Simpson for five days after the 1994 murder so it wasn't like they immediately were like, oh, it was him.
And they gave him a chance to turn himself in too.
They gave him a lot of leeway.
He really did.
Sorry.

(01:18:19):
Which I'll bring up the West Memphis case again, they had those kids bagged immediately.
And when they framed those kids, they immediately picked those up and they were like, these are our guys.
And like most cases, they do that.
They gave you so much time.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Like, you know, if someone you had a suspect of murder, you don't just give them days to turn themselves in.

(01:18:41):
And then once they do and you have the cops to like arrest them, they're not like, oh yeah, go take two hours of your time.
Yeah.
Do whatever.
It's crazy.
It really is.
During the prosecution's closing argument, Cochran and Sheck very notably objected 71 times in order to lessen its effect on the jury, which is obscene to me.

(01:19:08):
Although the judge overruled 69 of them, he did not once like get on to them for trying to pull this, you know, or threaten them with contempt of court for their behavior.
So he just kind of let it play out, which is obscene.
During his closing argument, Cochran pointed out many flaws of the LAPD, particularly Furman, Lang and Vatner.

(01:19:35):
He emphasized that Furman was proved to have repeatedly referred to black people as derogatory words and also to have boasted of beating young black men in his role as a police officer.
So, I mean, he is a shitty police officer and confirmed racist, but not confirmed that he planted any evidence.

(01:19:56):
I don't think that there is any evidence to point that he planted anything.
But Cochran still compared Furman to Adolf Hitler and referred to him as a personification of evil.
Bro, what?
Which is a wild claim.

(01:20:18):
He claimed that Furman had planted the glove in an attempt to frame Simpson for the murder based on his dislike for interracial couples.
Which I'm not saying that that stuff doesn't happen because sure, we've seen that shit, but like I don't think that there is any evidence to point that he did that.
That's the thing.
That's no evidence here.
There's nothing to point to that.

(01:20:39):
And there's so much evidence pointing to OJ Simpson.
Yes, there's too much.
Entirely too much.
Cochran also presented a piece of paper named the Vatner's Big Lies.
Excuse me.
Claiming Vatner had returned to the crime scene with Simpson's blood to plant it there despite Vatner having previously testified that he had given it to Dennis Fung in order to avoid the exhibits from getting mixed up.

(01:21:08):
Cochran referred to Furman and Vatner as the two devils of deception and implored to the jurors to stop this cover up.
So, I mean, I think that is a big huge part of this, too.
He like looks at the jury and goes, stop this cover up.
A quit Simpson.
Which as a jury...

(01:21:29):
Is that not like a...
No, you can kind of say what you want in the closing arguments like that, but like it is an issue when you look at it because you are plant...
You are, despite all the evidence, still saying that they're planting this evidence and confirming it to a jury and planting that in their head.

(01:21:56):
So like, is it illegal to do it?
No.
But is it a dirty trick?
Yeah.
That's wrong.
You know?
A quit Simpson and send the police a message is what he said.
Which, interpreted by many, is an appeal for a jury nullification.

(01:22:17):
So, following his final statements, Cochran received numerous death threats and hired bodyguards.
So, it was not taken well.
In response, Fred Goldman, who was himself a Jewish man, referred to Cochran as a racist.
He said, he himself is a racist, a sick man, for comparing Furman to Hitler while associating himself with Frank Han, who was wildly considered a black supremacist and an anti-Semite.

(01:22:56):
So, there was a lot of different issues going on than just Furman being a racist.
There was also racism on the other side from different people.
It was different types of racism, but it's still racism.
So, both sides have issues here.
Yeah.
And that's crazy.
It's fucking crazy.

(01:23:17):
Yeah.
So, like, how are you the one to say someone's racist when you're yourself racist?
People love to do that shit.
Robert Shapiro, who was also Jewish, said he was very offended by Cochran comparing Furman's claims to the Holocaust.
In an interview regarding Vincent Blosky's analysts on the case,

(01:23:40):
Bantner claimed that he was also so infuriated at Cochran's claims about him that he felt a desire to strangle him in the courtroom.
Which, I mean, comparing someone to Hitler is a...
That's a statement.
That is a statement. You are really saying something there. So, fuck.

(01:24:03):
Fears grew that race riots similar to the riots in 1992 would erupt across Los Angeles and the rest of the country if Simpson was convicted of the murders.
Because of all of this blowing up. Because of all of the crazy twists and turns.
Because of all of the racist pointing fingers. Because of all of these shitty people that were put in this.

(01:24:28):
Tensions are high. People are not trusting the system. People are not trusting anybody in this case.
People are picking sides and not really...
I don't think either side was being very truthful to anybody really. You know what I mean?
I think it was very much of a... I don't really know what the fuck.

(01:24:50):
The police arranged for more than 100 police officers on horseback to surround the Los Angeles County Courthouse on the day the verdict was announced.
In case of rioting by the crowd.
And former President Bill Clinton was briefed on security measures if rioting were to occur nationwide.
So, big deal.

(01:25:11):
The only testimony that the jury reviewed was the one of the limo driver.
The only one?
The only one they reviewed.
Out of all of that shit.
They said, let me listen to the limo driver's testimony one more time.
So at 10.07 a.m. on October 3rd, 1995, O.J. Simpson was acquitted on both counts of murder.

(01:25:36):
Not guilty.
The jury arrived at the verdict by 3 p.m. on October 2nd after four hours of deliberation.
Four hours is not very long in that kind of a case.
Usually it takes days. Two weeks.
Sometimes people do it pretty quickly if there's sufficient evidence to point one way or the other.

(01:26:05):
But, yeah.
Crazy.
An estimated 100 million people worldwide watched or listened to the verdict's announcement.
Long-distance telephone calls.
Volume declined by 58%.
And trading volume from the New York Stock Exchange decreased by 41% during that time.

(01:26:29):
Water usage decreased because people avoided using the bathrooms.
That's crazy.
The jury.
Like it had an impact on motherfuckers.
Work stopped.
And they estimated 480 million in loss of production from workers that day.

(01:26:50):
That's crazy.
Isn't it?
The U.S. Supreme Court received a message on the verdict during oral arguments with justices.
So they were just quietly passing a note to each other while listening to attorneys' presentations.
They're just sitting there like passing it, opening it.
O.J. got acquitted.

(01:27:12):
Folding it back up.
Sending it to the next person.
They're like in Supreme Court, you know?
Crazy.
Congressman canceled press conferences with Joe Liberman telling reporters not only would you not be or not only he would not not only would he not be there, but I won't be there either, he said.

(01:27:42):
The LAPD has also declined for a reexamination to the evidence with modern methods in recent years because Simpson cannot be tried for the same crime again under the Fifth Amendment.
Simpson's 1993 Ford Bronco was never returned to him and was destroyed by the LAPD shortly after the trial ended.

(01:28:03):
The Sillings 1993 Ford Bronco from the Chase was purchased in 1994 by Simpson's former sports agent, Mike Gilbert, and two other men.
It then ended up being mostly just parked in a garage for the next 17 years from 1995 to 2012 and only being rarely used.

(01:28:26):
As of 2017, the vehicle was on loan to Alcatraz East Crime Museum, where it was put on display as part of an exhibit on the murder trial.
Two years after his acquittal, O.J. Simpson was found liable in civil court for the deaths of his ex-wife and her friend and was ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages, but the amount was never given to them and later doubled to $70 million due to interest.

(01:29:02):
So he never paid that out though.
O.J. Simpson of course maintained his innocence in the murder for the rest of his life, but famously wrote a book called O.J. Simpson If I Did It that hypothetically told how he would have committed the murders if he was the killer.
But it was never publicized and canceled before the book's release.

(01:29:25):
Why would you do that?
Because he's a fucking idiot.
And I'll bring up this because I didn't write it in there.
There's this famous, I'm sorry my legs are jumping.
There's a famous video that I have to have mapped in the episode somewhere of O.J. doing a report with someone and she was asking him about the murder and he goes behind her and goes reek reek reek with like a knife and he like jokes about it and thinks it's funny.

(01:29:54):
And she's like horrified.
After we finished filming O.J. said to me that he had a surprise for me and I genuinely was surprised.
I think it was his idea of a joke and this is it.
That one has to go in here.
Yeah, he's a psychopath.

(01:30:16):
Oh my God.
He's legitimately a psychopath.
And in 2017 or in 2007, I'm sorry, Simpson was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping in Las Vegas and sentenced to 33 years in prison.
He served nine of those at Lovelock Correctional Center in Nevada.
And that was because he he had to sell off a lot of his memorabilia from football because of the money he owed.

(01:30:47):
So they sold off a lot of his stuff at his house, all of his, you know, prized possessions and da da da da.
And he went to go try and steal that stuff back from the people that bought it.
Yeah, psycho.
And kidnapping?
Yeah, I don't remember who he kidnapped, but it was probably someone in that home that he was trying to get recover his stuff.

(01:31:11):
Brother, what the fuck?
I know a whole mess.
Oh, J. Simpson was eventually granted parole in 2017 and released on October 1st, 2017.
He was granted an early discharge from parole in December of 2021.
And in April of 2024, OJ died from prostate cancer at his home in Las Vegas, surrounded by his grandchildren and children.

(01:31:42):
Now, I know there was so many thoughts and opinions on this case, but unfortunately, justice was never brought to Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman.
And their families still have to deal with the fact that their murderer got away with it.
And I find that very disheartening and concerning and maddening all at the same time.

(01:32:05):
So what are your thoughts on this one, Queen?
Fucking Christ.
It said he was like surrounded by his grandkids and kids.
So they just took the word.
Yeah, unfortunately, there's some families that either don't care or don't believe it.

(01:32:32):
Don't like it. Don't like him.
Don't like the outcome.
It's just so crazy. All the evidence is 100 percent there.
It was all there. It's laid out.
Just I don't know how much more neatly you could wrap up evidence or something like this and still not convict someone.

(01:32:55):
And it's just so crazy because I guarantee if he wasn't this high profiling celebrity, they would have been locked up.
Absolutely.
I completely agree.
And how butchered it was completely just I don't think he could have had a fair trial with the way it was handled.
I don't think it was impossible.

(01:33:17):
And maybe I'm wrong, but like I really do think it was one of those that once it happened, it was is too little too late.
There was no way.
Yeah, I don't like it.
No, it's a rough one.
It pisses me off.
Like I'm pissed off.

(01:33:38):
Yeah. And that's like the murder was clearly a crime of passion.
This is angry, upset, overkill murder.
So it's an angry murder.
This wasn't just, oh, I was intending to rob you and then I had to kill you because you saw me.
And so just not thought out.

(01:34:00):
Yeah, it's not thought out and still got away with it.
So much evidence left.
Still got away.
Yeah, it's rough.
Any final thoughts?
No, I fucking hate it so much.

(01:34:21):
I'm sorry.
I would love to hear anybody's thoughts on the case.
If you got any, leave them down in the comments section below because we do be reading those.
We do be responding.
Leave us a little message.
And yeah, I'm glad that you guys joined us for our two partner.

(01:34:44):
We will have one more episode to end of this season.
Probably going to be another two parter.
So be ready, get high, get your stuff ready for that.
Two parts.
Yeah.
And until next time, stay high, stay safe.
And thank you for watching.

(01:35:05):
Slay.
Hey guys, thanks for watching.
If you enjoyed the show, please like, subscribe and hit the notification bell so you know when we drop our next episode.
If you want to see more of the host Kai, follow her at Chronic Chaos on all socials.
Also, follow Queen Reifer at Queen Reifer on all socials.
And if you'd like, catch her on Twitch where she streams Monday and Friday.