Marcia Clark on the knife from OJ’s estate: ‘I’m glad the LAPD is taking it seriously’

Last week, the world was surprised to hear of the discovery of a knife at the former property of OJ Simpson, who, after a notorious trial, covered by the international media, was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. At first, with the current popularity of FX’s series, American Crime: The People vs. OJ Simpson, the reports of the discovery, coming from TMZ, seemed slightly dubious (and possibly coat-tailing on the popularity of the series), but major news outlets and people closely associated with the original trial are adding some credibility to this recent discovery.

According to the LA Times, a retired police officer handed over a knife he said was given to him by a construction worker who helped raze Simpson’s mansion in 1998. The LA police said the timing of the revelation of this weapon was “interesting,” due to the fact that the miniseries was airing now, but that they would investigate this new lead fully.

Entertainment Tonight talked to OJ prosecutor Marcia Clark about the discovery:

I really don’t know what to think of it. I can’t believe someone gave a police officer what appears to be, could be, important evidence in a case — even if it is closed — and takes it home. I don’t know what to say about that except I can’t believe it, but it’s apparently what happened. I don’t know whether to say it is truly evidence, none of us knows that yet — it might be a hoax, it might be somebody who planted it and then just pretended to find it and gave it to the off-duty police officer, you don’t know. But, of course, I’m glad the LAPD is taking it seriously and subjecting it to testing so we can find out.

I just hope the truth comes out about this situation, as I always do about all situations — whatever this is, let’s find out. Let’s find out if it’s related or not. I really want to say — my heart goes out to the families. With these kind of things that stir up all these memories and the pain of it all, I just can’t imagine how they’re feeling right now.
She went on to say of the discovery,

[From Entertainment Tonight]

For his part, the police officer who was handed the knife in 2002 insists that he called the LAPD and was told there was no interest in it because it was a closed case. TMZ has more information on the man and he’s now 70 and retired with a clean record. TMZ’s law enforcement sources claim that a folding buck knife similar to this one could have produced the wounds on the murder victims however it’s not known whether any DNA can be recovered from the knife after all this time.

OJ, 68, is currently incarcerated after being found guilty on 12 counts, including kidnapping and armed robbery, after an incident in a Las Vegas hotel room in September of 2007. He’s eligible for parole in November, 2017. It’s highly unlikely that the discovery of this knife would give OJ any additional time behind bars, as since he was acquitted of the murders, he cannot be retried.

I was listening to a radio show and the host said he was “all in” with Making a Murderer for a few weeks, but admitted he was now all into the OJ case (as a result of the FX show). I worked at CNN in Atlanta back when the case was going on and I saw the crime scene photos and was privy to a lot of information that the general public was not seeing. I thought, back in the day, that OJ was guilty – and the fact that we never found OJ’s “real killer” always bothered me. If someone had evidence that could have convicted OJ back then, why hold it back until now? And, if the FX series hadn’t been aired, would the person who discovered the knife ever have said anything? It’s kind of sad that a TV show may get the truth that an actual, legal trial couldn’t. I guess, maybe what Making a Murderer is doing to highlight flaws in the criminal justice system could work to finally solve the OJ mystery.

Marcia Clark's "Guilt By Degree" Book Signing

Photo credit: Getty Images,, FameFlynet

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

142 Responses to “Marcia Clark on the knife from OJ’s estate: ‘I’m glad the LAPD is taking it seriously’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. It'sJustBlanche says:

    Okay this is totally off topic but she looks so much younger now. Better hair?

    • MinnFinn says:

      Much younger! It looks like she’s had work done around her eyes plus her face looks fuller.

      • Hadleyb says:

        She’s also heavier and it fills out her face a lot. She looked so ragged in the trial pics. But yes, I also think some plastic surgery.

    • Catwoman says:

      Oh yes. Because her hair is the most important issue here.

      • MinnFinn says:

        What do you think is the most important issue? It’s a tragic fact that he was acquitted and can’t be tried again. End of the story.

      • Catwoman says:

        It’s most definitely an issue in my book calling out a fellow woman on her hair. That kind of (albeit ugly) hair was the style back in the day of the trial. I just think we can do better than to rag on an intelligent and successful woman because she a bad hairstyle 20 years ago. Peace.

      • MinnFinn says:

        Read my post again because I did not say anything about her hair.

      • Isa says:

        I was wondering too. I was watching the Dateline episode and I couldn’t help but notice the difference during the flashbacks. Whatever she did it looks great.

      • MinnFinn says:

        Isa, It just occured that her stress level must have been unbearable.

      • K says:

        Omg there is no reason to be rude. They were commenting on how nice Marsha looks now which is hardly the end of the world or worth attacking other posters about.

        OJ was tried and aquitted he can’t be tried again, there really isn’t much to say about it. I’m loving the miniseries because it is highlighting how racism and sexism played so heavily into this trial but that doesn’t mean people can’t say her hair isn’t better now.

        Also this is a celebrity gossip site not a legal website the level of discussion is often superficial.

      • Isa says:

        @minnfinn yea her stress level must have been insane, but i still think she’s had some work done and she looks great.

      • Nic919 says:

        Marcia Clark’s poodle style curly hair was not in style in 94 which is why she changed it mid trial. Even in the second picture we see how much better the straightened hair looked.

        It’s too bad a lot of this trial became a game about style over substance, but since this was the most televised trial ever it was inevitable.

      • Sarah(too) says:

        Catwoman, Marcia herself has called out her hair. She said that when she first met Sarah Paulson, the thing first thing she said was “So sorry about the hair.” I think we can chuckle about the hair (didn’t we all talk about it in 1994?) and still understand that the tragedy is that a guilty man got away with murder.

      • Ericka says:

        In addition to the trial she was going through a divorce and custody battle. Stressed and skinny during the trial.

      • crtb says:

        Dear Catwoman
        I think when we all look back on old pictures, we laugh at how silly our hairstyles were then. It isn’t done in a mean spirited way. They print elementary and high school pictures of celebrities of the time (ever seen George Clooney in the goofy glasses?) We have gotten so politically correct that we can’t even laugh at ourselves. No one said anything mean spirited about her hair. What I read is how much better, relaxed and youthful she looks now.

    • Christin says:

      I think cosmetics and hair products have greatly improved during the last 20 years. A lot of us look better in some ways, simply because of makeup improvements (product and application techniques).

    • bbqccornnuts says:

      I think she looks great! I imagine getting away from the stress of that trial, etc. was a good thing.

    • Nancy says:

      Just to throw out some freakish trivia; OJ Simpson, Jodi Anthony and Amanda Knox all share the same birthdays. Yipes

    • Carol says:

      I think its more than just the hair. Maybe some cosmetic procedure. Her face looks soooo different – maybe fillers? She looks good though.

    • Tourmaline says:

      And she’s probably a lot more well rested, stress free, and wealthy than she was back then…

    • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

      Eye job, without a doubt. And maybe some cheek volume.

  2. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I never really found a way to let go of all of the anger from that trial. It’s not the rage that it once was, but I still find articles about it upsetting and decided not to watch the show. I can only imagine what the families feel when something like this comes up. That sob got away with slaughtering two innocent people, and that jury should live the rest of their lives with that on their hearts. I watched the trial, and if you had an ounce of common sense it was obvious that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They just didn’t want to find him guilty because he was OJ.

    • AmyB says:

      I agree with you 100% GNAT…..I was in college when that trial went down, and sat in awe & disgust as he got away with murder. That was a shameful day for our judicial system. My heart has always felt heavy for the Brown and Goldman families. I cannot imagine losing a loved one to a brutal murder, and then watch helplessly as the perpetrator was acquitted. OJ may not be beyond bars for their murders today, but he is where he deserves to be.

    • B says:

      Yup GNAT, well said…

    • K says:

      I watched that trial and at the time believed he was innocent (I’m white FYI) I don’t now but his lawyers did a fabulous job creating reasonable doubt and if you watch the series you see how easy it was for them. Plus it wasn’t just them her friends and family helped create the belief that it could have been someone else. I think OJ did it but there are questions that I have, with knowing the LAPD history I could think he was framed.

      I don’t think it’s every right to attack a jury ever! Remember there were things the public heard they didn’t and until you have to make that decision it’s not right to judge. You’re taking always someone’s freedom you better be damn sure they did it. This jury had reasonable doubt- dirty cop who perjured himself, glove the didn’t fit and murky timelines.

      • perplexed says:

        I’ve never thought he was innocent (probably because it seemed more likely for an abusive husband to kill the wife than anyone else), but I did wonder why the LAPD made it so hard for the prosecution to carry out their case. The prosecution got slammed for being less good than the defence, but the LAPD did create reasonable doubt for the jury. Once the police have failed to follow procedure with the evidence, what else can the jury do? The jurors got made fun of for coming back with a not guilty verdict, but according to the procedure it seemed they did what they were supposed to do.

      • noway says:

        I agree wholeheartedly. Watching the trial on tv doesn’t mean you see the trial as a jury did. The public had far more information and publicity. Whether you believe it or not the media affected your opinion, and to try and put the guilt on the jury is just wrong. I do think OJ probably did it, but sorry to say I don’t think the prosecution proved it legally. My opinion from watching the trial, and my reasonable doubt was the gloves. Whether it was from the chemicals used or something else, the gloves which the prosecution painted hard as the ones used by the killer do not fit OJ’s hands. This alone could give reasonable doubt to some. It was a colossal mistake by the prosecution as they should have known they may not fit. Just fyi many criminal law classes use this mistake as an example of what not to do in trial. If you are not 100% how it is going to work, i.e. having the accused try on a piece of clothing that the killer wore, don’t do it.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Those jurors would have found him not guilty if there had been a videotape of him committing the murder.

      • K says:

        @GNAT you really want to attack a jury for doing their job correctly. I hope for the sake of those tried you are never called.

        The evidence was miss handled a policeman TOOK IT HOME, another cop committed perjury, the glove didn’t fit and they didn’t hear all the theatrics of CNN like you did. The jury did their job. The prosecution didn’t prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard of proof.

        Question do you think Steven Avery should be in jail?

      • NorthernGirl_20 says:

        Yes GNAT.. I watched the trial, I was in university at the time and we all watched the entire trial. I’ll never forget the disappointment at the not guilty verdict. I was in residence with 20 other people and we were all sure that he was guilty.. but knew he would get off.
        I read Marcia Clark’s book about the trial – it was a great read. The jury were going to let him off from the beginning. She wrote that when the jury was brought on an outing to see the crime scene at OJ’s mansion, at least one of them was wearing a jacket from the football team that OJ played for .. She knew then that he was getting off.

      • Kitten says:

        The “glove didn’t fit”? You mean the glove that very clearly fit OJ’s hand that he pretended to not be able to get over his hand? THAT glove?

        Also, I think it’s ok to question a jury’s decision on a case as high-profile as this one, and on any case really. Jurors are human and as fallible as the rest of us. I certainly don’t believe that they should be threatened or harassed for their decision, but I think it’s ok to look at their decision critically. In fact, I think it’s an imperative to do so if we want to grow and learn from past mistakes. Even if we disagree whether this case is illustrative of a flawed judicial system, I think we can all agree that the system IS flawed.

      • Size Does Matter says:

        The leather glove that was soaked in blood and allowed to dry naturally for two years didn’t fit? SHOCKED, IM SHOCKED I SAY! I guess leather doesn’t shrink in California or something.

        Police rushed to judgment my ass. They “planted evidence” before they knew whether OJ had an airtight alibi, right? BS.

    • OrigialTessa says:

      That’s how I feel about Casey Anthony.

      • NorthernGirl_20 says:

        Oh yes me too .. I was up all night with my son at the time all that was going on and there isn’t much on in the middle of the night so I watched a lot of Nancy Grace and that woman is guilty of killing that poor child. I don’t care how messed up you are .. You DO NOT go partying when your child is ‘missing’.. you DO NOT get a tattoo that says the good life when your child is ‘missing’. She did it.

      • Miss Melissa says:

        Absolutely. That monster murdered her own child. Her parents are idiots.

    • Naya says:

      There was reasonable doubt there, certainly in the legal definition of the word. A juror doesnt have to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt but I think in this case between the great defense strategy, a stupid police department that probably tried to seal their case with evidence tampering and an over confident prosecutor, sufficient reasonable doubt was created. I would have voted to acquit too. Wasnt the whole point of the outrage around To Catch a Murderer really about individuals in the system determining guilt based on their gut feeling rather than the rules set out under law?

      • Jwoolman says:

        A friend who handled domestic abuse cases said the case should have been thrown out of court just based on gross mishandling of the evidence by the police. She also said that in her experience, abusive men who killed the target of their abuse always did so in the same manner as their established pattern. If the victims had been beaten to death, OJ would be a more likely candidate because his established pattern of abuse was with his fists. But he had no pattern of using knives.

        It makes more sense to me that OJ knows who did it and wanted to cover it up, by being the proverbial red herring. Mob involvement as a warning to OJ is a possibility, but the most likely theory I’ve seen is OJ’s older adult son who had access and experience with knives and a history that would make a psychotic episode feasible. That also would explain the lack of physical evidence on OJ himself and the very weak DNA evidence (making sense if the murderer was related to OJ). Really, the evidence should have been very strong, but it wasn’t. Police typically do assume the spouse or ex as prime suspect, and they often get stuck in that mode and don’t think beyond it. But if OJ really didn’t do it, he might have assumed he would never be convicted so it would be safe to deflect attention toward himself.

    • JenniferJustice says:

      I couldn’t agree more. I still get angry when it gets brought up. I still think a vicious monster got away with murder. It makes no difference that he’s in jail because he isn’t jail for murdering Nicole and Ron. There was no justice for those crimes. I’m angry too, because I’ve heard Kato Kaylin say now he thinks OJ is guilty. NOW he says that?! I’m angry because all of OJ’s friends knew he did it but stood by his side and protected him, withheld things he told them, and encouraged their families to support him – WHY? Because he’s OJ? I’m angry because up until the Vegas debacle, OJ was still living life freely and as normal as he could minus some of his money. And angry because the few times we’ve seen him since them, he still has the smug arrogant look about him because he knows he got away with the most horrible thing imaginable, got their/HER kids afterward, and still thinks he’s untouchable. And no, for those who are attempting to claim there was reasonable doubt. Read the damn definition of reasonable doubt. It does NOT mean no doubt whatsoever – it means doubt beyond reason. There is a huge difference. There was a huge amount of physical evidence that proved OJ’s guilt. It was never about only having circumstantial evidence or gut feelings. The jury chose to ignore the physical evidence because they could not and would not admit that this man they put on a pedestal as a hero would be toppled and exposed for the thug he is. They simply wanted this strong black male role model to remain a role model. I would like to ask any one of them if they would enocurage their own daughter to hook up with OJ.

      • K says:

        Strong physical evidence that didn’t go from the scene to the station but went to a policemans home, another cop lied under oath and a history of racial bias. Those people were slaughtered but only a drop of blood was in his car? Really how? None on his clothes?

        They had enough to say did he do it? Was this evidence real? Again they were putting someone’s away for life taking the only remaining parent two kids had I would want to be sure and that jury had enough doubts they couldn’t do it. To attack them when legally they had reasonable doubt is wrong. I’m not saying it wasn’t the wrong verdict heck they have said they were wrong but what was in front of them wasn’t enough.

        Again they didn’t have CNN giving them all these other angles. You saw it on tv they lived it!

      • Size Does Matter says:

        PREACH, JJ

    • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

      They didn’t want to find him guilty because of Rodney King’s brutal beating and the subsequent LAPD officer acquittal, & riots. I think finding OJ not guilty was payback, rather than OJ being such a grand and unimpugnable figure.

      • Breakfast Margaritas says:

        LAPD has at least a 60 year history of manufacturing evidence and killing unarmed black men. There had been riots in LA about this since the 60s. Mark Furhman was a known racist and the chain of custody for the evidence was not followed properly. LAPD had zero credibility in the eyes of jurors who most likely have witnessed LAPD corruption first hand. If I’d been a juror there’s no way I could have faith in anything Mark Fuhrman said. OJ had no scratches as one would expect from scuffling with 2 healthy adults. He also had very arthritic knees at that time. Did he do it? Possibly. Did LAPD and the prosecution make a credible case? No.

    • hogtowngooner says:

      I know what you mean about OJ being guilty (because OMG it was obvious to us all), however the jury could only assess the evidence that was provided to them, and because the police and prosecution botched a lot of it, it was inadmissible. They could not consider that when deciding.

      Also, what many seem to misunderstand is that in order to convict someone the jury must not have any reasonable doubt. If there is even a modicum of that, they CANNOT convict him. They did have doubts, so they did not convict. That’s down to the police and prosecution making serious errors that rendered crucial evidence inadmissible, not the jury.

  3. Lindy79 says:

    Does anyone actually think OJ didn’t do it??

    • MinnFinn says:

      Yes, at least 12 people.

      • Lisa says:

        My brother says he was there but that he didn’t do it.?????????????

      • Lisa says:

        to clarify the above, that he believes that OJ was there but that he didn’t do the killing himself. Not that my brother was there but didn’t kill them.

      • Lindsay says:

        He probably watched the BBC documentary on OJ’s son. It does make a compelling case.

    • AmyB says:

      I know…..I cannot comprehend how someone could think he is innocent at this point. I do understand how the dynamics of the trial (racial tensions, Mark Furman’s perjury) cast doubt in the courtroom back then, but how could anyone really think he is innocent now??

      • noway says:

        I guess it depends on your experiences with law enforcement. Now I think he is probably guilty, but I can still see a scenario where he is not. I have a friend who was a homicide detective for many years in a large city, and I will never forget what he thought happened. He said that OJ did it, but the glove and blood in the car were planted, because the police knew what an abuser OJ was and they couldn’t do anything. He said it happens a lot. Always made me wonder if they just go for the most likely suspect, and percentage wise they are probably right, but what about the times they aren’t. Now I just have anecdotal information about law enforcement, and it made me question his guilt a bit, but if I had direct experience where law enforcement jumped the gun I might think he was innocent.

      • Naya says:

        Yeah, that attempt to cash in with that book titled “If I did it, this is how…” killed the last shred of the benefit of doubt I had for OJ.

      • colleen says:

        My husband and I lived in the same neighborhood as OJ in Kendall, Miami area back in the early 2000s and I actually had occasion to meet him and talk with him (actually, just stand there and listen while he blabbed on and on about how great he is). He is one arrogant SOB. Because I felt (and still feel) that he was absolutely involved in the murder of those two people, it was so very difficult for me not to be rude and walk away. His very presence irked me and I remember I couldn’t wait to get away from him.

      • AmyB says:

        I believe wholeheartedly that the ONLY reason he got off was that the murders just happened to occur at a time when racial tensions were extremely high (Rodney King riots) AND Mark Furman turned out to be a lying racist of a cop. However, those two things had NOTHING to do with OJ’s murder of Nicole and Ron. The defense team made it about those two other things in order to cast reasonable doubt. The LAPD planted evidence, Mark Furman perjured himself, the gloves don’t fit. It was a circus and I am glad that the FX series is demonstrating that because I watched it happen as a young 22 year old woman. He was a serial abuser and wife beater. Ask social services how many times that scenario escalates into something far more serious. He is guilty as hell and hopefully someday those families will find some peace from this nightmare.

    • lucy2 says:

      I could maybe understand saying there wasn’t enough evidence, or that there was reasonable doubt, but I can’t imagine thinking he actually didn’t do it.
      Kind of reminds me of the Casey Anthony case, there’s no other explanation and it’s pretty clear who committed the crime, but for whatever reason, the legal system didn’t work to carry out justice then.

      • Lindy79 says:

        Yes that’s my thinking, I don’t doubt that some of the jurors may have felt he was framed and was innocent, given the nature of what was going on in LA at the time and the testimony of Mark Furhman, you only have to look at some of the reactions to his not guilty verdict, there were a LOT of people who thought he was innocent, but I don’t think all 12 were 100% convinced he was, there was just so many other factors that damaged the prosecutions case, plus the defense played an absolute blinder.

      • The Original Mia says:

        Lindy79, there was a documentary on last night (NBC or A&E) and they interviewed one of the jurors. He said the initial vote was 10-2 acquittal. He said those voting for guilty didn’t really fight for it or attempt to change the minds of the others. He said the majority were convinced he was not guilty due to the Fuhrman/tainted blood evidence and that the glove was the nail in the prosecution’s case. At that point, he said they were ready to go home. He said the prosecution just didn’t do enough to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        BEcause, just like OJ, Casey Anthony got a sympathetic jury. A male juror even claimed afterward, he just couldn’t beleive Casey could do that to her own daughter – why? Because he was stupid horn dog and she kept sticking her boobs out all trial. Unfortunately, it works sometimes.

      • Kitten says:

        I agree completely and I think it’s important to draw that distinction.

    • Crumpet says:

      Yep. My boyfriend at the time was elated when he was found innocent. I think that he was black was part of the reason he wanted to believe he was innocent.

    • K says:

      For a long time I didn’t think he did, at the time of the trial I was sure he was innocent then I thought If he had anything to do with it he hired it done and didn’t personally do it, now I think he did it but I will be honest I still have real questions about some of the evidence that doesn’t make sense.

      • Nancy says:

        K: All the insiders and people who knew Simpson and Nicole as a couple have said they knew immediately it was OJ when they heard Nicole was murdered. He wasn’t well liked or the amiable guy he portrayed for the media in his personal life. Friends stuck around for Nicole, albeit it didn’t do much good.

    • Skins says:

      That jury would have found him not guilty even if they had a video of him killing both of them.

    • Lindsay says:

      The BBC has a compelling documentary on YouTube pointing to the son. He had motive that for that night in particular, he was off his medication for Intermittent Rage Disorder, on probation for assult with a deadly weapon at the time of the murder. OJ did a lot more to protect his son including giving a stupid and ill advised interview with his lawyer standing right outside telling him not to. He probably helped his son out though he may have been an accessory after the fact.

      If you honestly wonder what some other people believe and not just argue. I don’t know and it doesn’t matter what people choose to believe. I wouldn’t have throw another name out there had he not been the subject of a documentary and a book. He seems to have stayed out of trouble sense.

      • isabelle says:

        Why would he kill Nicole & Ron though? What would be his motivation?

      • Tiffany :) says:

        But OJ is documented as beating this particular woman over and over. He threatened her life regularly.

      • Kitten says:

        What was his motivation? One of the oldest of all times: JEALOUSY.

        Jeez, it’s not unusual for an abusive relationship to end with the abuser killing their victim and/or her boyfriend. It’s not like we haven’t seen this kind of thing played out a million times. Additionally, OJ is exactly the type of controlling, narcissistic, and arrogant individual who would be convinced that he could get away with it.

      • Lindsay says:

        His motive, according to the documentary, was he had a very complex/obsession/hatred with Nicole while they lived together as his stepmother. He got a job as, iirc head chef at an LA restaurant which was a big deal for him due to mental health issues, legal issues, and feeling like he was in his father’s shadow and not living up to expectations. Nicole promised to go to his restaurant for the celebration dinner following his step sister’s dance recital. She made a reservation for 14 and he put a lot of work into preparing the perfect meal because this was the first time family was coming to his restaurant. At the last minute he was told she changed her mind and he reacted badly and left with his knives. Most people could take that kind of rejection and not become homicidal but with an unmedidicated rage disorder that could set him off. Ron just showed up at the wrong time and tried to defend Nicole.

        OJs last know encounter with Nicole was that day at the dance recital and by all accounts cordial. She gets murdered on the night his son was ranting about her and it is concidence?

        9/10 The abusive exhusband is guilty but when someone with a complicated relationship with the victim, with a similar build, same rare blood type, similar DNA, with access to the same house and vehicle and no albi one and the police don’t even talk to them it looks suspicious.

        I am only relating the other common theory of the case. I don’t know what happened. OJs son clearly got the help he needed and stayed out of trouble. That is more important to me personally. It would have been tragic if the LAPD zeroing in on OJ allowed him to commit another murder.

  4. Louise177 says:

    The circumstances around the knife seems really suspicious. How is it possible that it wasn’t taken into evidence?

    • HK9 says:

      I know. Given the circumstances at the time I really wonder why they wouldn’t jump at the chance to investigate it then. Not that I don’t think OJ didn’t do it, to me, this is just another clusterf-k from a police force that’s so deeply corrupt that they don’t know what to do when an unadulterated evidence is placed at their doorstep.

  5. Peanutbuttr says:

    The knife was found in 1998, long after the acquittals. He couldn’t have been tried again.

  6. MinnFinn says:

    They can’t try him again so it seems like a waste of resources to bother investigating the knife.

    • vauvert says:

      A waste of resources? To find out the truth? Okay then…

      • MinnFinn says:

        I was long ago convinced that the truth was he did it. The knife is inconsequential to me and I bet a lot of people who long ago decided he was guilty. Are you on the fence and need additional evidence?

      • K says:

        The knife was found almost 20 years ago it’s been in people’s home there is no real value in testing it because it is contaminated. This isn’t evidence that was securely collected, sealed and misplaced in the crime lab it’s not going to yield great information.

        I don’t think there is anything wrong with testing it but I will be honest the LAPD should focus on the open crimes and trying to solve and convict for those victim this isn’t going to matter and let’s be real if it wasn’t OJ Simpson they wouldn’t care? How many people were killed in Los Angeles last year that the killer hasn’t been found or convicted? Why waist time on a 20 year old case that you can’t retry? Don’t the family members of murder victims from Compton, Inglewood or Santa Monica deserve the full resources of the LAPD?

      • Naya says:

        I agree K. Given the fact that 1) it holds extremely low probative value and 2) the principle of double jeopardy has kicked in, pursuing this is a complete waste of public resources for nothing more than political ends. The system wants to publicly redeem itself, which is silly imo. Pour this energy into the thousands of cold cases in which you actually have hope obtaining justice. I would leave this one to Nicoles kids, if they wish to test it then they should do so in a private lab. The estate already won one civil trial, maybe they could file another under different cause.

      • noway says:

        Legally the knife now with its terrible and unproven chain of custody has little legal value. The only real value in the knife now is if it can be proven to most likely be the murder weapon and some DNA evidence of someone other than OJ is still there. They could investigate it further to find untainted evidence of an accomplice or another murderer. Although that defense would probably label any of the future evidence derived from the knife’s discovery fruit of the poison tree. It would be hard to prove that you would have logically found evidence when you haven’t been looking for 20 yrs. Seriously, has LAPD improved at all in the decades, because this seems still like a big F()*)(* up.

      • Shaunna says:

        We know the truth!! OJ’s blood from his cut finger left drip marks on the ground from the murder scene to the alley behind Nicole’s home. The footprints in the blood at the scene were from his size 12 Bruno Magli shoes. Nicole called the cops 8 times when he was beating her in the years leading up to the homicides. She left a diary in her safety deposit box with pics detailing his beatings and expressing her fear he was going to kill her. And so much more……

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I don’t imagine that the families of the victims see it that way.

      • MinnFinn says:

        I honestly don’t get that line of thinking GNAT. If I was a Brown or Goldman family member the last thing I would want is to talk about anything related to that trial.
        They were convinced he was guilty and they even filed and won a civil case against him.

      • lucy2 says:

        I wouldn’t want to relive all this again even more than the poor families are having to now, but if evidence showed up, I’d need to know what it said. If there’s potential to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt, and maybe finally get a confession out of him, I’d want to know.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I would want absolute proof if someone slit my daughter or son’s throat. I would want to know who did it, and I would want the world to know who did it, especially after he was found not guilty. Do you really believe that they don’t think about their children every single day of their lives? People handle things differently, and you may be right, but I would want to put his guilt out there every single day for the world to see.

      • Lindy79 says:

        I’d want to know, yes he can still hide behind the fact a jury found him innocent but it would prove he is a murderer and a liar with an excellent defense team, also given the way some people cheered and celebrated when he was acquitted, it would make me feel vindicated in a way.
        Only they can answer but knowing the truth was finally out there, even after 20 years might give me some sort of closure.

      • MinnFinn says:

        GNAT Now I did not say they don’t think about their children every day. I’m sure they do and I would too. I said if I were them I would not want to talk about the trial any more.

        The Browns and Goldmans were absolutely convinced OJ was guilty because they brought a civil suit at their own expense. If it were me, I don’t think I would spend any time trying to remind or convince the world that OJ is a murderer but that’s because iirc most people thought he was guilty then and they still do. I don’t think additional evidence pointing to OJ would change the minds of those who think he is innocent.

        The most important reminder to me is your point that everyone handles a horrible tragedy in their own way. And I agree also that a person can’t predict with 100% accuracy how they would respond.

      • OrigialTessa says:

        Finding the proof beyond a reasonable doubt, having the smoking gun… How is that not worth pursuing? Nicole and Ron deserve to have the whole truth and nothing but the truth come out about what happened, and if there’s a murder weapon that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who killed them, and finally put to rest any doubt, then it’s worth pursuing. OJ can’t be tried again, but his guilt can still be proven, which so far, for whatever reason, it hasn’t.

      • Sarah(too) says:

        I would think that the Brown and Goldman families would like this final nail in the coffin, so to speak. OJ will never get out of jail and there is compelling case to be made that his sentence is much more harsh because of the murders. But – having this knife – the murder weapon – if there is any evidence left on it – would be a mystery solved. The question will then be how did the LAPD miss an area on the property that had something freshly buried in it.

      • noway says:

        I think people watch too much CSI. According to the media reports, this weapon was buried on the grounds and then left in a tool box for over 20 years. The odds of this knife scientifically being proven to be the murder weapon or having any significant DNA are remote. The sad reality is the families will never know with 100% certainty who killed them, unless someone confesses. I don’t think OJ will do that any time soon. Also, the only legal value the knife may have is for an accomplice, and that would prove problematic legally too, as the knife probably can’t be submitted to court. Not sure that scenario is better, because let’s say OJ did have an accomplice, and you can’t try him either as the evidence is tainted.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      At least one private investigator has made a good case that OJ’s son Jason, who had previously attacked and injured people with knives, was the actual murderer. While OJ cannot be retried for the murders, Jason can be. If I were the Goldman or Brown families, I would want the LAPD to follow up on all the evidence. Unfortunately it does not seem like anyone in the LAPD or the prosecutor’s office wishes to seriously consider any alternate theories of the crime.

      • MinnFinn says:

        I didn’t know about the son being a potential suspect. I agree that would be a good reason to investigate the knife.

      • Isa says:

        That’s interesting. What would his motive be?

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Jason was a chef at the time. He had planned to host Nicole and his half-siblings for supper at the restaurant where he was working on the night of the murders. She cancelled at the last minute, and they went to Mezzaluna instead.

        Jason allegedly had serious psychiatric problems and had stopped taking the antipsychotic drug Depakote only weeks before the murders. The theory goes – and some circumstantial evidence suggests – that Jason left work and went to Nicole’s house to confront her, arriving just as Ron Goldman was delivering her sunglasses. This might also explain why OJ was seen speeding through the immediate vicinity of Nicole’s condo that night. Jason likely called him and confessed, and since OJ could not be sure if Jason was hallucinating or not, OJ went to Nicole’s to check. OJ apparently has a long history of hating the sight of blood, so he undoubtedly panicked after seeing the crime scene and realizing Jason had killed two people.

      • Lisa says:

        I can’t imagine a guy like OJ taking the fall for his son. If he thought it was his son, he would have sunk him with the LAPD.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        His mentally ill son could have gone (and could theoretically still go) to prison for life and/or to the gas chamber. Knowing OJ’s arrogance, I can see him convincing himself that he could protect his son and beat a double murder rap since none of the DNA evidence at the crime scene would exactly match OJ.

      • Merritt says:

        But even if the knife had any evidence pointing to Jason, the timing and poor chain of custody would likely make the case impossible for the prosecution to win.

      • SamiHami says:

        I don’t believe it for a second. OJ was known for being violent against Nicole. It’s not a great leap for an abuser to cross that line. Besides, he’s such a narcissist that he WANTED to talk about how he killed them–hence, the unpublished but highly vilified book “If I did it.”

      • New_Kay says:

        I have heard this theory as well and find it plausible. I never believed and still don’t that OJ committed the crime. Whatever he is, he loved his children and i don’t think he would murder their mother and leave them unattended by themselves upstairs, while she lay dying outside. His son on the other hand could have had a psychotic break and it makes sense that he called OJ. That would explain his behavior prior to being arrested. He likely did feel guilty.

        I am not an OJ apologists, but even know the fact that he is in prison on robbery charges, I kind of get. He went to try to retrieve personal artifacts that had belonged to him. He essentially lost his livelihood and every possible way to make money.

        I’ve seen the American Crime show- but it seems exploitative to me, particularly when they played that voicemail message that the little girl left to her mother. That was just awful and unnecessary.

      • K says:

        That is bull and disgusting attempt to get attention by trashing some kids name. To repeat such garbage.

        Let’s look at some realities OJ’s children lost their father and two lost both parents they were all victims in this they don’t need to be dragged through the mud with some made up bull story that has zero merit or evidence. Let them live their lives!

        Sorry but I don’t think I’ve ever been so disgusted seeing some non public figure accused of murder and mental disease because of who his father is.

      • Nancy says:

        @Bearcatlawyer: Not so much. Simpson is a sociopath. He probably tried to get Jason to take the rap and get him off on insanity. People on this thread are questioning why would OJ kill Nicole. My God he was insanely jealous and beat her on a regular. She finally had enough and left him for good and started dating guys her own age and who weren’t nuts. Poor Ron was just being a friend returning her mother’s glasses and paid for it with his life but put up a hell of a fight. Simpson’s karma came way too late, but at least he’s behind bars and will rot and die in prison. Nicole and Ron’s families have to live through this all over again. I just saw a special on CNN and Ron’s sister said conversations depicted between Marsha and her father in the biopic never happened. Poetic justice for more viewers, just like throwing the Kardashians in there. Despicable. These human beings who were slaughtered like animals can never rest in peace.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @K +1!!
        It is gross to drag Jason Simpson’s name into this. Of course he did not do it.

        Part of the reason Jason was taking certain meds was because of his epilepsy. So, to tar and feather him as a possible double murderer because anyone on a psych med is liable to have a psychotic break is really enlightened. He was working as a chef then, he is chef now over 20 years later. He was in some kind of fisticuffs with a guy before the murder but he didn’t stab anyone.

        And BTW, OJ was not even close to his son Jason so I highly doubt he “took the fall” for him. He could give a crap about any of his kids except for how they affected his image.

      • Lindsay says:

        Epilepsy and rage disorders are very frequently paired. It depends which part of your brain is affected. Going off Depakote with out his doctors orders was going to end badly. He was either going to have a serious seizure or go off on someone. It is hardly tar and feathering him when it has been proven he was diagnosed with seizures and rage disorder (again a common pairing) and stopped taking medicine that had controlled it. It is public knowledge that he had these issues because they were used to ask for liencency the first time (and possibly only time) he attacked someone with a knife. There are other parts to the story than he was on medication.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Uh ok. Far fetched theory about Jason Simpson, epilepsy, rage outweighs the metric ton of evidence — physical and other—against OJ Simpson. You know who else had a rage problem? OJ– and his rage was directed at the person who happened to be the prime murder victim ….

        And I’ve read a lot about this case– and don’t consider click bait on the Business Insider website a reliable source of info.

      • Lindsay says:

        Uh ok. But you have to admit that it is not just picking on some poor guy for taking medication.

        The physical evidence is all problematic between the contamination, blatant tampering, the primitive DNA science available at the time. No one is ever going to know the truth at this point but that website is far from the only place giving credence to that theory. Whoever killed them got away with murder and that is awful but the LAPD has to live with that screw up and not waste resources chancing down wild leads that can’t offer any legal proof. Sadly Nicole wasn’t the last person murdered in LA. This should only matter to Internet detectives that have hit a wall on Stephen Avery, not something worthy of an LAPD press conference. You can believe he did it, that is your right, but he was legally acquitted in a poorly handled case and that bell cant be unrung.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        If I were a member of the Brown or Goldman families, I would want all leads investigated, if only to definitively eliminate other suspects and further establish that the only possible murderer was – as they have alleged all along – OJ. The sad reality is that the LAPD did not do a stellar job of investigating these murders when they happened, and the prosecutors had to fight battles on too many different fronts at trial (Fuhrman’s racism, lack of DNA tying OJ to the crime scene, sketchy witnesses, etc.). All OJ’s team had to do was inject doubts into the jurors’ minds or present the “some other dude did it” defense, and an acquittal was all but certain.

        OJ is plainly not an upstanding, law-abiding citizen. But the notion that OJ would essentially out of the blue drive over to Nicole’s condo mere hours before he was supposed to fly to Chicago, confront Nicole and Ron, escalate in anger in a matter of minutes, stab them both repeatedly to death without getting serious injuries, return to his home, and calmly fly out of LAX strikes me as a tad far fetched. I also question why he allegedly retained criminal defense counsel for his son Jason shortly after the murders – before anyone had been meaningfully interviewed by the LAPD. OJ is not as dumb as some have portrayed him to be, but he does not strike me as nearly smart enough to have killed two people without leaving his own DNA or getting significant injuries in the process.

    • lucy2 says:

      I’d imagine all they’re going to do is a DNA and fingerprint test, so that’s not a huge amount of resources. Either way, a potential murder weapon in a double murder is worth investigating.

      • Lindsay says:

        Tell that to the 12,500 women in LA that have had their rape kits back logged. We can test this knife for DNA despite the fact it will never admitted into any court. But you’re evidence just isn’t getting enough media attention to spend our resources on. They have a finite budget and amount of time testing the knife is a complete waste of it.

      • Naya says:


        I wish you had typed that in full bolded caps. Do people live in afantasy world where infinite resources exist to conduct investigations that would have no value in a court for multiple reasons? Yes, OJ got away with it but you cant change that. You can change the thousands the fate of thousands of culprits walking the streets right now. But then maybe its more important to go after an ex celebrity who cant be prosecuted with likely inadmissable evidence even if he could be prosecuted and who is already publicly acknowledged as a killer. Priorities people.

      • Lindsay says:

        If they do anything with this they better have a damn good reason. I can’t imagine being intimately violated, taking the “correct steps” and having an invasive exam done and then being told 7 out of 10 times, “Sorry there isn’t money we’ll hold on to it though.” (If you get a miniseries made about it let us know.)

  7. NewWester says:

    I would not be surprised if more items relating to this case suddenly appear.

  8. Luca76 says:

    I mean if there were a way to prove he did it and retry him ok great but why waste resources on something so salacious when there are cases out there where criminals are actually running free?
    This evidence will never make it into a court of law, and OJ is behind bars hopefully for the rest of his life but at least for a very long time. It seems more of a justification for the LAPD to retread a failure, how many open murder, or rape cases of non famous people do they have open that they are dillegently investigating even after a year?

    • Crumpet says:

      Salacious? I hardly think that bringing some closure to the families of the murder victims is salacious. And as someone further upthread said, DNA and fingerprinting do not require a lot of resources.

      • Luca76 says:

        Yes its salacious. It’s tabloid fodder and not actual evidence, its for the masses that are addicted to the trial.

      • K says:

        It is salacious because the fact is they wouldn’t bother with this if it wasn’t OJ! My god now they are trying to blame his son making up lies about his kid (which are up thread and disgusting). There are a ton of open cases in LA that they aren’t working to solve why don’t those peoples family get closure? Where is the moral out rage for the families in Santa Monica, Inglewood, Compton who lost a loved one to murder and received no justice? What about all the rape victims who know their attacker is walking around free? And the case is now “cold?”

        Sorry but this is completely nothing but salacious tabloid trash and to act like its about justice and not our reality tv gossip like thirst for this case is disengenuous. Because we aren’t doing it for cases that could yield Justice.

      • SamiHami says:

        It’s not known yet if it is actual evidence. Hence the need for testing.

      • Luca76 says:

        SamiHami chain of custody rules would make this not evidence even if Double Jeopardy didn’t make it impossible to retry this case..

    • FingerBinger says:

      @Luca76 Testing the knife could reveal an accomplice. Hardly any blood was found in Oj’s car. It’s not out realm of possibility that somebody helped Oj after the murders.

      • Luca76 says:

        You could never bring charges based on evidence so badly mishandled. Most especially not on an accomplice.

    • noway says:

      K the blaming of OJ Simpson’s son is based on a private detectives investigation which he wrote a book about and did a BBC “documentary” for in the late 90’s. Hardly new and has nothing to do with the knife discovery or the miniseries. Just getting new traction because of the publicity, but it is a fairly thought out cohesive investigated theory based purely on circumstantial evidence.

      In fairness, people are just trying to figure out what can be derived from investigating this knife as OJ cannot be retried. The only possible legal avenues is if someone else did it or he had an accomplice. Still they would have to find untainted evidence, but who knows maybe the perpetrator would be willing to confess to his crimes for some other reason if the knife has anything it still can tell. Although all of this is a remote possibility.

      • K says:

        It is still unnecessary and makes zero sense. Honestly this knife is going to yield nothing because it hasn’t been in the ground for 20 years and just found its been passed around, it’s as likely to have the policemans DNA all over it as anyone involved in the crime.

        And while I am sure it CNN and TMZ would love for this to be something or especially if they could attack his child (I’m sorry that is just gross) all I can think is how gross we are worried about this crime and not the apparent 12,500 rape kits that aren’t being processed in LA, or all the mothers, fathers and children who haven’t gotten to go to court to try and see their loved ones murderer tried and sentenced. Crimes that can be prosecuted are being ignored because of a miniseries (that I love). There is no way this is admissible, focus on other victims even if people in Illinois haven’t heard their names they still deserve justice.

  9. Merritt says:

    Taking it seriously? For what? Even if there was worthwhile information found on the knife, Simpson is still in the clear due to double jeopardy. And the chain of custody of the knife has been shot to hell, even if it had evidence from a suspect who was never publicly named.

  10. Isa says:

    I was too young to watch it happen, but I am very interested in it now. I feel so badly for her bc she says she still feels guilty that he wasn’t convicted.
    Even one of OJ’s lawyer had this momentary look of disbelief when the verdict was announced.

    • Christin says:

      That was Kim’s father. My mother watched quite a bit of the trial, and commented on how he looked as the trial wore on. Her observation at the time was that RK may have doubted his friend’s innocence.

  11. Nancy says:

    She was an awful attorney. After awhile, it become more of a soap opera than a murder trial. Chris Darden and the glove, OMG. She may be a capable trial attorney, but certainly not one of this caliber. She never had a chance. But…it may her famous for all the wrong reasons.

    • FingerBinger says:

      Clark wasn’t an awful attorney. She had a good track record. She’d only lost 1 murder case before the Simpson trial.

      • Nancy says:

        I don’t know her prior experience or latter for that matter. I just know by reading transcripts since my husband and I practice law, this was too much for her. She was overwhelmed and couldn’t compete with the defense. I don’t envy her, but she is becoming a bit of a hero since Sarah Paulson portrayed her so well in the biopic.

    • K says:

      I don’t think either were bad attorneys I think both Chris and Marsha were excellent attorneys I don’t think they fully grasped what they had gotten into until it was to late and then they were playing catch up which led to more mistakes.

      Marsha didn’t listen to Chris about Furman so to fix it he thought he needed to do the glove move which she knew was bad. But they both thought they had the evidence that spoke louder then the incredibly dark doubt the LAPD cast on the case.

  12. Lindy79 says:

    What are the odds he will be released on parole next year?

  13. The Original Mia says:

    Even if the knife is the murder weapon, as stated above, the chain of custody would negate its value in prosecuting the killer. They can test it to satisfy their need to know, but it couldn’t be used in the prosecution. Its existence and the circumstances surrounding it are another blight on the LAPD and their handling of this case. People want to blame the jury, but there was reasonable doubt and the LAPD and the prosecution were to blame for it.

  14. anne_000 says:

    If the knife had conclusive links to OJ, Nicole, and Ron, then I’m thinking they could have put new charges on OJ, just not the same exact charges of which he was acquitted. They can get him for obstruction and maybe conspiracy.

    I’m thinking that the traffic cop could have turned in the knife anytime he wanted to because if the LAPD wants to examine it now, then they would have wanted to do so back when he first got it.

    I’m thinking or hoping that if the LAPD gets new evidence in any criminal case, even if the suspect was acquitted, that they’d still want to examine the evidence and at least add it to the notes of the case and alert the DA’s office.

    It’s bad PR for the LAPD that if John Q. Public conscientiously turns in possible evidence, that its members have excuses for not turning it in and refuses to do so.

    • Lindsay says:

      They can’t all those charges would stem from the same crime. They would be way too much room for prosecutorial misconduct if they could get an innocent verdict and then come back and tack on lesser charges and have a new trial for the same criminal act. The LAPD Commissioner has already started there is not a lot he can do double jeopardy has been attached.

      • anne_000 says:

        OJ didn’t get an ‘innocent verdict.’ It was a non guilty one, which is very different.

        Double jeopardy means you can’t charge the same crimes for which one was already acquitted.

        You can go back and charge for lesser crimes even though the more major charges came back with an acquittal.

    • Lindsay says:

      Yes you’re right, my bad, he was found not guilty. You still can’t tack on lesser charges having to do with the one he was a acquitted of. Any minor thing a judge MAY allow the statute of limitations has already passed.

      Charging lesser crimes later goes against any American’s due process rights to be tried once and only once for the same or SIMILAR charges. Once you are acquitted you get to put the past behind you and move on. Otherwise anyone could be tried over and over again until they ran out of money or the will to fight. That is why the state can include conflicting and lesser charges and less the jury decide. The State gets one chance to prove its case even if the public feels the results were botched.

  15. HeyThere! says:

    I was in grade school when all this was happening. I remember seeing some of their faces on the news, but didn’t really know why or what for. I’m VERY interested in this case. I don’t want to watch the fabrication people vs OJ tv show because I want facts! Anyone know the best place for them?? I googled some but got all sorts of stuff for the tv show. Based on this one website I found, I guess a lot of DNA evidence wasn’t shown to be jury?? What the heck?! I’m big into dateline and missed the episode last night because I was hosting a dinner party. My dad said there is so much to this case, dateline could run a 100 hours of stuff and still not show everything that happened!!! I must know.

  16. Bess says:

    Jury selection won the case for the defense. It always surprised me that the African American community was so supportive of O.J. Simpson. O.J. was not a member of that community.

  17. Joh says:

    The police man did not turn over the knife.
    He asked a friend to get him the case number so he could have it engraved on the frame.
    THAT person turned him in.
    Then the detectives demanded the knife be surrendered.
    I believe that person is also a policeman.

  18. iheartjacksparrow says:

    I read a quote from O.J. this morning where he says he wasn’t stupid enough to bury it on the property and he more or less admits dumping the knife in the trash at the Chicago airport.

  19. Suzanne says:

    I just finished an audio tape of “If I Did It”.
    I think there’s very little doubt that he DID. OJ’s own words regarding how he “would have” committed the crime and his claim of not having memory of things he did that night- all pretty much tell the tale.

  20. mollie says:

    I watched this unfold start to finish, the moment they started filming the bronco.
    Then I watched the entire court case. It took over tv, in my opinion it was one of our first doses of “reality tv” . It was mesmerizing.

    Poor Marcia, can you even imagine the pressure? She wasn’t a celebrity, and suddenly everything about her was judged globally: How she looked, how she spoke, what she wore, day after day, picked apart by the world watching, and trying to withstand it all and argue a case?