Coffee Convos with Kail Lowry and Lindsie Chrisley - 145: True Crime Talk: The O.J. Simpson Trial

Episode Date: February 22, 2021

Kail and Lindsie have been super into True Crime lately, and what better way talk more about it than a bonus episode! This month Kail and Lindsie welcome friend Summer to talk about a very well know true crime case, The O.J. Simpson Trial. Summer brings some expertise as an attorney, and gives her opinion on the case. Plus Lindsie and Kail have some questions about the evidence used in the trial, and give their own theories on what they think happened. This episode was sponsored by: Homer, Better Help, Imperfect Foods, & Best Fiends Have a question you want answered? Want to give Kail and Lindsie a call? Leave them a message at ?(609)-316-0060?. Music by Nathaniel Wyvern. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License.

Alright everyone, welcome to another episode of coffee combos podcast, but today is a special episode. Oh my gosh, we haven't done a bonus episode in so long. It feels good. Yeah, it feels really good, but I'm mostly excited that this is going to be our first try at a true crime bonus episode. I feel like so many people when we talk about true crime things, people love it. I mean, of course, some people say, you know, we just want to hear about your lives and we don't want to hear about true crime. But I think this is going to be so much fun. And the case that we're covering is really exciting. And I think probably everyone who's going to be listening to this has followed it to some extent. And

I'm even more excited that we have one of our friends that we met on a podcast trip to Dallas on this episode. She is an attorney and her name is summer and welcome summer. Thank you guys. I'm so excited to do this with you all. So I'm so excited. Your background, like you're now with a practice or a firm, whatever it's called, I get doctors and lawyers mixed up. Well, it's guess it's both practice firm. I guess we use them interchangeably. So yes, I graduated from the University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law last May in the middle of this pandemic. I took the bar exam in the middle of a pandemic and passed that and was

sworn in in December. So I've been practicing law for a few months. I mostly do commercial litigation. So a bunch of boring business stuff. But crime is like where my passion is. And the reason I got involved in law was from watching like CSI and law and order and all those crazy fun TV shows. Oh my God, I love it. That sounds like us. Lindsay and I are basically attorneys without the license. So we practice law with without a license on our podcast. If you don't listen regularly, but we do on a real note, like summer and I did talk about it when we were when I was in Dallas, because I was telling her how I wanted to be go to law school and

like actually be a lawyer or whatever. And I have so much respect for you summer. That's it's I wish that I had like the capability right now to go. I'm so proud of you. That's so exciting that you were able to do all of that like through the pandemic and everything. I can't even imagine how hard it would be to like go through law school. I'm the type of person that has to sit in a classroom and be taught like I can't do online stuff. I don't have I guess the discipline for it. So total respect to you because that's I mean, I think that's so awesome. So congratulations. Thank you. It was hard. Anything in this pandemic has been hard and I am just like you need

to be face to face. I need you to tell me and explain it and point it out. So that last half of the semester was extremely difficult, but it ended up being my best semester ever somehow. And I mean, I really don't know how I pulled that one out maybe because I had more time to sit and listen to lectures over and over. But man, props to everybody for making it through life and this pandemic. Seriously. Okay, so we decided, I think we, what do you call it like deliberated for quite some time on what case we were going to cover. And obviously we've talked a ton about John Benet Ramsey on the podcast and we wanted to try to cover another case that would be well known. And then maybe if you guys like

this, then we can announce cases prior to doing these so that you guys can do your own research. So you feel kind of like invested in whatever we're covering. But we decided to do OJ Simpson. And I am just shook at what I have read some are what you sent me. Some of the stuff I didn't know Kale read it. And she said the same thing. She was like some of this stuff I didn't even know. Yeah, this this case to me, let me be honest with you. I've heard about obviously OJ Simpson because I mean, we're all about the same age. And it happened in the early 90s. So we're all familiar with it. But I didn't know a lot of these details. And when I started watching documentaries and reading this stuff, I was

like, Oh, my gosh, I mean, mind blown by detail after detail after detail. And this, I'm glad that we ended up choosing to do this case because it is there's so much to unpack and I and I love the story behind it because it's way different than any other true crime story. So let's get into it. Let's chat. I think that I said this on the podcast before, but I was actually at the same hotel as him at the exact same time. And I it was in Mexico and my friend's mom took us to Mexico and we stayed there and we were on this resort and she was like, do not go in that building. OJ Simpson is staying here. Like do not go near him. It was like, who the hell is OJ Simpson? I know about him now because I'm

older and I'm into true like true crime stuff. But I didn't know the story behind OJ Simpson when we were there. Like I didn't know we didn't understand why she was telling us to like not go near that building and not not that he would like come kill us or anything. But I think it was just like, there was like paparazzi on the resort and things like that at the time. That's really interesting. Well, I, I think I was maybe five years, must have been like five years old during this time. But I just remember my grandmother being dead set that he was innocent and like I didn't know anything about the case. Obviously I was too young,

but I just remember hearing it on the TVs in the house and her saying that he was innocent and I'm pretty sure that she still maintains that same belief that he's innocent and I just don't see the logic in that whatsoever. But Summer, I think we're going to let you talk from the attorney side of things and then Kale and I will, you know, pipe in without our license. Okay. Oh gosh, where to start. So the thing that gets me about this case is, I mean, and I think how you were saying Lindsay, how, you know, your grandmother believed that he was innocent and a lot of America did until the trial and until certain things were presented.

But OJ Simpson was like this mega superstar, right? Like this really amazing football player turned actor turned all these things and America loved him, which I wasn't that familiar with until the last few days. I mean, people loved this guy and as a huge 49ers fan myself and what he did while he played for the 49ers, I mean, a part of me still wants to be a fan of his, despite the fact that we all know that he killed his wife. But when it came down to the trial, I mean, where this stuff all went crazy is that the proof is there. I mean, he killed her and there is no mistake about that. But all of this turns on really a faulty investigation, the way that the LAPD like just handled things. I mean, they handled

things so terribly. But in that courtroom, the prosecution did a really bad job and they made a lot of mistakes. And ultimately at the end of the day, for a jury to convict somebody of murder, you know, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. And there was enough doubt for that jury to not be able to convict. And the thing that based on the LAPD's like mistakes, essentially, yes, exactly. So I mean, just the way that they handled evidence there. So I watched the ESPN, the 30 for 30 documentary, it's called OJ in America or something to that effect. And one of the, I don't know if he was forensics or an investigator, but someone who was on the scene said that he would have never touched any of the evidence

without wearing gloves, right? And this is the prosecution's witness. Well, OJ's attorneys get up there and show a video of him moving evidence at the scene without gloves on. So I'm like, how can you make a mistake like that? Like make sure that your witness either doesn't testify to that fact, or you make sure that what he's saying is 100% accurate. Because these witnesses just weren't credible at the end of the day. And I, wow, I mean, I think is a new lawyer I could have done better than that prosecution, honestly. What was interesting to me was the fact of just as you were saying, he was so highly followed and made a ton of money. And so the resources there for him to have as high powered

of a defense and, you know, really at his disposal, as much as what the prosecution could have, that's very rarely, if ever the case. So that to me was very interesting that he was able to pull all of these different experts to defend him. Absolutely. I don't know. I really, really struggled when I was reading some of the things on the like Lindsay printed out a whole document. And I'm still struggling with despite what mistakes were made, I can't let go of some of the obvious evidence. Like I just don't, I guess maybe because I'm biased, I don't really know. I feel like the evidence was there and there

is no reasonable doubt. I don't feel like there was any reasonable doubt. Like everything was so obvious to me, but I don't know how they let it go and said that. I mean, just alone, the glove in the dry in the driveway, blood on the door, the footprints, the bloody footprints, then there was a bloody sock in his house. These are things that I don't, they're so blatant and so blatantly obvious. I don't understand how that was, how was there reasonable doubt? You know, that's one thing that I've, I think I've battled with too. I mean, the blood that was on OJ's car on, on it, on the outside and in the inside and the bloody sock in his

bedroom. I mean, we can get to the glove part in a minute, but you don't explain that away. The blood, this blood contained DNA of OJ, Nicole, and Ron, who was Nicole's friend. Some people say lover, we don't really know, but all three of their DNAs were in his car and in the sock in his bedroom. I mean, you don't, you can't explain that away. That's financial. That's right. And so that's why that's where I just can't let go of the beyond a reasonable doubt. Like I just don't see it. I don't know how. And then same, I know that we haven't gotten to the glove thing, but when we were talking earlier, Lindsay and I were saying about the document that she printed out, it had OJ wearing the gloves

and the gloves are on his hands. So it just like, I, I can't get past that part. Well, they had the gloves on in court, right? Summer. Isn't that how, yes. So this is again, this is where the prosecution just should not have done this. So I guess from one of the documentaries I had watched, there were several attorneys to the prosecution, but the main attorney was like, I want to have him try on the glove in court. And his team was like, don't do it, don't do it. And he insisted on doing it. Like this prosecutor wanted to be like, you know, a hero that he was going to be able to prove that OJ Simpson committed this murder. And so when they had OJ, before OJ puts on the glove, Johnny Cochran

is demonstrating the glove in court. Johnny Cochran is a heck of a lot smaller of a man than OJ Simpson. So the glove is way too big on Johnny Cochran. And he's using it and explaining it to the jury. So when the prosecutor tells OJ to put the glove on, first they give OJ a latex glove, right? So anytime you put anything over at a latex glove, it's not going to fit properly. And then they have him put on the glove, which they know has kind of shrunk over time due to other things. And someone had made a comment, he looked like he had been working out, his hands were probably stronger. So then he goes to put on the gloves and they're too small. They don't fit. And if I'm sitting on that jury, I'm like, well,

if these gloves were using the murder and they're way too small for this man to even grip a pin, he must not have done it, right? Despite all the other overwhelming evidence that proves he did it. I mean, you look stupid as a prosecutor at this point because these gloves don't fit this man. For me, that was just, I don't know, that was one of the crazy moment. My friend Kristen said that if you get leather gloves wet, that they do shrink like that. And that there was still blood evidence on these gloves when they tried them on. So there's like a shrink factor there. Also, I think I read somewhere that those get those gloves

were a gift from Nicole. Right. Absolutely. They were. I think that they had found a receipt or something. Right. So he deaf, they were his and there's no doubt about that. So where, where, where is the reasonable doubt? I guess is the question. So for me, the gloves didn't fit. Right. So the gloves didn't fit. And then there was all of this issue with OJ's lawyers tried to say that one of the officers with LAPD planted the other glove at OJ's house. Right. That and the reason he did this and there's all this talk that he was racist and that's why he planted it. So his lawyer said the glove wasn't at his house. It was at the

crime scene, you know, and tried to explain that situation away to try to make it look like OJ didn't have those gloves those night that night. And those gloves don't fit even if he owns the same kind of pair. I think they were trying to create just enough doubt to not be able to convict, right? Because any doubt in your mind, I mean, you really can't convict someone. Like that's why they call it beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you have just a sliver of doubt that maybe he didn't do it or maybe those gloves weren't his, then you can't say that he's guilty. But then it doesn't explain. You could say that he planted the glove. Okay, I'll give

him that. Right. What about the bloody sock? What about the bloody fingerprints on his Bronco? What about the bloody footprints that match the exact same shoes that he was wearing? What about the fibers? The fibers inside? Was it the fibers inside the glove that he matched the clothes that he was wearing earlier that day? Right. His cut. All of those things. You can't. Right. He literally had his hand taped up. Exactly. And I mean, for me, if I'm on that jury, even if I have some doubt about some things, I think overall, all the other things, I'm like, no, there's no way that he didn't commit this murder. Yes, there's doubt to some little issues, but overall, not enough doubt for me to say he didn't do

it. I know he did it. We all know he did it. And if you watch some of the interviews with the jurors years after the fact, they still think he did it. I mean, really, I think what it came down to during that time, during the early to mid 90s is when OJ's lawyer started playing, well, I think it was more race. Two of the jurors are on this 3430 documentary that I talked about saying that for them, so eight out of the 12 jurors were black women. And two of these jurors have said that by them doing this and finding OJ not guilty, that that was a win for black people in LA after the whole Rodney King incident, after all the riots that happened in Watts that summer. I mean, similar, but not near as of

a large scale of things we were seeing last summer here with Black Lives Matter protests turning into riots. LA was crazy filled with those types of movements in the 90s. And black people wanted to win. And I completely understand that. And I think the way that those jurors saw it as we're never going to get this chance again, plus they had been on that jury for seven or eight months, they were tired, they wanted to go home, it only took them four hours to deliberate. That's insane. Like who deliberates two murders in four hours after seven months of trial trial. Yeah. And that's just unheard of amount of time for a trial. I mean, seven months. That's insane to me. I still can't, I still don't wrap my head

around that because even after seven months, the prosecution still had witnesses who weren't fully credible, still did a bad job at presenting some of the evidence. I mean, you have seven months to get it right and you still kind of couldn't. And what was so strange to me and what I think that a lot of people, um, even now I'm thinking about it and things that I've said about the John Bonnet Ramsey case, like after talking to you about the reasonable doubt, referring back to what Kale was saying about his hand being wrapped up. Likely did he cut it on class at his hotel in Chicago? Absolutely not. It would be extremely coincidental, but if the prosecution is presenting that that is the case, there, there could

be, you know, reasonable doubt that, that could have happened. It's not that it did. It could have. Right. I think I just, I don't know. Like I, I have a hard time with that. I don't know. Yes. I guess I understand what you're saying about it could have happened, but I mean, what about the, all the like anyone who has been convicted of a murder? Like what about all those could have theories? Is that not reasonable doubt then? I, I definitely think it is, but it kind of goes back to with the money, with the really good lawyers. I mean, OJ had the best lawyers he could have, that money could have paid for it to be able to defend those theories and push more and more doubt into the jury's mind, you know,

for people who are using public defenders because they can't afford a lawyer. I mean, nobody's going to push for them to create enough doubt, you know, they're overworked and underpaid public defenders are. And really, I think money plays a part into it with OJ having the best lawyers, you know, all of the racial animosity that was going on during that time plays a part into it. But I mean, if I'm a juror and I'm on this case and I think about what's my job as a juror to do, like beyond a reasonable doubt, if I'm sitting there, I mean, it's hard. I think I'm going to struggle with it. I damn sure think it's going to take me more than four hours to make a decision. But it's hard because I can kind

of see it both ways. Rob Kardashian, I feel like in the Netflix docu series about it, I want to say I remember them saying that like at some point, Rob Kardashian knew that he felt in his soul that OJ Simpson was guilty. I think I think to some extent, all his lawyers did. And I think that's why they took the angle that they did take to use race as an issue when I don't believe that was an issue in OJ's case. Because people loved him, people all across America loved him. I think when they looked at him, they didn't really see color with him. They saw a great football

player, a celebrity. But I think, I don't know, I think all of his lawyers kind of knew. And that's why they chose what was going to be the best angle for him at that time and what was going to play on the jury's emotions. Right. Summer, I know that you haven't been practicing long enough, but I always wonder, and this is relative to this case, but really any other case, knowing that your client's guilty of something from like a moral standpoint and then like a professional standpoint, that would be very difficult for me to be able to defend someone that I know did something

like that. It's guilty. Right. I'm not talking about a traffic ticket, like, oh, Susan ran a red light. I'm talking about like a murder, like, and you know that they've done this. Right. So I mean, I always wanted to go into criminal defense, but for that very reason, I couldn't. Right. Like morally, internally, there's no way I could defend someone that I knew was

guilty of murder, which is why I'm on the civil side of things right now. But even in civil cases, not that there's guilt in civil cases, right? But there is who's to blame for the issue, right? I do a lot of business contracts and it's like, well, this person breached, no, this person breached. And it's a matter of finding who breached more or less in the situation. And there are things that I've learned about things that were done or not done in certain cases. And obviously, I have to keep my mouth shut and I have to keep pushing for the best outcome for my client, despite what I might have found out. And sometimes even then it's still a little bit hard. And I can't imagine being someone who's defending

a murderer. Like how can you sit there with a straight face in court and know that this person has murdered two people and throw everything else at the jury to try to distract them from that fact to basically let your client walk free? I mean, I don't know. It's one of those things that I really don't think I could ever fully understand unless I did it and I'll never do it. You can't pay me enough money to defend a murderer. Right. I don't, how can you sit with yourself? Like I just don't know how that would be a thing. How do you, yeah, how do you sleep at night? How do you do? I don't know. I mean, I guess

some people can stomach things a little bit easier, but not me. I'm not one of those people. And then another thing that was interesting to me too was it says that the prosecution presented compelling photographic evidence claiming to show OJ Simpson wearing the same type of extremely rare size 12 shoes with souls that match the bloody footprints found leading from the bodies. And the evidence was challenged as fake, which I, yeah, exactly how he, in one interview, he said, during the civil side of this case, when Nicole's family and Ron's family sued OJ, a civil court has a way lower of a standard to find guilt. And so that's why he ended up being liable for these murders and was ordered to pay their

families all this money, which he never paid a dime of. But in his deposition, he says, I would never wear those shoes. They're so ugly. I would never have bought them, whatever. But then there's all these videos and pictures of him wearing these shoes at golf tournaments and only 299 pairs of those shoes were sold in the US. So I remember that now that you're saying that. Yeah, what are the odds? I mean, 299 pairs, how many were in that shoe size and how many were at that crime scene, but also on OJ speed at golf tournaments or golf appearances or, I don't know, I just remember seeing a video of him in a golf course wearing those shoes that he swore were so ugly that he would never wear. And I'm just like, no.

So that's why I'm saying, like, where is the doubt? Like, I, I can't, I can't move on from that. There is absolutely no reasonable doubt in your mind, I guess, but in the eyes of the law. But even still in the eyes of the law, the evidence is there. There is no where, where with all of this stuff, even if you take the glove out of it, the cut on his hand, the blood on the door, the sock in the room, the shoes, the shoe prints. There's just Chris Jenner saying that she like Nicole had said something to her about, you know, if, if, if I ever die, like OJ did it, Rob Kardashian and his other's attorneys knowing other jurors

knowing that he was probably guilty, like, where is the reasonable doubt? Even in the eyes of the law, like, where is it exactly? There's no other possibility for anybody else to have committed these murders. Right. And that's the thing that really got me to, okay, if OJ didn't do it, who else did? Who had motive? Who had opportunity? You know, who else would have wanted Nicole dead? I mean, And her lover, if that was the case, like who else? It's someone who had to have access to that property, which we know OJ did because there's

interviews with one of Nicole's boyfriends after she separated from OJ saying that he would stand outside of her window and watch them. I mean, so we know he had access to the property. He would beat Nicole. I mean, there's all these police reports, even though she would drop the charges, which in my opinion, anybody who is typical with right, if you're in a toxic relationship and the other person is a manipulator, I mean, they'll get you to drop those charges. That's completely normal in these kinds of situations. And he really didn't want her with anybody else. And so when he saw this wrong guy show up, I mean, I think he was already there with the intention to kill her.

Why do you think that? Was there like evidence leading to leading people to believe that he was already there? Not anything. Oh, you mean, you mean like premeditated? Right. Like, I think he went to her house that night and he was, he knew he was going to go there and kill her. Like, I just, I mean, you go there with a knife, you go there wearing gloves, you know what you're doing, right? Why else would you be wearing gloves in LA? I mean, it's usually pretty warm there, you know, I just, and with a knife, you know, he was filled with rage.

That's a good point. I never thought about that. Like, even if he, I don't know, would that be considered like a, like he snapped, like he knew that he knew at that point he was so angry he was going to go kill her and him or he thought he might kill her and him. So I don't even know. Would that be like a snapped moment or, or no? I mean, I would say yes, yes and no, right? I think he was already frustrated with her and he had seen her earlier that day, you know, one of the kids recitals and wasn't invited to go to dinner with them. So I think he was already irritated in that. And I don't think he went there with the intention to

kill both of them. But when he saw Ron, I guess in his mind, he's like, Oh, they're together. Let me kill them both. But the manner that he killed them was so gruesome and I mean, he was filled with rage. Both of them to death. Yes. But he also sliced their necks. He sliced Nicole's neck so far and so deep, she was almost decapitated and I saw the photos and that's a crime of passion. Exactly. I mean, she was already dead and they said based on the footsteps in between their bodies, she had already been dead and bleeding out, but he went back to slice her throat. And that is, yeah, I mean, you're filled with rage and passion and all these things going on that you take steps back to her to do that.

The mother of your kids, your wife, I mean, he had a couple of screws loose. And then after all of that, it said in the case study that we read that one of the worst mistakes that the victims bodies were left lying in the open air for hours without being examined by a medical examiner and he was not even notified until 10 hours after the body was found. So like to me, when I read all of this stuff, they were giving him an alibi, like a good defense team is going to use all of these things to get out of charges on technicality. Right. I definitely see that. And I mean, for a minute there, they thought OJ did have an alibi, right? Because he got on a plane and went to where Chicago that night or something.

But that goes with your premeditated theory. He knew that he was going there to do something. So he knew that he could do that and then go be somewhere to have an alibi. Like that goes with your point, like go get it done and then go somewhere and act like. Exactly. He knew exactly what he was doing that night because he knew he had a car coming for him at maybe 10 or 10 30 that night. He knew he was going to go get on a plane and fly out of state because he had an appearance. I mean, he knew all of that. And I read online, the driver of the car had said in an interview with police that OJ was supposed to get in the car at a certain time, but he was like 30 minutes late, maybe 45 minutes late. And

so I think that's what put a hole in OJ's alibi, right? That based on what time, an approximate time that the murders happened, based on what time OJ was supposed to leave versus when he actually left. I mean, that gave him enough to say, Oh, he had enough time to drive to Nicole's house and back to get in that car and get on a plane. I mean, he knew what he was doing. He had it all planned out. I mean, even though I just said he had some screws loose, he was, I think a lot more intelligent in this murder than a lot of people gave him credit for, but there's still things he could have done better. I mean, I'm not telling anyone how to try to plan a murder, but don't have bloody socks in your bedroom.

I'm, yeah, I just can't get past the reasonable doubt thing. I just don't. I think I'm curious to know, I didn't know that he went back to Nicole's body after. So do we know the sequence of events he shows up? He kill, he like, what, how lets himself in? I just wish we knew if there was like an altercation or like, I wish we knew, you know, like what Ron was trying to get away, get help. Like how did, how does one person kill both adults without one getting away? Right. I think I'm not sure which one he attacked first, but I do know when I was like kind of going through things, they said that the way that Ron's body was towards the gate,

like he was trying to get away. I don't know if this was before or after he had been stabbed a few times. That's one thing I couldn't find. Like who did he injure first? And I'm not sure if that was maybe something that they couldn't even figure out because there was so much blood there. But they were able to tell based on the footprints that, based on how bloody the footprints were that after he stabbed Ron several times that he walked back towards Nicole. And I think, and if you're a murderer at this point, to the extent that he was, I think that's your last kind of, it's over, it's done. This is, I'm, you know, I'm doing what I'm doing, goodbye, good riddance. And he was going to make sure that she was

dead. You know, even if the stab wounds weren't going to kill her, he was going to make sure that she was dead. And it's, it could have very well been a situation that he went to the house with intentions to kill her, but obviously Ron was there. So he's not going to get away with killing her with someone else being there. So obviously you have to kill all the, well, I was just saying though, like, no, I hear you. I totally hear what you're saying. I just was like, I am trying to put myself in a situation. If I'm home with another person and someone comes in, they're coming for me. The other person has to be able to get away. So what are they doing? Like, I don't, right. Like, I don't, I'm so

like, maybe he didn't initially show his intentions to kill. And then I just don't like that's right. Yeah. No, I totally understand that. I mean, I don't know how you would apprehend two people at the same time. Yeah. Like, what did that look like? I don't, unless he got Ron first, because Ron was maybe going towards the gate and Nicole was back. So then if Ron is dead and he goes back to Nicole, Nicole has no way to get out. Yeah. And I think too, based on, from what I can remember on the pictures, where her body was like closer, she was closer to the door of the house and Ron was a little bit

further out. So I think maybe if it's me looking at it, and again, I'm not sure, I think maybe he tried to hurt Ron first because Ron was further out and could have left. And then if I'm Nicole and I'm seeing this, I'm going to try to get you to stop. And maybe he had harmed Ron enough to like not be able to get away that then he was able to turn around and get to Nicole. I'm not really sure. Can we, I'm going to Google this and see if there's more information I can find, because I really want to know the pattern of events here. Did any, did either of you read his book?

No, I did not. But I was going to ask about that. I think I need to read it. I don't want to read it because I don't want to support him. But was he able to monetize, like was he able to make money off of that? Oh, I'm sure if he was acquitted, then why wouldn't he have been able to? That's true. He was making money in prison.

So what, like on investments or what? No, like signing autographed stuff for his agent to sell while he was in prison, awaiting trial. No. And during the trial, yeah, he was, they were taking in like letters for jerseys, right? He would sign the letter and then they would have the rather sorry numbers and then they would sew the numbers onto jerseys and then sell the jerseys to people. So he was making $500 an autograph and they said on some days he would sign 250 autographs.

So he was making money. That's like Chris Watts was making money because they're not making money. Women were like obsessed with like how he looks and like, thank you so handsome and like right to him while he's in prison. Like I, how can you guys be okay with this? I just wonder in this particular case, not that it's right for anyone to ever put their hands on anyone, but like why was he like this with her? Like why was he always physically abusive to her and why were people around her not willing

to help her? Was it because he was so powerful that there was nothing they could do? Speaking from experience, it's just something that unfortunately the people around you can't help you. Like it's the only person that is able to make the decision to get away from that is or is the, is the Nicole, no matter what she said to her friends, no matter what her friend said to her, she had to be that, that the person that decided to and look what happened every time she tried to get away.

I'm pretty sure he was abusive and to the point where she got away was with somebody else and he killed her. So those are some of the reasons why they're scared to leave. You know, what's really interesting to me about this is OJ's first wife who he married, I believe in college, they were pretty young before all his fame before being a really great football player and going to the NFL. His first wife talked about how loving he was and they had never really gotten into any arguments that he was never abusive, that he was a great father and a great husband.

Did she believe his innocence or did she think he did it? From what I saw, she kind of like was trying to maintain his innocence, but also as a former ex-wife and someone who loved her husband very much, the reason they separated, they divorced was because when he got famous, she couldn't handle the fame. She didn't want to be around it. So that's the reason that they divorced. So I think when you love someone, he's the father of your children, I think internally you don't want to believe that they're guilty.

So when she talks about his innocence and says that he would never be capable of that, I think she's also very biased because they had such a great relationship. But I think that people can turn and change and the more and more famous he got and the more... It changes you. It absolutely changes you. I mean, he was exposed to all different kinds of people and environments and it was no secret that he used to cheat on Nicole and that was a huge issue that she had and I think he wanted

to have... Oh, was that one of the issues? I mean, I definitely think that that's part of my experience as well was like, I would bring up the cheating and in turn get abused. Exactly. So it was like a power move, but also like I wanted to fix it and I wanted to be the one that he chose to be with. I wanted...

Do you know what I'm saying? So I understand it from a victim's perspective. Absolutely. And I think that's what happened. I think she confronted him on multiple occasions about the cheating and he would just go ballistic. I mean, he wanted to have her but also still live a single life and obviously she didn't want that. She was raising his two young children and I think that might have been part of what

pushed him. It's like snapped, I feel like. Exactly. I think it is 100%. I mean, I think he snapped. But I don't know. I kind of am going with your premeditated theory. I'm still...

Yeah. I'm stuck on that still because it wasn't like... It was like a fight broke out or anything like that. He went there with intentions to kill somebody. Right. And somebody was going to die. I think it's a mixture of both, right? Like this snapped element but also he knew what he was going there to do because earlier

that day they had been at their child's recital. He had seen her and her family and he wasn't invited to dinner afterwards and I think that all these moments leading up to that, I think that that's what caused him, right? Like, I'm done. I'm enraged. I'm going to go and I'm going to kill her. And then it kind of started to turn into that premeditated issue. Like I have this time because I'm supposed to be here tonight and get on this flight.

I can kill her and no one will ever think that it's me. Right. That's true. Do we know how far in advance that flight was booked? I don't know but I imagine it had been some time because it was a celebrity appearance and... Got it. Not that I'm a celebrity or anything but usually you have a good amount of time knowing

when you're supposed to be in another city. Sure. Right. Like, did he plan the murder around that or did he like, yeah, I mean, I don't know. And to me, this definitely seems... Because Kayl and I actually were talking about when we were eating dinner, we were talking about how sometimes in certain relationships, even with friendships or if it's a romantic relationship that certain personalities mixed together can bring out traits in another person

that maybe someone prior didn't have that experience with. And this could very well be the situation that maybe his wife, his first wife didn't get under his skin in certain ways or maybe didn't confront him in ways like Nicole did or maybe she wasn't as brazen or bold or whatever. Absolutely. And that for someone who is possibly an egomaniac and a control freak, then I could see not that it's justified but I could see the tendencies that he would have to be aggressive towards her physically.

Absolutely. And I think when I was like seeing some of the interviews from some of his old teammates, so I don't know if the name, Al Collings, like, rings a bell to you guys, but he was the one who was actually driving that Bronco when OJ was supposed to turn himself over to the police and him and OJ had been friends for years and I mean, even he would say, among with OJ's other teammates and friends, would say that he was such a giving man and so kind and he was extremely selfless and would just do so much for everyone around him. But I think what happens is, I mean, he's OJ Simpson.

He's this mega celebrity in the 90s and he can have any woman he wants, have anything that he wants. And when Nicole maybe was like, I don't want to say like put a leash on it, but for a lack of a better words, that's what I'm going to say because she was his wife and the mother of his children. When she's trying to rein him in, he didn't like that. And I think that that's what turned him into this angry person because for the first time, he has someone he has to answer to somebody.

Exactly. Exactly. He didn't necessarily have that with his first wife because she was there before the fame. So I think that he didn't like being told what to do and he snapped. I mean, I think that that's what it was. I think it was a series of snaps over several years that led him to this. Held accountable.

Right. Held accountable, you know, to his wife and have to answer to somebody about his actions and his choices in the relationship. I absolutely would 100% have been through that. Like as soon as you get questioned, you're upset because you know what this means. I want to leave and you don't want me to leave. So you frustratedly act out is frustratedly a word. Yeah.

I mean. A word that we understand. It sounds right. And then another thing that I think is even relevant to even more relevant in today's cases than, you know, in the nineties, but these big cases playing out so publicly and having the public's opinion weighing in on this and the media surrounding cases like this, I feel like that a lot of times muddies the waters, um, not for the, not for the court case, but for the court of public opinion, you know, I think exactly that gets very tricky.

Oh, it for sure does, especially, I mean, could you imagine this OJ issue happening in today's times? Right. Everybody has an opinion. Everyone has their phones. False stuff is put online all the time. I mean, I think, I think the public would be even more split than it was in the nineties, right?

And then you would have some wild off theories. I'm sure what people saying it wasn't him. It was someone else. I actually did read a theory that someone thought that it was actually his son that killed Nicole and not OJ himself. Why do you say that? What was that theory? So I guess his son had some mental health issues and he really didn't like Nicole.

And so he had just was on like on an angry spree and was mad at OJ for things, was mad at Nicole. And some people say that he was the one that went there and killed her. Well, I mean, but the, his blood wasn't at the crime scene with the sock and the glove and the, on the Bronco and doing the chase and, you know, all of those things. Like why would, why was OJ on the run on that frickin freeway for how long, you know, basically talking, being talked out of what he said he was going to commit suicide, right? That's what it had seemed like.

Yeah. I don't think he ever actually used the words, which was interesting to me when I was going back and like looking at all that stuff. But that's what he tried to make it seem like, like that he was going to hurt himself and he wanted the police to back off. So if it was his son, none of that makes sense. Exactly. I think it's just one of those like weird theories, right?

For people who don't want to think that OJ is guilty. Like, well, if OJ couldn't have done it, then this is who could have done it. But I don't think there's enough there. I mean, like you said, it was OJ and the two victims DNA everywhere. It wasn't his son's DNA. And they have, um, no, no, no, you're fine. No, go ahead. Go ahead.

Oh, I was just going to ask. So OJ and Nicole have what, two kids together? Yes, they were. And I wonder like how are they now? Like what is their theory? Did they think that their dad did it? So I actually looked into like where are OJ's kids now and his children, I believe it's his son that's a realtor and the daughter, um, there wasn't a lot online about what she does.

I think so. Um, but they like all of his kids, even his kids from his first marriage, they just kind of fly under the radar, um, I think that they just don't want any part of this and want to be as far away from it as possible. But at the end of the day, what does that look like? Yeah. And, and flying under the radar, but what, what does that mean for your relationship with your dad?

Like not being in the public eye is one thing, but I want to know, do they feel like their dad is innocent? Or do they feel like their dad is guilty and do they have a relationship with him? I don't think that they have a relationship with him, but I couldn't really find whether or not they believed if he did it or not. I do know that their grandparents, you know, had a large part and their aunts and uncles, Nicole's family had a large part of raising them as they got older. So I don't think that they had any, any real relationship with OJ after the fact.

I still to this day, you cannot convince me otherwise that OJ is Khloe Kardashian's father. You think he is? Hi. Yes. The, the way, uh, yes, yes, I do summer way. When I've seen pictures of them compared, I mean, I definitely think she looks more like him than Robert Kardashian.

Yes. And sometimes that's really hard to like deny. But let me say this, my dad had a really good friend who had a baby with this woman and the son looked just like the father. There was no denying that this was this guy's kid. And I guess the wife cheated and then ended up having a DNA test and it wasn't his kid, despite the fact that this child was his twin. So there's that for thought, but I think that Khloe Kardashian does look a lot like OJ

Simpson. Well, I just do like you can't convince me otherwise. If you look back at her baby pictures, um, when she probably would have been like five or six years old, just the, the way her hair looked and just her features, she definitely looked not like totally mixed, but she definitely looked mixed and not Armenian. Right. And she doesn't look like the other siblings, right? They all kind of resemble each other and she doesn't look like them.

And they're super short and tiny. And then Khloe's not. I think, I think she, she might be his. And why is this happening? Best example, jury of 12 and I have definitely said this before and people do not believe me. They don't agree with me, but that's my opinion. It's also my opinion.

I think so too. I mean, I didn't want to say it was also my opinion, but like it's also my opinion. Lindsay or Lindsay, I do a group text cause I'm going to send you these pictures. I just Googled with summer. Okay. Oh my gosh. I want to see what I'm very curious to see is I want to see what Khloe looked like young versus OJ's kids young.

I want to know if there are similarities there. I was going to say, like, I wonder what his daughter looked like around Khloe's age. Like when Khloe was six, like look at this picture I just sent of Khloe with Courtney and Kim. There's just no, okay, yeah, that's, she definitely looks more like his daughter. Oh, for sure. She definitely looks more like his daughter than her own sisters. We're going to have to post these so that you guys can see, but I definitely, I mean

from these photos, I definitely can see it for sure. I see it. I'm trying to find like, that's really wild and also just freaks me out a little bit. What was the, I thought the relationship was that Nicole and Chris were best friends, but I guess if this was going on, they really weren't best friends. I think this things, these things happen between best friends. I mean, Nicole was having an affair with one guy who was one of OJ's best friends. I can't remember his name, but another football player and OJ kind of had issues with him.

I think some jealousy and there's all this proof that Nicole was having an affair with him. So I think best friends definitely crossed the line. It's just, it's insane. And I just wonder if OJ is her dad, if she'll ever come out and say it or if. No, she wouldn't do the DNA test on keeping up with the Kardashians because she didn't want to and she didn't feel like she had to prove anything. But see, I feel like if people think this and you don't have anything to prove or there

is nothing to prove, then why not take it to just make everybody shut up? Maybe she has some doubt and thinks that he is her father and she doesn't want to know. I can't find any pictures of them as kids. We've literally gone from being credible sources to conspiracy theorists. I'm like, oh my gosh, I just, and I also wonder, I've tried to think about too. If this played out today, would the verdict have been different? I think so. I think it would.

I don't know. I don't know. Only because, again, I mean, when you have a jury sequestered, they can't talk to each other. They can't call their family. They're all alone for seven, eight, nine months and the end, they just want it over and done with that they're not going to spend their time deliberating. There's some doubt, maybe not enough, but some doubt.

I don't know if it would have been different. So Summer, I don't know the answer to this, but I'm sure a lot of the people who are listening to this who are true crime fans, they might also know, but how is, how is the jury selected for a case like this? Okay. So this is what was really interesting to me, the jury selection for this case. So typically, you know, you get called for jury duty, I've had enough of those cards in the mail and have gotten lucky to get out of it every time, but you get called in for

jury duty and both attorneys, so the prosecution and the defense, all the attorneys will start to narrow it down, right? You have different, what they call strikes when you're choosing a jury. So sometimes you can strike a juror for absolutely no reason. I don't like them. I don't like what they're wearing. And then there's strikes where you have to have cause, like they look like, or not that they look, but they're showing some sort of prejudice.

Like if you ask them questions and they say, oh, I would absolutely convict him. I absolutely think he's guilty and you have to get rid of them. And you're limited to how many jury strikes you can have. But in this case, because in the very beginning, they told people, you will be here for at least six months. How many of you can commit to that? That on its own, narrowed their jury pool down to almost nothing. Because who can...

I didn't know you had a choice. I thought, I thought if you were like picked to do jury duty, you don't have a choice. I didn't know it was like a, can you commit to this kind of thing? Well, this is different because it's in federal court, right? So I think this is different than like a... State court situation. So I'm not, I'm not sure really if you have a choice, but I think because they knew it was going to take so long, right?

Like who, what reasonable employer is going to hold your job for you while you're gone for six months on trial, right? I mean, a week or two weeks, I've definitely heard of that happening, but several months or people who have families or young kids, you know, I think that that's why there was a little bit of leniency there when selecting this jury, but ultimately what it came down to and when I was watching the documentary is that, you know, their jury pool became so small and ultimately the people that could be on the jury were going to be those in like a lower socioeconomic status.

And I think that that on its own, you have 12 people in that kind of economic status who are on the jury and when you're playing the race card and all these other things, I think that all of that together is what ultimately caused this. And if it was today, a jury being picked, I think you're going to have the same situation, the same types of jurors to select from. So you don't, do you think that it would, had it been a more, not versatile, that's not the word I'm looking for, like diverse, diverse jury that it would have had a different outcome?

I think that definitely would have changed things. Because like I said, out of 12 jurors, you have nine of them who were black, eight were black women. And well, that's already, that's already take away the race part, eight women and there's right. 12 jurors. Yeah, exactly. Like, are we not doing 50, 50, is it not going to be six and six?

It's a lot of the times I don't, I don't see it that way, at least in criminal cases. I mean, especially when you don't have a lot to pick from, right? But eight women and women, we're emotional beings like, right, right. And you get emotionally invested in things and not saying that men don't, but men definitely have a different way of thinking. So I would have wanted to, I mean, thinking about it now, I would have, I would have, we would have not done six and six. I don't know.

If ever I was an attorney, I would have tried to have had more men if it was possible at that time. I would have tried to have had women if I'm a prosecutor, if I'm a defense, I definitely want more women to play on their emotions. I guess it depends on what side you're on and how you're picking, right, right, right. The jurors. Summer, where did they pull the jurors from? Like how do they have to have a certain education level, like, um, are they random selection

from I think it's just, it's just random, right? And I want to say that they had this case in a different city than where the crime had actually happened, um, which you find that a lot in criminal cases who that are such high profile, right? They don't want to select from their own town because people might be biased. Um, but this was so such a big national scale that I don't think it would have mattered anywhere you would have gone. Um, but because it was in a different city that also affected things, um, because had

it been in, you know, like closer to Beverly Hills, your selection would have been a little bit different because you have people there with money who could afford to take time off work, you know, or people who are, have their own businesses or whatever. Um, but I think, yeah, I mean, it would have been different. And if you could have had it anywhere else, or even if they would not have drug the trial out so long, right? If they could have said we can do this in three months, I think you would have had a lot more people who could have committed time.

And if we had a more diverse jury, it definitely would have changed things. This is agreed. So interesting to me, like I can't wait for our listeners to be able to weigh in on this. If anyone thinks that he was innocent, or if everyone like us three think that he was completely guilty, um, and then before we go, what case should we cover next? I think Kale already has one that she wants to cover. Um, do you want to share it, Kale? Do you want me to tell you?

Yeah. Yeah. So I want to talk about the Joel Guy Jr. case somewhere. Have you heard of it? I have not, but I can learn. This man killed his entire, well, his parents. And when authorities got there, um, this is what I'm going to leave you guys on. His mother, what his mother's head was in a pot on the stove.

So that's where we're going to leave it. If you guys loved us covering something like this, please let us know if you guys have not followed us on at coffee combos podcast on Instagram. Make sure you follow us over there. And if you have not subscribed to our show, make sure you do that on the purple podcast app by searching coffee combos, click subscribe, click the fifth star and leave us a written review. You can also find us on Spotify or any other podcast apps.

We hope you guys enjoyed. Hope you have a great day and we'll talk to you soon. See ya. Bye.