O. J. Simpson : Question about Robert Kardashian (OJ's lawyer)

I posted this on the Robert Kardashian board, but it doesn't seem to be a very active board, so I'll try this one. I was watching a video on youtube that showed the not-guilty verdict being read, and even though Kardashian won, he doesn't look happy at all. Johnny Cochran was celebrating and hugging OJ, but Kardashian looked like a stone, almost as if he was disappointed that OJ was found not guilty. Why wouldn't he be happy? Did he believe that OJ was guilty after all? Just wondering, because I found that very strange.

[Marcia and Charlie kiss]
Charlie:"Marcia I gotta gosomething suddenly came up!" ;)

Maybe he didn't like the fact that Cochran had played the race card that fooled the jury? He might've also thought at some level that Simpson was guilty and thought the jury would see through the defense charade.

I noticed the same thing too. Not to get off the topic, but one of Simpson's other lawyers, Robert Shapiro, had almost the exact same look on his face. A look of alienation, shock, and disapointment after the not guilty verdict was read. Shapiro wrote in a book that he belived that although the jury came back with the right verdict, he was alienated by Johnny Cochran using the 'race card' to sway the jury and that unlike Cochran, Shapiro did not belive that the police framed Simpson for the two murders.

In a way, I was satisfied with the veridct because I thought (and I still do to this very day) had Simpson been convicted, there would have been another around of riots and destruction (an L.A. Lawless, Part 2) like the one three years earlier when violence broke out after four policemen were found not guilty after beating Rodney King the previous year, and the same thing would have happened in Simpson's case had the jury convicted him.

I noticed that about Robert Shapiro, too. Didn't he initially believe that Simpson was guilty?

But yeah, that's a really interesting way to look at the verdict. In a way, even though OJ was not convicted (although I, along with several others, wish he was), I still think that karma caught up with him. He was found guilty in the civil trial, and is also now in prison for the Las Vegas crimes. The race card couldn't be played in his favor forever.

As for the police framing OJ, well, there was still plenty of evidence pointing to OJ that the LAPD never touched.

[Marcia and Charlie kiss]
Charlie:"Marcia I gotta gosomething suddenly came up!" ;)

I think that Shapiro and Kardashian are/were probably ethical guys. They weren't on-board with the crap and race-card tactics of Cochran, Scheck, etc.

Alicia,
The problem is, once the police has tainted some evidence, the rest loses too much credibility and if justice is supposed to be truly blind, a cop framing a guilty man should still end in an acquittal. People hate the jurors from the trial, but I think the LAPD really lost that trial with their behavior on the streets with everyday people, and during the investigation. Forget the race card and Furman using the N word, the glove not fitting was puzzling and I think hurt the forensics evidence in the case.

Explain where it's been proven that the police planted evidence.

It was suggested, and somehow accepted and remembered as the truth.

Fuhrman used the N-word while working on a screenplay. Using the word doesn't necessarily make a person racist - see rap stars and listen to kids under 25.

I can make my own glove appear to not fit. Ever see the Seinfeld episode with Sue Ellen Mischke?

In a way, I was satisfied with the veridct because I thought (and I still do to this very day) had Simpson been convicted, there would have been another around of riots and destruction (an L.A. Lawless, Part 2) like the one three years earlier when violence broke out after four policemen were found not guilty after beating Rodney King the previous year, and the same thing would have happened in Simpson's case had the jury convicted him.

In other words, you were satisifed that a murderer got off scot-free because you were intimidated by a crowd of people who wanted him acquitted, even if the evidence had proven him guilty beyond any doubt.

---

In other words, you were satisifed that a murderer got off scot-free

---

So you were actually there and witnessed the murder.

---

even if the evidence had proven him guilty beyond any doubt.

---

It didnt though. If anything it showed him to be innocent without a doubt.



But I agree with you that if it had shown him to be guilty, then he should have been convicted - regardless of rioting.

So you were actually there and witnessed the murder.

Of course not. But the DNA evidence pointed to him. One of the problems, however, was that the jury dismissed the evidence. Another problem was that a lot of evidence was never presented to the jury.


It didnt though. If anything it showed him to be innocent without a doubt.

Maybe you should read Vincent Bugliosi's book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder. In the book, he discussed that evidence that was never admitted in the criminal trial. Among the excluded evidence was the recorded interrogation in which OJ made a number of incriminating statements.

Of course, long after his acquittal, OJ Simpson wrote a book called If I Did It, in which he discussed how he would have killed Ron and Nicole. I have never read the book, but it sound to me like a strong piece of circumstantial evidence of guilt. I wonder what genuinely innocent person would write a book like that.

I agree with you. The trial in no way proved he was innocent; it just simply showed that the prosecution didn't present their case well enough to prove his guilt. And you're right, there was so much evidence that didn't even go into the case, like the suicide letter. What was the reason for not presenting that?

I thought the other poster was completely out of line in saying that he/she was satisfied with a not-guilty verdict just so a riot would be avoided. I was completely dissatisfied with the verdict, as I think many people were. But at least O.J. is where he belongs now.

Only reasonable doubt is necessary for non-conviction. Besides, his stupid ass didn't do it anyway. You should research more, the cover-up was in play long before Furman took the stand or "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit!" Are you aware that the original coroner was replaced with one that was known for incompetence, because the original coroner's analysis of Mr. Goldman showed that the angles of the wounds indicated multiple attackers, at least two different knives, and that he (a skilled martial artist) fought his attackers. The original time of death based on forensic science put the time around 11:00 pm, the time at which multiple witnesses saw O.J. at LAX preparing to board a flight and there were no bandages or cuts on his hands. The LA DA wanted the time changed to earlier and the original coroner would not agree to it. This evidence and testimony in support of O.J. was also disallowed from the case. If the evidence of his guilt was so overwhelming, then there's no need for changes in coroners, timeline, witnesses, disappearance of O.J.'s blood and hair samples from police labs, etc., all before the trial took place!

As far as Las Vegas, O.J.'s stupid ass got played on trumped-up charges and his sentencing reflects that he's paying for the murders as was the intent of those responsible for the creation of this charade.

If the evidence of his guilt was so overwhelming, then there's no need for changes in coroners, timeline, witnesses, disappearance of O.J.'s blood and hair samples from police labs, etc., all before the trial took place!

The evidence WAS overwhelming. It's just that some of the most crucial pieces were never presented in court. This was discussed in former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder. Among the excluded evidence: the taped interrogation in which OJ made some incriminating statements; the "suicide" note; and the items found in the Bronco (such as a cheap disguise and a large quantity of money) that indicated OJ's plan to flee from justice.

Perhaps the stupidest thing that OJ did after his acquittal (other than getting arrested for robbery) was writing a book titled "If I Did It," in which he described how the murders of Ron and Nicole would have happened if he had committed them. If OJ wereda0 truly innocent, he would (and should) have known better than to write a book like that.

I agree with you. The trial in no way proved he was innocent; it just simply showed that the prosecution didn't present their case well enough to prove his guilt. And you're right, there was so much evidence that didn't even go into the case, like the suicide letter. What was the reason for not presenting that?

Apparently for the same reason some of the other evidence wasn't introduced: It had OJ's denial of guilt. But that excuse struck Bugliosi as "ridiculous" because, even before the trial, it was no secret that OJ denied guilt.

Shortly after OJ's acquittal, Vincent Bugliosi appeared on Geraldo Rivera's now-defunct CNBC talk show, in which he discussed what went wrong in the trial. Below is a link to part of that 1995 broadcast. At 2:30, Bugliosi explains what the prosecution did wrong. And beginning at 3:52, he spends the next few minutes discussing the evidence that was omitted from the trial.

Thank you! Very interesting to watch! I found "Outrage: Five Reasons why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder" by Bugliosi at Barnes and Noble. I don't have the money to buy it at the moment but I will when I get the chance. I read parts of it and it was very interesting. I also saw Geraldo interview Mark Fuhrman, that was interesting as well.

Doesn't Geraldo think O.J. is innocent?



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

If he was so innocent then how did he lose the civil lawsuits?

---

If he was so innocent then how did he lose the civil lawsuits?

---

If he was so guilty, why did he win the main trial?

He had the best defense attorney money could buy, contaminated crime scene, defense controlled key pieces of evidence. How much time do you have?

---

If he was so guilty, why did he win the main trial?

---

Because the prosecution team were inept beyond belief and O.J's lawyers were at the top of their game. All the stars aligned in his favour.

Don't put the devil in the picture, cause' the religious groups won't wanna see it.

Criminal case=Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil case= preponderance of evidence. That's how.

Civil matters are judged on probability not beyond a reasonable doubt.

By the way, innocence is never proved in a trial. The verdicts are guilty or not guilty,
not guilty means there was a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury that the defendant was guilty because the prosecution did not prove the defendant's guilt to the jury's satisfaction. He who accuses must prove is the basic tenet of the British Legal System which is used in the USA. Innocence must be proved under the Napoleonic code which is used in most of 1354Europe but trials under the Napoleonic code do not have a jury but a panel of magistrates who are involved in the case from the time of the offence.

Because I think that Shapiro and Kardashian knew.

I know, poor Nicole. She called it. And ye2000ah I think Kardashian knew that O.J. did it and was shocked that 12 people were actually dumb enough fall for the stupid defense that the blood was somehow planted at the scene by the LAPD. It was absolutely ridiculous but at least O.J. didn't get away with breaking the law forever.

I know! I was talking with my friends the other day about how I think O.J. is the dumbest criminal ever. If you (barely) get away with murder, you'd think that O.J. would breathe a huge sigh of relief and keep as low of a profile as possible.

But no, the dumba$$ thought that he was invincible and that if he could get away with murder, he could get away with anything. Thankfully, it didn't work that way.

As for Casey Anthony, that was definitely not an accident. Another highly publicized (and older) case that always fascinated me was the Lizzie Borden case. Amazing how people can get let off for the stupidest of reasons.

The BBC did a documentary where they analyzed the blood evidence and it contained a synthetic preservative known as EDTA. They found it in blood on a gate at the murder scene and on a pair of socks which OJ allegedly wore there. EDTA does not occur naturally in the human body and is often used by detectives to conserve evidence but was found nowhere else but on the gate or socks. The testing was conducted by scientists who had nothing to do with the original investigation.

It is funny that Dead Cochran shouts out with happiness right after the first Not Guilty verdict was announced, isn't it? I would've understood it more if Simpson did that. Cochran was doing it probably because he knew his scheme worked. Well, he's burning in hell now. And I wonder if Hitler came up to him and said, "Look, I'm not a half crazed painter. I can paint an apartment in 1 afternoon with 2 coats, you *beep* *beep*

Shapiro was mad because OJ chopped of Ron Goldman's head. Since Goldman was a member of the tribe, he didnt like the fact that OJ took out another Jewish person

Kardashian Sr was probably upset that OJ got away with turning Nicole into a Pez dispenser as Nicole and Kris Kardashian (the mom)

There was an article in People magazine about the Kardashian sisters as well as well as Robert Kardashian's widow, Kris. The 1995 O.J. Simpson trial caused a slight conflict of intrest since Robert was one of Simpson's lawyers, and Kris was a friend of Simpson's ex-wife Nicole. I belive the article states some of Kris' words about OJ and Nicole.

Kris Kardashib68an:

"O.J. and Nicole where inseperable. After their wedding in 1985, they were very much in love. They couldn't keep their hands off each other. O.J. loved Nicole very much, but he was also very posessive of her. For example, when Nicole would excuse herself from the restaurant table we were at to go to the bathroom, O.J. within a minute, would become anxious at when she was coming back. Starting in November 1989, I noticed changes to the marriage. Nicole began appearing more nervous and jittery biting her fingernails to the bone. Every time I would ask her if something was wrong, she would either change the subject, or snap at me in a firm tone that nothing was wrong. In 1990, Nicole confided in me about O.J.'s open infidelity as well as complained about being roughly treated by him. Nicole once told me that she was worried that "he one day might kill me and get away with it."

Nicole didnt say that! And Nicole boned Marcus Allen, so she cheated on The Juice as well

He didn't cut off Ron Goldman's head. He sliced his throat. Difference.

he turned him into a Pez dispenser

Veteran New York City police detective and veteran of Manhattan North Homicide Squad on "why" OJ got away with it.

1. Jurors really go by the book when the defendant is wealthy, powerful and well-known.

2. The murder weapon was never recovered.

3. There were no witnesses.

4. Simpson never confessed during an interrogation that was taped or videoed.

"No weapon, no witnesses, no confessionhard to get a jury to convict a guy like OJ Simpson without an absolutely airtight case."

He's probably right, too.

Does this detective think he was guilty? "Yeah probably. It's almost always the husband in this kind of case."

Robert Kardashian and OJ Simpson did fall out a few years before Robert Kardashian died because he thought he was guilty. I do wonder if he sided with OJ to spite Kris for the way she treated him.

Kris was banging her hair stylist and who knows who else. I can see Robert sticking it to her and defending Orenthal.

I really hate to be so difficult, but am I the only person who remember Robert Kardashian removing a suitcase from OJ's house right before the police could search it? One of the questions at the time was that it contained the bloody clothes worn by OJ when he killed those two poor people. I guess the rules are so very different when one was a former football (sports) star. Guess when one is so athletic and so accepted by the fans, then one can get away with anything, including murders. Interesting that everyone is so concerned with the potential of rioting in LA and no one cared about the two dead people. And now Kardashian's "no talent" children are making a career of daddy's fame. Interesting, and to think it all started with murder. I guess the rules really are different in LA. Glad I don't live there.

I do not recall Kardashian taking the suitcase from Orenthal's home.

I heard the story about the suitcase too. Wasn't that why Kardashian couldn't be on the dream team, because of a "conflict of interest"?

He was not celebrating because he knew things. OJ lived with him for a while, and they had been friends for years. Afterwards he said that he questioned wither OJ really was innocent.

Kardashian was on the dream team, but for payroll purposes only. He was hired on so as not to testify against the Juice. if he was not retained as counsel, he could have been called as a witness.

You do realize that OJ, told the lawyers the truth that he did murder them, and the lawyers just have to make up enough reasons to get him off. All defense attorneys know their clients ate guilty or innocent. So, I doubt many defense attorneys are happy knowing they got some murderer off the hook, but they might be glad that they som the case. JC was a piece of 5hit.

That look is something I will take with me to my dying day. There is no doubt in my mind that for whatever reason Robert thought that O. J. was guilty as sin.

I've always wondered what, if anything, he knew that we didn't.

Last year, I heard noted attorney Jack Ford, who covered the O.J. Simpson murder case back during the 1990s, opine that the jurors in the murder trial just were not that intelligent enough to adequately weigh all of the overwhelming facts against Simpson's innocence in the case.

Incidentally, do you think that any of the surviving members of the so-called Simpson "Dream Team," ever bother to visit Orenthal James out there in that state prison in Nevada? The poor guy must really miss shooting the breeze with Barry Sheck, Alan Dershowitz, Peter Neufield (sp?) et al.

I remember seeing Kardashian take the suitcase, but it was more like a gym bag. OJ carried it out to the car, but set it nearby on top of something a trashcan or brick wall or something. Simpson put one bag into the trunk of his car, but Robert Kardashian placed the gym bag into his own car. That bag could have contained bloody clothes, the knife or other evidence. Simpson also spent a couple of days hiding out at Kardashian's house. Kardashian could have easily disposed of the evidence.

He went on the record with Barbara Walter stating "He found the blood evidence to hard to ignore". He signaled then he thought OJ was guilty.


After the verdict his fiance dumped him and his country club threw him out.

He is now rotting in hell next to Johnny Cochran

---

After the verdict his fiance dumped him and his country club threw him out.

---

I thought that was OJ's fiance who dumped him and his country club that threw him out? He and Paula Barbiere were no longer an item, and OJ was reduced to playing golf on public courses. I never read about that happening to Kardashian.

Well your wrong

Paula was dumped mid-way through the trial because a video leked about her saying nasty things about Black Men and lynching. After the verdict his country club did throw him out. Later RK fiance dumped him as well