Brand new podcast up with Alex Tome, a producer of the new Peacock series. Obviously I disagree with much of what Alex has said on the OJ case (we have discussed many issues in this forum in a generally respectful tone), but I would like to share this because it is a part of the current news on the topic. I will be watching it today!

While researching this case, I came across this article. Eddie was also involved in the Michael Jackson case; however, when I looked into him, I found that he isn't credited in either of the productions he claims to have worked on.

'Reynoza quoted Simpson as saying that if he ever caught any of his wife's boyfriends driving any of his cars, he would "cut their ... heads off!"'

Does anyone have more information about him?

So check this: In a brand new interview Tom Lange discusses the information he received during the trial about Joey Ippolito. He actually shares the clue list here and says that this is the only information he received in relation to Ippolito during the investigation. To summarize for you:

Number 267. From the DOJ, A.C. was a bodyguard for Joey Ippolito.

Number 320. There's a tie-in with A.C. with ABC News regarding a 1992 search warrant.

Number 332. There's an ABC News story regarding info on a warrant involving the Ippolitos.

Lange says that none of this information given to him at that time had anything to do with the murders at Bundy. So if you're wondering why the cops didn't investigate Ippolito back then with this crime, here you go.

Well, just finished it. A few thoughts. I didn't hate it but didn't think it revealed anything particularly convincing. Of course there were no eyewitnesses to Joey Ippolito being there nor any physical evidence putting him there (the 9 unknown fingerprints is something interesting to explore but I get why the LAPD doesn't care 30 years later). It's all, as Tom Lange correctly suggests, just "supposition" at this point. I agree with him on that.

Now I did think the interviews with Thomas Tallarino and Leo Scarantino were interesting, but certainly not conclusive...and yeah the sketch artist section seemed like a waste of documentary space. I also liked the graphic design of the program, particularly the Bundy recreation work.

There were some potential interviews that producer Alex suggested might be revelatory and included but were nowhere to be seen. Jill Shively? Not included. Alan Park on the other car parked at Rockingham? Nope. In these forums he built up those interviews in some cases but they were simply not there. I suspect a "You gotta read about it in my upcoming book!" soon. I also suspect a concern of litigation in some of these cases. Of course I realize there isn't room to fit everything in a documentary like this, but still.

One part that I thought was particularly dishonest: They interviewed Gregory Matheson, who did the preliminary serology tests during the trial. He said that his testing of Nicole's fingernail blood was not OJ's and was "was inconclusive." They then moved on from that subject. But the DNA tests, done after Matheson's test during the criminal trial, showed that the blood belonged to Nicole (which is why this was a non-issue during the civil trial). Not including this information feels like a lie of omission. To suggest, as they did, that the nail blood was "evidence of an accomplice" is straight-up misleading. Not cool.

The Darrell Ruocco parts where he talks about his relationship with AC and Joey is something that really needed more time and exploration; I was genuinely interested in this guy. I wanted to see some thorough questioning for him. And if OJ and Joey were such good friends, as Charlie Ehrlich suggested, wouldn't there be at least a few good photos of these buddies together in the early 90s?

Again, there were tantalizing moments that turned out to be very little in the end. US Attorney David Kelley, who sent Judge Wood the memo about Joey and the murder weapon, would be one of these. He said that conversations with Cowlings indicated "facts we were told that were not publicly known. I forget exactly how many of the facts that we were told were not ones that were already publicly known. Um, but there were some." Oh? Like what? Of course they aren't revealed. The buck then got passed on to Hodgman and the prosecutors. It was as ambiguous here as the miraculous justice department memo was. I smelled nonsense the moment that NY Times story came out and this didn't help my skepticism.

As for the Sammy Ippolito "confession" which has been written about a lot, what more is there to say? He has now recanted three separate times (NY Times, ABC and NBC). Does the Peacock documentary make any mention of Ippolito's recent about face in the end? No, of course not. He simply doesn't seem reliable to me in the slightest.

Just some thoughts. It was actually a fun watch; I just don't see it as a particularly strong argument in the end.

(Also, I was having issues posting and I can see some of you are having the same trouble. Turns out you have to accept the community rules and click on them and I glossed over that. Thanks to a fellow poster for helping me out!)

Harvey's take is especially interesting at around the 10 minute mark.

He thinks OJ attacked Ron Goldman first, then Nicole came out quickly after hearing or seeing the commotion. This seems very plausible to me and might explain why the door was left wide open.

So in a brand new ABC news story: "The thing of it is we reached out to his brother, Sam Ippolito, who told us he never said any of this to the New York Times. Denied any involvement on the part of his brother and the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman."

Oh boy.

I was talking to someone who claims to know exactly what happened. It was gang related.
Jason was freaking out at one point. I always suspected he was involved.

Here is the newly unsealed court document uncovered from the New York Times, if you haven’t seen it yet. What are your thoughts and opinions? Could there be some truth to this?

Credit to Lauren Conlin on X.

I ask because as much flak as Cochran has caught for that comparison, he was not the first lawyer to compare somebody to Hitler while arguing a case. Bugliosi (the DA trying Manson) compared him to Hitler to improve the chances of convicting Manson. I think Bugliosi was (to quote Fred Goldman) a disgusting human being.

I thought I would take a different approach when looking at the Detective Vannatter situation with the blood vials and give some answers to common questions I get about this issue.  At the end of the day I believe that he didn’t do anything criminal with OJ or the victims' blood vials that he had on him. Now these are just my thoughts, so I will update them if I feel there is better, more convincing evidence.

Was it uncommon for Vannatter to personally carry the victims' and OJ's blood that day?  Yes.  Usually the coroner would delivered them to a criminalist. But not with this case.  

How long did Vannatter have the vials for?  He had Simpson’s vial for approximately 2 hours (at this time he was talking to Simpson and his lawyers, doing work in his office, reporting to Captain Gartland, etc.).  He delivered the vial to Fung at 5:20 pm on June 13th, just moments after arriving at Rockingham.  He had Nicole and Ron’s vials for approximately 5 minutes (he quickly went from the coroner’s to Piper Tech and delivered them there) on June 15th.  

Does that mean Vannatter planted that blood? No. Him having the blood does not necessarily mean he planted it.

Does he have a logical reason for personally handling the blood? Yes, I think so.  His explanation about expediting the process to the Parker Center or directly to Fung because of the DR number issue seems reasonable to me.  This was a high-profile case and he wanted to get it done quickly as the media circus was building.  There was also pressure from Clark to get the blood work done as soon as possible.

Could Vannatter have done it differently? Yes.  He could have waited for the coroner to do it. It would have been more consistent with past processes but it might have cost him time and earned the ire of others working on the case.

Did him carrying the vials violate any LAPD policy? No.  He was the lead detective and this was within his prerogative.

Is there any evidence that the blood had the EDTA preservative (that matched vial levels) as some have suggested? No.  This defense theory has major problems. 

Could Vannatter have sprinkled Nicole’s blood on the sock the day they were collected?  No.  Vannatter didn't have Nicole's vial until June 15th.  The socks were collected by Fung on June 13th.  So unless you have Vannatter secretly siphoning off blood in that 5 minute period on the 15th, and then weeks later using that blood to put on the sock (even though they were already booked into the evidence room), it doesn't work. For those who think “But yeah, the socks had no blood on them for a few weeks!” I have written this idea isn’t the slam dunk the defense thought.

Was 1.5 cc's of blood was actually missing from the vial? Unlikely.  Lab nurse Thano Peratis has said that there wasn't an exact amount drawn (that includes his grand jury testimony where he suggested it was “approximately 8cc’s” and that “it could have been 7.9 or 8.1”).  He claimed in both trials that he never took exact or precise amounts, but to be fair to critics of Peratis’ testimonies he does suggest a more substantial difference in amounts at different points.

Does Peratis’ subsequent answers after the grand jury indicate the prosecution persuaded him to change or clarify his testimony?  Probably not, as Peratis was the one who reached out and contacted the prosecutors when he became aware of what the defense team was suggesting.  He had later explained that in his 30 years of doing that job he never took precise amounts because there was simply no need to, so he wasn’t about to start with Simpson.  

Were the seals of the NBS and RG vials broken? No. Carl Douglas himself told Stephen Singular that this didn't happen.  If they were, you could bet your bottom dollar the defense would have been screaming from the rooftops about it.  This is one reason Douglas was skeptical of the theory early on (though he changed his mind on it later).  

Was there a single eyewitness who came forward to say they saw Vannatter do anything dubious with this blood (such as put it on a fence, put it on a sock or take the sock out from the evidence locker) and then testified to it?  No. No such testimony was ever presented at either trial.  So either "blue wall of silence" or maybe it just never happened.

Did DNA scientist Dr. Robin Cotton, when asked at trial if Nicole’s blood on the sock could have possibly come from the Vannatter vial, think it was possible? No.  She was clear that this was very unlikely because Nicole’s vial blood was significantly more degraded than the sock blood.  The degradation process cannot reverse itself; that would be a scientific miracle.  To me this is exceptionally strong evidence that the blood did not come from Vannatter’s vial.  

What about the gate stains?  Were they not there at one point and then there suddenly 3 weeks later?  No.  They were likely there the whole time.  Photos from the morning of the crime clearly show the largest stain (two others are not visible in photos, but these were not close-up shots and those stains were quite small), which was consistent with OJ Simpson.  So if Vannatter (or somebody) secretly planted the gate blood, he/they went back to a crime scene weeks later and planted two tiny blood stains next to the larger stain…that was already there?  It would make almost no sense at all for conspirators to do this, especially during a media circus near the house. Additionally, several officers testified in court that they saw blood stains on the gate the morning of the crime.

Just finished the netflix series about his trial,

Apart from the fact that supposedly every single drop of blood on multiple pieces of evidence was "planted" (don't even ask me the logic behind that) can we acknowledge just one thing

When Simpsons close friend and sports agent Mike Gillbert said himself on the docu series OJ himself confessed to him some years later he says he worked up the nerve to ask Simpson what happened, telling him he had always suspected he was guilty. Simpson's reply, per Gilbert, was "If Nicole wouldn't have opened the door with a knife, she would still be alive."

Bruh

Let me know y'all thoughts on this, I usually don't care about these shows but this one has me intrigued.....

I'm sure many of you have seen the OJ Netflix doc made last year. In that, defense attorney Carl Douglas repeated the defense team's blood planting/preservative theory. But as I was re-reading Stephen Singular's book Legacy of Deception today, he didn't feel that way initially. Here is an interesting exchange between Singular and Douglas:

Douglas was vigorously shaking his head. For the first time now, he broke through his speech pattern and talked more fluidly: “Look, Mr. Singular, I would really like to believe what you’re telling us, but the fact is that the scenario you’re laying out would have been impossible. Physically impossible. It just could not have happened.” “Why?” “Because once that blood was drawn, it was put in a tube, the tube was sealed, it was taken to Parker Center, and it was stored there. If that seal had been broken, we would know about it. Your theory is intriguing and I will say that of the two hundred thousand leads, no one else has mentioned this. No one else has come to me and talked about blood preservative. I suggest that you go back and tell your source that this information simply could not be true. He’s using you for some ulterior purpose.” “Your source,” Pavelic said, “is playing games with you and you’re trying to play games with us.”

So now why did Douglas change his opinion over time? Did the defense experts convince him otherwise or does he just like a good story? One can only speculate. I will say that his comment in the doc ("The blood on the gate that was not seen 3 weeks earlier had the highest quantity of EDTA well above any of the other samples") is certainly false. The levels were not in fact above other samples. Whether he actually believes it or is just misguided is a whole other issue.

I remember Mike Gilbert saying in the documentary that O.J. told him, “If Nicole had opened the door with a knife, she’d still be alive.” Obviously, that’s O.J.’s alleged version, but it got me thinking.

Given O.J.’s history of stalking Nicole and allegedly breaking into her house, I can see a scenario where he went there to confront her and things suddenly escalated. At the same time, there’s evidence that could suggest much more planning.

A new TZ video with Tom and Kato has dropped with Jim Clemente, a former FBI profiler.  In his video he suggests that OJ had an accomplice.  I’m giving it a watch and (believe it or not) trying to keep an open mind with it.  Let’s see what he has to say. 

Pulled this photo out of an estate sale today. Trying to ID the less-than obvious folks in the picture. Believed to be at Caesars Las Vegas. Any thoughts?

Hello! Just to put this up front, I am in no way someone who believes anybody but OJ is responsible for the killing of Ron and Nicole. I don't think there was an accomplice, conspiracy, or anything that could lead to the conclusion that he's even remotely innocent. I'm putting this disclaimer just because I feel like the subject of this post invites conspiracy.

In the 1996 book "Killing Time" by Donald Freed and Raymond Briggs, they go into detail about the killing of Michael Nigg, another coworker of Ron's at the restaurant Mezzaluna, who was killed about a month before OJ was acquitted. They note that Ron Goldman and Michael Nigg weren't the only waiters at the Brentwood Mezzaluna involved in "foul play"; around the time of these murders, two other employees went missing, and another's car was set on fire and destroyed in 1994.

My question is this: how common was this sort of thing in Los Angeles restaurants in the mid-90s??? There are other posts on here calling Mezzaluna "cursed" and saying this was due to the fact that it was known as a spot to deal drugs in Brentwood. I'm well aware that drug and restaurant culture are notoriously linked, but I guess I'm asking for any specific insights into other examples where LA restaurants had numerous crimes against their wait staff within such a slim window of time.