O.J. Simpson Witness Thinks Her Testimony Could Have Effected Trial Outcome
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 02. 2016
- Jill Shively is the only witness who claimed O.J. Simpson was near the murder scene of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, but jurors never heard her story. Shively says she was driving in Brentwood, California, blocks from Nicole Brown's condo when she saw Simpson in his white Ford Bronco speeding through a red light. Back in 1994, Shively testified before a grand jury but she was never called as a witness in the murder trial because she sold her story to a TV show for $5,000, prosecutors said. #InsideEdition
Did she sell her story about regretting selling her story? LMBAO!
You're watching it....lol..;.Lemme guess...You think she is lying... big conspiracy, right. every piece of evidence concocted.
Lol, crazy
Exactly
The year is 2075.. “Jill Shivley’s death bed confession!-I regret selling my story, I regret selling the story that I sold my story, and I regret selling the story that I sold my stories story!”
😂😂😂🤦🏻♀️
Right....
It wouldn't have mattered if they had video of OJ with the bloody knife in his hand. That jury was hell bent on letting him go. only 4 hours of so called deliberation. Racist outcome.
+Steven J Agreed.
Steven J same thing with Rodney King
Steven J I got two words for you Rodney King you're going to be mad be mad at the LAPD for doing the way they do things which is truly races
wrong, they didn't need a long deliberation, they watched the trial for a year in which the prosecution provided no evidence that OJ did it.
Capone he is a guilty man in my book and no question today he would have been found guilty, but look at the facts. 1. This was the one of the first times DNA evidence had been used in a high profile trial and almost no one understood it. 2. When the DNA and blood evidence was ruled contaminated it led the jurors to question the validity of it all. 3. Furhman pled the 5th to planting evidence, which coupled with the fact that more than half the jury was black led to his acquittal.
It doesn’t matter if God himself would have been called to testify, that jury would NOT have convicted him.....period!!
Apparently you dont know God!!
Yup, apologetic society let him get away with it because he was black. I also cheered standing in the mall watching the verdict on TV, a few hours before Yom Kippur holiday thinking that he must’ve been innocent because Gd set him free on this holy day. Gosh was I stupid!
Agree they said them self there mind were made up and it was payback for rodney king
Very true. That trial was over six months earlier. If anything, it would have been more ammo for the defense with darkness, the speed of the bronco, and other races always looking the same theory being factors in her claim of recognition.
Bingo!
Absolutely NOTHING could have convinced that jury to convict Simpson.
Oh they all knew he was guilty. They just didn’t care. Several jurors have said since that they were going to vote no guilty regardless to get back at the LAPD for the Rodney King beating
The black community isn't like the white community.
If one of us commits and heinous crime, lock them up.
facts, people wulda rioted again if he was convicted so they all agreed to not convict
Yup. He was going to be acquitted from the first day.
@@CeeATK_TV Valid point. It was still a miscarriage of justice.
A video of Simpson committing the murders could have been shown to those stupid, cowardly jurors and they still would have voted not guilty.
If for no other reason than the fact that Judge Ito allowed it to become a relentless media circus to get his own 15 minutes of "fame." By sequestering the jury and allowing such a circus, Ito helped the prosecutors lose the case.
So by that logic the jurors for the Rodney King trial were stupid and cowardly.
Tracy Polselli very true
Tracy Polselli No way they were right to use the evidence provided and prosecution and especially Marsha was terrible. The whole police department lost that case. They were terrible and dumb.
The jurors would have said "well, you know how all of us look alike. That wasn't OJ, just someone who looked like him".
Marcia still could have used her. but either way, I don't think her testimony would have changed the verdict, sad to say...
She should've used her. She also should've instructed all witnesses not to talk to the media, which she didn't do.
@Greg Hubbard Would have loved to seen Johnny Cochrane take a bite out of that ass.
No witness is perfect. The prosecution could have rehabilitated her.
Yeah, her story doesn't counter the shoddy police work, lies, and missing blood.
@@sha11235 because Marcia Clark sucks
Crazy how this is sad Nicole and Ron will never get justice!!
No one cares about Ron and Nicole. OJ still a legend running back 💪💪
@Nick Ford how much worse could help move then what some people lived on earth?
one day God will judge o j for the murders
dead people give zero fcks about 'justice'
@Nick Ford I agree but there's still something unsatisfying about Justice not being present here on earth, now. And in 1994/5 too for that matter. Even OJ being re-tried today wouldn't take away the fact that in 1995 he got away with such heinous murders. Humpty dumpty can never be put back together again. It's tragic.
She is a compulsive liar.Her brother stated she did not own a car.She was also barred in California from testifying in court.
You don't have to own a car to be driving one.
loool
Got 5k in the early 90s Thats like 25 K today
She wasn't lying when she saw the Bronco that night, she reported it to the cops that night, reading back the license plate to them. She was only one digit or letter off, the rest matched O.J.'s Bronco.
@@ForeverBennett I was just going to write this. Yes, Marsha should have still had her on, discussed the HardCopy program with her to beat the defense discussing it, THEN showed the DOCUMENTED evidence of the time/actual police call. It was made shortly after she saw him and BEFORE the bodies were discovered. It still wouldn’t surprise me if some of the jurors weren’t also paid to not convict… by OJ.
@@holylandfan3275 absolutely. Selling her story to Hard Copy doesn't look great, but it doesn't change the fact that she made a police report that night and it's documented... although the defence could have easily spun that like they did everything else.
I've always wondered if the trial was thrown to avoid another riot in LA.
That’s exactly why they found him not guilty
Wondered?? That’s the consensus 😂😂
Just like now with BLM.. just sad
@@johnsorto6737 but the thing is BLM actually has a reason to riot so what was your point?
@@gb8025 Nope.. no reason to riot.. That's an irresponsible mindset of someone who hasn't helped build anything. A protest maybe but MLK never advocated for violence. Think about it..
The airports all have security cameras all over the airport inside and out. Why didn’t the check the security cameras
They do... now.
Marcia Clark should have called both the woman and the man to the stand. What a blunder on Marcia's part. The woman who witnessed OJ on Bundy described the Bronco BEFORE the Bronco chase when everyone saw that OJ drove a Bronco. So her story was most likely true.
+DiverseLA It has to be true. There is an official police report made out the next morning before any murders were reported. Obviously because she saw him probably 5 minutes after he killed them.
@@joe7346 There isn't, there really isn't. If there were, all Marcia Clarke needed to do was produce it as evidence. And if we accept her testimony, then how could OJ, 10 minutes later have driven a 6 minutes drive, washed and hid all clothes and the murder weapon and be at his entranceway at 11:00PM - the time the Limo driver saw him.
Joe a. This lady is full of shot and. Proven to be a liar.
She wanted attention and money.
It’s pretty astounding how easily you can find this stuff out but people parrot a couple of decade old lies
@@oldironsides4107 is right. Taking the money and not having to be subjected to cross examination was a win-win for her. She would have never held up on the stand.
@@joe7346 her own brother said she does not own a car so clearly some else was in the car with her planting her as evidence.
Hindsight being 20/20, it's plausible that they would have found the knife if they followed up on the lead provided by the witness at the airport. It would have been dirty and time consuming work, but it probably was buried in a dumpster at LAX for a few days after the murder.
So why didn't they ??? If they cared so much about the trial n Ron n Nicole.. why didn't they??? Personally I feel they didn't give a damn about the victims n to find the killer..they just wanted to pin someone cause they couldn't be bothered doing a REAL investigation....in most cases no way in hell would Chicago have NOT been part of the investigation...its quite obvious the cops were paid by the real killer to shut up cause the names of the crooked cops who dined at Mezzaluna would have come out too especially the one that Nicole showed her breasts too who became the laughing stock in the police station....how embarrassing !!!!!
...the only reason they tried to pin OJ is because Nicole's several phone calls relating to domestic violence n the cops did nothing...she accused them of not supporting her because OJ was a celebrity so out of guilt they tried to pin him...im not saying he did right things but I don't believe he physically killed them there's a professional involved thats why he ran scared shitless the way he did driving the bronco on the night of the murders cause he would have been killed too probably or his family was probably threatened..he did NOT have blood dripping off his clothes which he would have had he killed them both that way.... so how could he have done it !
The knife was discarded/burned along with the bloody clothes by the accomplice. It could’ve been boxer shorts he dumped in airport trash can.
Limo driver said he saw dark figure around 10:50/55….could’ve been OJ wearing only boxers and socks.
The bloody shoes and clothes were being dealt with by the accomplice. That’s why limo driver never sees bronco. Thank you Chris Todd and others.
This witness didn't contact the police immediately he called the defense ,police got call 6 months later
This woman was one of the gawkers at oj simpsons estate days after his arrest she was pictured on video. She made the story up.
She didn’t actually report the DUI incident to the police until June 14, two days after the murders. She can be seen testifying to this at the grand jury
I just don't find Shively to be credible, probably just wanted publicity and attention
@@towelietowel217 there is footage of her at Bundy. Totally made up
@@Anita-ee4bswho would? Who wants to get called in as a witness to some random event on the street
Very very important witness. The Prosecution completely botched it by not asking her to testify in court. They should also have tried to track down the driver of the Nissan and used the eyewitness who saw Simpson dumping stuff out of a small bag at the airport.
+Rex Mundi Let's face it, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden blew this case. They had tons of evidence but in the end they didn't present half of it and were out-lawyered. They made so many mistakes. They were in over their head.
She would have been decimated on cross....
That person in the Nissan must have been scared out of his life. But to never come forward? Unreal
Shively allegedly saw OJ at a time that would clear him of the crime. That's why she wasn't used.
@@Meng776 No, she didn't. She saw him around 10:40pm, about 15 minutes before limo driver Alan Park saw a tall black man walk up the lawn of the house from where the Bronco (which hadn't been there before) would have been parked upon its return. Her testimony PERFECTLY lined up with the timeline.
Voice-over says witness saw Simpson at LAX "just hours" after the murders. Simpson's flight left at 11.45. murder was 10.15 - 10.30. Therefore, can we take ANYTHING said on here seriously?
she also said he ran over a bunch of people. No one came forward. Oh I forgot, she also hemmed up an actor years prior and oh yeah she is also a convicted felon. Anything Jill said was a big FAT lie
I wouldnt be advertising after all those years, admitting I was a greedy pig n took $$ from tabloids! Hope Nicole n Ron haunt her dreams!
She got paid again for this one I'm guessing
If the entire jury stand saw the murder in real life, they would still acquit him
Yeah if a white cop killes a black man he would get acquitted to so dont be mad 🤣🤣
And if white America saw the murder and OJ wasn't present, they'd still say OJ killed those 2 people.
@naitethagr8 then who
@@drewlavay That doesn’t even make sense…
@@Sam-nz3vj you're absolutely right it doesn't.
The prosecution is totally to blame here. Just because she sold her story does diminish her credibility as a witness. As the FX program ( and Marcia Clark herself) have shown, the prosecution wanted to "get there on their own steam". Lots of witnesses have sold their stories but still testified. Cochrane may have critiqued it but at least it would have put OJ THERE, and showed how flimsy his alibi indeed was.
+Tommy Petersen I agree. I mean, they allowed all that irrelevant Mark Furhman tape material, why not allow this testimony that put him at the scene or at least close to it.
+Mike Ansley well said! The defence did absolutely everything ( absurd or otherwise)/to win. The prosecution simply played it waaay to safe. You take every shot you can, Shively and Park ( limo driver) were perfect bookends that put OJ at the scene. You put Shively on an either the jury goes for it or not but you still do it. You have nothing to lose so why not? Actually that's why he was aquited, Cochrane played to win, Marcia Clark was trying not " to lose" and that's the difference.
+Mike Ansley Yes!!! Why do so many forget that? Darden told Fuhrman " and remember you didn't say the N word". You're so right, totally high school. Clark seemed more ( in her closing arguments) determined to slam Fuhrman than make a serious impression to the jury about Simpson's guilt. I mean you have to pound it into the jury's head over and over. I don't know the man but I really feel for Fuhrman because many of the public ( obviously not yourself) only hear the sensationalisic stuff ( which is so out if context) and perseverate on what they "feel" to be fact as opposed to what is. They seem to forget that it was Cochrane's job to " muddy " the water to create doubt and misdirection. That was his JOB, he was not ( in this case anyway) trying some civil rights case. He was trying the impossible, to get a man "guilty as hell" aquited. But as you said, Clark did far more damage to Fuhrman and the prosecution than Cochrane ever did
+Tommy Petersen What about all of the lies that Fuhrman told aside from the racial epithets? He said that anybody who came forward to contradict his testimony would ALL be liars. And what was he still doing at the crime scene when he had been pulled off of the case at 2:30?
+Jay Ap Fuhrman is a poor witness. He is a liar. He claimed he saw blood on the Bundy back gate and the Bronco door sill. He can't be trusted.
That doesn't mean he planted evidence.
If he was going to plant evidence he would have planted a knife.
The "knife" was found 20 years later and people thought it might be the knife.
Why not plant a knife on day 3? "Hey Fung, what kind of knife did this?"
"It was a single edge knife like a chef's knife or kitchen knife."
"Cool. I'll go buy one. Be right back."
Sprinkle some blood on it case closed.
Affected.
lol damn shame they never fixed it
To be fair: $5,000 was a lot back then.
🤔...not at all
@@nofrenz2065 in the 90s.. yes
Around $10,400 in 2024 money.
The racial tensions at that time were so high especially after the Rodney King verdict and the LA riots. But letting someone who was very much guilty go free and celebrate it was a sad day. The police also did so many mistakes. Those blunders risked everything and he never got what he deserved. And what’s worse he had the audacity to write a book about he would have committed the crime.
BA BE, THE racial tension has been high since 1492. Stop talking as if this is new.
Ba Ba, they framed him, this is what the evidence shows. The judge would not allow Ronald Goldman's police record as a drug dealer come in.
@@chuckfrost5624 you're a mor0n if you believe that. OJ is absolutely guilty!
@@chuckfrost5624 Idiot black
and here she is again atention seeking
+Noe Camarena She isn't attention-seeking, she's hugely apologetic and full of regrets about selling her story during the OJ trial and continuing to make sure the public gets to hear her eyewitness testimony. Huge difference to that and "attention-seeking".
+Noe Camarena Let me guess, you're black?
+patricia m she claims of regretting selling her story...yea right..she really wanted more money than that .
+Rex Mundi why it's to late like the person said she's an attention seeking
+Morgan Simpson As is virtually everyone involved in that OJ Simpson case.
The black jury would not have convicted him .even if he sat in court with the knife in his pocket.
Bob Terrana How the hell OJ didnt have punch & kivk marks on his body? It was either his Son or Italian Drug dealers from Mezzuluna who killed them...
That's complete garbage. There is no hook up with the brothers when you go to court. Black people convict black people all the time. The prosecution didn't call her. They called a racist officer who pleaded the fifth to planting evidence instead. This wasn't a plot to sock it to whitey. It was a poorly prosecuted case. The prosecution cries about jury but they have the most strikes in jury selection. So the jury was selected by them.
@@kevinjackson7125 The racist cop who was on tape saying those terrible things they played in court....that was a tape from a read-thru he did trying out for a movie role.
@@bman1122 He had a chance to clear it up and never did. Most importantly he invoked his fifth ammendment rights when asked if he planted evidence.
Just a point of accuracy the black jury you speak of had 4 whites. So if its truly a black thing why did the whites go along??
Even if ron and nicole came back from the dead to say OJ killed them, the jury would’ve still said not guilty
This is really a microcosim of the entire case. The defense literally pulled out all the stops to win. The prosecution seemed not cocky or arrogant, just way to cautious and not aggressive enough. Vince Bugliosi writes about this in his book. Imagine, in summation Darden actually told the jury how he understands how hard it will be to convict OJ but they need to do the right thing. That's not how to win a case.
+Tommy Petersen Lots of alliteration helps too.
Bugliosi claims Goldman has obvious defense would from falling into a tree? Lol. Goldman fought his attackers for a long time and that person would have tons of bruises.
@@Meng776true and the LAPD noted no bruising on OJ when they photographed him the next day
to the writer of the description... it's affected not effected
So you mean to tell me he pulled a shirt, pants, boxers, and a knife out of a tiny slit on a bag?
Next!
that stuff can fit in that bag easy; come on.
10:40-10:45pm Kato Kaelin hears three thumps. Prosecution says the thumps was caused by OJ Simpson walking into the air conditioning unit while he dropped the glove. 10:50pm Jill Shiverly sees OJ Simpson speeding away from Bundy after he almost crashed into her car. Oops...Jill Shiverly saw OJ Simpson after he supposedly dropped the glove at Rockingham. So how can he be dropping the glove on his Rockingham estate then 5-10 minutes almost crashing into Jill Shiverly?
You could have video of him committing the crime and that jury would have let him off.
She said she seen oj at around 10:50 ish, kato and his girlfriend heard a thump around 10:40. She lied just do sum research. She lost a case in small claims court 2,000 dollars for peddling a movie script she didn't write. This woman Is a fraud
Agree. All people have to do is watch her interviews and see how she contradicts herself
I do agree with Marcia Clarke on this one. The defense would have ripped her alive for selling the story and the jury was ready to believe anything that disproved a witness. If she hadn’t sold the story it would have swayed the jury more because the defense would have not had anything to go at her with. But again the prosecution was severely outmatched, and I’m sure the defense would have just made something up.
"Like a MADMAN GONE MADDD" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
She was caught lying to an actor about a script she stole before telling this story in 1994, that's why Marcia didn't use her.
Makes sense. There got to be something about her.
She also had a history of fraud
The defense would have ripped her apart.
what did she do with the $5,000 ? hope it was worth it to screw up a murder case. greedy !!
+The_Chipmunk_ They thought they had a slam dunk.They called the maker of those Bruno Mali? shoes.They COULD'NT call The NFL for footage of O.J. wearing those SHOES?
+twain103 Great great point! Dan Petrocelli ( civil prosecutor) did a masterful job of chasing evidence such as the shoes. He was inexperienced but clearly more determined and not afraid to do whatever it took. Regardless of where the pictures of the shoes came
from ( the inquirer) he followed every lead, this is where the criminal prosecution failed, they were too careful, almost afraid to fail.
Tommy Petersen Fail they did. Waylon Jennings,The Outlaw RIP.What a BADASS he was.
+twain103 ah the Waylon fans are everywhere!! you made my day!
Well, OJ walked because of her GREED, horrible person. At least OJ is in jail now on other charges but he should have been in there since the 1st trial, not years later.
It wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever if she had testified in the criminal trial. The jury decided to dismiss all of the evidence because of one racist cop which is crazy.
If the prosecution had a video of O.J. committing the crime that jury would have acquitted him.
Like it mattered if anyone heard her testimony or not? The jurors had already made up up their mind OJ was innocent no matter what testimony/evidence they saw or heard.
yes it does matter; the job of paid officials in a case like this is to do the best that they can and they stunk. Clark and Darden had no issues having an affair but they botched this case up like a first year law student.
@@jamest927 The trial was lost before it ever began by Clark & Garcetti screwing up the voir dire (aka jury selection). Her testimony wouldn't have done a damn thing outside of wasting time.
Jill’s story is one of the reasons the timeline was completely wrong. She absolutely lied and tried to gain 15 minutes of fame. She wasn’t credible because she lied
The only problem is that Shively gave three different dates of when she actually called LAPD. Detective Van Nader said in an interview that she called him 2-3 days after the murders, well after the media ran stories of the bloody Bronco. Probably why Marcia Clark didn’t call her to testify.
Smh you didnt contribute to the prosecution LOSING the case shively. That whole staff was arrogant and very ill prepared for every turn and dip in this case. How were they arrogant you ask? Marcia refused to put her on the stand someone who had accurate facts about the case but put Furhman on not really thinking twice. The prosecution dropped the ball badly and OJ walked free because as soon as Mark Furhman became apart of the case it was no longer about OJ but the LAPD
And she also sold this story for even more!! Figures..
OJ made a good point about this in his self interview to plead his innocence. He said that prior to the killings, he spent a lot of time with Nicole at her Bundy condo and that his White Bronco was always parked out there and the neighbors knew it was his car. He said why would I be dumb enough to drive my recognizable car to cause a crime scene.
I agree no one would be crazy enough to drive Branko which everyone knew belongs to OJ. Why would a well-known man kill out in public and kill in such a bad way. After watching the whole trial there was no evidence against OJ. Jonnie Cochran did an amazing job and blasted prosecutors so-called fake evidence stories.
@@sofialavish1072 yes…i struggle thinking OJ did it. I still am not convinced. And don’t they still have all the evidence? Why not investigate it now? We all know about double Jeopardy but the evidence can still be analyzed w 2021 technology.
He says this after the fact he knew there were no eye witnesses. So it was safe to say it then. And there were 2 witnesses who could place his bronco or bronco like vehicle near the scene. Jill & Heidstra
@@TammyM36 Good point. We know he did it but Los Angeles DA F'ed it up.
@@myothercarisadelorean8957 not sure I feel LA f’ed it up. They did make mistakes but it didn’t change the evidence. I really feel none of it mattered. I’m the end that hurt was going yo acquit him period.
She’s probably lying smiling about it
Even with her testimony, OJ still was going to be acquitted!
Too late, too late for "I'm sorrys" now.. Too late smh 😰
The whole murder could have taken place on Wide World of Sports and that jury wouldn't have convicted
I would not convict someone of jaywalking once a detective who found evidence pleads the fifth.
She THINKS? 🤦♀️
The look on Kardashians face after the verdict was read says it all! He was so shocked that it was a “not guilty “ verdict!
So what if she got paid? She recorded Simpsons license plate.
max springfeild During the trial case, Cochran would have used that against the prosecution for what we know now... That's why Clark blew her out. Strategy...
But she called it in. So it doesn't matter if shes credible or not, since the police have a record of their interaction.
They called in like a list of witnesses. The first one was so badly destroyed by the defense attorneys that the rest of the list ALL backed down.
I don't understand what that's supposed to mean. Shively didn't "back down." Clark decided to exclude her from the prosecutions case.
I just watched "OJ Simpson: made in America" by Ezra Edelman on ESPN. Best docu-series to date. During the trial, there were witnesses who backed down last minute because those appeared before them got destroyed by Bailey, Scheck and Douglas. It appears that they were intimidated by the Defense attorneys.
...but eye witness testimony has been proven time and time again to be very weak, and fraught with potential errors. Keep this point in mind!
There were also other things known to Prosecutors at the time that could have helped OJ's case that never made it to trial. For instance, Glen Rogers was in a White Vehicle similar to OJs that night as he fled the scene. So that lady should figure that her testimony may still be inadequate at the time if that came up.
yeah. totally. some white chick saying she saw the murder would have totally convinced the jury.
It's good that she is remorseful over it. But it was an emotional case and I am not sure how much it would have impacted the verdict.
You did blow the case!!! Your greed killed justice!!
Lol he isn’t guilty
She didn’t blow the case. Her timelines were out of sync with kato’s wall thumps. She was also sued previously for lying and cheating.
She claims to have seen OJ at the intersection around 10:50pm, yet Kato heard the banging behind the wall at 10:40pm. Which one is it?
Re-watch Kato on the stand, I don't think it was that early that he heard the bangs. More like 10:47? and he stated he was out front in about two to three minutes when the Limo guy was there.
These people don't need to be sorry. The JURY DOES!!
Title : Affected*
It's AFFECTED!
U r
😂😂 she wasn't called because she's a liar and an opportunist
Akitas do not let strangers walk around their home.
Furhman plead the 5th about planting evidence in this case.......gotta acquit
Although it would’ve been humanly impossible for furhman to have planted all that evidence by himself, which he was
She had every right to be mad at you because you're lying!!! The old guy is also lying
so how did she see oj at the scene but yet she was blocks from the house and as for this but how can you assume he was doing getting rid of things from a bag when he wasn't sure.hmmmm seems real fishy to me
She might have sold her story but at the end of the day it was the prosecution who decided not to use her. Yes she did make a mistake which she at least is owning up to. At the end of the day the prosecution did a poor job I’m sorry to say.
She was a known liar.They wouldn’t have used her in any instance. Her timeline didn’t match the thumps on Kato’s wall either so the prosecution couldn’t manipulate her testimony because she had already stated her timelines.
You could have showed the jurors a video recording of the murders and they would have still come back with a Not Guilty Verdict!!
Yup just like they showed the Rodney king beating and the cops got off 🤷🏿♂️
White people get over it.
Wouldn't have made a bit of difference at all. OJ was going to walk as soon as the mostly African American jury was picked. One of the jurors in the Made In America documentary has said that this way pay back for Rodney King and the other times the LAPD treated black people. Simple as that. As bad of a job the prosecutors did, Simpson was always going to walk.
Hard to believe in an area like that she is the only one who saw him
What do you mean, in an area like that ??? It was at night in Brentwood. This wasn’t in the city. Enough
i was hitch hiking in Brentwood at the exact same time this OJ guy was supposed to have committed the murders and this nice middle aged black man in a Ford Bronco picked me up and drove me three blocks ( i never go his full name) but as i got out of the vehicle he said his friends call him 'the juice"
Should have told the police at that time. Why didn't you?
He would have been found innocent no matter what. Even if the whole thing was on videotape and he was narrating it
lmao!!
Lol
Maybe a video could have explained Caucasian hairs in the gloves and no negroid hairs. I know video sure showed a lot of the lies from the detectives.
Title error: Affected, not Effected
It wouldn't have mattered nothing would have
her testimony wouldnt have changed THAT juries minds
You including the three non blacks in THAT statement? I would not convict anyone of jaywalking once a detective
who finds evidence pleads the fifth.
That woman doesnt have credibility. Her testimony was tainted because she sold her story to tabloids. How do you know if she telling the truth if she has more than a version of her testimony.
Exactly!
Affected*
affect, not effect
u not sorry you got 5,000 you needed that money stop lieing
F. Lee Bailey dragged Mark Fuhrman, he would've DEFINITELY mopped the courtroom floor with her ass had she testified.
Please nigga....I be illiterate like you yo!...but I can spell lying yo!
Lying!
+James Donald Jill you're a liar and the world knows it.
James Donald
FUCK u!
*Affected
Ok already!
Selling her story has nothing to do with her credibility. Shame on prosecution
Yes it does
I have heard that OJ made a movie about navy seals.When production was done,the seals gave a knife to OJ.If so,where is that knife?Could it have been the murder weapon?
The prosecution team was just dumb af. Their stories could have give them some help.
She also tried to get a salad bar 5 minutes before closing time. 5 minutes. That's worse than the double murders
Were there no surveillance cameras at the intersections back in early 90's?.......
I agree with Marcia.
She was greedy & sold out early. She put her own pocketbook ahead of solving a grisly murder of a Mom w/two children, doesn't deserve the time of day now.
After all these years she sports same haircut and shirt style. The Woman IS CONSISTENT. Marsha Clark =incompetent fumbler.
Yes, kept the same style.
As do most men throughout their lives.
How is it possible that PROFESSIONAL writers don't know the different between "affected" and "effected"????? In the title, no less! Ugh... stupidity is what is ruining America.
*affect
If Jill is to be believed, OJ was "like a mad man gone insane." 0:50 They show an example of what she meant--that OJ was driving dangerously crazy and he was irritated and impatient. That makes a lot of sense, seeing as he had just sliced two people up--never having done so before. And he did have a plane trip to make, which meant he needed as much time to clean off the blood and smell of death. It is also significant that OJ had been able to clean the blood from his face and hands and outside of the white bronco BEFORE he got to that point. He must have had EZ-WIPES in the bronco. ALL this tells us that, to believe Jill, OJ was way far better an actor than he ever seemed, for he was able to not shed a hint of having just committed the most grotesque act he could have imagined. How long do you take to regain your normal self? Grab the neighbors pet and stab it about 40 times. Then leave it and go wash up. Now, go visit the neighbor. You have 15 minutes.
Hey Tom I agree there was no way that jury was convicting him
Marcia clark still could have called jill to the stand
....5000 dollars?
Jill was not called to the witness stand not only because she lied to the Grand Jury about selling her story but also she insisted seeing OJ just before 11 pm. Her time of sighting conflicts with the testimony of Allan Park. Thus, Marcia did not use her as witness. She suffers from lack of credibility and could have harmed the Prosecution's case.
This woman was a loon, a greedy loon. 🙄
Who is Marcia Clarke to attack this woman for accepting $5 grand when she got a book deal with a $4.2 MILLION advance ? The hypocrisy !
That was after the trial
That’s gotta be the bag that OJ told Kato “not to touch” when he helped him with his luggage to the limo on his way to the airport. BOOM.
No excuse, Marcia Clarke could and should have used her testimony.
Marcia couldn't use the witness's testimony because she got paid $5,000 to tell the story and the the prosecution team could not use it as everyone saw her interview on T.V.
In the end, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were OJ's best friends ever.
Daniel McNamee how you know that ??? Don't believe 1 word of this
@Greg Hubbard Hshahahz thanks
why wait 21 years later
For 5000 !? Wow.
Damn why did they not use her!? ( I know why, it's rhetorical but still!!) This puts him right fricking there, and bookend that with Alan Park and you've got a pretty solid timeline. OJ must have been the luckiest man alive. All that blood and DNA stuff was just too easy to refute ( at the time). But witnesses under oath saying where he was and wasn't is pretty damning.
Still though, all that proves is that he could've been there at that time (which i believe he was) but doesn't prove he killed anyone. I still look at all the UNLIKELY evidence that points to him, as well as things that show he probably DIDN'T do it. Guess we'll never know.
To be fair Jill shively did have some credibility problems. She had some civil cases pending on accusations she plagiarized a script she planned to sell at that time