Real Crime Stories/Paranormal Hauntings

The O. J. Simpson Murder Trial (Part IX)

Civil trial

In 1996, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, the parents of Ron Goldman, filed a suit against Simpson for wrongful death, while Brown's estate, represented by her father Lou Brown, and brought suit against Simpson in a "survivor suit." The trial took place over four months in Santa Monica and, by judge's order, was not televised. The Goldman family was represented by Daniel Petrocelli, with Simpson represented by Bob Baker. Attorneys for both sides were given high marks by observing lawyers. Simpson's defense in the trial was estimated to cost $1 million and was paid for by an insurance policy on his company, Orenthal Enterprises.

Fuhrman was not called to testify, and Simpson was subpoenaed to testify on his own behalf. In addition, photographer E.J. Flammer claimed to have found a photograph he had taken of Simpson at a Buffalo Bills-Miami Dolphins game in 1993 that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the Bruno Magli shoes, later published in the National Enquirer. Simpson's defense team claimed that the photograph was doctored, but other pre-1994 photos appearing to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were later discovered and published. These photos were not known about until late in the criminal trial and not during the "big shoe debate". Simpson had previously denied ever wearing such shoes.

The jury in the trial awarded Brown and Simpson's children, Sydney and Justin (Brown's only children), $12.6 million from their father as recipients of their mother's estate. The victims' families were awarded $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, thereby finding Simpson "responsible" for the respective murders. In 2008, a Los Angeles superior court approved the plaintiffs' renewal application on the court judgment against Simpson.

Four years after the trial, at an auction to pay some of the money in the compensation order, Bob Enyart, a conservative Christian radio host, paid $16,000 for some of Simpson's memorabilia, including his Hall of Fame induction certificate, two jerseys, and two trophies he was given for charity work. Enyart took the items outside the courthouse where the auction was held, burned the certificate and jerseys, and smashed the trophies with a sledgehammer.

If I Did It

In November 2006, ReganBooks announced a book ghostwritten by Pablo Fenjves based on interviews with Simpson titled If I Did It; an account which the publisher said was a hypothetical confession. The book's release was planned to coincide with a Fox special featuring Simpson. "This is a historic case, and I consider this his confession," publisher Judith Regan told the Associated Press. On November 20, News Corporation, parent company of ReganBooks and Fox, canceled both the book and the TV interview due to a high level of public criticism. CEO Rupert Murdoch, speaking at a press conference, stated: "I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project."

Later, the Goldman family was awarded rights to the book to satisfy part of the judgment against Simpson. The title of the book was changed to If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer. On the front cover of the book, the title was stylized with the word "If" to appear much smaller than those of "I Did It", and placed inside the "I", so unless looked at very closely, the title of the book reads "I Did It: Confessions of the Killer".

On March 11, 2018, Fox broadcast Simpson's previously unaired interview with Regan, which was part of the book deal in a special titled O.J. Simpson: The Lost Confession? In the decade-old interview, which was supposed to air with the release of the book by ReganBooks, Simpson gave a very detailed hypothesis on how the murders would have been committed if he had been involved, initially using phrases like "I would" and "I'd think", but later moved to using first person phrasing with sentences like "I remember I grabbed the knife", "I don't remember except I'm standing there", "I don't recall", and "I must have", and involving a supposed accomplice named "Charlie". Due to the change in phrasing, these comments were interpreted by many as being a form of confession, which stirred strong reactions in print media and the internet.