OJ Simpson murder trial: How the dramatic court case unfolded

Published

1 year ago

April 11, 2024

admin

Former American footballer and actor OJ Simpson, who has died of cancer, will be remembered most for his role at the centre of the “trial of the century”.

Accused of double murder, his case captured the attention of the US until it came to a dramatic end in late 1995.

Here’s a look back at how that trial unfolded.

12 June 1994

Simpson‘s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson was found dead in front of her home in Los Angeles with her friend Ronald Goldman, who was a waiter at a restaurant where she had just dined.

The pair had been stabbed to death outside her home in the neighbourhood of Brentwood.

17 June 1994

After the bodies were found, suspicion quickly fell on Simpson, who had been married to Nicole for seven years until their divorce became final on 15 October 1992, little more than 18 months before her death.

Simpson had been ordered by prosecutors to surrender, but on this day, carrying a passport and a disguise, he instead fled, with friend and former team-mate Al Cowlings in a white Ford Bronco.

The vehicle was soon spotted on a California freeway and pursued by police in a car chase that was televised live across the country and watched by an estimated 95 million viewers.

Cowlings, in a phone call to police, said Simpson was lying in the back seat of the car holding a gun to his own head. After eventually driving to his Brentwood home he was persuaded to surrender.

Sky News’ Steve Bennedik recalls how Simpson’s trial was covered

It was the first few weeks of 1995 when Sky News’ live coverage of the OJ Simpson court case got under way. Each evening we showed the trial and invited questions. In those days, the main form of correspondence was by letter.

But there was also a new electronic method emerging, called email. And the first of these had the simple, but deflating, sentence: “Which one is OJ?”

We asked ourselves: Is our audience ready to follow the story of a very American tragedy unfold on British TV? We decided to stick with it.

In contrast, OJ Simpson was a household name in the US. So much more than an ex-football star. But the shock of this icon being arrested for murder, the bizarre Bronco highway chase, the high-profile celebrity defence team, and ultimately the “did he do it?” question had universal attraction.

Although the case stuttered through until October, the weak Judge Lance Ito was obsequious to lawyers’ demands for delays, but the interest among Sky News viewers surged and remained undimmed.

As the court camera panned to the state of California seal, signalling another adjournment, we and no doubt the viewer sighed.

More behind-the-scenes legal wrangling, but we had an ace up our sleeve – Professor Gary Solis. Gary is a Vietnam veteran, former military judge advocate, with alma maters including George Washington University and the London School of Economics.

At the time, he was in London and ready to give up his evenings. He calmly steered our presenters, Laurie and Vivien, and our often puzzled viewers through the complexities of the Californian legal system and became a firm favourite with the newsroom and the public alike.

The court characters emerged. Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden for the prosecution, and the “Dream Team” defence – Jonnie Cochran, F Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kardashian, whose children would go on to outshine his fame.

It was compelling court drama, but it was also the very tragic story of two young people who’d been savagely attacked and murdered, with their families devastated by the loss, and tormented by the lingering back and forth court battle.

The proceedings had lasted months, but the jury reached their verdict in just a few hours and when they returned to the courtroom to deliver it, an early evening audience in the UK was hanging on every moment. And then it was over. OJ was a free man.

The People of the State of California v Orenthal James Simpson faded as a memory, flickering back to life with the news of his death.

24 January 1995

The murder trial, dubbed the “trial of the century” by the media, began.

Prosecutors argued OJ Simpson had killed Nicole and Ron in a jealous rage, and they presented extensive blood, hair and fibre tests linking him to the murders.

The defence countered that the celebrity defendant was framed by racist white police.

15 June 1995

Perhaps the defining moment of the trial came on a Thursday in June, when the prosecution committed what a defence lawyer would later describe as the “greatest legal blunder of the 20th century”.

On this day, a prosecutor asked him to put on a pair of gloves believed to have been worn by the killer.

The gloves appeared to be too small, as OJ Simpson struggled to put on the gloves in a highly theatrical demonstration and indicated to the jury they did not fit.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

This led defence lawyer Johnnie Cochran to famously state in his closing argument: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

3 October 1995

The trial came to an end with two words – not guilty.

OJ Simpson, who maintained from the outset he was “absolutely 100% not guilty”, waved at the jurors and mouthed the words “thank you”.

US

Donald Trump praises Liberian president’s English – the country’s official language

Published

9 hours ago

July 10, 2025

admin

Donald Trump praises Liberian president's English - the country's official language

Donald Trump has praised the Liberian president’s command of English – the West African country’s official language.

The US president reacted with visible surprise to Joseph Boakai’s English-speaking skills during a White House meeting with leaders from the region on Wednesday.

After the Liberian president finished his brief remarks, Mr Trump told him he speaks “such good English” and asked: “Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?”

Mr Trump seemed surprised when Mr Boakai laughed and responded he learned in Liberia.

The US president said: “It’s beautiful English.

“I have people at this table who can’t speak nearly as well.”

Mr Boakai did not tell Mr Trump that English is the official language of Liberia.

The country was founded in 1822 with the aim of relocating freed African slaves and freeborn black citizens from the US.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

Mr Trump promised the leaders of Liberia, Senegal, Gabon, Mauritania and Guinea-Bissau a pivot from aid to trade at the surprise meeting.

He described the countries as “all very vibrant places with very valuable land, great minerals, and great oil deposits, and wonderful people”.

Later asked by a reporter if he’ll visit the continent, Mr Trump said, “At some point, I would like to go to Africa.”

But he added that he’d “have to see what the schedule looks like”.

Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, promised to go to Africa in 2023, but only fulfilled the commitment by visiting Angola in December 2024, just weeks before he left office.

US

Gaza permanent ceasefire ‘questionable’, says Israeli government

Published

9 hours ago

July 10, 2025

admin

Gaza permanent ceasefire 'questionable', says Israeli government

The Israeli government believes the chances of achieving a permanent ceasefire in Gaza are “questionable”.

The pessimistic assessment, in a top-level Israeli government briefing given to Sky News, comes as the Israeli Prime Minister prepares to leave Washington DC after a four-day visit which had begun with the expectation of a ceasefire announcement.

Benjamin Netanyahu will leave the US later today with the prospect of even a temporary 60-day ceasefire looking extremely unlikely this week.

Within “a week, two weeks – not a day” is how it was framed in the background briefing late on Wednesday.

Crucially, though, on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the framing from the briefing was even less optimistic: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement. But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”

Sky News has spoken to several Israeli officials at the top level of the government. None will be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.

But I have been given a very clear understanding of Mr Netanyahu’s thinking.

The Israeli position is that a permanent ceasefire (beyond the initial 60 days, which itself is yet to be agreed) is only possible if Hamas lays down its arms. “If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war],” said a source.

The major sticking point in the talks between Hamas and Israel is the status of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire and beyond, should it last longer.

The latest Israeli proposal, passed to Hamas last week, included a map showing the proposed IDF presence inside Gaza during the ceasefire.

This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map “looks like a Smotrich plan”, a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.

My briefing of Mr Netanyahu’s position is that he has not shifted in terms of Israel’s central stated war aims. The return of the hostages and eliminating Hamas are the key objectives.

But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, it was clear from my briefing that no permanent ceasefire is possible in the Israeli government’s view without the complete removal of Hamas as a political and military entity.

Hamas is not likely to negotiate its way to oblivion.

On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, a senior Israeli official told Sky News: “We would want IDF in every square metre of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone.”

It was clear to me that Mr Netanyahu wants his stated position to be that his government has no territorial ambition for Gaza.

One quote to come from my briefing, which I am only able to attribute to a senior Israeli official, says: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas.”

Another clear indication of Mr Netanyahu’s position – a quote from the briefing, attributable only to a senior Israeli official: “You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.

“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”

On the future of Gaza, it’s clear from my briefings that Mr Netanyahu continues to rule out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.

The Israeli government assessment is that the Palestinians are not going to have a state “as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state”.

On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the briefing revealed that Mr Netanyahu’s view is that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave” but that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated.

“It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction,” a senior Israeli official said.

Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary”, is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.

Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz’s recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn’t be drawn, except to say: “As a permanent arrangement? Of course not.”

US

Gaza permanent ceasefire ‘questionable’, says senior Israeli official

Published

12 hours ago

July 10, 2025

admin

A senior Israeli official has issued a less-than-optimistic assessment of the permanency of any ceasefire in Gaza.

Speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, the senior official said that a 60-day ceasefire “might” be possible within “a week, two weeks – not a day”.

But on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the official said: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement.

“But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to conclude a four-day visit to Washington later today.

There had been hope that a ceasefire could be announced during the trip. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that it’s close.

Speaking at a briefing for a number of reporters, the Israeli official would not be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.

The major sticking point in the talks between Hamas and Israel is the status of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire and beyond, should it last longer.

The latest Israeli proposal, passed to Hamas last week, included a map showing the proposed IDF presence inside Gaza during the ceasefire.

The official repeated Israel’s central stated war aims of getting the hostages back and eliminating Hamas. But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, the official was clear that no permanent ceasefire would be possible without the complete removal of Hamas.

“We will offer them a permanent ceasefire,” he told Sky News. “If they agree. Fine. It’s over.

“They lay down their arms, and we proceed [with the ceasefire]. If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war].”

On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, the official said: “We would want IDF in every square meter of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone…”

He added: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas…”

The official said the Israeli government had “no territorial designs for Gaza”.

“But [we] don’t want Hamas there,” he continued. “You have to finish the job… victory over Hamas. You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.

“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”

On the future of Gaza, the official ruled out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.

“They are not going to have a state in the foreseeable future as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state. It doesn’t make a difference if they are the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, it’s just a difference of tactics.”

On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the official predicted that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave”.

But he claimed that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated, adding: “It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction.”

Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary,” is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.