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.
Image: OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown. Pic:MediaPunch/AP
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.
Advertisement
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.
Image: OJ Simpson trailed by Los Angeles police on 17 June 1994. Pic: AP
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.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
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”.
Image: OJ Simpson grasps a marker while wearing the leather gloves prosecutors say he wore on the night of the murder. Pic: Reuters
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.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Emmanuel Macron has said a peace deal with Russia “must not mean a surrender of Ukraine” – as Donald Trump claimed Vladimir Putin’s forces “want to end this war”.
The US and French presidents met amid fragile relations between America and Europe and after Mr Trump launched a verbal attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Meeting in the White House on the third anniversary of Russia’s war in Ukraine, the French president said he and Mr Trump “made substantive steps forward during our discussions”.
Mr Macron told reporters that Europe should do more to bolster defence in the continent.
However, he stressed Russia “is the aggressor” in the conflict and added: “President Putin violated the peace.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Trump and Macron’s ‘friendly’ meeting
Peace must allow Kyiv ‘sovereignty’
The French leader then said: “We want peace, he wants peace. We want peace swiftly, but we don’t want an agreement that is weak.”
“This peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine or a ceasefire without guarantees,” he added. “It must allow for Ukrainian sovereignty and allow Ukraine to negotiate with other stakeholders regarding the issues that affect it.
“It is also a country in which we need to shoulder our responsibilities so that we ensure security and stability for Ukraine and for the entire region.
Image: Macron said any peace deal ‘must not mean a surrender of Ukraine’. Pic: Reuters
‘Get this war stopped’
At a news conference following the talks, Mr Macron said he “fully believes” there is a path forward in negotiations.
He also agreed “there is good reason for President Trump to re-engage with President Putin” – a week after the leaders had a 90-minute-long phone call.
Mr Trump added Russia would accept European troops in Ukraine as part of peacekeeping efforts, adding: “I specifically asked him (Putin) that question. He has no problem with it.”
He told reporters: “When I got here, one of the first calls I made was to Putin and it was made with great respect. They want to end this war.”
Image: Mr Macron ‘fully believes’ there is a path forward with peace talks after meeting with Mr Trump. Pic: AP
Mr Trump then explained he wants to “get this war stopped,” whether that’s through a ceasefire or a direct agreement – but when asked if Ukraine should give up territory as part of any deal, he said: “We’ll see.”
The news conference came as Mr Putin said he is ready to discuss Russia cutting its defence budget alongside the US, saying a mutual drop of 50% would be a “good idea”.
The Russian president also touted a possible economic deal with the US, offering talks on a deal for its own rare earth metal supplies and for the sale of aluminium to American firms.
Just last week, in a bitter exchange of words, Mr Trump called Ukraine’s leader a “dictator” and said he “better move fast or he is not going to have a country left” after Mr Zelenskyy had accused him of living in a Russian-made “disinformation space”.
The US has abstained from a UN General Assembly vote on a resolution it drafted on the war in Ukraine after the body approved amendments proposed by European countries.
The vote took place on the same day the 193-member assembly approved a competing European-backed resolution from Ukraine which demanded Russia immediately withdraw from the country.
The duelling proposals reflect the tensions that have emerged between the US and Ukraine after Donald Trump suddenly opened negotiations with Russia in a bid to quickly resolve the conflict.
It also underscores the strain in the US’ relationship with Europe over the Trump administration’s decision to engage with Moscow.
The US-drafted resolution, marking the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, had called for an end to the conflict but did not mention Moscow’s aggression.
It also made no mention of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
More from US
However, it was amended after European nations said that it should include references to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the need for a lasting peace in line with the UN Charter.
It was also amended to include references to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The amended US-drafted resolutionwon 93 votes in favour, while 73 states abstained – including the US – and eight – including Russia – voted no.
Meanwhile, there were 93 votes in favour of theUkraine-backed resolution,while 65 abstained and 18 voted against it.
The UK, France and Germany were among the countries that voted in favour of the Ukraine-backed resolution, which called for a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine”.
The US, Russia, Belarus and North Korea were among those that opposed it.
Image: The US voted against Ukraine’s resolution. Pic: AP
The outcome marks a setback for the Trump administration in the UN General Assembly, whose resolutions are not legally binding but are seen as a barometer of world opinion.
However, the result also shows some diminished support for Ukraine – as more than 140 nations had voted to condemn Russia’s aggression in previous votes.
The United States had tried to pressure the Ukrainians to withdraw their resolution in favour of its proposal, according to a US official and a European diplomat.
US deputy ambassador Dorothy Shea, meanwhile, said multiple previous UN resolutions condemning Russia and demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops “have failed to stop the war,” which “has now dragged on for far too long and at far too terrible a cost to the people in Ukraine and Russia and beyond”.
“What we need is a resolution marking the commitment from all UN member states to bring a durable end to the war,” Ms Shea said.
Mr Zelenskyy responded by saying the US president was living in a Russian-made “disinformation space”.
Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron is at the White House holding talks with Mr Trump to discuss a peace plan for Ukraine.
At the start of the meeting, Mr Trump told reporters Russian President Vladimir Putin will accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine as part of a potential deal to end the war in the country.
Mr Trump and Mr Macron have been meeting after the pair had earlier joined a call between G7 leaders.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player