GlenRogers.jpg
Turns out OJ really didn’t kill Nicole. A new documentary, My Brother the Serial Killer, makes the case that Glen Rogers, currently in prison suspected of killing 70-80 people, not only killed Nicole Brown Simpson but bragged about it to his family and later, on death row, confessed to authorities. No wonder that glove didn’t fit.

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

31 Comments on "Turns out OJ really didn’t kill Nicole"

Notify of

Guest
November 19, 2012 9:25 am

OJ would have been a co-conspirator with him or at least an accessory-before-the-fact. Interesting story, I’d like to see this, maybe.

Member
I'm With STUPID
November 19, 2012 9:43 am

For a carton of smokes a death row serial killer will confess to killing Michael Jackson, Jimmy Hoffa, and Anna Nicole Smith. This means nothing.

Member
November 19, 2012 9:47 am

According to the article, he did know details about the crime that weren’t available to the public. Of course they’re trying to sell a documentary so take it with a grain of salt…

Member
Not so silent
November 19, 2012 11:31 am

As I remember that trial had shit leaking out every day to the media…..Perhaps someone knows someone within the LAPD or District Attorney’s Office. Hell of a way for LAPD to clear up a shitload of unsolved cases isn’t it?

Member
November 19, 2012 11:37 am

Only the police know the details that only the police know. If they follow up on it, it might have some truth to it. But if the story IS true, OJ was still in on it.

Member
November 19, 2012 1:02 pm

Yeah, hiring someone to steal earrings and telling him to kill “the bitch” if necessary isn’t exactly a defense that was going to help OJ during his murder trial.

Member
Not so silent
November 19, 2012 6:24 pm

Trust me after being in the business for a couple decades, there are always knuckleheads who want to spill the beans..and usually to the detriment of everyone else.

Member
poppajoe49
November 20, 2012 5:20 am

You’re right, death row inmates have nothing to lose, and if they can boost their reputation, it’s all the better in their minds.

Member
Karmaa
November 19, 2012 2:27 pm

Oh man! I cant tell you how many people I have pissed off through the years making a case for why OJ PROBABLY didn’t kill Nicole (at least not physically). That would be such vindication!

Member
Karmaa
November 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Hmmm… I guess I should explain that. I felt all along that Fuhrman planted the bloody glove and some extra evidence. I think he did this because he was 100% sure that OJ did it, and he wanted to “pad” the evidence. I can’t say that I would blame him 100%, though I don’t condone it. But he KNEW OJ and Nicole, and probably felt that OJ might be able to wiggle free, so he would help see that justice was served. The problem was – OJ didn’t do it. So the ONLY evidence there was was planted by Fuhrman. That evidence meant that the authorities never properly chased down other possible leads, including the possibility that OJ paid someone to kill her. How COULD they? They had all that weird evidence pointing to OJ. So, he essentially got off scott free, when chances are good that he had “something” to do with it. But we can’t convict people without proof, and law enforcement couldn’t even track down proof once they had the bloody glove (that had almost certainly been in a plastic bag for several hours before being “discovered) and the mysterious bloody socks (with formaldehyde in the blood!)… Read more »

Member
drb
November 19, 2012 2:44 pm

I don’t know if OJ did it or not, but like you, I do believe Fuhrman planted the glove because he thought for sure OJ did it. All I can say is that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Member
Karmaa
November 19, 2012 2:49 pm

YAY! I have another person to put in the “not pissed off” column!

Member
GhostntheMachine
November 21, 2012 9:11 am

Can I be in both camps at the same time? Not the PO’d one, that’s almost always a waste of energy, unless you’re making public policy that affects me, my girls and unborn grands’.

The prosecution didn’t prove their case, (and that is a fine, but very important American rule of law), so OJ is not guilty. But the soybean did it.

Member
Joe
November 20, 2012 1:36 am

I was like 8 or 9 when the whole OJ thing went down, and I can’t make this up, but back then I was like OJ didn’t do it, and I still don’t think OJ did it, and I’ll go to my grave believing OJ didn’t do it. Why do I believe this? No idea. You are far more studied than I am on this and I can only recount watching the whole thing unfold on the TV as a little kid. I have a question though, was the media pro-‘OJ did it’ or anti-‘OJ did it’? I couldn’t tell you to be honest. Take yourselves back to that time and compare it to our current time. How does each media compare? Did I succumb to the medias will and believe OJ didn’t do it? Did I distrust the media back then and go against them? Were they fair and balanced (lol, I think I know the answer to that). So as a little kid, watching this gigantic spectacle unfold on the TV, how was my tiny feeble mind shaped by the media to form this opinion? I’m curious. I don’t know the answer. But considering I hate the media,… Read more »

Member
Karmaa
November 20, 2012 1:38 pm

Well, I mostly remember Greta from back then. She was brand new in the world of reporting – wasn’t even a reporter, she was a lawyer who was explaining things – and I got the sense that she didn’t think the prosecution had a case. But it would not surprise me if she thought he was guilty.

Back then we didn’t have the Nancy Grace opinionated screechbags on TV. So, while it was televised live and commented on extensively through the media, I seem to recall it being less overt. They reported what happened and you really didn’t know what they Thought. they left that to the opinion/expert interviews. The way it’s SUPPOSED to be!

Member
drb
November 20, 2012 1:58 pm

Back then we didn’t have the Nancy Grace

I thought she came onto the scene at the same time.

Member
Karmaa
November 20, 2012 6:18 pm

No – according to wiki she started her Court TV gig in 2005. She may have been an “expert” commentator before that, but she was still a (crappy) DA during the OJ trial.

Member
drb
November 20, 2012 6:43 pm

Yeah I *think* she was the so-called “legal expert” for CNN during the OJ trial then later on she got the job over on Court TV.

Member
November 20, 2012 4:45 am

Well you wouldn’t have pissed me off, but I do disagree.

When he huffed and puffed and struggled so hard to squeeze into the glove, the slipped it off effortlessly I knew he did it.

:)

Member
Karmaa
November 20, 2012 1:52 pm

Well, wouldn’t YOU have huffed and puffed to put on the glove, guilty or innocent? He was sitting there for his life! He was >thisclose< to going to jail for life. Guilty or innocent I know that I would have appeared to struggle with it, even if it was a perfect fit. And ESPECIALLY if I were innocent! If I were guilty, I would already known that it fit. I would have just refused to try it on. My only point is that sometimes innocent people act weird. I have heard people say that the Bronco ride was proof of guilt. maybe. Or maybe is was a man who was scared to death of what was about to happen? Maybe, as this article suggests, it was the reaction for a man who was a little bit guilty of bad behavior, but didn't actually kill her? Maybe his lawyer told him, as any lawyer would, DO NOT tell them about the earrings! If you do, then YOU will be held to the same punishment as the killer. That's the law. If you are participating in commission of a felony and someone gets killed, you are as guilty as the person who… Read more »

Member
November 20, 2012 4:22 pm

No.

But if I was going to pretend it didn’t fit, being an actror, as he was, and fighting for hs life I would have continued the farce and made it look difficult to remove too. Like – oh I don’t know, all gloves.

But he didn’t, he took a bow too soon. He did it :)

Member
poppajoe49
November 21, 2012 4:15 am

Not to mention the blood in his car and on his clothes.
Then there was his search for the real killer, on the best golf courses in the country.
If he really was innocent, he would have really tried to find the killer, just to prove he was wrongly accused, and to avoid the civil trial verdict.

Member
Karmaa
November 21, 2012 5:03 am

Well, I don’t remember every fact now, but much of the blood evidence was found to contain a preservative that is used inside blood draw test tubes. Which suggests that the blood was drawn from OJ, and then later removed from the test tube and placed on specific items. There was also at least one missing test tube of his blood. I also remember the bloody socks. They were clearly not in photo’s taken of OJ’s bedroom early in the investigation. Later that evening they were “discovered” lying on the floor next to the bed. Which totally made no sense. OJ’s house looked like an OCD retreat. Nothing out of place. But these bloody socks just dropped on the floor? Ummm. No. If OJ was a neat freak, why the heck would he drop a pair of socks on the floor on the one night that he would have to be SURE nothing got left? And how could they mysteriously go from invisible to visible? And why did the blood on them have the blood preservative? As I said, I am pretty sure that OJ didn’t kill anyone himself. He could have arranged the killing, but there is no evidence… Read more »

Member
drb
November 21, 2012 5:08 am

That’s how I remember it too, Karmaa.

Member
DefHarryMelon
November 21, 2012 5:08 am

He flew out to Chicago shortly after the deed, and his hand was wrapped up for a nasty cut he had. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

Member
November 21, 2012 9:41 am

You have to buy into a lot of tampering to believe he is innocent. I mean enough to fill several white broncos.

Member
November 21, 2012 10:06 am

“BLANCO BRONCO!!!””

Member
GhostntheMachine
November 21, 2012 5:06 pm

RHG, that’s funny, in my always humble op.

Formerly, and nobody has ever explained that, all conspiracy theories aside.

And I haven’t read the rest of the posts yet, prolly look like an ass again.

Member
November 21, 2012 10:26 am

True, how hard can it be to find another big guy sporting Bruno Magli’s?

Member
Karmaa
November 21, 2012 4:42 pm

How big is Glen Rogers? What size shoe does he wear? He was supposedly a thief and supposedly had some connection to OJ. Could he have stolen the shoes? Maybe OJ gave him some old clothes if they were close to the same size? Look, I have no love for OJ. I never really cared for him. BUT there are endless possibilities of how he COULD be innocent. And, because of the shenanigans with planted evidence, ALL of the evidence is suspect. You can’t say “well, that evidence doesn’t seem to be tampered with, so it’s OK”. You have to consider that all of it is potentially tainted. For every bit of information that the prosecution put out there, there was a plausible answer that led away from guilt. Normally, you would say “well, with that much evidence, it’s too much to say it’s all coincidence”, but that’s where the tainted evidence comes in to the picture. If one bit was planted, then who is to say that all of them weren’t? And then, all of the coincidences become a strawman argument. Clearly the jury saw what I am suggesting too. Even if they “thought” he did it, they couldn’t… Read more »

Member
Progressive Hemrrhoid
November 19, 2012 3:25 pm

OJ Simpson is still cooling his heels in prison for trying to steal his memorabilia back from some collector. With all the funny business that went down with those two murders I suppose that’s close enough to justice.

wpDiscuz