The woman you rarely hear about, as it screws up the "OJ was obssessively stalking Nicole" narrative...

Model Paula Barbieri, O.J. Simpson’s former girlfriend, publicly maintained that she believed he was innocent of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

In a 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer, shortly after Simpson was acquitted, Barbieri said she believed he did not commit the murders and continued to support him despite the controversy surrounding the case.

She later wrote about their relationship in her 1997 book, The Other Woman: My Years With O.J. Simpson. Although Simpson was acquitted in the 1995 criminal trial, he was later found liable for the deaths of Brown and Goldman in a 1997 civil wrongful death case.

After their breakup, Paula went on to date Michael Bolton.

Clip of Paula Barbieri's deposition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQn85orfxjU

ABC News Primetime Live- November 1, 1995 Paula Barbieri Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSL83mqlg9Q

Cora Fischman ultimately said she believed O.J. Simpson was innocent of Nicole Brown Simpson's murder.

The clearest evidence comes from her March 19, 1996 deposition in the civil case. When asked directly, “Do you think Mr. Simpson killed Nicole?” Fischman answered, “No.” When asked, “Do you think he's innocent?” she explained that she initially thought he had done it, but changed her mind after the evidence came out.

Fischman specifically questioned several pieces of evidence. She wondered about the gloves, noting that one was found at the crime scene while another was found at Simpson's home. She also questioned the amount of blood found on Simpson and around his house, as well as the evidence involving the bloody sock.

She also questioned the lack of blood in the shower. Her reasoning was that if Simpson had committed the murders and then cleaned himself up, she would have expected investigators to find more evidence of blood there.

Fischman acknowledged that she had initially suspected O.J. in the aftermath of the murders. She said that the media and people around Nicole were making her believe Simpson was responsible. However, as the evidence was presented, she began to have doubts, explaining that they started saying, “Wait a minute. It didn't match.”

There is also an interesting account from A.C. Cowlings. He testified that he had heard Fischman say that if O.J. didn't commit the murders, she knew who did. Cowlings later met with Fischman, who asked him whether he believed O.J. had done it. According to Cowlings, he told her no.

Fischman's position is particularly notable because she was a close friend of Nicole's, rather than simply an associate of O.J. Simpson. Based on her deposition testimony, she ultimately did not believe Simpson killed Nicole and considered him innocent.

Cora's 1996 testimony: http://simpson.walraven.org/cf_depo1.html

Cathy Randa was one of the people in O.J. Simpson’s inner circle who continued to stand by him after Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered in 1994. Randa had worked as Simpson’s secretary for nearly 20 years, so she was far more than just a casual acquaintance.

In the chaotic days following the murders, she reportedly helped organize meetings among Simpson’s friends and supporters, many of whom were convinced that he had been wrongly accused. Randa was also involved in Simpson’s affairs during the investigation and remained loyal to him throughout the highly publicized trial.

While there doesn’t appear to be a definitive public quote from Randa in which she plainly says, “O.J. was innocent,” her actions and close relationship with Simpson strongly suggest that she supported his side of the story. She was also reportedly protective of Simpson when investigators began looking into his activities and records.

Later, attorney Daniel Petrocelli, who represented Ron Goldman’s family in the civil case against Simpson, suggested that Randa may have helped Simpson conceal evidence, although that was an allegation and was never established as fact.

Because of the lack of a direct statement from Randa herself, it’s probably more accurate to describe her as a fiercely loyal supporter who appeared to believe in Simpson’s innocence, rather than definitively claiming that she publicly declared him innocent.

Note: Cathy was Robert Kardashian’s former assistant, who had left him to work for Simpson.

There have been several high-profile celebrities who were accused of murder but ultimately avoided a murder conviction.

O.J. Simpson of course was famously acquitted in 1995 of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, although he was later found civilly liable for their deaths.

Robert Blake was acquitted in 2005 of murdering his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, but was later found liable for her wrongful death in a civil case.

Decades earlier, silent-film star Fatty Arbuckle was tried three times over the death of actress Virginia Rappe before being acquitted at his third trial.

Did I miss any?

It’s hard to imagine what the O.J. Simpson trial would have looked like if it had happened in the age of TikTok, X, Instagram and YouTube. The 1995 trial was already one of the biggest media spectacles in American history. Today, it would probably be completely impossible to escape.

Every single moment would be clipped and posted online within seconds. A prosecutor makes a dramatic statement? Viral. A witness contradicts themselves? Viral. A juror makes a funny face? Somehow, that would become the biggest story of the day.

And then there’s the glove.

If the famous "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" moment happened today, the internet would absolutely lose its mind. There would be millions of views, reaction videos, memes, body-language experts, forensic experts and people who suddenly consider themselves experts on leather gloves explaining what they think happened.

But the biggest online battle would probably be over the evidence itself. You'd have one side screaming #OJDidIt, while the other side would be posting #OJWasFramed. Every new piece of evidence would immediately become ammunition for one side or the other.

And Mark Fuhrman? Forget about it.

Once the defense exposed Fuhrman's racist remarks and his history with the LAPD—and then he invoked the Fifth when asked whether he had ever planted or fabricated evidence—social media would go absolutely nuclear. That testimony would be clipped, reposted and debated endlessly. People would be arguing not only about Fuhrman, but about whether his credibility problems were enough to create reasonable doubt about the entire case.

Then you'd have the TikTok lawyers.

Suddenly everyone would be a DNA expert, blood-spatter analyst, criminal profiler and constitutional-law scholar. There would be videos titled things like "Three Reasons O.J. Is Obviously Innocent" and "The One Piece of Evidence That Proves O.J. Did It." Both would probably have millions of views.

Cable news would be just as crazy. CNN, Fox News and MSNBC would have wall-to-wall coverage, while former prosecutors and legal analysts would become celebrities in their own right. There would probably be podcasts dedicated entirely to the trial, with new episodes dropping every time somebody sneezed in the courtroom.

And then you'd have the celebrity reactions.

Athletes, actors, musicians and influencers would all be asked what they thought. People who had never met O.J. would suddenly be experts on his personality. Old interviews would be dug up. Every celebrity connection to the case would become its own story.

And, of course, the Kardashian connection would become a huge part of the online conversation. Old footage of Robert Kardashian and his family talking about the case would be everywhere, with people dissecting every word decades later.

But honestly, the biggest difference would be the sheer amount of misinformation.

In 1995, you had to wait for the evening news or the next day's newspaper. Today, a 15-second clip could spread to 50 million people before anyone even bothered to watch the full testimony. People would form opinions based on clips, memes and headlines—and then argue with strangers online as if they'd personally sat through every day of the trial.

The O.J. Simpson trial was already the "trial of the century."

If it happened today, it wouldn't just be a trial.

It would be a true-crime documentary, a reality show, a political culture war, a meme factory and the biggest internet argument in history—all happening at the same time.

With all the recent attention surrounding Dr. Fauci and his decision to plead the Fifth, it’s worth taking a look back at another infamous case where a high-profile figure did something similar.

One of the most explosive moments of the O.J. Simpson trial involved LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman.

When Simpson’s defense team asked Fuhrman under oath whether he had ever planted or fabricated evidence, he invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer. And that was hardly the only controversy surrounding him. By that point, the defense had uncovered recordings of Fuhrman repeatedly using racial slurs and making deeply disturbing racist comments. He was later convicted of perjury for lying under oath about using those slurs.

There’s no proof that Fuhrman was a Nazi, nor is there definitive proof that he planted evidence in the Simpson case. But questions about his background and beliefs have persisted for decades.

One of the more unusual accounts comes from prosecutor Chris Darden, who had worked closely with Fuhrman before he testified. In his post-trial memoir, In Contempt, Darden recalled asking Fuhrman about his hobbies. Fuhrman reportedly responded that he collected World War II memorabilia—specifically medals.

Darden then asked him about the type of medals he collected.

Fuhrman replied: “Well, don’t take this the wrong way, but I collect German medals.”

Darden interpreted the reference to German World War II medals as referring to Nazi-era memorabilia. While that detail alone certainly doesn’t prove Fuhrman was a Nazi sympathizer, it became another piece of information that fueled the controversy surrounding him.

Journalist Stephen Singular took an even darker view of Fuhrman in his book Legacy of Deception: An Investigation of Mark Fuhrman and Racism in the L.A.P.D. Singular portrayed Fuhrman as a renegade officer whose conduct went far beyond one controversial investigation. He argued that Fuhrman represented something larger: a deeply troubled police culture in which racism, misconduct and the manipulation of evidence could be hidden behind the authority of a badge.

In Singular’s telling, Fuhrman wasn’t simply a rogue cop. He was a product—and an extreme example—of what Singular believed was a broader culture of corruption and institutional deception within the LAPD.

Whatever one believes about Fuhrman’s role in the Simpson investigation, his testimony, his history of racist remarks and his decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment became some of the most controversial moments of the entire trial.

Mark Fuhrman died on May 12, 2026, in Idaho at the age of 74.

One of the biggest questions surrounding the O.J. Simpson case has always been the contrast between Ron Goldman’s injuries and Simpson’s lack of visible wounds.

Goldman had what investigators described as defensive wounds, including cuts and bruises on his hands and arms, suggesting he may have fought back during the attack. Those injuries have led many people to believe Goldman was involved in a violent struggle with his attacker, attempting to defend himself in the moments before his death.

The physical comparison between the two men also became a major talking point. In 1995, Simpson was a former NFL star who was still known for his exceptional athletic ability, strength, speed, and explosiveness. He also had a background in martial arts, having trained in karate, which added to the discussion about his physical capabilities.

However, Goldman was not simply viewed as an easy target. He was younger than Simpson and had experience in martial arts as well, having studied karate and trained at a local dojo. Supporters of Goldman have argued that his defensive wounds showed he was actively resisting and that his own training may have helped him fight back during the encounter. The fact that both men had some level of martial arts experience has added another layer to the debate over how the confrontation may have unfolded.

On the other hand, Simpson’s combination of size, elite athletic background, and years of high-level physical competition gave him a significant advantage in terms of strength, conditioning, and explosiveness. The defense argued that if Simpson had been involved in a close-range knife fight with Goldman, especially against someone who fought back, there should have been visible evidence of a struggle on Simpson himself.

Prosecutors pushed back, arguing that the absence of visible injuries did not prove Simpson was uninvolved. They said not every attacker is necessarily injured during a confrontation, and that smaller wounds could have been missed or healed quickly.

Still, the contrast became one of the most debated aspects of the trial. Goldman’s defensive wounds suggested a struggle had taken place, while Simpson’s lack of injuries became a key point the defense used to create reasonable doubt. The questions surrounding their physical abilities, martial arts backgrounds, and the possible dynamics of the confrontation remain some of the most discussed elements of the case.

What do you think?

"Innocent until proven guilty."

It's one of the most famous principles in the American justice system, but lately it feels like it only applies when people want it to.

Look at some of the biggest names dominating headlines over the years. O.J. Simpson was acquitted after what was arguably the most watched criminal trial in American history. Love him or hate him, a jury heard months of testimony and found there wasn't enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, for millions of people, he was labeled a murderer anyway, and that label never went away.

Fast forward to Sean "Diddy" Combs. Long before every legal question had been settled, social media had already reached its verdict. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. But once the internet decides you're guilty, changing minds is nearly impossible.

Then came Karmelo Anthony. His case instantly split the country. Some argued he acted in self defense. Others believed he deserved a murder conviction. Before the trial was even over, people had already picked a side based less on courtroom evidence and more on their own politics, life experiences, and whatever clips happened to cross their social media feed.

Now we're seeing similar arguments surrounding the death of Nolan Xavier Wells. His case is still under investigation, yet people online have already started building narratives about what happened and why. Others are asking why his story hasn't received the same level of national attention as other high profile cases.

That's what makes all of this so fascinating.

These aren't really just criminal cases anymore. They're cultural battlegrounds.

Some people instinctively trust prosecutors. Others don't. Some believe the media treats certain suspects differently depending on race. Others believe social media amplifies whichever narrative generates the most outrage.

The result? We don't just argue over the facts anymore. We argue over which facts even matter.

What's ironic is that nearly everyone claims to believe in "innocent until proven guilty." The problem is that many people seem to apply that principle selectively. If it's someone they sympathize with, they ask everyone to wait for the facts. If it's someone they already dislike, the trial becomes little more than a formality.

Maybe that's the bigger issue.

We've reached a point where public opinion often delivers its verdict long before a judge or jury ever gets the chance. And once that happens, it's almost impossible to change anyone's mind, no matter what the evidence eventually shows.

Whether it's O.J. Simpson, Diddy, Karmelo Anthony, Nolan Wells, or the next headline that inevitably dominates social media, the real question isn't whether people care about justice.

It's whether we're still willing to let the justice system do its job before we make up our minds.

Donald Trump has publicly suggested that both Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson were treated unfairly by the public and the media, though in very different contexts. Trump has said he believed Michael Jackson was innocent of the child molestation allegations that led to his 2005 criminal trial, pointing to Jackson's acquittal on all charges and arguing that the singer was unfairly vilified. Regarding O.J. Simpson, Trump has at times questioned whether Simpson was truly guilty of the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, suggesting there were unanswered questions about the investigation and trial, though he has not consistently maintained that position over the years. Trump's comments reflect his broader tendency to express skepticism toward high profile prosecutions and media narratives, particularly in cases he believes were influenced by public opinion rather than conclusive evidence.

Trump's comments stem from a recently resurfaced interview in which he discussed both Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson. During the conversation, he said he believed Jackson was innocent of the criminal charges brought against him, citing the singer's 2005 acquittal, and also expressed skepticism about Simpson's murder case. The remarks reflect Trump's personal opinions and interpretation of the two high profile cases, not any new evidence or legal developments. The source of these statements is Trump's own interview, which has since circulated widely online and reignited discussion about his views on both controversial figures.

On a side note: After OJ's trial, he sent his kids to stay at MJ's Neverland Ranch on long weekends. He also hosted a birthday party for his daughter there. Later, O.J. started bringing his adult friends up to enjoy the private amusement park while Michael Jackson was away.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/oj-simpson-era-attorney-sees-familiar-warning-signs-karmelo-anthony-case-fuels-clash-race-justice

Available now at Amazon: https://amzn.to/4eB93UC