00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there folks, it is Monday, October 19th, and are you serious? We are really having a conversation about the possibility that OJ Simpson had an accomplice on the night of the murders. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Robes. This is not just out of nowhere. This is not even really just a theory. Robes, there is newly uncovered, newly discovered, newly released information that bolsters all of this. Robes, how am I just hearing about this now?
00:00:39
Speaker 2: Yeah, 30 years after the fact. Yes, you're hearing about it now because the New York Times has unearthed a mountain, a trove of treasures in terms of investigations. And we now are finding out from newly unsealed court records that from what's been described as an extremely reliable informant that, yeah, O.J. Simpson may have had help the night of the murder, and it might be part of the reason why some would say he got away with murder.
00:01:13
Speaker 1: Robes, and I say, how am I just finding out about this? I'm kind of asking, has this been kind of a theory that's floating around? It was kind of whispered about. I mean, I know they examined at least the possibility, but I didn't know they went this deep down a road with a name and a person and a story that's been told and retold. And I didn't know all this.
00:01:39
Speaker 3: I didn't either.
00:01:39
Speaker 2: And you and I have watched plenty of documentaries, have covered the different iterations of this case, interviewed the Goldmans. And yes, I have never before now heard the name Joey Joseph Ippolito, but we're hearing it now.
00:01:55
Speaker 3: And I got to say, it's fascinating.
00:01:57
Speaker 1: This is a hell of a story and a hell of a life. And it tells you a lot about just who was around OJ. He had some characters around him. This dude is something.
00:02:06
Speaker 2: You know how you've always joked about you've got a friend who's got a guy? Yes. It seemed like OJ Simpson had a guy.
00:02:12
Speaker 1: Yes. Montel down in Alabama is my guy.
00:02:15
Speaker 3: But not in that way.
00:02:16
Speaker 1: He's got nothing like this guy.
00:02:17
Speaker 2: No. But if you need a guy, it's good to know a guy who has a guy at least. And it seems like OJ Simpson... had one, and the guy, according to some of these records and interviews and a lot of documentation, he was literally on the lam.
00:02:33
Speaker 3: He had escaped from prison when he.
00:02:36
Speaker 2: Reportedly, according to his own brother, literally helped OJ Simpson clean up.
00:02:46
Speaker 1: Gross. He was there. The claim we are talking about, folks, is that there was a man who claimed that his brother was there with OJ the night of the murders. Not just was there, he then saw his brother come home with bloody hands and give him a bag to go get rid of. Robes, what has never been found? ever been found in this whole thing. Where's the knife?
00:03:12
Speaker 3: The murder weapon. Where's the murder weapon?
00:03:13
Speaker 2: The bloody clothes. Because obviously, O.J. Simpson would have had to have done something.
00:03:18
Speaker 1: And he didn't have time.
00:03:19
Speaker 2: He did not have time. He had a flight to catch, remember? That was his alibi. So he had to have somebody if he.
00:03:25
Speaker 3: Was to pull this off.
00:03:27
Speaker 2: And there have been plenty of theories out there.
00:03:30
Speaker 3: But this is fascinating.
00:03:33
Speaker 2: I mean, the New York Times article about this is, honestly, it reads like a movie script.
00:03:38
Speaker 1: It's a page turner. Oh, yeah. It's an absolute page-turner. You want, oh, who is this guy? They need to do a documentary on him? There should be movies made about this guy and his life.
00:03:47
Speaker 2: I would imagine there will be because, look, we are reading and hearing about documents that have been sealed for 30 years. So this is truly new information to the majority of the public. And even according to some folks close to the case, they're claiming, like, this is new information to them as well, which seems bizarre because what we're hearing about, apparently... information surrounding this informant came forward or came to be known by some people during the trial, reportedly after the prosecution had already actually closed, but they hadn't given closing arguments yet.
00:04:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, the case wasn't over. They were done presenting, but they weren't fully done, Robe. So the suggestion is this information is coming to their office. They have to throw their hands up. We already presented our theory to the jury. We can't go back now. But Robes, this idea, they had a guy waiting in the wings, willing to testify against O.J. Simpson, is what they're saying. Testifying that he knew something about O.J. being guilty of that murder and possibly helping him. And that guy was never even talked to by the prosecution.
00:05:01
Speaker 3: No, how does that make any sense?
00:05:03
Speaker 2: And because he had every incentive at that point to talk because he needed help. to not go back to jail for a long time. And this dude was charged with a lot of stuff.
00:05:12
Speaker 3: He was on the run. He escaped from prison. He needed a deal.
00:05:16
Speaker 2: And according to these court documents, he had information about OJ Simpson.
00:05:22
Speaker 1: Maybe.
00:05:24
Speaker 2: It's perplexing, but did they deem him not credible?
00:05:26
Speaker 3: Yes, they did. Because he was affiliated with the mob.
00:05:29
Speaker 2: So they were probably thinking, great, we put this guy up, and he's so not credible that it ends up making us look like fools trying to even put him up on the stand. Don't know if that even was a part of the process or if they were just like, this guy's.
00:05:43
Speaker 3: Full of it.
00:05:43
Speaker 1: But Marsha Clark said she didn't even know who the guy is.
00:05:45
Speaker 3: And that's the weird, weird part of this.
00:05:47
Speaker 2: Marsha Clark has been asked specifically about this New York Times article, and she's like, what are you talking about?
00:05:52
Speaker 1: Who is this guy?
00:05:53
Speaker 2: I've never heard of this guy, which that seems outrageous.
00:05:58
Speaker 1: Well, it seems that somebody lower down in her office made a determination that this wasn't important enough to rise to that level. Now, I don't know what the, and again, a lot of people, as wild as this story sounds to us, there are plenty of folks who have looked at this and said, no, there was not a second person. There was no help. This guy is not credible. He doesn't have a, He doesn't have a credible story. No, okay, but Robes, you can't, if somebody was just telling this story.
00:06:29
Speaker 3: You wouldn't believe it.
00:06:30
Speaker 1: You'd just go, fine. Robes, they're unsealing documents. There's stuff, people are telling stories that back up just a claim of an accomplice.
00:06:50
Speaker 2: And that's the point the New York Times article is making. This is, yes, initially about unsealed court documents and about allegations, but then you've got the informant's brother who spoke with the New York Times, by the way, has now recanted.
00:07:01
Speaker 3: Everything he said.
00:07:02
Speaker 1: That's problematic for the story, yeah.
00:07:03
Speaker 2: But there is a documentary coming out on Peacock, and so we don't know if part of him saying no is him trying to somehow sell his story or be able to tell it to the right outlet where he gets something for it. So... Yes, but he sat down, spoke with the New York Times, and as you pointed out, yes, gave detailed account about how his brother, who was again on the run, he had escaped from prison, and he said he left the apartment at 6 p.m. and he came back at midnight, said he was gone for six hours, and yes, came back with that bag containing a heavy object inside. He said he didn't look inside the bag, but yes, obviously everyone is jumping to that conclusion that The bloody knife was potentially in that bag along with O.J.
00:07:49
Speaker 3: Simpson's clothes.
00:07:50
Speaker 2: Apparently, he took off his clothes, also put it in this bag, and asked his brother to get rid of it.
00:07:56
Speaker 1: Sure thing. I'll get rid of it for you, brother. Where you been tonight?
00:08:00
Speaker 3: Said he didn't ask.
00:08:01
Speaker 2: Well, eventually, on a car ride later, he said he went to go help O.J.
00:08:05
Speaker 1: Simpson.
00:08:06
Speaker 2: Initially, he said he went to go help a friend, but then later he said went to go help O.J. And then, get this, to think that the murder weapon and... OJ Simpson's alleged bloody clothes along with his clothing was all dumped in a dumpster along Doheny Drive near a construction site about a block from OJ Simpson's house I believe is what they said or very close so to think police are running around trying to find this murder weapon and it was dumped near a construction site the night of never to be seen or found again okay.
00:08:40
Speaker 1: Help me with some math here baby um OJ was arrested how many days later?
00:08:49
Speaker 2: Was it?
00:08:50
Speaker 1: Several days. I want to say four.
00:08:51
Speaker 3: I want to say five.
00:08:52
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:08:52
Speaker 3: Somewhere around that range.
00:08:53
Speaker 1: But he was a suspect immediately, was he not?
00:08:55
Speaker 3: Yes, he was.
00:08:56
Speaker 1: Okay. So when did police, when would they have started searching all of his stuff, his house, canvassing that neighborhood? What I'm saying, Robes, the knife was always in the clothes, always a big deal. Yes. Robes, now you say this all the time. I got chills. Now, I got chills thinking that those items were in a dumpster close to OJ's house that very night. Yep. When did that thing get dumped? When did they start searching? Were they canvassing the other neighborhood and not where his house was? I don't know. But, Robes, the idea that that key piece of everything was in a dumpster up the street from OJ's house? Right.
00:09:43
Speaker 3: That is a crazy, crazy thought.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: That's a wild scenario.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: And even if you don't believe some of the unsealed documents, and even if you don't believe the brother, just remember, and this is an important point, in Simpson's own words, you remember he wrote that book, If I Did It. sat down with the ghostwriter, and the ghostwriter says he turned on the audio recorder, and this is how O.J. Simpson began the interview with the ghostwriter for this book. You know I couldn't have done this alone. That is chilling now, given these unsealed court documents.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: And look, it was.
00:10:20
Speaker 2: Described and published in the book that he had a friend who got rid of the murder weapon and his bloody clothes. But that account was just dismissed as fantasy, part of an effort for O.J. Simpson to sell books as he fictionalized this if I did it thing. But if you take him beginning his interview with the ghostwriter, you know I couldn't have done this alone, with the brother of this alleged accomplice, reiterating it, and now you've got court documents suggesting or stating that this man, this mafia associate, this drug runner... was willing to make a deal to lower or lessen his prison time to go ahead and snitch on O.J. And he snitched, by the way, in the following years on plenty of mafia bosses to the point where his own brother had an attempted murder attack on him.
00:11:14
Speaker 3: He was run over by members of the mob because they were.
00:11:17
Speaker 1: And shot, wasn't he?
00:11:17
Speaker 2: And shot, sorry, yeah, shot and run over because they were so pissed at his brother, they were trying to get back.
00:11:22
Speaker 3: at Joey Ippolito, so they went after his brother.
00:11:24
Speaker 1: At one point. Didn't Joey end up dying of natural causes?
00:11:27
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:11:27
Speaker 1: Isn't that crazy? Yes. After all this?
00:11:29
Speaker 3: After all that.
00:11:30
Speaker 2: I mean, just getting into this guy, yeah, he's now dead. But look, he was the son of a known member of the, I'm not going to be able to say this right, it's an Italian name.
00:11:39
Speaker 1: It's a Jersey Mafia.
00:11:40
Speaker 3: It's Jersey Mafia.
00:11:42
Speaker 2: De Cavalcanti, the De Cavalcanti crime family. But he was a professional cigarette boat racer in his off time.
00:11:49
Speaker 3: And he just kind.
00:11:50
Speaker 2: Of got this network of high profile friends in the circles he ran around. But he served three years for drug charges in 1981. Apparently he was helping traffic marijuana and cocaine to Long Island directly from Columbia. But he gets out after three years and says he's starting a new life in L.A., And that's when he starts this Italian restaurant in Santa Monica, starts hanging out with Al Cowlings, that's OJ's best friend, and they all became.
00:12:17
Speaker 1: The Bronco driver.
00:12:17
Speaker 3: The Bronco driver, yes.
00:12:19
Speaker 2: And look, he then gets sent back to prison in a federal sting. A jury found him guilty, more drug charges, gets sentenced to 10 years in prison, but escapes in 1994. Perfect timing for him to help a friend.
00:12:36
Speaker 1: Okay. The escape in 94 might be the highlight of his resume. That was kind of awesome. I don't give a... Look, there's no hardened criminal. He's not accused of... You know, he didn't have murder on his crime, right?
00:12:51
Speaker 3: Drug charges.
00:12:52
Speaker 1: Drug charges. Okay. Not saying it's not a victimless crime. But my point here is, Ropes, this guy, his attorney is the one that said it. His escape from prison... How did he escape? You think of all kinds of things. Prison escapes. You have to put on a different outfit. Did you overtake a guard? Rose, they say this dude called a private car. He walked out of prison to meet his car on time.
00:13:16
Speaker 3: Like a limo.
00:13:17
Speaker 1: And his attorney says it's the only escape known to man that was done by limousine. That just tells you something about this guy. That is the craziest detail. He walks out, gets into a limo, and it takes him away, and he escapes from prison.
00:13:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's out for months and months. They can't find him.
00:13:40
Speaker 1: What a fascinating... These are OJ's people.
00:13:46
Speaker 3: So, yes, it's one of these.
00:13:50
Speaker 2: I think there had been whispers, and certainly some people had heard this story. Clearly, some members of law enforcement wrote down these interviews and had a court seal these documents. What was the purpose of sealing these documents, is my question.
00:14:06
Speaker 1: They sealed them right then after the trial, after O.J. 's, like, I don't know. That I don't fully understand. But, Rose, at the time, are you really telling me? Rose, no, no. We are finding out if his story is true or not, I don't know. But this is true. There was a man willing to get on the stand and say, OJ gave me a heavy bag with bloody stuff on that night, and this is what I did with it. That witness existed?
00:14:35
Speaker 3: And the prosecution, Marsha Clark, says, who? What's his name? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
00:14:42
Speaker 1: I'd like to hear more.
00:14:43
Speaker 3: How is that possible?
00:14:46
Speaker 1: That's crazy.
00:14:46
Speaker 3: It is insane.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: When we come back, we're going to talk about OJ's former attorney and his executor of his estate. He has reacted to the New York Times article. And oh, yeah, there's this Fat Joe connection as well that we'll explain. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. This is a hell of a story that is unfolding maybe 30 years too late, but documents have been unsealed. People have been talking and now it looks like OJ Simpson may have had an accomplice and it may actually be the reason he got away with murder. Is it okay to say that? I mean, he was not convicted. He was found not guilty of murder. He was found liable. of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. But I guess we technically can't say that. We still have to say allegedly.
00:15:48
Speaker 1: You know what? Does the AP handbook, what is the standard on this? He wasn't convicted.
00:15:56
Speaker 3: He wasn't.
00:15:57
Speaker 1: So he's only an alleged. But when something like this happens, when it's widely understood, this is a unique case.
00:16:03
Speaker 2: It is.
00:16:03
Speaker 1: Does the AP say you always still have to refer to O.J. Simpson?
00:16:10
Speaker 3: As an alleged murderer.
00:16:12
Speaker 2: He was found criminally responsible for the deaths.
00:16:15
Speaker 1: You could say he's widely believed to have killed his wife.
00:16:17
Speaker 2: There we go.
00:16:18
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: He's widely believed to have killed his wife and Ron, his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Now, Malcolm Laverne was OJ Simpson's attorney. He is the executor of his estate. He is reacting today to the New York Times article. And look, he said he's acknowledged that. obviously, the public's fascination with this case. What do they call this, the trial of the century? Oh, yeah. I can't imagine a trial that, and we've had some doozies, that would rise to the level in terms of the whole world was watching.
00:16:51
Speaker 1: I think about the Michael Jackson trial. That's a heinous crime as well. But come on, we're missing something in our lifetime that was this big, that this much public fascination. It had to be something involved with murder. It had to be something that's that. Heavy.
00:17:05
Speaker 2: But you've got a celebrity. You've got a football player. You've got a beloved football player.
00:17:10
Speaker 1: He's a movie star.
00:17:11
Speaker 3: Yes, you've got a movie star.
00:17:12
Speaker 1: He's a, yeah.
00:17:13
Speaker 3: Yes, on top of the world.
00:17:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, biggest star we can come up with, yeah.
00:17:16
Speaker 2: I can't imagine something as significant and polarizing as that trial. But he warns that constantly revisiting the murders can be painful and even disrespectful to the victim's loved ones.
00:17:31
Speaker 3: Now, I get that.
00:17:32
Speaker 2: But Ron Goldman's family specifically, they have been painfully purposeful in making sure people still talk about this story. They aren't– I do think that's a little– all right, who are you talking about? Now, the pain for Simpson's children, totally acknowledge that. But I feel like everything we've heard from the Goldmans and even from Nicole Brown's sisters and family members, they're okay with people revisiting this when it points to the fact that OJ Simpson killed their loved ones. So I think the pain might be on the Simpson's children. Fine, I totally would grant you that. But I don't think it's disrespectful to the victim's loved ones. I think they're actually probably all for this.
00:18:18
Speaker 1: Tonally, maybe. Folks don't want to hear from OJ's estate having sympathy for the Goldman family.
00:18:25
Speaker 3: It seems a little disingenuous.
00:18:27
Speaker 2: And I'm not sure I'm buying that at all.
00:18:30
Speaker 3: And I'm saying that like I'm not buying it.
00:18:32
Speaker 2: But look, he points out that Nicole, Ron, and OJ are all dead, meaning none of them can offer their firsthand accounts of what happened that night.
00:18:41
Speaker 3: And truthfully.
00:18:42
Speaker 2: this alleged accomplice is also dead. So this is one of these situations where we may and probably won't ever fully know the truth.
00:18:51
Speaker 1: And the one guy talking that might have information sounds like he wants to get paid.
00:18:56
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:18:56
Speaker 1: The brother. So what can you believe there? It's tough.
00:19:01
Speaker 2: And what did you make? I was trying to make sense of this fat Joe. He did a.
00:19:05
Speaker 3: Podcast, right?
00:19:07
Speaker 2: And he.
00:19:08
Speaker 1: This was years ago.
00:19:09
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:19:09
Speaker 2: And so now everyone's kind of going back to this podcast where Fat Joe was talking about Joe Bentley, referring to this alleged accomplice. That's what he said they called him. They called him Joe Bentley because he owned so many Bentleys. Obviously being a drug, I don't know if was he a drug lord or just a drug pusher, but apparently it's fairly lucrative.
00:19:29
Speaker 3: A drug smuggler. This was, yeah, August 2025.
00:19:32
Speaker 2: So a year ago, He was talking about this on the Joe and Jada podcast. And look, I was trying to piece this together.
00:19:42
Speaker 3: This is what he said.
00:19:43
Speaker 2: He says, so the man tells me that when OJ Simpson was in the Bronco, he was in the airport with the private that OJ Simpson is his man.
00:19:50
Speaker 1: Right?
00:19:51
Speaker 2: He was the one waiting for him. The man telling me all this shit, I could not believe.
00:19:56
Speaker 3: Um, so he's.
00:19:58
Speaker 2: Talking about one day it's his wife's birthday. So he says, yo, we throw in her birthday party in my other house. Um, and he said, we go in there And O.J. Simpson is in the house when they come down to cut the cake. Joe Bentley puts the machete in O.J. 's hand and says, you did it, N, you did it.
00:20:17
Speaker 3: And then O.J.
00:20:17
Speaker 2: Starts chasing him around the house with a knife. What the actual, I don't even know what to make of that story.
00:20:25
Speaker 1: What the actual hell. That is so weird.
00:20:29
Speaker 3: They're like laughing about the knife.
00:20:31
Speaker 1: Like joking about that.
00:20:32
Speaker 3: As they're cutting a cake.
00:20:34
Speaker 2: For his wife, whose name happens to be Nicole. I mean, that's disgusting if that actually happened. It's actually like, look, whether you think OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson or not.
00:20:45
Speaker 3: Just joking.
00:20:45
Speaker 2: It's widely believed.
00:20:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's widely believed. And I'll just be honest, I believe it too.
00:20:50
Speaker 2: But the point being is, even if he didn't do it, even though he wrote a book, if I did it, the.
00:20:56
Speaker 3: Idea that you'd be laughing.
00:20:58
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:20:59
Speaker 2: About cutting a cake with a machete whose wife's name is Nicole, that's disgusting, period, regardless of whether or not he's guilty. But it adds to this whole lore that this guy, Joey Bentley, knew some stuff. And I wonder if O.J. Simpson knew that Joey Bentley was absolutely willing to testify against his such good friend.
00:21:25
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's a good question. It's just... Who was their best witness? Kato Kaelin?
00:21:34
Speaker 2: Right?
00:21:34
Speaker 1: Nobody else saw. They didn't have people up there. And I encourage everybody. What's the most recent O.J. Simpson documentary that's on? It's several parts. The newest one. Watch that thing from start to finish. You're going to hear information in that documentary I never heard before about people who saw things that night that the prosecution didn't call to testify. It's kind of unbelievable. Bro, this thing You're going to walk away going, oh, well, yeah, of course he did it. What are we doing here?
00:22:05
Speaker 2: Well, you already– I think a lot of folks who watched the trial religiously were already scratching their heads like how did the prosecution fumble this? Yes, I know we had the whole Mark Furman debacle and you had an unbelievable defense team there representing O.J.
00:22:20
Speaker 3: Simpson. But still, there was– they like to say, a mountain of evidence.
00:22:24
Speaker 2: I know DNA wasn't as widely understood then as it is now, but my God, there.
00:22:29
Speaker 3: Were bloody footprints. There was OJ's blood.
00:22:31
Speaker 2: There was DNA, a trail of evidence leading straight from Nicole Brown Simpson's place straight to OJ's. And somehow they still couldn't get a guilty verdict. And now we're hearing there was an accomplice who was willing to testify. And I don't know how it works. They had if you find out this information, I guess it never reached Marsha crosses, uh, Marsha Clark's, it never crossed Marsha Clark's desk.
00:22:56
Speaker 3: There I finally spit it out.
00:22:58
Speaker 2: But to think that there was someone waiting in the wings who had every incentive. And again, he snitched on a ton of people and put himself in crazy danger doing so to get himself out of jail.
00:23:09
Speaker 3: And it was effective.
00:23:11
Speaker 2: That's insane to think that he could have been the difference between guilty and not guilty.
00:23:16
Speaker 1: But he was up there and, He had incentive to lie, right? Johnny Cochran would have beaten him up, right? What did you get out of? When did you make a deal? So you've been lying your whole life. Oh, and then you turn around and you tell whatever story necessary to get your butt out of trouble, right? I mean, of course they would have gone at him.
00:23:31
Speaker 3: Maybe he wouldn't have shifted anything.
00:23:32
Speaker 1: Or he might have been compelling. Or he might have had detail of, yeah, then we did this, and then he gave me this, but then I saw this. He might have had details none of us have ever heard and could have known unless you were with OJ that night. Who knows? But to think nobody even talked to him to see what he had to offer is mind-blowing.
00:23:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, on the prosecutorial team, it doesn't sound like any of them were aware that he existed and was willing to talk And yes, that most recent O.J. Simpson documentary, just so folks know, it's called O.J. Unseen, Exploitation of Evil. And this one premiered September 7th, so this isn't the one. Sorry, that was the latest one on ID and Max. I was just looking for the latest one. You actually, this was one, American Manhunt, O.J.
00:24:17
Speaker 1: Simpson. I think that's the one.
00:24:19
Speaker 2: That was released January 29th, 2025. Oh, it's a four-part Netflix series, yes. That's what you're talking about, American Manhunt. OJ Simpson, a four-part Netflix docu-series. And I watched it with you.
00:24:32
Speaker 3: It is jaw-dropping.
00:24:33
Speaker 1: I was in Stockholm. We were in Stockholm.
00:24:35
Speaker 2: I was.
00:24:36
Speaker 1: We were done.
00:24:36
Speaker 3: We were there.
00:24:38
Speaker 1: Yes. But I was watching it kind of as you were getting ready or something on a couple of days. And I said, hey, I don't know if you did it. I don't know if you did it. One episode later, hey, baby. There is no question when you watch this thing. There is no question left.
00:24:52
Speaker 3: There's no question.
00:24:53
Speaker 2: If you had one.
00:24:54
Speaker 1: Ropes.
00:24:55
Speaker 3: I did not.
00:24:55
Speaker 1: It is crazy. As much as you know about the evidence, you're going to hear more. You're like, wow, that was more stuff?
00:25:02
Speaker 2: Well, and then you just start saying, why didn't the prosecution do this? I know it's easy to Monday morning quarterback a very exhaustive and extensive, I mean, this was what, an eight-month trial?
00:25:13
Speaker 1: This was a trial.
00:25:14
Speaker 2: I mean that just the idea of trying to present that much evidence and still getting it wrong. But look, this is going to be fascinating because that peacock documentary that is coming out in December, it's a green lit two part docu series and they, this, they solely are exploring the concept or the notion that OJ Simpson is did not.
00:25:33
Speaker 3: Act alone, that he had an accomplice.
00:25:35
Speaker 1: Is that the title of it?
00:25:35
Speaker 3: It's called OJ's Accomplice. Yeah.
00:25:38
Speaker 2: Yes, it's like tacos and tequila. You know what you're getting when you see this. But just given this New York Times article, these unsealed documents, and now the timing of this docu-series, this is going to be a pretty massive hit on Peacock.
00:25:50
Speaker 3: This is just the beginning. You're going to be hearing a lot about this. And I.
00:25:56
Speaker 2: I can't imagine what it's like for the Goldmans, what it's like for the Browns.
00:26:00
Speaker 3: This has to be gutting.
00:26:01
Speaker 2: And yes, for OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson's children, this is tough. But I think at a certain point when justice wasn't ever actually felt or received by those victims' families, I would think it would still feel validating to have people care about your loved ones and care about to set the record straight or at least to have more information about what really happened because there's been so much misinformation. I don't know if we'll hear from them directly. They've been quiet as of late. But look, over the years, they have been, they have, and just put yourself in their position. Of course you want your family member's legacy honored and you want their killer remembered for that, for being their killer.
00:26:47
Speaker 1: What was the series you just mentioned, Day of Robes?
00:26:52
Speaker 3: American Manhunt.
00:26:53
Speaker 1: I should mention that Ron Goldman's sister is in it. And Rose, it will bring tears to your eyes when you hear her because I think she was teary-eyed when she said it. People ask, why am I still talking? Why are we doing this interview? Because you wouldn't even talk about my brother if I wasn't here. I have to do this to keep his legacy alive. All you're going to do is talk about OJ. Damn.
00:27:15
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:27:16
Speaker 3: I just got chills from head to toe.
00:27:17
Speaker 1: That's what they're still dealing with. Yeah. And so I would hear them go, wait a minute, you're telling me somebody's still seeking justice for my brother or for my sister? And Rose, the police out there say this is an open case.
00:27:28
Speaker 2: You know what? That is such a good point. And that is where we are. L.A. police cold case investigators are still on this case. And reportedly with this new information- They're apparently making calls about potential leads. And this is the quote from the LAPD regarding all of this. The OJ Simpson case remains an open and ongoing investigation. And they say because there's never been a conviction. And that is just the truth of it. They say, quote, the department has an obligation to continue to pursue justice in this matter. At a point, new evidence is found. detectives follow those investigatory leads.
00:28:06
Speaker 1: Do they call it the OJ Simpson case?
00:28:08
Speaker 2: That is what they called it. I am quoting them.
00:28:10
Speaker 1: Isn't that interesting? Yes.
00:28:11
Speaker 3: It's not the Nicole Brown Simpson. It's not the Ron Goldman.
00:28:14
Speaker 1: It's supposed to be. But the fact that they even put the emphasis there, because he could never be tried again. No, he's dead now, but he could never be tried again. Essentially, that person, according to our government, according to our system, baby, is not responsible.
00:28:30
Speaker 3: Well, he was, yes, you're right. You're correct. And I'm curious, though, posthumously, what could be done? What could be decreed?
00:28:37
Speaker 2: It would just be perhaps foreclosure for the families? I'm fairly certain just about everybody knows what happened. We don't know maybe all the little details, but finding out how he got away with it, perhaps, is of some value.
00:28:53
Speaker 1: Yes, we are. An accomplice theory is one of the better theories to understand how he had time Rose, if he did this, he was a bloody mess.
00:29:06
Speaker 3: You see the pictures from the crime scene.
00:29:08
Speaker 1: He had to be a bloody mess.
00:29:10
Speaker 2: And he couldn't have done it on his own.
00:29:13
Speaker 3: My goodness.
00:29:13
Speaker 1: All right.
00:29:14
Speaker 2: Well, yes, this may just be the beginning, but.
00:29:18
Speaker 3: A bombshell.
00:29:20
Speaker 2: And I was just curious, I had this thought, just wanted to put this out there, what you thought. The whole reason why this has been sealed for 30 years, I'm curious, would part of it be to protect people, to protect people like this man? Although he died in 2006. This dude, this accomplice, alleged accomplice, died 20 years ago. But I just was wondering initially if it was sealed perhaps because he was cooperative, because he put so many other mafia members away through his information and through his testimony. Were they protecting him in a way from what information they gave him? I'm just curious what the whole point or purpose would be of sealing these documents.
00:29:57
Speaker 1: The purpose might have been A temporary one. And everybody forgot about it. And it stayed sealed because nobody bothered to go have any interest in looking at whatever might have been in there. I don't know. I really don't know. But this is, it's not done yet, baby. He's dead. Everybody's dead.
00:30:15
Speaker 3: Everybody's dead.
00:30:16
Speaker 1: And we still are trying to solve the mystery of what happened that night. It's wild.
00:30:22
Speaker 2: It's historic.
00:30:23
Speaker 1: It's so fascinating.
00:30:24
Speaker 2: We will stay on top of it, this 30-year murder mystery. It's not really a mystery, but certainly a 30-year case that still requires some information, some badly needed information for closure, perhaps. Maybe this is the only way to get closure for the victims' families, but we will.
00:30:41
Speaker 3: Stay on top of it.
00:30:42
Speaker 2: We always appreciate you listening to us, everyone. I'm Amy Robach, alongside TJ Holmes.
00:30:46
Speaker 3: We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there folks, it is Monday, October 19th, and are you serious? We are really having a conversation about the possibility that OJ Simpson had an accomplice on the night of the murders. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Robes. This is not just out of nowhere. This is not even really just a theory. Robes, there is newly uncovered, newly discovered, newly released information that bolsters all of this. Robes, how am I just hearing about this now?
00:00:39
Speaker 2: Yeah, 30 years after the fact. Yes, you're hearing about it now because the New York Times has unearthed a mountain, a trove of treasures in terms of investigations. And we now are finding out from newly unsealed court records that from what's been described as an extremely reliable informant that, yeah, O.J. Simpson may have had help the night of the murder, and it might be part of the reason why some would say he got away with murder.
00:01:13
Speaker 1: Robes, and I say, how am I just finding out about this? I'm kind of asking, has this been kind of a theory that's floating around? It was kind of whispered about. I mean, I know they examined at least the possibility, but I didn't know they went this deep down a road with a name and a person and a story that's been told and retold. And I didn't know all this.
00:01:39
Speaker 3: I didn't either.
00:01:39
Speaker 2: And you and I have watched plenty of documentaries, have covered the different iterations of this case, interviewed the Goldmans. And yes, I have never before now heard the name Joey Joseph Ippolito, but we're hearing it now.
00:01:55
Speaker 3: And I got to say, it's fascinating.
00:01:57
Speaker 1: This is a hell of a story and a hell of a life. And it tells you a lot about just who was around OJ. He had some characters around him. This dude is something.
00:02:06
Speaker 2: You know how you've always joked about you've got a friend who's got a guy? Yes. It seemed like OJ Simpson had a guy.
00:02:12
Speaker 1: Yes. Montel down in Alabama is my guy.
00:02:15
Speaker 3: But not in that way.
00:02:16
Speaker 1: He's got nothing like this guy.
00:02:17
Speaker 2: No. But if you need a guy, it's good to know a guy who has a guy at least. And it seems like OJ Simpson... had one, and the guy, according to some of these records and interviews and a lot of documentation, he was literally on the lam.
00:02:33
Speaker 3: He had escaped from prison when he.
00:02:36
Speaker 2: Reportedly, according to his own brother, literally helped OJ Simpson clean up.
00:02:46
Speaker 1: Gross. He was there. The claim we are talking about, folks, is that there was a man who claimed that his brother was there with OJ the night of the murders. Not just was there, he then saw his brother come home with bloody hands and give him a bag to go get rid of. Robes, what has never been found? ever been found in this whole thing. Where's the knife?
00:03:12
Speaker 3: The murder weapon. Where's the murder weapon?
00:03:13
Speaker 2: The bloody clothes. Because obviously, O.J. Simpson would have had to have done something.
00:03:18
Speaker 1: And he didn't have time.
00:03:19
Speaker 2: He did not have time. He had a flight to catch, remember? That was his alibi. So he had to have somebody if he.
00:03:25
Speaker 3: Was to pull this off.
00:03:27
Speaker 2: And there have been plenty of theories out there.
00:03:30
Speaker 3: But this is fascinating.
00:03:33
Speaker 2: I mean, the New York Times article about this is, honestly, it reads like a movie script.
00:03:38
Speaker 1: It's a page turner. Oh, yeah. It's an absolute page-turner. You want, oh, who is this guy? They need to do a documentary on him? There should be movies made about this guy and his life.
00:03:47
Speaker 2: I would imagine there will be because, look, we are reading and hearing about documents that have been sealed for 30 years. So this is truly new information to the majority of the public. And even according to some folks close to the case, they're claiming, like, this is new information to them as well, which seems bizarre because what we're hearing about, apparently... information surrounding this informant came forward or came to be known by some people during the trial, reportedly after the prosecution had already actually closed, but they hadn't given closing arguments yet.
00:04:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, the case wasn't over. They were done presenting, but they weren't fully done, Robe. So the suggestion is this information is coming to their office. They have to throw their hands up. We already presented our theory to the jury. We can't go back now. But Robes, this idea, they had a guy waiting in the wings, willing to testify against O.J. Simpson, is what they're saying. Testifying that he knew something about O.J. being guilty of that murder and possibly helping him. And that guy was never even talked to by the prosecution.
00:05:01
Speaker 3: No, how does that make any sense?
00:05:03
Speaker 2: And because he had every incentive at that point to talk because he needed help. to not go back to jail for a long time. And this dude was charged with a lot of stuff.
00:05:12
Speaker 3: He was on the run. He escaped from prison. He needed a deal.
00:05:16
Speaker 2: And according to these court documents, he had information about OJ Simpson.
00:05:22
Speaker 1: Maybe.
00:05:24
Speaker 2: It's perplexing, but did they deem him not credible?
00:05:26
Speaker 3: Yes, they did. Because he was affiliated with the mob.
00:05:29
Speaker 2: So they were probably thinking, great, we put this guy up, and he's so not credible that it ends up making us look like fools trying to even put him up on the stand. Don't know if that even was a part of the process or if they were just like, this guy's.
00:05:43
Speaker 3: Full of it.
00:05:43
Speaker 1: But Marsha Clark said she didn't even know who the guy is.
00:05:45
Speaker 3: And that's the weird, weird part of this.
00:05:47
Speaker 2: Marsha Clark has been asked specifically about this New York Times article, and she's like, what are you talking about?
00:05:52
Speaker 1: Who is this guy?
00:05:53
Speaker 2: I've never heard of this guy, which that seems outrageous.
00:05:58
Speaker 1: Well, it seems that somebody lower down in her office made a determination that this wasn't important enough to rise to that level. Now, I don't know what the, and again, a lot of people, as wild as this story sounds to us, there are plenty of folks who have looked at this and said, no, there was not a second person. There was no help. This guy is not credible. He doesn't have a, He doesn't have a credible story. No, okay, but Robes, you can't, if somebody was just telling this story.
00:06:29
Speaker 3: You wouldn't believe it.
00:06:30
Speaker 1: You'd just go, fine. Robes, they're unsealing documents. There's stuff, people are telling stories that back up just a claim of an accomplice.
00:06:50
Speaker 2: And that's the point the New York Times article is making. This is, yes, initially about unsealed court documents and about allegations, but then you've got the informant's brother who spoke with the New York Times, by the way, has now recanted.
00:07:01
Speaker 3: Everything he said.
00:07:02
Speaker 1: That's problematic for the story, yeah.
00:07:03
Speaker 2: But there is a documentary coming out on Peacock, and so we don't know if part of him saying no is him trying to somehow sell his story or be able to tell it to the right outlet where he gets something for it. So... Yes, but he sat down, spoke with the New York Times, and as you pointed out, yes, gave detailed account about how his brother, who was again on the run, he had escaped from prison, and he said he left the apartment at 6 p.m. and he came back at midnight, said he was gone for six hours, and yes, came back with that bag containing a heavy object inside. He said he didn't look inside the bag, but yes, obviously everyone is jumping to that conclusion that The bloody knife was potentially in that bag along with O.J.
00:07:49
Speaker 3: Simpson's clothes.
00:07:50
Speaker 2: Apparently, he took off his clothes, also put it in this bag, and asked his brother to get rid of it.
00:07:56
Speaker 1: Sure thing. I'll get rid of it for you, brother. Where you been tonight?
00:08:00
Speaker 3: Said he didn't ask.
00:08:01
Speaker 2: Well, eventually, on a car ride later, he said he went to go help O.J.
00:08:05
Speaker 1: Simpson.
00:08:06
Speaker 2: Initially, he said he went to go help a friend, but then later he said went to go help O.J. And then, get this, to think that the murder weapon and... OJ Simpson's alleged bloody clothes along with his clothing was all dumped in a dumpster along Doheny Drive near a construction site about a block from OJ Simpson's house I believe is what they said or very close so to think police are running around trying to find this murder weapon and it was dumped near a construction site the night of never to be seen or found again okay.
00:08:40
Speaker 1: Help me with some math here baby um OJ was arrested how many days later?
00:08:49
Speaker 2: Was it?
00:08:50
Speaker 1: Several days. I want to say four.
00:08:51
Speaker 3: I want to say five.
00:08:52
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:08:52
Speaker 3: Somewhere around that range.
00:08:53
Speaker 1: But he was a suspect immediately, was he not?
00:08:55
Speaker 3: Yes, he was.
00:08:56
Speaker 1: Okay. So when did police, when would they have started searching all of his stuff, his house, canvassing that neighborhood? What I'm saying, Robes, the knife was always in the clothes, always a big deal. Yes. Robes, now you say this all the time. I got chills. Now, I got chills thinking that those items were in a dumpster close to OJ's house that very night. Yep. When did that thing get dumped? When did they start searching? Were they canvassing the other neighborhood and not where his house was? I don't know. But, Robes, the idea that that key piece of everything was in a dumpster up the street from OJ's house? Right.
00:09:43
Speaker 3: That is a crazy, crazy thought.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: That's a wild scenario.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: And even if you don't believe some of the unsealed documents, and even if you don't believe the brother, just remember, and this is an important point, in Simpson's own words, you remember he wrote that book, If I Did It. sat down with the ghostwriter, and the ghostwriter says he turned on the audio recorder, and this is how O.J. Simpson began the interview with the ghostwriter for this book. You know I couldn't have done this alone. That is chilling now, given these unsealed court documents.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: And look, it was.
00:10:20
Speaker 2: Described and published in the book that he had a friend who got rid of the murder weapon and his bloody clothes. But that account was just dismissed as fantasy, part of an effort for O.J. Simpson to sell books as he fictionalized this if I did it thing. But if you take him beginning his interview with the ghostwriter, you know I couldn't have done this alone, with the brother of this alleged accomplice, reiterating it, and now you've got court documents suggesting or stating that this man, this mafia associate, this drug runner... was willing to make a deal to lower or lessen his prison time to go ahead and snitch on O.J. And he snitched, by the way, in the following years on plenty of mafia bosses to the point where his own brother had an attempted murder attack on him.
00:11:14
Speaker 3: He was run over by members of the mob because they were.
00:11:17
Speaker 1: And shot, wasn't he?
00:11:17
Speaker 2: And shot, sorry, yeah, shot and run over because they were so pissed at his brother, they were trying to get back.
00:11:22
Speaker 3: at Joey Ippolito, so they went after his brother.
00:11:24
Speaker 1: At one point. Didn't Joey end up dying of natural causes?
00:11:27
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:11:27
Speaker 1: Isn't that crazy? Yes. After all this?
00:11:29
Speaker 3: After all that.
00:11:30
Speaker 2: I mean, just getting into this guy, yeah, he's now dead. But look, he was the son of a known member of the, I'm not going to be able to say this right, it's an Italian name.
00:11:39
Speaker 1: It's a Jersey Mafia.
00:11:40
Speaker 3: It's Jersey Mafia.
00:11:42
Speaker 2: De Cavalcanti, the De Cavalcanti crime family. But he was a professional cigarette boat racer in his off time.
00:11:49
Speaker 3: And he just kind.
00:11:50
Speaker 2: Of got this network of high profile friends in the circles he ran around. But he served three years for drug charges in 1981. Apparently he was helping traffic marijuana and cocaine to Long Island directly from Columbia. But he gets out after three years and says he's starting a new life in L.A., And that's when he starts this Italian restaurant in Santa Monica, starts hanging out with Al Cowlings, that's OJ's best friend, and they all became.
00:12:17
Speaker 1: The Bronco driver.
00:12:17
Speaker 3: The Bronco driver, yes.
00:12:19
Speaker 2: And look, he then gets sent back to prison in a federal sting. A jury found him guilty, more drug charges, gets sentenced to 10 years in prison, but escapes in 1994. Perfect timing for him to help a friend.
00:12:36
Speaker 1: Okay. The escape in 94 might be the highlight of his resume. That was kind of awesome. I don't give a... Look, there's no hardened criminal. He's not accused of... You know, he didn't have murder on his crime, right?
00:12:51
Speaker 3: Drug charges.
00:12:52
Speaker 1: Drug charges. Okay. Not saying it's not a victimless crime. But my point here is, Ropes, this guy, his attorney is the one that said it. His escape from prison... How did he escape? You think of all kinds of things. Prison escapes. You have to put on a different outfit. Did you overtake a guard? Rose, they say this dude called a private car. He walked out of prison to meet his car on time.
00:13:16
Speaker 3: Like a limo.
00:13:17
Speaker 1: And his attorney says it's the only escape known to man that was done by limousine. That just tells you something about this guy. That is the craziest detail. He walks out, gets into a limo, and it takes him away, and he escapes from prison.
00:13:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's out for months and months. They can't find him.
00:13:40
Speaker 1: What a fascinating... These are OJ's people.
00:13:46
Speaker 3: So, yes, it's one of these.
00:13:50
Speaker 2: I think there had been whispers, and certainly some people had heard this story. Clearly, some members of law enforcement wrote down these interviews and had a court seal these documents. What was the purpose of sealing these documents, is my question.
00:14:06
Speaker 1: They sealed them right then after the trial, after O.J. 's, like, I don't know. That I don't fully understand. But, Rose, at the time, are you really telling me? Rose, no, no. We are finding out if his story is true or not, I don't know. But this is true. There was a man willing to get on the stand and say, OJ gave me a heavy bag with bloody stuff on that night, and this is what I did with it. That witness existed?
00:14:35
Speaker 3: And the prosecution, Marsha Clark, says, who? What's his name? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
00:14:42
Speaker 1: I'd like to hear more.
00:14:43
Speaker 3: How is that possible?
00:14:46
Speaker 1: That's crazy.
00:14:46
Speaker 3: It is insane.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: When we come back, we're going to talk about OJ's former attorney and his executor of his estate. He has reacted to the New York Times article. And oh, yeah, there's this Fat Joe connection as well that we'll explain. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. This is a hell of a story that is unfolding maybe 30 years too late, but documents have been unsealed. People have been talking and now it looks like OJ Simpson may have had an accomplice and it may actually be the reason he got away with murder. Is it okay to say that? I mean, he was not convicted. He was found not guilty of murder. He was found liable. of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. But I guess we technically can't say that. We still have to say allegedly.
00:15:48
Speaker 1: You know what? Does the AP handbook, what is the standard on this? He wasn't convicted.
00:15:56
Speaker 3: He wasn't.
00:15:57
Speaker 1: So he's only an alleged. But when something like this happens, when it's widely understood, this is a unique case.
00:16:03
Speaker 2: It is.
00:16:03
Speaker 1: Does the AP say you always still have to refer to O.J. Simpson?
00:16:10
Speaker 3: As an alleged murderer.
00:16:12
Speaker 2: He was found criminally responsible for the deaths.
00:16:15
Speaker 1: You could say he's widely believed to have killed his wife.
00:16:17
Speaker 2: There we go.
00:16:18
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: He's widely believed to have killed his wife and Ron, his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Now, Malcolm Laverne was OJ Simpson's attorney. He is the executor of his estate. He is reacting today to the New York Times article. And look, he said he's acknowledged that. obviously, the public's fascination with this case. What do they call this, the trial of the century? Oh, yeah. I can't imagine a trial that, and we've had some doozies, that would rise to the level in terms of the whole world was watching.
00:16:51
Speaker 1: I think about the Michael Jackson trial. That's a heinous crime as well. But come on, we're missing something in our lifetime that was this big, that this much public fascination. It had to be something involved with murder. It had to be something that's that. Heavy.
00:17:05
Speaker 2: But you've got a celebrity. You've got a football player. You've got a beloved football player.
00:17:10
Speaker 1: He's a movie star.
00:17:11
Speaker 3: Yes, you've got a movie star.
00:17:12
Speaker 1: He's a, yeah.
00:17:13
Speaker 3: Yes, on top of the world.
00:17:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, biggest star we can come up with, yeah.
00:17:16
Speaker 2: I can't imagine something as significant and polarizing as that trial. But he warns that constantly revisiting the murders can be painful and even disrespectful to the victim's loved ones.
00:17:31
Speaker 3: Now, I get that.
00:17:32
Speaker 2: But Ron Goldman's family specifically, they have been painfully purposeful in making sure people still talk about this story. They aren't– I do think that's a little– all right, who are you talking about? Now, the pain for Simpson's children, totally acknowledge that. But I feel like everything we've heard from the Goldmans and even from Nicole Brown's sisters and family members, they're okay with people revisiting this when it points to the fact that OJ Simpson killed their loved ones. So I think the pain might be on the Simpson's children. Fine, I totally would grant you that. But I don't think it's disrespectful to the victim's loved ones. I think they're actually probably all for this.
00:18:18
Speaker 1: Tonally, maybe. Folks don't want to hear from OJ's estate having sympathy for the Goldman family.
00:18:25
Speaker 3: It seems a little disingenuous.
00:18:27
Speaker 2: And I'm not sure I'm buying that at all.
00:18:30
Speaker 3: And I'm saying that like I'm not buying it.
00:18:32
Speaker 2: But look, he points out that Nicole, Ron, and OJ are all dead, meaning none of them can offer their firsthand accounts of what happened that night.
00:18:41
Speaker 3: And truthfully.
00:18:42
Speaker 2: this alleged accomplice is also dead. So this is one of these situations where we may and probably won't ever fully know the truth.
00:18:51
Speaker 1: And the one guy talking that might have information sounds like he wants to get paid.
00:18:56
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:18:56
Speaker 1: The brother. So what can you believe there? It's tough.
00:19:01
Speaker 2: And what did you make? I was trying to make sense of this fat Joe. He did a.
00:19:05
Speaker 3: Podcast, right?
00:19:07
Speaker 2: And he.
00:19:08
Speaker 1: This was years ago.
00:19:09
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:19:09
Speaker 2: And so now everyone's kind of going back to this podcast where Fat Joe was talking about Joe Bentley, referring to this alleged accomplice. That's what he said they called him. They called him Joe Bentley because he owned so many Bentleys. Obviously being a drug, I don't know if was he a drug lord or just a drug pusher, but apparently it's fairly lucrative.
00:19:29
Speaker 3: A drug smuggler. This was, yeah, August 2025.
00:19:32
Speaker 2: So a year ago, He was talking about this on the Joe and Jada podcast. And look, I was trying to piece this together.
00:19:42
Speaker 3: This is what he said.
00:19:43
Speaker 2: He says, so the man tells me that when OJ Simpson was in the Bronco, he was in the airport with the private that OJ Simpson is his man.
00:19:50
Speaker 1: Right?
00:19:51
Speaker 2: He was the one waiting for him. The man telling me all this shit, I could not believe.
00:19:56
Speaker 3: Um, so he's.
00:19:58
Speaker 2: Talking about one day it's his wife's birthday. So he says, yo, we throw in her birthday party in my other house. Um, and he said, we go in there And O.J. Simpson is in the house when they come down to cut the cake. Joe Bentley puts the machete in O.J. 's hand and says, you did it, N, you did it.
00:20:17
Speaker 3: And then O.J.
00:20:17
Speaker 2: Starts chasing him around the house with a knife. What the actual, I don't even know what to make of that story.
00:20:25
Speaker 1: What the actual hell. That is so weird.
00:20:29
Speaker 3: They're like laughing about the knife.
00:20:31
Speaker 1: Like joking about that.
00:20:32
Speaker 3: As they're cutting a cake.
00:20:34
Speaker 2: For his wife, whose name happens to be Nicole. I mean, that's disgusting if that actually happened. It's actually like, look, whether you think OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson or not.
00:20:45
Speaker 3: Just joking.
00:20:45
Speaker 2: It's widely believed.
00:20:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's widely believed. And I'll just be honest, I believe it too.
00:20:50
Speaker 2: But the point being is, even if he didn't do it, even though he wrote a book, if I did it, the.
00:20:56
Speaker 3: Idea that you'd be laughing.
00:20:58
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:20:59
Speaker 2: About cutting a cake with a machete whose wife's name is Nicole, that's disgusting, period, regardless of whether or not he's guilty. But it adds to this whole lore that this guy, Joey Bentley, knew some stuff. And I wonder if O.J. Simpson knew that Joey Bentley was absolutely willing to testify against his such good friend.
00:21:25
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's a good question. It's just... Who was their best witness? Kato Kaelin?
00:21:34
Speaker 2: Right?
00:21:34
Speaker 1: Nobody else saw. They didn't have people up there. And I encourage everybody. What's the most recent O.J. Simpson documentary that's on? It's several parts. The newest one. Watch that thing from start to finish. You're going to hear information in that documentary I never heard before about people who saw things that night that the prosecution didn't call to testify. It's kind of unbelievable. Bro, this thing You're going to walk away going, oh, well, yeah, of course he did it. What are we doing here?
00:22:05
Speaker 2: Well, you already– I think a lot of folks who watched the trial religiously were already scratching their heads like how did the prosecution fumble this? Yes, I know we had the whole Mark Furman debacle and you had an unbelievable defense team there representing O.J.
00:22:20
Speaker 3: Simpson. But still, there was– they like to say, a mountain of evidence.
00:22:24
Speaker 2: I know DNA wasn't as widely understood then as it is now, but my God, there.
00:22:29
Speaker 3: Were bloody footprints. There was OJ's blood.
00:22:31
Speaker 2: There was DNA, a trail of evidence leading straight from Nicole Brown Simpson's place straight to OJ's. And somehow they still couldn't get a guilty verdict. And now we're hearing there was an accomplice who was willing to testify. And I don't know how it works. They had if you find out this information, I guess it never reached Marsha crosses, uh, Marsha Clark's, it never crossed Marsha Clark's desk.
00:22:56
Speaker 3: There I finally spit it out.
00:22:58
Speaker 2: But to think that there was someone waiting in the wings who had every incentive. And again, he snitched on a ton of people and put himself in crazy danger doing so to get himself out of jail.
00:23:09
Speaker 3: And it was effective.
00:23:11
Speaker 2: That's insane to think that he could have been the difference between guilty and not guilty.
00:23:16
Speaker 1: But he was up there and, He had incentive to lie, right? Johnny Cochran would have beaten him up, right? What did you get out of? When did you make a deal? So you've been lying your whole life. Oh, and then you turn around and you tell whatever story necessary to get your butt out of trouble, right? I mean, of course they would have gone at him.
00:23:31
Speaker 3: Maybe he wouldn't have shifted anything.
00:23:32
Speaker 1: Or he might have been compelling. Or he might have had detail of, yeah, then we did this, and then he gave me this, but then I saw this. He might have had details none of us have ever heard and could have known unless you were with OJ that night. Who knows? But to think nobody even talked to him to see what he had to offer is mind-blowing.
00:23:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, on the prosecutorial team, it doesn't sound like any of them were aware that he existed and was willing to talk And yes, that most recent O.J. Simpson documentary, just so folks know, it's called O.J. Unseen, Exploitation of Evil. And this one premiered September 7th, so this isn't the one. Sorry, that was the latest one on ID and Max. I was just looking for the latest one. You actually, this was one, American Manhunt, O.J.
00:24:17
Speaker 1: Simpson. I think that's the one.
00:24:19
Speaker 2: That was released January 29th, 2025. Oh, it's a four-part Netflix series, yes. That's what you're talking about, American Manhunt. OJ Simpson, a four-part Netflix docu-series. And I watched it with you.
00:24:32
Speaker 3: It is jaw-dropping.
00:24:33
Speaker 1: I was in Stockholm. We were in Stockholm.
00:24:35
Speaker 2: I was.
00:24:36
Speaker 1: We were done.
00:24:36
Speaker 3: We were there.
00:24:38
Speaker 1: Yes. But I was watching it kind of as you were getting ready or something on a couple of days. And I said, hey, I don't know if you did it. I don't know if you did it. One episode later, hey, baby. There is no question when you watch this thing. There is no question left.
00:24:52
Speaker 3: There's no question.
00:24:53
Speaker 2: If you had one.
00:24:54
Speaker 1: Ropes.
00:24:55
Speaker 3: I did not.
00:24:55
Speaker 1: It is crazy. As much as you know about the evidence, you're going to hear more. You're like, wow, that was more stuff?
00:25:02
Speaker 2: Well, and then you just start saying, why didn't the prosecution do this? I know it's easy to Monday morning quarterback a very exhaustive and extensive, I mean, this was what, an eight-month trial?
00:25:13
Speaker 1: This was a trial.
00:25:14
Speaker 2: I mean that just the idea of trying to present that much evidence and still getting it wrong. But look, this is going to be fascinating because that peacock documentary that is coming out in December, it's a green lit two part docu series and they, this, they solely are exploring the concept or the notion that OJ Simpson is did not.
00:25:33
Speaker 3: Act alone, that he had an accomplice.
00:25:35
Speaker 1: Is that the title of it?
00:25:35
Speaker 3: It's called OJ's Accomplice. Yeah.
00:25:38
Speaker 2: Yes, it's like tacos and tequila. You know what you're getting when you see this. But just given this New York Times article, these unsealed documents, and now the timing of this docu-series, this is going to be a pretty massive hit on Peacock.
00:25:50
Speaker 3: This is just the beginning. You're going to be hearing a lot about this. And I.
00:25:56
Speaker 2: I can't imagine what it's like for the Goldmans, what it's like for the Browns.
00:26:00
Speaker 3: This has to be gutting.
00:26:01
Speaker 2: And yes, for OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson's children, this is tough. But I think at a certain point when justice wasn't ever actually felt or received by those victims' families, I would think it would still feel validating to have people care about your loved ones and care about to set the record straight or at least to have more information about what really happened because there's been so much misinformation. I don't know if we'll hear from them directly. They've been quiet as of late. But look, over the years, they have been, they have, and just put yourself in their position. Of course you want your family member's legacy honored and you want their killer remembered for that, for being their killer.
00:26:47
Speaker 1: What was the series you just mentioned, Day of Robes?
00:26:52
Speaker 3: American Manhunt.
00:26:53
Speaker 1: I should mention that Ron Goldman's sister is in it. And Rose, it will bring tears to your eyes when you hear her because I think she was teary-eyed when she said it. People ask, why am I still talking? Why are we doing this interview? Because you wouldn't even talk about my brother if I wasn't here. I have to do this to keep his legacy alive. All you're going to do is talk about OJ. Damn.
00:27:15
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:27:16
Speaker 3: I just got chills from head to toe.
00:27:17
Speaker 1: That's what they're still dealing with. Yeah. And so I would hear them go, wait a minute, you're telling me somebody's still seeking justice for my brother or for my sister? And Rose, the police out there say this is an open case.
00:27:28
Speaker 2: You know what? That is such a good point. And that is where we are. L.A. police cold case investigators are still on this case. And reportedly with this new information- They're apparently making calls about potential leads. And this is the quote from the LAPD regarding all of this. The OJ Simpson case remains an open and ongoing investigation. And they say because there's never been a conviction. And that is just the truth of it. They say, quote, the department has an obligation to continue to pursue justice in this matter. At a point, new evidence is found. detectives follow those investigatory leads.
00:28:06
Speaker 1: Do they call it the OJ Simpson case?
00:28:08
Speaker 2: That is what they called it. I am quoting them.
00:28:10
Speaker 1: Isn't that interesting? Yes.
00:28:11
Speaker 3: It's not the Nicole Brown Simpson. It's not the Ron Goldman.
00:28:14
Speaker 1: It's supposed to be. But the fact that they even put the emphasis there, because he could never be tried again. No, he's dead now, but he could never be tried again. Essentially, that person, according to our government, according to our system, baby, is not responsible.
00:28:30
Speaker 3: Well, he was, yes, you're right. You're correct. And I'm curious, though, posthumously, what could be done? What could be decreed?
00:28:37
Speaker 2: It would just be perhaps foreclosure for the families? I'm fairly certain just about everybody knows what happened. We don't know maybe all the little details, but finding out how he got away with it, perhaps, is of some value.
00:28:53
Speaker 1: Yes, we are. An accomplice theory is one of the better theories to understand how he had time Rose, if he did this, he was a bloody mess.
00:29:06
Speaker 3: You see the pictures from the crime scene.
00:29:08
Speaker 1: He had to be a bloody mess.
00:29:10
Speaker 2: And he couldn't have done it on his own.
00:29:13
Speaker 3: My goodness.
00:29:13
Speaker 1: All right.
00:29:14
Speaker 2: Well, yes, this may just be the beginning, but.
00:29:18
Speaker 3: A bombshell.
00:29:20
Speaker 2: And I was just curious, I had this thought, just wanted to put this out there, what you thought. The whole reason why this has been sealed for 30 years, I'm curious, would part of it be to protect people, to protect people like this man? Although he died in 2006. This dude, this accomplice, alleged accomplice, died 20 years ago. But I just was wondering initially if it was sealed perhaps because he was cooperative, because he put so many other mafia members away through his information and through his testimony. Were they protecting him in a way from what information they gave him? I'm just curious what the whole point or purpose would be of sealing these documents.
00:29:57
Speaker 1: The purpose might have been A temporary one. And everybody forgot about it. And it stayed sealed because nobody bothered to go have any interest in looking at whatever might have been in there. I don't know. I really don't know. But this is, it's not done yet, baby. He's dead. Everybody's dead.
00:30:15
Speaker 3: Everybody's dead.
00:30:16
Speaker 1: And we still are trying to solve the mystery of what happened that night. It's wild.
00:30:22
Speaker 2: It's historic.
00:30:23
Speaker 1: It's so fascinating.
00:30:24
Speaker 2: We will stay on top of it, this 30-year murder mystery. It's not really a mystery, but certainly a 30-year case that still requires some information, some badly needed information for closure, perhaps. Maybe this is the only way to get closure for the victims' families, but we will.
00:30:41
Speaker 3: Stay on top of it.
00:30:42
Speaker 2: We always appreciate you listening to us, everyone. I'm Amy Robach, alongside TJ Holmes.
00:30:46
Speaker 3: We'll talk to you soon.
