Accomplice Theory

This theory was written before Petrocelli's Theory. I now believe that Petrocelli's Theory is closer to the actual truth about Simpson's accomplice.

Unknown Car at OJ's Home the night of the murders

OJ's House Alarm not armed before he left for the airport 

 

 

The Second Car

The Prosecution in the Criminal Trial understandably took the position that circumstantial evidence can be stronger evidence than direct evidence. Direct evidence such as eye witnesses sometimes make mistakes, they could possibly have been impaired or drunk or whatever.

The closest thing they had to direct evidence against OJ Simpson was his blood at the crime scene. Except...

Allan Park was an eye witness. He did provide direct evidence at OJ Simpson's estate. He provided the Prosecution with some of it's strongest evidence with damaging testimony against OJ Simpson.

 

 

Why then does the prosecution believe that Allan Park was mistaken when he testified again and again that there were two cars parked in the Rockingham driveway on the night of June 12,1994. Allan Park was not impaired or drunk or whatever.

The Prosecution and the Defense know that there were two cars parked in the Rockingham driveway on the morning of June 13, 1994. Arnelle Simpson testified she returned home from the evening before 1:00am and parked behind OJ's Bentley. Her car was still parked there when the police entered the estate later that morning. Arnelle Simpson

 

 

In the Civil Trial the Defense tried to suggest to Allan Park that maybe he thought there were two cars parked in the driveway that evening after seeing a photograph of Arnelle Simpson's car parked behind the Bentley.

Allan Park disagreed. In fact he had already testified earlier at the Preliminary Hearing to having seen two cars parked in the driveway. He had not seen the photograph of Arnelle Simpson's car until the Criminal Trial, some nine months later.

 

 

If Allan Park had testified he had recalled seeing two cars once that evening. you could make a strong case that he was mistaken...but Allan Park testified to seeing two cars twice that evening parked at Rockingham.

 

The first time from outside the Rockingham gate. After looking in at the two cars parked in the driveway he decided to go back to the Ashford gate to enter, as it would be easier than having to go around both vehicles.

The second time was from inside the estate when he observed the small dark bag behind the second car.

In addition he also drove past both vehicles when he exited the estate through the Rockingham gate.

Look at this...

 

If a second car was parked at Rockingham behind the Bentley when OJ left for the airport, as Allan Park testified, it was gone less than two hours later when Arnelle Simpson returned and parked her car behind the Bentley. Another witness was there... The Accomplice.

 

 

The Alarm

OJ left for the airport with Allan Park at 11:15pm. Kato let them out the Rockingham gate and returned to his room to continue his phone call. The alarm on OJ’s house was not armed. Approximately 25 minutes later OJ called Kato from the airport and gave him the code to set the Alarm. Kato then left his room and following OJ's instructions armed the front door alarm. Brian Kato Kaelin

This was the window of opportunity The Accomplice needed to leave the estate unnoticed.

 

 

Mistaken Testimony

All of Allan Park's testimony has been consistent from the Grand Jury to the Preliminary Hearing, the Criminal Trial, and the Civil Trial. (Including seeing two cars parked that evening) 

Kato Kaelin has also been consistent in all of his testimony. He did change the tone of his testimony from the Criminal Trial to the Civil Trial, believing OJ guilty, but he did not change the facts.

Was it mistaken testimony when Kato testified the small dark bag was behind the Bentley? Allan Park has always testified the small dark bag was behind the car behind the Bentley. In the Preliminary Trial Marsha Clark even marked the position of both cars on an exhibit of the Rockingham estate.

During deposition questioning Robert Baker pointed out to Kato that if the Bentley was parked in the cut out area of the Rockingham driveway, as it was the next morning, and if the small dark bag was right behind it, Kato wouldn't have been able to see the bag from where he said he saw it from. There would be too much open space behind it. He pointed out that the Bentley was parked so as to leave space behind it, to accommodate Arnelle's car which was not there. That being true, then maybe when Kato saw the small dark bag behind a car, it was not really behind the Bentley but behind the second car parked behind the Bentley. Maybe Kato was mistaken.

 

 

Who should we believe about how many cars were parked in the Rockingham driveway that evening? Do we believe Allan Park or do we believe Kato Kaelin.

If there were two cars parked in the driveway why didn’t Kato remember seeing them? He had walked past the driveway a half a dozen times that evening. Was he just unaware of some things...possibly because of his apprehension over the belief there might have been a prowler somewhere, after hearing bumps on the wall behind his room?

Or does Kato know there was another car there...but will not say.

 

 

The Accomplice

Who could the Accomplice be? OJ won't tell. Kato may or may not know. Al Cowlings may know but he has taken the 5th Amendment to anything that happened after the crime.

 

Other clues that point to an Accomplice.

How could OJ have enough time to commit the crime and get rid of his clothes and knife?

The Accomplice helped OJ by taking OJ's sweatsuit and shoes with him when he left.

OJ took the knife. Was the knife in the small dark bag? Both Allan Park and Kato Kaelin testified OJ picked up the small dark bag himself, but they did not see where he put it. In his deposition, OJ said he put the small dark bag in his golf bag in the trunk of the limousine. If we follow the trail of the golf clubs there was opportunity for OJ to get rid of the small dark bag at the Los Angeles airport, anytime in Chicago, or the unbelievable possibility not until after the golf clubs were brought back to Los Angeles from Chicago. Is that why when OJ returned from Chicago some people say he was more concerned about getting his golf clubs then seeing his young children?

The Defense believes that the testimony referring to the socks left on the carpet as being out of place in the normally neat bedroom suggested that they were planted by the police.

There is another explanation. The socks on the floor and the luggage straps left on OJ's bed could suggest that someone else other than OJ did leave the bedroom in that condition. Not the police, but the Accomplice.

 

 

Who Do You Believe?

Allen Park Kato Kaelin

 

Write to me

 

 

 

Arnelle Simpson 

 

CRIMINAL TRIAL MONDAY, JULY 10, 1995

MR. COCHRAN: So where was that car? Where did you traditionally park that car when you were home at the residence? Can you show us that?

MR. COCHRAN: She is pointing toward a red dot on People's 66 and it is above the words "Driveway" on the diagram.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell us is there a place on the diagram where the Bentley was normally parked, and that is the black Bentley you talked about earlier?

MR. COCHRAN: The Bentley, as I understand your testimony, would be in front; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So when you left the house on Sunday, June 12th, after you had come back from church, how did you leave? Did you leave in your car? How did you leave?

MS. SIMPSON: I left in my car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you did not return until what time?

MS. SIMPSON: Approximately around between 12:30 and 1:00.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that A.M.?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you been to a movie or something like that?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you returned home about 12:30 or 1:00; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

Back

 

Brian Kato Kaelin

 

 

Deposition-Tuesday, February 20, 1996

EXAMINATION: BY MR. ROBERT BAKER: 

Q: What did you discuss relative to the burglar alarm?

A: "Oh, you got to catch your flight," so he was in a hurry to catch his flight, and then that came right to the alarm.

Q: And what did he tell you about the alarm, if anything?

A: "Kato, set the alarm."

Q: Okay. And what did you say?

A: "I don't know the alarm code. I'd rather not do it."

Q: And what happened?

A: And so I thought he was setting the alarm, and I walked back outside to the driver, and then I saw that duffel bag, and I thought he had not packed it yet, so I started walking towards it.

Q: So where was this duffel bag now, Mr. Kaelin?

A: Duffel bag was right here (Indicating).

Q: Okay. Put a D where the duffel bag was.

A: There was a jetty of grass there. It was at the grass, the jetty of grass.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is that a D, Mr.--

THE WITNESS: Oh.

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER: Q: Now, was that the first time you saw that duffel bag?

A: No.

Q: You saw that duffel bag on the second trip around?

A: I believe so, yes.

Q: And on the second trip around it was sitting behind the Bentley. Right?

A: Well, the Bentley's parked here (Indicating). It was at the taillight, right about here (Indicating).

Q: Okay. Put where the taillight of the Bentley is. Just draw a straight line at the back of the Bentley automobile.

A: I was drawing it.

Q: Okay. Draw the whole vehicle.

A: I remember it being kinda like this (Indicating).

Q: Okay. Well, as a matter of fact, the Bentley was all the way into the notched area, wasn't it?

A: No. Just like that (Indicating).

Q: It was just sitting right in the middle of the driveway?

MR. PETROCELLI: He has not drawn it in the middle of the driveway. It's not fair. He is not drawing--

MR. ROBERT BAKER: I don't need your characterizations. Just make an objection, if you will, and be quiet.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's not accurate, Mr. Baker.

MR. ROBERT BAKER: Well, I think it's very accurate.

MR. PETROCELLI: He doesn't have the car in the middle of the driveway. It's inappropriate to say that. I object on that Basis.

MR. ROBERT BAKER: Well, your objection is duly noted and wrong.

Q: Now, draw the rest of the--just connect the lines, Mr. Kaelin, as to where the vehicle was. Just connect that. Yeah, just this back here from the back line to the vehicle.

A: What am I drawing here?

Q: Well, you've left off--there is a gap of a line.

(witness complies.)

Q: Okay. Now, that vehicle, the Bentley, then, would have been in an area where nobody could get by it--isn't that true?--the way you've drawn

A: No. I'm making it bigger. No, it's in there (Indicating). This is why I'm drawing it like that. No. The car got through--the limo got through, but I' m showing it that I still got out here (Indicating) with the hedge room.

Q: Okay. As a matter of fact, the vehicle was totally in the cutout area that's depicted on Exhibit 85. True or untrue?

A: It wasn't a perfect fit, but it was in most of this area, yes.

Q: As a matter of fact, the back behind-- Strike that. Behind the Bentley was an area of grass that kind of sloped down to the concrete in the driveway. Isn't that correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And so if you were standing over in an area in the front of the entrance way, you couldn't have seen anything, that is, a duffel, behind the Bentley. You'd agree with that?

A: I'm not following. I saw the duffel bag when I walked out.

Q: Okay. You walked out of the entrance.

A: Correct.

Q: The area between the driveway and the cutout where the Bentley is raised as contrasted to the driveway, is it not?

A: I'm sorry. I'm not following this question.

Q: Okay, fine. I'll be happy to re- phrase it. It's your testimony you walked out of the entranceway, and from an area in front of the entranceway you could see a duffel bag behind the Bentley. Is that correct, sir?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Let's take a break. We've been going, and he seems to be getting a little--you seem to be getting a little fatigued. I may be presumptuous in saying that, but let's take a 15-minute break.

Back

 

 

 

 

 

OJ SIMPSON -REPORT CARD

Execution of Crime: "C"

Mistakes made during execution: "F"

Time it took to commit: "A"

Denial of Crime: "A"

FINAL GRADE:

Criminal Trial: Life "Pass" Custody Trial: Children "Pass"

Civil Trial: Money "Fail"

 

 

"Doesn't it seem more likely that the clues that were

left behind were left by accident and the ones

that are missing are due to planning." Robert Becker

 

 

 

Return to Homepage     The Story

The Bundy murders.
*Evidence*
Conclusion
Crime Scene Photographs
    Overview
    Murder Timeline
        Marcia Clark's Plaintive Wail Theory
        Nicole's Neighbors
    Mysteries
        *The Smoking Gun*
     Petrocelli's Accomplice Theory
        *Arnelle Simpson's Lies*

    *OJ's Bronco*
    Answers
    Other Theories
    OJ Gossip
    Opinion's
    Alright OJ!
    For the Gullible
    Updated Simpson News
 

Osama bin Laden
Israel
Operation Iraqi Freedom
 

The Best Card Trick You Will Ever See
A Really Quick Intelligence Test
Psych Test
The Third Sniper
 
Great Downloads
Awards     Links     Write to me

 


 

Click Here!

 

Bob August bobaugust@lvcm.com