Tales From The OJ Simpson Civil Trial • The Anonymous Caller

Following the acquittal of OJ Simpson in October 1995, Fred Goldman was so bloodthirsty that, instead of playing by the rules, he left his regular day job to head up a reactionary “victims” organization with one goal: to change California’s hearsay laws to benefit his side in the OJ Simpson Civil Trial. Fred Goldman’s campaign to change California’s hearsay laws was successful and enabled his attorneys to gain admission of questionable evidence that were deemed inadmissible during the criminal trial; including Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary (which, as we detailed on July 11, 2017 and July 19, 2017, contained at least two fabricated entries) and an anonymous caller to a battered woman’s hotline.

The Anonymous Caller

At 11:00 AM on June 7, 1994, five days before Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered, a woman called a Los Angeles-based battered woman’s hotline and tells the crisis line worker that she is living in fear because her ex-husband is stalking and threatening her.

 

“She said that when she went to a restaurant, she would be sitting there and he’d be sitting — she’d turn around, and he’d be there staring at her.”

 

“She would go to the market; he’d be there in the next aisle, looking at her.”

 

“She’d be driving down the street; she’d look in the rearview mirror, he’d be there.”

 

“She said that he had told her a few different times that if he ever caught her with another man, he would kill her.”

 

The crisis hotline worker asks the anonymous caller her name, the woman tells the counselor that her name is ‘Nicole’ and claims her abuser is famous.

 

The crisis line worker claims that the anonymous caller said her ex-husband “had told her a few different times that if he ever caught her with another man he would kill her.”

 

The crisis line worker did not take notes during the call, she wrote her notes about the anonymous caller “about two weeks after the murder.”

Nancy Ney Sojourn Domestic Violence Hotline OJ Simpson OJSimpson.co
In 1994 Nancy Ney was a Sojourn board member and domestic violence hotline volunteer.

The crisis hotline worker was Nancy Ney, a member of the Board of Directors of the Sojourn House; a Los Angeles-based battered women’s shelter and domestic abuse hotline.

Sojourn Los Angeles Domestic Violence OJ Simpson OJSimpson.coIn fact, Mr. Simpson’s plea agreement in the 1989 case included a $500 donation to Sojourn House.

 

The battered woman’s hotline cannot produce phone records to establish that the call occurred. The call sheet, which the counselor wrote her notes about the call, is dated May 7 but that date is crossed out and replaced with the date June 7.

 

EXAMINING NANCY NEY’S TESTIMONY

Simpson Attorney Robert Baker OJ Simpson OJSimpson.Co
Mr. Simpson’s Attorney Robert Baker

Each Sojourn hotline worker is required to complete a call sheet for each call received. The following are Nancy Neys responses to Mr. Simpson’s attorney Robert Baker’s questions on December 4, 1996 regarding the call sheet she completed for the anonymous caller who claimed her name was ‘Nicole’:

 

The Anonymous Caller’s Ethnicity:

Robert Baker: You, in the ethnicity, you testified here this morning, that was Caucasian, right?

Nancy Ney: Right.

Robert Baker: You didn’t circle anything relative to the ethnicity, did you?

Nancy Ney: No, I didn’t.

 

The Anonymous Caller’s Age:

Robert Baker: Now, you said that the victim’s age was mid-thirties, did you not?

Nancy Ney: I did.

Robert Baker: You didn’t put anything in there relative to mid-thirties, did you?

Nancy Ney: No.

Robert Baker: And nothing in the subsequent, two-week later notes have anything about age in them either, do they?

Nancy Ney: No.

 

Ms. Ney’s Knowledge of the Murders:

Robert Baker: And by the way, by the time you filled out the notes that were two weeks later, you had read about the murders; you had seen the media barrage about the murders, correct?

Nancy Ney: I suppose so, sure.

 

The Ages of the Anonymous Caller’s Children:

Robert Baker: And when you say you had heard about the ages of the children, you remember testifying

Nancy Ney: Yes um-hum.

Robert Baker: — earlier this morning?

Nancy Ney: Yes.

Robert Baker: You heard about the ages in the newspaper, didn’t you?

Nancy Ney: Yes. But can I answer?

Robert Baker: You’ve answered the question. Let’s go on up. I want to show you some more of the forms that you filled out.

Robert Baker: My question, ma’am, is: You knew the ages of the children from your conversation — from your looking at the news media before you ever talked to Marcia Clark in August of 1994?

Nancy Ney: That’s not true. Well, I did know. Where I get the ages of the children are from my recollection of the phone call.

Robert Baker: And the — you didn’t — Even in your subsequent notes that you say were done two weeks later, you didn’t put the ages of the children in, did you? They’re right in front of you. Take a look.

Nancy Ney: No. I agree that I didn’t.

 

Regarding the Length of the Anonymous Caller’s Relationship:

Robert Baker: Now, down here, on — pull it up, please, where it says (indicating to Elmo) abuser and length of relationship.

Nancy Ney: Um-hum.

Robert Baker: Now, length of relationship is right next to length of marriage, isn’t it?

Nancy Ney: Right.

Robert Baker: The length of the relationship of Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, in 1994, was what, 17 years?

Nancy Ney: I have no idea

Robert Baker: Now, move the form over. And you put nothing relative to married number of years, did you?

Nancy Ney: No.

Robert Baker: And yet you testified that, in fact, they were married eight years, did you not?

Nancy Ney: I did testify that –

Robert Baker: In fact, in 1994, they hadn’t been married eight years, because they were divorced in 1992, they’d been married seven years; isn’t that right?

Nancy Ney: I guess so.

Daniel Petrocelli: That’s eight, Your Honor.  February 1985 to October of 1992.

Robert Baker: Maybe that’s new math.  In any event, I’ll swear Mr. Petrocelli in; we’ll put him on the stand. In any event, Your Honor, the — you didn’t put down one thing about there how long they were married in the form, where it calls for that information, true?

Nancy Ney: Wrong place. I put it — I mean, I was not — I put it in a spot that I shouldn’t have put it in.

Robert Baker: And the length of the relationship — whether a person is married or not married, the length of the relationship is far more significant than — than the length of the actual marriage, is it not?

Nancy Ney: She — Probably.

Robert Baker: And if, in fact, they’ve been living together some six, seven, eight years, whatever it was before they were married, and they were together, that’s a more significant statistic for the purpose that you were receiving this call than the length of the actual, legal, marital relationship, is it not?

Nancy Ney: I had — well, I had —

Robert Baker: Is it not?

Nancy Ney: For the purpose of what I was talking to her about?

Robert Baker: Sure. Talking about with this person whether or not there are acts of violence and — and whether or not she’s in jeopardy, and that relates not only to whether she’s physically near the person who may be the batterer, but how long this has been going on, true?

Nancy Ney: True.

Robert Baker: And whether or not there’s been an escalating nature of violence, correct?

Nancy Ney: Yeah. She told me that.

Robert Baker: Well, we’ll get into that. Now, so the length of the relationship, you never put down anyplace, and as far as you’re concerned, the length of the relationship being eight years is really the length of the marriage, right?

Nancy Ney: In my mind, that was the length of the marriage.

Robert Baker: Can you — well — and you never put down anyplace, the length of the relationship; you just made an error and put down the length of the relationship, eight years, correct?

Nancy Ney: Correct.

 

Regarding the Anonymous Caller’s Problem:

Robert Baker: Now, on the back of the form, right where you flip over on the same sheet of paper you were writing on —

Nancy Ney: Um-hum.

Robert Baker: — it says “presenting problem,” right?

Nancy Ney: Right.

Robert Baker: And you left that blank, correct?

Nancy Ney: Correct.

Robert Baker: And did you normally fill out only the front page of the form when you were manning the hot lines?

Nancy Ney: Very frequently, that would be all that would be filled out.

Robert Baker: And then you went back two weeks later, you say, and put in what was the presenting problem, correct?

Nancy Ney: There’s no presenting problem.

Robert Baker: Well, on your notes, your hand —

Nancy Ney: Oh, yeah, ’cause I remember what she said.

No Claim of Stalking On the Call Sheet or or Notes Made 2 Weeks Later

Robert Baker: So you — you remembered two weeks later that the presenting problem was this purported stalking and spying on her, right?

Nancy Ney: I remembered since the phone call, yes.

Robert Baker: The purported problem was this stalking and following her around, right?

Nancy Ney: Yes.

Robert Baker: And there’s nothing mentioned in here about anything in restaurants, nothing in here, even in your — in your two-week-later notes about —

Nancy Ney: Well –

Robert Baker: — market, and there’s nothing in here about being in the car and seeing you in the — seeing you in the rearview mirror when driving; you would agree with that?

Nancy Ney: I would.

 

No Mention of Threats On the Call Sheet or Notes Made 2 Weeks Later

Robert Baker: Well, this sheet that we have now on the monitor is the only sheet you wrote contemporaneous with the phone call, correct?

Nancy Ney: Correct.

Robert Baker: You didn’t write that she was threatened, did you?

Nancy Ney: No. No, I didn’t.

Robert Baker: And the fact if someone is threatened when they’re calling in, that’s significant to you, is it not?

Nancy Ney: Certainly it was.

Robert Baker: That would be the most significant thing about the caller who was calling in, if in fact they are threatened, would it not be?

Nancy Ney: Probably, yes.

Robert Baker: And if, in fact, somebody related to you that they were threatened, that’s something you would want to include in the form, to make it complete, true?

Nancy Ney: I suppose — Well, this form —

Robert Baker: Can you answer my question, please.

Nancy Ney: Technically, yes.

The Claim ‘If I Catch You With Another Man, I’ll Kill You’ Does Not Appear On the Call Sheet or Notes Made 2 Weeks Later

Robert Baker: You said that the caller had said to you that — in questions that you were asked this morning by Mr. Gelblum, that if she was with another man, her ex-husband would kill her, correct?

Nancy Ney: Correct.

Robert Baker: Now, that is something that is very, very significant in the line of work that you’re in, is it not?

Nancy Ney: It is.

Robert Baker: I mean that is a threat of death to another human being, true?

Nancy Ney: True.

Robert Baker: And that is the most significant thing, according to what you’ve testified here today, that was told to you in this purported telephone call of June 7, 1994, correct?

GELBLUM: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Nancy Ney: When she told me about —

Robert Baker: No, no, no. I asked you about, if in fact, that was the most important thing that was told to you in this 20-minute phone conversation, a threat of death to the caller?

Nancy Ney: It was very important, yes.

Robert Baker: And it does not appear anywhere on either your contemporaneous form or your two week later form, does it?

Nancy Ney: Can I explain?

Robert Baker: Can you answer the question?

Nancy Ney: No, it doesn’t.

Robert Baker: And did you ever ask her, for example, if she was with another man, since the threat was linked to her being with another man?

Nancy Ney: Oh, sure.

Robert Baker: That doesn’t appear anywhere on either your contemporaneous form or your two week later additional form, does it?

Nancy Ney: No.

 

Click Here To Read The Full Transcript of Nancy Ney’s Testimony

 

Analysis of the Testimony of Nancy Ney

 

Biographical Inconsistencies

There are several inconsistencies between the biographical details testified to by Nancy Ney and the true details of Nicole Brown Simpson’s life.

 

One example: Ms. Ney wrote on the form that the anonymous caller had been in a 8 year relationship with her ex, whereas O.J. and Nicole had been in a 17-year relationship.

 

The Claim ‘If I Catch You With Another Man, I’ll Kill You’

The anonymous caller told Nancy Ney that her ex-husband threatened her, saying ‘If I Catch You With Another Man, I’ll Kill You!’ This claim does not mesh with the documented examples of O.J.’s reactions to Nicole being with another man.

Keith Zlomsowitch Nicole Brown Simpson OJ Simpson Relationship

The article Keith Zlomsowitch’s Adventures in Embellishment recounts Mr. Zlomsowitch’s testimony regarding Mr. Simpson’s reaction to catching Nicole performing felacio on him. After seeing his ex-wife servicing Zlomsowitch Mr. Simpson did not fly into a murderous rage, he did not yell and scream; he went home pouting. When Mr. Simpson saw Zlomsowitch the next day, instead of threatening him or yelling at him; he shook hands with him and said “No hard feelings.”

 

Following their divorce Nicole Brown Simpson dated several men and there have never been credible accusations that O.J. ever threatened her or the men she dated.

 

With this knowledge, it is difficult to believe that the anonymous caller who said her name was ‘Nicole’ is Nicole Brown Simpson.

 

Conclusion

It is important to note that Sojourn could not produce any telephone records to establish that the call from anonymous caller who told Nancy Ney her name was ‘Nicole’ was made from 875 S Bundy Drive or any other phone number connected to Nicole Brown Simpson.

 

Nancy Ney contacted LAPD in August 1994 regarding the anonymous call she allegedly received on June 7, 1994.

 

Judge Ronald Schoenberg OJ Simpson OJSimpson.co
Judge Ronald Schoenberg presided over the domestic violence case in 1989.

Even before Ms. Ney contacted LAPD there was a connection between Sojourn and O.J. Simpson. In May 1989, Mr. Simpson plead no contest to the charges associated with the New Year’s Day 1989 incident. Included in the terms of West Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald Schoenberg’s sentence was that Mr. Simpson donate $500 to Sojourn.

 

The cover story of the Thursday, September 8, 1994 edition of the Los Angeles Times was an extensive profile of Sojourn. The article included multiple references to the ongoing O.J. Simpson case. It is important to note that the media was unaware of Nancy Ney’s claim until long after the Times published their cover story about Sojourn.

 

With domestic violence thrust into the spotlight in the summer of 1994, the media would regularly interview representatives from Sojourn to discuss domestic violence given the donation that Judge Schoenberg ordered Mr. Simpson to make to them in May 1989.

 

Sojourn did benefit from their connection to Mr. Simpson, and rightfully so. In 1977 Sojourn opened what was the second shelter ever opened in Southern California for victims of domestic violence. For over 40 years, Sojourn has provided best-in-class services to victims of domestic abuse and the victim’s children. Sojourn provides incredible services to those most in need. If their donations increased because of their connection to Mr. Simpson, more power to them – Sojourn actually uses their donations to expand their offerings to better help those in need.

 

Sojourn Domestic Violence Hotline OJ Simpson OJSimpson.co

Learn more about Sojourn here.

 

As much as one admires the fine work of Sojourn, the testimony of Nancy Ney is full of serious inconsistencies and factual errors. If not for Fred Goldman’s successful lobbying of the California legislature to change the hearsay laws, Nancy Ney’s damaging testimony, full of serious credibility issues, would not be admitted into evidence in the civil trial.

Fred Goldman OJ Simpson OJSimpson.co
Fred Goldman, Successful Lobbyist.

The far-reaching implications of Mr. Goldman’s successful lobbying efforts have been to enshrine into California law a violation of a defendant’s rights under both the United States Constitution and State of California’s Constitution to confront witnesses against him [or her]. Additionally, Mr. Goldman’s efforts have significantly lowered the bar in terms of the credibility of evidence that is now ruled as being admissible. Thanks to Mr. Goldman’s successful, selfish lobbying effort rumor and innuendo can be used against defendants in the State of California.

Questions, Comments?

We Welcome Your Feedback.  Feel Free To Email The Author Or Connect With Us On Social Media.  Follow Brian Heiss On Twitter: @BrianHeiss

 

You Might Also Like

The Shadowy Figure that the Limo Driver Saw

O.J. Simpson & Domestic Violence Part 7: What Did We Learn?