Exclusive: A new analysis of the known excerpts of Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary has determined that at least one entry is a forgery. The entry found to be fabricated is the most damaging material from Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary, which was purported to have been written days before the murders in 1994, and admitted as evidence in Fred Goldman’s wrongful death civil lawsuit against O.J. Simpson.
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Nicole Brown Simpson’s 1994 Diary Entry Was Forged
A recently completed analysis of the known excerpts from the diary of Nicole Brown Simpson has determined that at least one excerpt is a forgery. The entry found to be fabricated is the most damaging material from Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary, which was purported to have been written days before the murders in 1994, and admitted as evidence in Fred Goldman’s wrongful death civil lawsuit against O.J. Simpson.
Nicole Brown Simpson Diary Ruled Inadmissible During 1995 Criminal Trial
None of the entries purported to be from the diary of Nicole Brown Simpson were deemed to be admissible under California law in the 1995 criminal trial of O.J. Simpson. On January 11, 1995, prior to the start of the criminal trial, Judge Lance Ito held a hearing on a defense motion seeking to bar evidence of the alleged domestic violence at trial. Prior to the hearing the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office offered their response in the form with an 85-page document listing more than 50 allegations of abuse which they argued, despite most being hearsay, should be admitted as evidence. Included in this 85-page document were the portions of Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary the prosecution wanted admitted as evidence during Mr. Simpson’s criminal trial in 1995.
It is significant that the diary entry which was purported to be written by Nicole Brown Simpson just days before her murder was not included or referenced in the 85-page document and was never mentioned or even alluded to by either the prosecution or defense during the January 11, 1995 hearing or at any time during the criminal trial (not at hearings and not at sidebar discussions).
First Known Mention of the 1994 Entry
In fact, the first mention of the diary entry purported to be written by Nicole Brown Simpson just days before her murder was not by prosecutors during Mr. Simpson’s criminal trial but by the National Enquirer following Mr. Simpson’s acquittal in October 1995.
The following is an excerpt from an October 17, 1995 Associated Press article about the National Enquirer story:
Nine days before she was slashed to death, Nicole Brown Simpson wrote in her diary that O.J. Simpson had warned her, “You hang up on me last nite, you’re gonna pay for this, (expletive),” the National Enquirer reported this week.
As for the source of the documents published by the National Enquirer, a CNN.com report published the same day stated:
The Enquirer said it got a copy from someone “concerned about battered women’s issues.” It would not say if it paid for the diary.
CNN; October 17, 1995.
Mr. Goldman Goes to Sacramento to Change the Law
In order for the purported entries from Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary to be admitted into evidence in Fred Goldman’s wrongful death civil lawsuit against O.J. Simpson the State of California would have to change the hearsay laws. That is exactly what happened. Following Mr. Simpson’s acquittal, Fred Goldman successfully lobbied the California legislature to enact changes to §1370 of the California Evidence Code in the form of a new hearsay exception and Goldman encouraged the legislature to do so prior to Mr. Simpson’s civil trial. The California legislature passed a bill to permits certain written or recorded statements of unavailable victims to be admitted as evidence in civil or criminal cases. Unlike most legislation, the California legislature made the evidentiary statute effective immediately in order to permit the admission of relevant evidence of physical abuse in various upcoming criminal and civil proceedings. The bill was signed by then-Governor Pete Wilson on September 4, 1996.
The legislative action is expected to clear the way for the admission of diaries kept by Nicole Brown Simpson, in the civil trial of OJ Simpson, set to begin in September .”
If the law had not been changed, the purported diary entries would have been inadmissible in the Goldman family’s civil lawsuit against Mr. Simpson. However, thanks to Fred Goldman’s lobbying efforts, the new law was enacted and his legal team was able to use hearsay evidence in his lawsuit against Mr. Simpson.
The purported diary entries, most notably the entry allegedly written just days before the murders, were significant in reinforcing the plaintiff’s narrative that the murders were a result of escalating domestic abuse. Without the change to the law which enabled the admission of the alleged diary entry from late-May/early-June 1994 and other hearsay evidence also deemed admissible because of the newly changed law, there would be no evidence or testimony regarding allegations of domestic abuse after January 1, 1989 that could be presented during the civil trial; thus negating the narrative that the murders were a result of ongoing and escalating domestic violence.
2016: All Known Alleged Diary Entries are Published by Radar Online
In 2016 Radar Online, which like the National Enquirer is owned by American Media, published the most comprehensive compendium of excerpts from Nicole Brown Simpson diary entries to date. In fact, to our knowledge the content published by Radar Online includes all entries that were mentioned during the civil trial and all entries published by the National Enquirer in 1995. In short, Radar Online published every diary entry known to exist.
Radar Online’s article presented images of the purported diary entries in a slideshow consisting of 27 slides. Each slide presented one excerpt on the left (L) side and one excerpt on the right (R ) side. It is important to understand that the content included in Slides 2 through 10 is repeated out of order on Slides 11 through 27 (a slide-by-slide reference table explaining this can be found at the end of this article).
The unique content (presented on Slides 2-10) consists of:
- Handwritten Letter 1 from Nicole to O.J. (Slides 2 – 5)
- Handwritten Letter 2 from Nicole to O.J. (Slide 6)
- A List of Dates with Blurbs (Slide 7)
- A Curiously Edited Blurb (Slide 8L)
- Diary Entry 1 Dated January 10, 1988 (Slide 8R and Slide 9)
- Diary Entry 2 Dated late-May/early-June 1994 (Slide 10L)
Key Takeaways About the Alleged Diary Content:
- It is significant that, with only one exception, all of the content is dated prior to May 1989 and references events which occurred between 1978 and 1989.
- There is no content that makes reference to or is dated between May 1989 and May 1994 – a five year gap in alleged diary entries.
- The only content purported to be written after May 1989 is Slide 10L which was allegedly written between late-May 1994 and June 2, 1994.
- It is also notable that at no time during the criminal trial did prosecutors acknowledge the existence of or attempt to have admitted into evidence the purported 1994 diary entry.
Examining the Alleged 1994 Diary Entry (Slide 10L)
Slide 10L (above) is the only slide published by Radar Online to be reduced by 50-percent and rotated; for all other multiple-page material each page was allotted half of a slide and was not rotated as shown in this example:
Here is Slide 10L (1994 entry) enlarged to the size of the other content and rotated to match the presentation of all of the other content:
There is a dramatic difference in the appearance of the writing in Slide 10L when compared to the other content included in the documents published by Radar Online; however only a handwriting expert could validate or debunk what seems obvious to the naked eye.
Slide’s 10L’s Content Is Provably False
However it is not the handwriting but the content of the purported entries which establishes the entry to be a complete fabrication and not written by Nicole Brown Simpson.
The entry purported to be written by Nicole Brown Simpson on May 28, 1994 states:
“O.J. said he couldn’t take the kids this weekend but… He had them spend the nite Friday nite & then again Monday nite May 31. & took them to school. Sat & Sunday they were with me (Flintones, arcade, miniature golf).”
Could Nicole simply be confused/wrong about the date?
Absolutely not. Here’s why:
- The first purported entry was allegedly written on Sunday, May 22, 1994 and the subject of the entry is Nicole and O.J. officially splitting up.
- The entry after the May 28, 1994 entry was written on Friday, June 3, 1994.
- “Nicole” was writing about the Friday after the breakup and prior to Friday, June 3rd; the only Friday that occurred between the break-up and the June 3rd entry was dated May 28, 1994 and is referencing events on Friday, May 27, 1994.
With this knowledge, there should be no question that “Nicole” wrote that the kids were with O.J. and slept over at Rockingham on Friday, May 27, 1994 and O.J. dropped the kids off at Nicole’s condo on Saturday, May 28, 1994.
Fact: O.J. was not in Los Angeles on Friday, May 27 or Saturday, May 28, 1994.
Memorial Day weekend fell between Friday, May 27 and Monday, May 30 in 1994.
In her book The Other Woman, My Years with O.J. Simpson: A Story of Love, Trust, and Betrayal (1997) Paula Barbieri writes about Memorial Day weekend 1994 on page 122:
O J. wanted to go to Palm Springs for Memorial Day weekend and coaxed me into coming with him. I didn’t see much point in the trip; I didn’t see what it could change. I was stuck at work Friday till midnight, shooting a cable television comedy called The Newz, in which I played a sadistic dentist. By the time we got into Palm Springs, at 2:30 a.m., I was exhausted. But I was looking forward to the morning. Maybe we’d have a special breakfast and a chance to weigh the burning issue of the day: why two intelligent people in love couldn’t work things out. No such luck. O.J. was up with the birds for his golf game, and I threw a fit. Once I’d seen his golf mania as an annoying but harmless quirk. Now it represented all the distance between us, everything that was wrong. I had a lot of time to myself that morning. Time can turn doubts into shadows and big, scary things. I brooded about the past and all of O.J.’s lies. I’d wanted to start fresh and forget. But now I realized, again, that it wasn’t possible. When O.J. finally came back to our room, I told him, “Look, I just can’t do this.”
Paula Barbieri “The Other Woman: My Years With O.J. Simpson” Little Borwn, 1997. Page 122.
Since O.J. Simpson was not in Los Angeles, but in Palm Springs, on the evening of Friday, May 27, 1994 or anytime on Saturday, May 28, 1994 it would be impossible for Justin and Sydney Simpson to be with their father that night or return them to Nicole on Saturday morning.
There are several factors that allowed us to deem Miss Barbieri’s book to be credible:
- No ghostwriter was used— Barbieri actually wrote the book herself; these are her own words.
- The book was written after Miss Barbieri ended her relationship with O.J. Simpson in the months following his acquittal in 1995.
- Miss Barbieri provides specific details (dates, locations, events, etc) throughout the book and we were able to verify all of the details we checked using: court transcripts, published reports, paparazzi photos, etc.
- The Other Woman is not a pro-O.J. or anti-O.J. book; Miss Barbieri does not sugarcoat anything — her story includes the gritty details and blemishes which gives the book a feeling of realness and authenticity.
We were able to verify several key details included in the excerpt from Paula Barbieri’s book were able to be confirmed, most importantly the filming dates of the television show The Newz.
Barbieri is writing about Memorial Day weekend, an American holiday weekend that is considered to be the unofficial start to summer. It is traditionally a weekend that people host or go-to barbecues, take trips/short vacations or visit friends or family. Memorial Day and July 4th are two holidays that if asked, more people than not will be able to tell you how they spent those holidays.
Frankly, the absence of any mention of the weekend of May 27-30, 1994 being the Memorial Day holiday weekend (No mention of any plans that she may have needed to change because O.J. couldn’t have the children on Saturday or Sunday. No mention of Memorial Day weekend activities or seeing friends or family.) also are noticeably absent from “Nicole’s” entry about that weekend.
For these reasons and others, one can conclude beyond any doubt that the entry purported to have been written by Nicole Brown Simpson in late-May/early-June 1994 was fabricated by unknown person(s).
- It is quite significant that at no time during a hearing or sidebar throughout the criminal trial was the alleged 1994 entry mentioned.
- The alleged 1994 entry was not among the items turned over by prosecutors as discovery during the criminal trial.
- The first known mention of or reference to the alleged 1994 entry was by the National Enquirer in mid-October 1995 (after Mr. Simpson’s acquittal).
- The alleged 1994 entry was provided to the National Enquirer by someone “concerned about battered women’s issues.”
- After the verdict the Goldman family successfully lobbied the California legislature to enact changes to §1370 of the California Evidence Code in the form of a new hearsay exception and Goldman encouraged the legislature to do so prior to Mr. Simpson’s civil trial.
- As a result of the changes to the law, the Goldman family was able to use the content purported to be from Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary against Mr. Simpson in their civil lawsuit.
- The introduction of the 1994 entry into evidence in the civil trial allowed the Goldman’s attorneys to present a narrative of escalating abuse resulting in murder. (Which would not have been possible without the change to the law).
- Despite being a fabrication and factually incorrect, the alleged 1994 entry was allowed into evidence by Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki.
The Revelation that the 1994 Entry was Fabricated Raises Several Important Questions:
- Did Goldman family attorney Daniel Petrocelli knowingly use false evidence in the civil case against Mr. Simpson?
- What was the authentication process for the content purported to be from Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary?
- Why didn’t the authentication process include fact-checking dates and locations to determine if the content was legitimate?
- What was the chain of custody of the purported diary entries?
- Since it is clear that Nicole Brown Simpson did not write the 1994 diary entry, who did write it?
- Does the use of false evidence negate the verdict in the civil lawsuit against Mr. Simpson?
- If the use of false evidence does not negate the civil verdict, does it compel the State of California to grant Mr. Simpson an appeal of the verdict without having to post bond?
- Why would the sender (Nicole Brown Simpson) of a handwritten letter mailed/delivered to the recipient (O.J. Simpson) maintain the original, handwritten letter?
This is a startling revelation to say the least. The fact that one entry from Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary was fabricated calls into question all of the other material purported to be from the diary.
No American should have false evidence used against them in criminal or civil trials. If the process to authenticate the content purported to be from Nicole Brown Simpson’s diary was so obviously flawed, how can one not question the authentication of other evidence used in the civil lawsuit such as the other hearsay testimony allowed in due to the change in the law or photographs of shoes.
Slide By Slide Breakdown of the Content Included in Radar Online’s Slideshow of Material Allegedly from Nicole Brown Simpson’s Diary:
Letter 1 to OJ: Slides 2 – 5
2L – “OJ I think I have to”
2R – “All the time”
3L – “some things you learned in school”
3R – “I gained 10 to 15 pounds”
4L – “Esteem because”
4R – “I hated you so much”
5L – “Incident”
5R – “It certainly”
Letter 2 to OJ: Slide 6
6L – “O Jay After All these Years”
6R – “that I want a million dollars”
Listing of Dates: Slide 7
7L – “1978” Listing of Dates
7R – “Europe” Listing of Dates
Edited Blurb: Slide 8 Left
8L – Edited AC Blurb
Diary Entry 1: Slide 8 Right to Slide 9
8R –Dated January 10 1988
9L – “to happen that they” from Jan 10 1988
9R – “was telling AC” from Jan 10 1988
Diary Entry 2 on 1994: Slide 10 Left
10L – 1994 Entry
10R = 2R (Letter 1)
11L = 4L (Letter 1)
11R = 5R (Letter 1)
12L = 3R (Letter 1)
12R = 3L (Letter 1)
13L = 2R (Letter 1)
13R = 6L (Letter 2)
14L = 9R (Diary Entry 1)
14R = 9L (Diary Entry 1)
15L = 4R (Letter 1)
15R = 5L (Letter 1)
16L = 10L (Diary Entry 2)
16R = 8R (Diary Entry 1)
17L = 8L (Edited Blurb)
17R = 7L (Listing of Dates)
18L = 7R (Listing of Dates)
18R = 6R (Letter 2)
19L = 8R (Diary Entry 1)
19R = 10L (Diary Entry 2)
20L = 9R (Diary Entry 1)
20R = 9L (Diary Entry 1)
21L = 2R (Letter 1)
21R = 2L (Letter 1)
22L = 3R (Letter 1)
22R = 3L (Letter 1)
23L = 4R (Letter 1)
23R = 4L (Letter 1)
24L = 5R (Letter 1)
24R = 5L (Letter 1)
25L = 7R (Listing of Dates)
25R = 7L (Listing of Dates)
26L = 6L (Letter 2)
26 R = 8L (Edited Blurb)
27L = 6R (Letter 2)
27R = Blank Slide