MovieChat Forums > O.J.: Made in America (2016) Discussion > Bruno Magli Shoes

Bruno Magli Shoes

posted 8 years ago by nihilistdude2000
8 replies | jump to latest

In the documentary, they show that in the OJ civil trial, they were able to prove that OJ owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, even though in his deposition he denied ever owning a pair (isn't that perjury, btw?) which I believe are really expensive and I thought they said that there were only 299 pairs of that particular shoe in the whole world.

Did the prosecution in the criminal trial never bring this up?? If not, huge miss on their part, how could they miss that?? That seems like the strongest piece of evidence I heard of the whole trial, unless the jury believes the bloody shoeprints with Bruno Magli shoes were also part of the framing of OJ Simpson.

[–] rmontro 8 years ago

Those pictures had not been found at the time of the criminal trial, they turned up later. Like you say, it's a pretty big bombshell. I wonder how the defense team would have dealt with that? Or if it would have made any difference with the jury?

[–] nihilistdude2000 8 years ago

If they knew the shoeprints were a particular Bruno Magli, and there were only 299 pairs of those particular shoes sold in the world, you would think they would have scoured the earth trying to find evidence that he owned or had purchased those shoes - how in the world could they miss that??

[–] bythelake123 8 years ago

If they knew the shoeprints were a particular Bruno Magli, and there were only 299 pairs of those particular shoes sold in the world, you would think they would have scoured the earth trying to find evidence that he owned or had purchased those shoes - how in the world could they miss that??

The prosecution did look for pictures of OJ wearing those shoes, but they didn't find any. It wasn't until midway through the civil trial that the photos surfaced. I don't know why they weren't found earlier though. I've read a lot of books on the criminal trial and the one on the civil trial written by Daniel Petrocelli (Fred Goldman's attorney for the civil trial) and it seems that witnesses and other evidence was much more forthcoming for the civil trial. I think part of it is that if a witness is served with a subpoena in a civil trial, they have to testify or else they are in contempt of court. So there are some things that the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the civil trial had that the prosecutors in the criminal trial did not.

[–] rmontro 8 years ago

The prosecution did look for pictures of OJ wearing those shoes, but they didn't find any

I'm not completely sure about this, but IIRC those photos were from some local shoot he had done in Buffalo, not a national thing. You might think that Buffalo would be an obvious place to look, but at the time of the murders he hadn't played for the Bills in a very long time.

[–] decarus427 8 years ago

There was no internet. That's how.

[–] Positively_Annoying 8 years ago

Oh and did Robert Kardashian get rid of the shoes later on?

[–] snowleopard 8 years ago

OJ very likely dumped them in the bag at the airport.

Kardashian had nothing to do with covering evidence up, despite popular belief. He pointed out more than once before his death he even tried to hand the garment bag to the police, who didn't want it at that time.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

Detective Tom Lange interviewed Dominique Brown and she said that OJ owned a pair, she had seem them several times and she would testify, Marcia Clark didn't care to hear it.