O.J. Simpson's former attorney revealed on May 17 more than one person was likely involved in the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
In an interview with journalist Megyn Kelly, Simpson’s lawyer in the former NFL player's famous murder trial -- 73-three-year-old Robert Shapiro -- stated there is a strong possibility this second person exists and has never faced trial, the Daily Mail reports.
He did not disclose further details on this person or what exactly led him to believe this.
He only explains that it is a likely a second knife was involved in the murders, and that he saw some evidence pointing to an accomplice.
“O.J. Simpson has enormous hands and I knew that the glove would not fit him. No question about it. Wouldn’t even be close,” Shapiro said of a glove allegedly used in the murders.
The glove would later help turn the tide in Simpson’s favor.
In the same interview, he also reveals what O.J. Simpson whispered in his ear shortly after a judge declared him not guilty in the infamous 1995 case.
Since the trial, those words have remained a mystery to the public, with many speculating what he could have said.
“You told me this would be the result from the beginning. You were right,” Shapiro finally revealed Simpson said.
Shapiro also discussed how he “lived with himself” after representing Simpson. Many believe Simpson, who was found not guilty, did murder his ex-wife, Brown-Simpson, and her boyfriend, Goldman.
“Our system of justice is based on the theory that we hope and pray that innocent people are never convicted,” he responded. “And the price we pay is that guilty people sometimes do and will go free.”
When Kelly asked how fair he thought the verdict was, he again remained in legal territory.
“As far as moral justice, I haven’t discussed it with anyone, including my wife,” he said, Kelly tweets from the interview.
“There’s two types of justice that we deal with, in America: there’s moral justice and there’s legal justice,” elaborates Shapiro. “If you look at it from a moral point of view, a lot of people would say he absolutely did it. I deal in legal justice, as you did as a lawyer, and that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And there’s no question in my mind that any fair juror who saw that case from the beginning to the end would conclude there was reasonable doubt.”