News Ticker

Factoring Serial Killer Glen Rogers into the OJ Simpson Murder Case

IMAGE: The Los Angeles Times

An alternative theory involving the 1994 murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman points to serial killer Glen Edward Rogers (b. 1962), who is currently on death row in Florida. Several documentaries and books detail this “Cross Country Killer” theory, which we will explore in this post.

From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, documentary producer Norman Pardo was part of O.J. Simpson’s inner circle and acted as his manager. He subsequently produced the 2019 film “Who Killed Nicole?” Pardo claims that from the time of his first one-on-one meeting with O.J. in 1999, he began collecting evidence in a “quest to find the truth.”

Who Killed Nicole (2019) | Full Movie | O.J. Simpson | Norman Pardo

Authorities suspected Rogers of killing a dozen or more women between California and Florida between 1994 and ’95. Rogers claimed (and then later recanted) that his tally was closer to 70 and included Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. 70 is a likely exaggeration as the killer’s MO was to leave his victims in full display with no attempt at concealment.

“You won’t have to take me at my word,” Rogers wrote in a letter address to Pardo. “A full taped statement in the case was made in 1995.”

To what statement was Rogers referring?

In another Pardo video, called “The OJ Tapes: OJ Simpson in His Own Words,” Pardo asserts that “the L. A. prosecutor and district attorney have a file in which Rogers confesses, but they gave him a plea deal to get him out of the state.”

Pardo points out that evidence and files relating to this case have been strangely sealed and kept sealed.

Glen Rogers during his 1995 arrest

Rogers also provided a “detailed account” of the Goldman-Brown slayings to criminal profiler Anthony Meoli, according to the documentary.

Meoli exchanged dozens of letters with Glen Rogers and visited him on death row.

According to Rogers, Meoli said, O. J. hired Rogers to burglarize Nicole’s condo and steal $20,000 diamond earrings that O.J. had given her. Meoli says Simpson told Rogers about a spare key to Nicole’s condo hidden outside the door and O.J. told Rogers, “You may have to kill the bitch.”

In Meoli’s retelling of Rogers’ account, he states that Simpson, who was waiting in his car nearby, walked onto the bloody sidewalk to check Rogers’ work, thus leaving his footprints at the crime scene.

There was a second set of bloody footprints on the scene in 1995 that have never been resolved.

An eyewitness neighbor described seeing a white male standing near Nicole’s gate in an aggressive posture.

The former football great thought he had hired a jewel thief and intimidator. Instead, what he got was a serial killer who framed him.

Pardo claims Rogers was living in Los Angeles under the alias James Peters. James Peters was Rogers’ 71-year-old roommate who he had murdered in Kentucky. Using this fake identity, Pardo claims the serial killer was able to get close to Nicole Brown Simpson as a painter, working in her home. Rogers also was a small-time drug dealer.

John Eckberg, a contributor at “American Crime Journal,” spent 30 years with The Cincinnati Enquirer as a reporter and served as director of media relations for The Cook Group. After years of extensive investigation, Eckberg, along with Stephen Combs, co-authored “OJ Simpson & Glen Rogers: The Juice, Road Dog and Murder on Bundy Drive.”

Eckberg corroborates Pardo’s story that Rogers claims he knew O.J. Simpson and paid the killer to steal a pair of earrings from Nicole’s house.

Pardo offers that Simpson was a gangbanger in his pre-football life and had a proclivity to hang around with thugs and sketchy characters. Pardo specifically states the Simpson imagined himself to be some sort of Godfather.

This was before Rogers was revealed to be and arrested as a serial killer. Pardo says although OJ was prone to tantrums he never witnessed violent behavior from him in nearly two decades of association.

That’s why, the documentary posits, Simpson never floated Rogers as a possible culprit to investigators. Simpson didn’t want his own accessory to murder dealings with Rogers exposed.

Rogers was sentenced to death for strangling and stabbing to death Peters and four women across four states, though evidence points to perhaps a dozen murder victims. He was arrested in November 1995 — a month after Simpson’s murder trial ended.

The coup de grace Colombian necktie deep throat slice administered to Nicole was a signature Glen Rogers killing.

The following video provides the background on Glen Roger’s murder rampage.

Deadly Stranger | FULL EPISODE | The FBI Files

After a jury found Simpson not guilty, Simpson spoke with publisher Judith Regan and walked her through a “hypothetical story” of what happened the night Nicole and Ron were murdered. It was later turned into a book, “If I Did It”.

The next bizarre video below shows a FOX reporter interviewing Simpson about the book. She asks him about the “hypothetical” and he provides incredible detail about what went down at Nicole’s house while occasionally pausing to adamantly assert that he’s just talking hypothetically.

In his story, he recounts his “friend Charlie,” whom he says for some reason went to Nicole’s to snoop around. Various forms of stalking and spying seemed to be in play.

Simpson says Charlie came over to his home, told him what was going on and Simpson responded, “Whatever is going on it’s gotta stop!”

Pardo proposes that jealousy wasn’t the issue. O.J. didn’t care for the crowd to whom Nicole was exposing his children. He characterized them as druggies, ne’er-do-wells and prostitutes. Pardo also suggests that OJ was being blackmailed for a photographed domestic abuse incident when Nicole was badly bruised. OJ himself claimed that Nicole was the instigator of abuse. OJ had large expenses in dealing with his ex-wife.

Unfortunately, Regan didn’t ask Simpson what Charlie the stalker said was going on. The other accounts state that OJ had intel that Goldman was going to show up.

Simpson says, hypothetically, he and Charlie drove to Nicole’s with a cap, gloves and a knife under the seat and parked in the alley. Simpson says he walked around the property and Ron Goldman appeared, saying he was at the restaurant where Nicole dined and was returning the sunglasses her mom left behind.

OJ then claims he blacked out during the violence, but then took the knife from “Charlie”.

OJ’s bizarre account: O.J. Simpson Laughs While Confessing to Murdering Wife Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman

One of the main anomalies in the trial was the revelation that O.J. walked away with only a cut finger and no other signs of injury. In reality, Ron Goldman, who was trained in martial arts and was a young 26 year tennis player, fought to the bitter end. One of the main stab wounds taken by Goodman was to his femoral artery, possibly punctured during a kick strike.

Rogers, the killer, was reported to be quite beaten up afterward, including a lost tooth. Goldman beat on somebody’s face before he died, but it wasn’t O.J.’s. It was Rogers’. An MRI less than two years later would show that Rogers had broken bones in his face — several broken bones. 47 year old O.J.’s face in the mug shot was untouched.

O.J. fled the scene when the lethal struggle between Goldman and Rogers ensued. There was unknown DNA under Nicole’s fingernails and her body was mined for jewelry. Only Rogers would have been capable of such lethal activity. Simpson was hobbled by old injuries.

Rogers then set up O.J. to take the fall. Rogers — not the police — left the sock with a single drop of blood in the upstairs bedroom, the hat and glove at Nicole’s residence and the other glove at Rockingham. He put the blood on the Bronco. Glen pounded on the wall of Keto’s cottage out back when he left the scene. Glen held the knife, not O.J.

Eckberg adds: Swabbed footprints; a blood drop that was on both sides of a sock at Rockingham, meaning no leg was in between when the blood was applied; a glove that was too easy to find; a knock on a cottage wall to make certain that glove was found. Rogers consistently left false clues at robberies or breakings-and-enterings throughout Ohio and Kentucky along the Dixie Highway for most of his life. He did the same at Bundy. Rogers consistently left behind gruesome crime scenes.

According to the Pardo theory Rogers then returned several hours later to murder Nicole, luring her outside for a $2,000 in cash drug deal, robbery and murder.

Partially frozen Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was found in Nicole Simpson’s condo the night of the murders. According to Simpson’s lawyers, the fact that it had not melted when police discovered it shows that the murder occurred later than the prosecution says. If Nicole had been killed at 10:15 p.m., when the prosecution says, the ice cream would have been completely melted when police saw it shortly after midnight.

In a separate earlier documentary called “My Brother the Serial Killer,” Rogers’ brother Clay gives an interview to filmmakers in which he says, “I’m absolutely certain that my brother killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.”

Rogers was confirmed working as a house painter in Los Angeles at the time of the murders, according to this documentary. A few weeks before Brown and Goldman were killed, Rogers told his brother and sister he was hanging around with Brown and said she was rich and he was going to “take her down.”

According to the documentary, Rogers was a transient in 1994, arriving in Los Angeles after the Northridge earthquake to work on a repair crew. As fate would have it, one job brought him to Brentwood and ultimately Nicole’s home as a painter.

Clay states that his brother Glen called him a few days before the murders and said, “Guess who I’m partying with? Nicole Simpson.” Clay states the Glen just thought OJ “was a former football player” and had little idea of his fame.

“Actually, what he told me,” Clay said, is “they got money, they’re well off and I’m taking her down.”

Clay asserts that his brother took a gold angel pin — removing it from Simpson’s lifeless body — and mailed it to his mother in Ohio the next day. According to Rodgers, their mother wore the pin, at her son’s request, to one of his murder trials.

After years of gathering evidence, Pardo said he went to the authorities. He told “Vanity Fair” magazine in 2016:

We tried to talk to the police, but they took all my stuff regarding the incidents,” Pardo said, failing to elaborate on what he meant by “we” and “the incidents.” He added, somewhat mysteriously, “We had people working on it, and when we talked to the police about it, they raided my office and took it all.”

13 Comments on Factoring Serial Killer Glen Rogers into the OJ Simpson Murder Case

  1. Thanks for this info since all I remember about this case was that most of my El Paso HS students “knew” OJ was innocent. I never really followed this case otherwise. All I remember about Simpson was his NFL record-breaking 2000 plus yard rushing season in 1973.

  2. Miles Mathis has a fascinating alternative analysis and makes a compelling point about the illegitimacy of televised trials http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf

    Long before reading Mathis, I have always been suspicious of these periodic media circus murder stories with my initial thought usually being ‘what are they trying to distract us FROM?!’ His paper identifies the world-changing events that were largely ignored by the public from 1994-96 thanks to the media’s obsession with all things OJ.

    Mikes also does a great job dissecting the maudlin and macabre ‘Laci Petersen’ murder saga as part of the ‘Men are Pigs Project’ http://mileswmathis.com/laci.pdf

      • I find that Mathis presents compelling evidence in a logical manner to arrive at conclusions that are almost inescapable.

        Those conclusions are so far out of the mainstream realm, however, as to seem incredible for those not able to think beyond the CIA Mockingbird-constructed Matrix in which we live.

        • Please don’t belittle yourself by referencing that quack and crackpot Mathis. I don’t throw around such disparagements liberally, but Mathis deserves the opprobrium. He most definitely does NOT present compelling evidence nor does he come to logical conclusions. I don’t have enough space to dissect his absurdities, but he’s a total crackpot. Let’s not forget that he claims that pi is equal to four, and he proclaims himself to be the greatest mathematician and physicist alive, which is embarrassing and cringe worthy.

          His “reasoning” is extremely dubious, and the “evidence” he presents absolutely moronic. As I said, I would love to write a few paragraphs on where he makes his myriad errors, and I have thoroughly thought about them and figured out where he goes wrong. Just briefly, you can dismiss his absurd “genealogies” and childish conclusions (“McDougall sounds like MacDonald, so McDonnell and McDougall are the same people!” … no that’s from Mathis not Monty Python). As for various photographic “evidence”, he uses copies of copies of copies of old pics, and then says “ah, ha! see, the shadows don’t quite add up, so it’s all fake!”

          It’s juvenile reasoning at its worst.

          • Unfortunately, you present nothing but ad hominem oppopobrium with no reasoned criticism of the evidence and conclusions he presents regarding the OJ or Peterson cases.

            Sorry that even the mention of Mathis seems so threatening to you. Perhaps you’ll calm down and acknowledge that this a forum for rational discussion of various dissenting udeas and opinions.

            Or maybe you’re just an easily triggered spook troll who can’t handle inconvenient facts or truths,

            • LOL!

              Look, clearly you’ve been suckered in by the crackpot extraordinaire Mathis, and you’re reacting angrily and irrationally when Mathis is called out on his nonsense, because you’re taking it as a personal affront.

              People like Mathis, who I believe suffers from a mental illness, need to be called out. First, I don’t mean mental illness as an insult. I feel sorry for him. Mental illness is a medical condition and nothing to laugh about or ridicule. One must show compassion toward those suffering from a mental illness as one would toward a cancer patient.

              Nevertheless, it’s important that crackpot “theories” be exposed because those such as yourself, who perhaps are not equipped with a strong philosophy or critical thinking background, will be easily conned by them. Just because CNN and the Slimes are full of lies does NOT mean that someone in opposition to CNN will automatically speak the truth and ought to be trusted. Each source has to be critically examined on its own merit. CNN and the Slimes do not pass the smell test. Miles Mathis definitely does not pass the smell test.

              If you ask politely, I will write a clear, objective, impartial and lengthy comment on where Mathis goes disastrously wrong in his reasoning. He’s not a shill or a deliberate promulgator of disinformation. He simply does not know how to reason and think critically. He’s a testament to our education system’s failure to teach basic reasoning skills.

              • LOL You’re the one whose angry – almost unhinged, in fact.

                And once again all you can muster is cheap name calling and ad hominem invective without any reference to, or rational discussion of, the evidence and arguments Mathis makes with regard to each of tge OJ and Peterson cases, respectively.

                You are clearly incapable of responding in a ‘ckear, objective, impartial’ manner or with any rational, relevant input.

                Like so many spook trolls that have come before, your name-calling rants just erode your credibility more with each post.

                Have they paid you your $2.50 for each of these posts yet? 😂😂😂

                • Don’t worry about my payments and reimbursements. To expose quacks I usually waive my fees and assure my employers that I would gladly do that for free!

                  I will grant that the particular article on the OJ case by Mathis is indeed well written and raises cogent and excellent points. It completely negates the above article here on Winter Watch, but nonetheless, in all fairness, Mathis does an excellent analysis.

                  However, it’s regrettable that for every piece like the OJ one, Mathis has five that are essentially clown acts. The most egregious is his 60-page plus “research” on how JFK is still alive and running the secret U.S. government. You can’t make that sht up. Oh, wait … Mathis does!

                  • Oh you’re back…

                    Mathis also does a great job with the whole Laci Peterson media circus, too.

                    As for JFK, Mathis points out some fascinating inconsistencies and anomalies in the official story – his photographic analysis is especially well done.

                    • I will comment one more time on this issue, and that will be the end of it, as there’s nothing more to add.

                      Take a vase with a flower in it. Put it on your table. Take a picture of it on your iphone. Print the pic. Then photocopy the print of the pic. Take a pic of the photocopy with your iphone. Upload that pic to your email. Download it your desktop. Print it. Then photocopy it. Then scan the photocopy and take another pic … Then examine the pic.

                      Where the hell am I going with this?

                      The typical picture of a historical event, any historical image that you see on the net, in high school history books, in academic books, in magazines, in journals … etc etc … have been copied and scanned and copied and uploaded, then printed, then copied … DOZENS of times. Your little vase experiment will show that through such a processing, neither the vase, nor the flower, nor the table, nor even the room you took the pic in, will look anything like the original object and setting. Ah ha! It’s all fake! You faked the pic! It’s all fake … you get my point? Catch my drift chico?

                      The ONLY valid photographic analysis is when a professional photographer or expert examines the ORIGINAL picture. Only the original. Again, only the original. Anything short of the original picture will have inconsistencies (lines, shadows, change in dimensions, etc) that will lead an amateur to say “fake!!!”. That in a nutshell is what your Mathis amounts to: a goofball who “analyzes” allegedly “fake” photos, but is not even aware of the flaws in the methodology and his own stunning shortcomings. Dunning-Kruger at its priceless best!

                    • LOL oh ‘Mike D’ valid photographic analysis need NOT be restricted to an original photograph.

                      Many of the telltale signs of a faked or cut/paste job will show up in reproductions as well.

                      Nice try

  3. Has anyone heard the theory that it was a son who did it? Apparently, a son was known to be on psychotropic medications and deemed by some people to be suspicious. I can’t even remember where I heard this, but heard it years ago. If I recall, I remember thinking to myself that it was the only case of O.J. not doing it that I had encountered that even seemed remotely plausible. I think a book may have even been written on this theory, although I cannot recall the title or the author.

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: