Simpson’s Lawyer Opens With Attack On Nicole Defense Sets Aside Racism To Raise Questions About Victim’s Character

O.J. Simpson’s attorney opened his case Thursday with a withering attack on Nicole Brown Simpson’s character, saying she was promiscuous after they split up, aborted a lover’s baby and threw parties attended by drug dealers and prostitutes.

Robert Baker also claimed she had a date with Ronald Goldman on the night both were slain.

Like lawyers in Simpson’s criminal trial, Baker said police and criminalists tampered with evidence. But unlike Simpson’s criminal defense team, he never alleged that racism led to a police frame-up.

And he denounced as “a phony” a photo that purportedly shows Simpson wearing Italian shoes that match prints at the crime scene.

Adopting a tactic shunned by lawyers at Simpson’s criminal trial, Baker described a woman leading an increasingly wild life in the months before her death, full of men, drugs and unsavory acquaintances.

“She was exercising her wings,” Baker said. “She had many boyfriends. She was gorgeous and men loved her.”

Nonetheless, Baker told the jury the couple shared “a terrific life” and “a love few people have known” before their divorce.

At Simpson’s criminal trial, his ex-wife’s character was never attacked. The defense chose instead to argue that racist police officers framed Simpson by planting evidence.

The strategy led to Simpson’s acquittal a year ago in the June 1994 slayings. The victims’ families are now suing Simpson for unspecified damages, claiming he was responsible for their deaths.

Baker indicated during jury questioning that he would use a similar approach as the criminal defense team, so his all-out assault on the victim came as a surprise.

Baker also suggested that the jury will hear evidence about Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss, but did not elaborate. In a deposition, Simpson said one of Nicole Simpson’s boyfriends had been involved with a “Fleiss girl.”

Baker also tried to tell jurors there were multiple “attackers” instead of just one, but was stopped by a plaintiff’s objection that he was arguing the case rather than laying out evidence.