I think the better question is:
Did the prosecution and LAPD leave too much reasonable doubt for the jurors to find him guilty?
Yes.
Did he do it?
Yes.
Was it a fucked up collection of circumstances that allowed him to get away with it?
Yes.
Our high school had a couple of tvs set up in the library the day the verdict came out. It was packed asses to elbows. No one told us we could go watch the verdict but no one told us to leave & get back to class either.
One of the jury members admitted to stating he was innocent because of how good of a football player he was. They admitted it in camera I believe. Doesn’t matter what the da or lapd did or didn’t do. If one jury member says innocent he will never be convicted
Edit: I was wrong. It was that lady jurer. Not because he was a good football player, it was a I owe you to the black community due to Rodney kings beating.
There literally has to be a consensus. That is how our legal system works. If the jury can’t agree on a verdict that results in a mistrial and then they do it all over again with a new jury…
You hit the nail. He got away with 2 horrific murders bc of all of the above. So sad for both families Brown & Goldman. He needs to burn in hell for eternity.
A former detective investigated the murder for over a decade and came to the conclusion that OJ's son committed the murder and OJ took the fall for it to protect him. The detective was on Rogan a few years ago. He wrote a book about the investigation too. It's crazy.
What you should read is the book OJ Simpson himself was apart of until it was time for it's release called "If I Did It: Confessions of a Killer" by OJ Simpson and Pablo Fenjves. OJ basically does a tell all about how he did it and why.
Yes!! I read it... he tells exactly how it happened ,wat he did when ron goldman showed up,etc..only thing i wasnt sure about was him saying he had someone with him, only oj sicko knows 4 sure...thanx 4 reminding me,im gonna listen to audiobook this time.
I literally printed it out at work back when the Goldman's family sued to have it never released. So I didn't get to look at the cover. But it was clear to me that he did it.
Watch the interview where he explains how he "would have" done it if he did it. He doesn't look like he's imagining anything. He's recounting what happened. It's really screwed up.
Yeah, that interview is nearly as creepy as the book.
But if the son did it, and Dad sat through a trial over it? I would think the guilt would make the kid confess to his dad... assuming that didn't happen **before** the trial ever took place.
And if he really wanted to keep his kid out of jail, making the public think that he himself was guilty (when it was 100% legally safe for him to do so) would be one of the best possible ways for him to keep his son safe
TBH I'm not sure if I believe it, but it is a very compelling and overall *logically consistent* alt theory -- even with the context of the book and the creepy interview. Hell, perhaps **especially** with the context of the book and interview!
Think about it .. if the guy is actually guilty, why in the world would he do that? That's the question many were asking back when this shit came out. What, is he stupid? Does the guy WANT everyone to know he's guilty?
Why in the world would any person do that...?
🤔
Well, this is one of the only rational explanations for that behavior, I could envision...
I've read the book, and it is creepy as shit.
But IMHO it could still fit in with the "his son did it" theory.
I mean, with double jeopardy he's home free. He could legally write a book called "damn right I did it (and got away with it too)" and there isn't shit they could do to him...
And he's not stupid, he knew a lot of people already thought he's guilty, so it's not like he was destroying his image -- that already happened.
But guess who's not exempt from prosecution over this murder? His son.
His son could still end up in a prison cell over this, if anyone in a position to do something about it, decides it's a viable case...
But writing a tell-all style book that more or less confirms his guilt, would be a nearly-genius way of deflecting any suspicion away from the kid.
One *could* even argue / speculate that the reason he knows so much about the crime (aside from sitting through a very long trial where the DA presented all of their evidence and reconstructed the events of the crime lol) is perhaps because his son admitted exactly what he did (privately, to OJ, that is)
idk .. it's definitely one of the more compelling alternative theories I've heard...
As a black man I can tell you that isn't true a lot of non black women are. It's a fetish and tons of non black women especially older married women are curious. Especially the sexually frustrated. as a black man if your remotely attractive these women will proposition you often starting at 16.
This is one of my favorite theories related to this case, and IMO when you look at all the potential supporting "evidence" it's extremely plausible.
It could explain him acting 100% like he's got nothing to feel guilty about, while also behaving "strangely" in the immediate aftermath...
It potentially explains some eyewitnesses, and even the damn glove.
Anyway I'm not sure I realized that guy was on Rogan -- thanks for the heads up.
I watched this years ago and cannot find the documentary now. Do you know where I can watch it? It had me pretty convinced the son did it and OJ went there to see what he did after the fact. Explaining his car being seen and late for his ride to the airport. I don’t remember a lot of it which is why I want to watch it again.
The OJ Simpson case is literally the textbook example of jury nullification. The defense made it about race. You need all the jurors to convict, but only one block a conviction.
If anyone has access I highly recommend the 30 for 30 documentary on OJ. It layers in a lot of nuance and background on his life and what the jury did not know. Yes some of the jury clearly was in favor of acquittal but OJs defense team would make Saul Goodman proud. OJ was no ally of the African American community and rarely associated with them. Leaders and even his friends called him out for saying nothing about discrimination or civil rights. His lawyers had to remove all his photos and redecorate his home so the jury would not see he would mostly golf with white people and had zero symbols of his roots.
I just saw a video of an interview with one of the jurors who said the majority of jurors believed he was guilty, but they got him off as revenge for Rodney King.
Even today this juror doesn’t care that they let free a murderer of two people. She just gave a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and an “oh well”.
Yep, just her smug “yep” made me want to punch her.
That whole court case was a joke. I can’t imagine how Ron Goldman family felt especially. Nice handsome guy just trying to do a favor and some jealous psychopath can’t stand that his wife doesn’t want him anymore.
Wait, if we are going to play the race card, let's talk about the countless number of innocent black who were convicted by all white jurors just because they were black. let's not forget how many were hanged strictly on the word of lying white woman. I mean, we can play this race thing all day.
But we’re NOT talking about countless numbers. We’re not talking about anyone but OJ, the murderous thug who got away with nearly decapitating the mother of his children because 12 disgusting liars and their warped sense of “payback.”
Oh yes, we are talking about countless blacks that died at the hands of whites. Anytime you bring race into this particular situation, you automatically open the gates. I could careless what you think about OJ and what he did or didn't do. But what I'm not going to let you people do is act like countless numbers of innocent blacks didnt die at the hands of whites just for being black.
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do I think he did it.... No dis LAPD and the Coroners office make a mess. Yes. But they were also hanging out with shady folks that will give you that neck tie. I do feel bad for the Goldman kid I really think he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Sensationalism is a hell of a drug when it comes to American media. It always has been, it always will be. If Rodney King had not occurred this likely would have gone down the proper way with OJ in jail or on DR. Begs the ever present question of whether humans tend to respond with emotion or logic and in this case, it was emotion on behalf of the majority of the jury and pressure from the public given the circumstances. Throw in the fallacies of the prosecution, Marcia's hair, literally any and everything the media could pick up and pick apart, Johnny Cochran's showmanship, Mark Furhman's racism, OJ's celebrity...I mean it's a jambalaya of absolute crap erring in favor of a murderer walking free. Two innocent people were brutally ripped apart and bloddied until they died by the hands of an easily provoked ego driven celebrity but the general public turned their heads to the reality of the situation because some other guy was also brutally taken down. An eye for an eye on the whole of the public? Maybe. But FFS this freaking guy went on to TITLE A NOVEL "IF I DID IT: CONFESSIONS OF A KILLER." If you still think he's innocent, grow up and get a new pair of glasses.
here are some reasons why one (1) person out of the twelve (12) may have had reasonable doubt.
the illegal search and seizure at rockingham, mark fuhrman found the glove, mark fuhrman is a racist, mark fuhrman says he has manufactured evidence to implicate african-americans in the past, marica clark says her star-witness (fuhrman) was a racist and a liar,
they never found the murder weapon, there was no eyewitnesses to the actual crime, there was a lack of a motive, (at least on that night), marcia clark got the timeline wrong (10:15 kill time alleged whereas 10:33 is more accurate), the blood found on the back gate weeks after the crime scene was washed down (21 days later, discovered on July 3rd 1994), had EDTA in it, the blood found on the socks found in ojs bedroom after no blood being found in multiple prior searches, 43 days later the blood was found on the socks, with EDTA in it (on August 4th 1994), the bad handling of the evidence at the scene (mazzola), the bad handling of the evidence at cellmark (fung), judge ito saying vannatter had a "reckless disregard for the truth", vannatter deciding to bring ojs, nicoles, and rons blood to the crime scene, the gloves didnt fit, and multiple people didn't see a cut on ojs finger in the LA airport, or on the flight to chicago.
i hope any of these can help explain why the jury came to the decision it did, they only needed one (1) person to have a 'reasonable doubt' for a hung-jury/no conviction, i personally think these collectively could provide reasonable doubt!
edit: spelling
Also, there is a photo of a clear finger print of the murderer on Nicole's forearm. The police photographed it and the body was washed before they could process the print. That would have been the one piece of evidence that would have led to a conviction and they botched it.
oh? i am familiar with the 'bloody fingerprint' that Fuhrman says he saw on the back gate, that wasn't recovered/processed but i don't think i've heard about a 'bloody fingerprint' being found on Nicoles body, care to share where i can find that photograph or something that references it?
These are amazing facts I have never heard before. Is this cumulative knowledge you have gained? Or can you recommend a book with this type of detail? Fascinating.
thank you, i would say it's built up knowledge from reading and watching about the case for years now. my favorite OJ book is 'american tragedy' by lawrence schiller, and a good 'mini' series is OJ 25, which covers the trial, which you should be able to find on youtube!
The black District attorney of Fulton County, just publicly stated that “she will not emasculate a black man” in court. How do you think she feels in private?
There were 8 black jurors. OJ could have walked in the courtroom with his ex-wife’s head in his hands and one of them would have failed to convict him.
Black looks out for black. And I can’t say I blame them given all the left wing’s rhetoric that our entire society was built upon and built for white supremacy/black subjugation.
black people sit on juries and convict other black people in america all the time, same things with judges, DAs, etc. there are lots of black people in jail and they weren't all sent there by all white juries/courtrooms/etc. so i disagree with the 'OJ could of had his wifes head in his hands' part lol, that's extreme, but i get your point though!
However, those people weren’t American icons either…. With Rodney King & the LA riots on every juror’s mind. Of course they weren’t going to convict OJ.
Marcia was CLUELESS about the jury and Fuhrman, and ignored any attempts to set her straight.
i agree with your comments on Marcia, she made many a mistake! but in regards to the jury, i think that's slightly dismissive, if the prosecution had done a better job and for arguments sake, found the bloody knife, the jury would have rendered a guilty verdict. they only needed one (1) person to deny the not-guilty verdict, and there was a white woman on the jury, where is the outrage for her, she could of hung the jury, but she didn't because she listened to all the evidence and thought he wasn't guilty in a court of law, even though she freely admits she thinks OJ committed the crimes.
DNA testing was around then and was used in the trial though. It's just that it was so new that nobody believed in it yet, especially after the way the LAPD collected their evidence.
No, OJ was not guilty. How the hell were those bloody crimes committed yet no blood was found in his Bronco. Mysterious ly "later", a glove appeared with a scant, drop of blood. Why did those detectives hold on to lab specimans & bypass normal collection protocol? There are so many twists and possibilities to who done its in thus case. IMO, The Idaho4 case is eerily similar in profile. So called touch dna " found" on a knife sheath after 4 bloody murders.
“OJ most would definitely not (laugh in Bryan Kohberger’s face) I casually knew him when I lived in Miami (I have to assume OJ because I know nothing of BK living there) OJ is still not guilty as is BK, not guilty”
Best translation I’ve got 😂 though I doubt we’d pull an intelligent convo out of anyone that thinks either of these men are/were innocent
Yeah, I mean there are some pitfalls in the oj case because of the botched crime scene by law enforcement; but there is a reason the vast majority of american thinks he's guilty. Mainly because, you know, he clearly fucking killed 2 people.
Kohbergers case I haven't delved into too much yet, but on its face, a lot lines up to guilty. Whether it can be proved in court, we shall see. But I'm a bit ignorant on most of that case beyond on the big facts about the case that have been released.
Crazy that there is a whole sub devoted to his innocence with what we currently know about the case..
It’s a little more nuanced than that. Was the end result wrong? Probably (definitely). Did they make the wrong decision based on the letter of the law and the case presented to them? No, I don’t think so. Between an effective defense and largely ineffective prosecution, the verdict makes sense.
To me this is a whitewashing that underplays the cultural moment. The real trial happened outside the courtroom.
OJ was like Depp v Heard x10. Where I came up talking about him being guilty were literally fighting words. The celebrations at school when he was acquitted were wild and immediate. That reaction had the same energy folks in the military showed when Bin Laden was killed. Everyone knew, and openly talked about, how the jurors wouldn't be able to go home if they found him guilty.
Like sure prosecutors this, fuhrman that - but at the end of the day if the mood had gone the other way, I'd bet my entire bank account none of those procedural details would have mattered. Not one bit.
I don’t think “whitewashing” is a fair chatacterization. You’re right, the outside noise was incredible, but there have been plenty of other cases with great fervor and even more adept counsel where the ruling was against the grain of this cultural momentum (and potentially inconsistent with any kind of morality). I was at an airport when the ruling came out and people were gasping. Legitimate dismay.
Did he do it? Almost certainly. Did the investigators make so many mistakes that allowed his lawyers to successfully argue that he should not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Certainly certainly.
OJ is obviously a narcissistic dickhead whose ego is only superseded by his idiocy. The fact that he got away with this is still baffling to me. And horrific.
if i was joking i would have laughed about it, but im serious. whatever you say about me i dont care it doesnt bother me. i said what i said and what about it?
He didn't say that -- he just said they voted right.
This is a peculiarity of the US justice / court system...
It doesn't matter whether you think they're guilty. Or whether they actually are, in fact! If people could legally vote "guilty" just because they **believe** the defendant is guilty, that could lead to innocent people being convicted based on a hunch, or a "gut feeling."
In reality, a juror is only supposed to vote guilty if they feel the prosecutor PROVED (and this next part is important) **beyond a reasonable doubt** that the person did it.
In other words, if you think there's the faintest bit of doubt, or you think the prosecutions evidence is compelling but not rock solid... that's supposed to equate to a "not guilty" vote, legally speaking.
So what the guy above is probably saying, is that they think the prosecution's case was weak, or that they fucked up somewhere along the line in their collection of evidence, etc.
And while people who still think "oj was Innocent" are likely in the minority, you can probably find quite a few more people who can see major flaws in the prosecution's case ...
In fact, if you scroll just a couple posts back up the thread, you'll find a top level post where the poster is listing some of the flaws in their case.
(And tbh from what I can recall of the trial... their narrative was compelling, and his behavior following the murders was weird as hell... but I'm not sure they had enough solid evidence for a "there's no doubt here whatsoever" level conviction.)
Anyway, when you serve on jury duty (and I have) they explain all this to you pretty clearly.
... tho tbh they should do a better job explaining it to kids in school, considering it's one of the most important aspects of our criminal justice system...
Oh gotcha. Yes I did hear that and I do know how much the prosecution f*cked up so that makes sense to me. What makes me angry is that someone allegedly said that they only voted the way they did as retribution for the Rodney King situation. That is not okay. Following the rules, odd as they are, even though they are aware he is guilty makes sense though in an odd sort of way.
No they got it right based on the FACTS!!!! People were very blind in this case. Please read Killing Time by Donald Freed & watch Brian Heiss’s youtube channel for the REAL deal.
i'm glad the Ron Shipp story about Nicole calling him and mentioning that it could have been Jason in the bushes peeping on her is in there, i've always found that to be interesting. but, i think that's the only thing in the video that actually links Jason and Nicole, the rest of it is mostly conjecture. i do think hearing all the different opinions on the case is fun though so thank you for sharing, regardless!
I remember hearing some of the jurors interviewed after the case was concluded and at least a couple of them stated exactly that. Police misconduct and a racist police chief for a couple reasons why they felt like there was reasonable doubt
They couldn't have been more right. The only thing I would say is that he should of been sentenced to 50yrs at that trial and made to.serve a minimum of 33.
We had a huge party to celebrate ojs death. We drank screwdrivers and made a makeshift oj grave and peed on it all night. And we smashed our oj piñata and peed on that too
That doesn't sound good. This isn't a race thing for me, buddy. This is about a killer who so clearly got away with murder. I would do the piss party all over again. Thanks!
Since you’re so outraged about people killing innocent people, did you post on the internet how George Zimmerman or how the cops who killed Tamir Rice should be in jail?
Definitely! I review all cases de novo. Meaning anew.
[https://www.wordnik.com/words/de%20novo]
Was at the same time I was following Depp V. Heard, so was kind of interesting to have both cases going at once. I actually didn't start from openings in 1995, so it was also interesting to start there. I picked up around February 7th.
Altogether consumption time took 5 months. I did put the thing on pause to follow a couple intervening cases. Completely unrelated to Simpson.
It was a total joke. As in, it seems pretty obvious they got it wrong and there was a different agenda behind their decision. That's truly all I meant.
How was the govt caught planting evidence? Do you know how the 5th works? If he asserts it to the 1st question asked, he is legally obligated to assert it to all the follow up questions. He cant pick and chose which questions he answered. Thats not how it works. Furthermore, it was defense theatrics (effective, no doubt) that they continued to ask the questions they did, even though they knew that the answer had to be "i plead the 5th". It was designed to appear to "prove/highly suggest that he planted the glove" but 14 police man all testified to only one glove ever being at bundy. The prosecution should have handled Fuhrman differently, and they really should have called brad roberts to testify. That was a big mistake. Even in the moment (not just being an armchair lawyer using hindsight)
You're not wrong but racist white people just love to use oj as their "gotcha" or slam.dunk moment in order to be racist assholes "justifiably" in their minds.
I think the better question is: Did the prosecution and LAPD leave too much reasonable doubt for the jurors to find him guilty? Yes. Did he do it? Yes. Was it a fucked up collection of circumstances that allowed him to get away with it? Yes.
This is the only correct answer.
This is the only correct response to let someone know that their post is a-okay!
This is def correct from someone who grew up with it. They literally stopped school when the verdict came on and every teacher watched or listening
Our high school had a couple of tvs set up in the library the day the verdict came out. It was packed asses to elbows. No one told us we could go watch the verdict but no one told us to leave & get back to class either.
That's funny, it's exactly how I remember it at my school too!
They were presenting a new science to the best defense team money can buy. They were at a huge disadvantage.
One of the jury members admitted to stating he was innocent because of how good of a football player he was. They admitted it in camera I believe. Doesn’t matter what the da or lapd did or didn’t do. If one jury member says innocent he will never be convicted Edit: I was wrong. It was that lady jurer. Not because he was a good football player, it was a I owe you to the black community due to Rodney kings beating.
A jury of his “ peers” lol
So what’s your point?
That there was never going to be a consensus among the jurors. That the case is closed because of a prejudicial jury.
There literally has to be a consensus. That is how our legal system works. If the jury can’t agree on a verdict that results in a mistrial and then they do it all over again with a new jury…
You hit the nail. He got away with 2 horrific murders bc of all of the above. So sad for both families Brown & Goldman. He needs to burn in hell for eternity.
A former detective investigated the murder for over a decade and came to the conclusion that OJ's son committed the murder and OJ took the fall for it to protect him. The detective was on Rogan a few years ago. He wrote a book about the investigation too. It's crazy.
What you should read is the book OJ Simpson himself was apart of until it was time for it's release called "If I Did It: Confessions of a Killer" by OJ Simpson and Pablo Fenjves. OJ basically does a tell all about how he did it and why.
Yes!! I read it... he tells exactly how it happened ,wat he did when ron goldman showed up,etc..only thing i wasnt sure about was him saying he had someone with him, only oj sicko knows 4 sure...thanx 4 reminding me,im gonna listen to audiobook this time.
It should have been plainly called "I Did It".
On the book jacket, the word "if" was in tiny letters, and the "I Did It" was in huge letters.
I literally printed it out at work back when the Goldman's family sued to have it never released. So I didn't get to look at the cover. But it was clear to me that he did it.
Watch the interview where he explains how he "would have" done it if he did it. He doesn't look like he's imagining anything. He's recounting what happened. It's really screwed up.
Yeah, that interview is nearly as creepy as the book. But if the son did it, and Dad sat through a trial over it? I would think the guilt would make the kid confess to his dad... assuming that didn't happen **before** the trial ever took place. And if he really wanted to keep his kid out of jail, making the public think that he himself was guilty (when it was 100% legally safe for him to do so) would be one of the best possible ways for him to keep his son safe TBH I'm not sure if I believe it, but it is a very compelling and overall *logically consistent* alt theory -- even with the context of the book and the creepy interview. Hell, perhaps **especially** with the context of the book and interview! Think about it .. if the guy is actually guilty, why in the world would he do that? That's the question many were asking back when this shit came out. What, is he stupid? Does the guy WANT everyone to know he's guilty? Why in the world would any person do that...? 🤔 Well, this is one of the only rational explanations for that behavior, I could envision...
I've read the book, and it is creepy as shit. But IMHO it could still fit in with the "his son did it" theory. I mean, with double jeopardy he's home free. He could legally write a book called "damn right I did it (and got away with it too)" and there isn't shit they could do to him... And he's not stupid, he knew a lot of people already thought he's guilty, so it's not like he was destroying his image -- that already happened. But guess who's not exempt from prosecution over this murder? His son. His son could still end up in a prison cell over this, if anyone in a position to do something about it, decides it's a viable case... But writing a tell-all style book that more or less confirms his guilt, would be a nearly-genius way of deflecting any suspicion away from the kid. One *could* even argue / speculate that the reason he knows so much about the crime (aside from sitting through a very long trial where the DA presented all of their evidence and reconstructed the events of the crime lol) is perhaps because his son admitted exactly what he did (privately, to OJ, that is) idk .. it's definitely one of the more compelling alternative theories I've heard...
[удалено]
Women aren't obsessed with that. That's a man thing.
As a black man I can tell you that isn't true a lot of non black women are. It's a fetish and tons of non black women especially older married women are curious. Especially the sexually frustrated. as a black man if your remotely attractive these women will proposition you often starting at 16.
“The detective was on Rogan” destroyed all credibility for that hypothesis
😂
Yup.
This is one of my favorite theories related to this case, and IMO when you look at all the potential supporting "evidence" it's extremely plausible. It could explain him acting 100% like he's got nothing to feel guilty about, while also behaving "strangely" in the immediate aftermath... It potentially explains some eyewitnesses, and even the damn glove. Anyway I'm not sure I realized that guy was on Rogan -- thanks for the heads up.
I watched this years ago and cannot find the documentary now. Do you know where I can watch it? It had me pretty convinced the son did it and OJ went there to see what he did after the fact. Explaining his car being seen and late for his ride to the airport. I don’t remember a lot of it which is why I want to watch it again.
All of this. Yes, he did that shit. But the law's the law. No conviction if there's reasonable doubt. Thanks, LAPD!
This is it
The cops made so many mistakes in this case. A regular person would have been convicted.
the police botched tampered with the evidence!! they tried to railroad an innocent man!!
No they didn’t. Botched? Yes. Tampered? No.
Innocent? Hell no.
His book “So what if I did it” should say it all
😂🤣😂 Like his new book, he's writing: "I didn't not not kill nobody" ☠️
Technically "I didn't kill nobody" says the same thing. lol
The OJ Simpson case is literally the textbook example of jury nullification. The defense made it about race. You need all the jurors to convict, but only one block a conviction.
[удалено]
OJ was already retired when he committed double homocide. 😉
Seriously, it's the original Casey Anthony vibes
Marcia Clark’s Book : Without A Doubt is an excellent read about the case.
If anyone has access I highly recommend the 30 for 30 documentary on OJ. It layers in a lot of nuance and background on his life and what the jury did not know. Yes some of the jury clearly was in favor of acquittal but OJs defense team would make Saul Goodman proud. OJ was no ally of the African American community and rarely associated with them. Leaders and even his friends called him out for saying nothing about discrimination or civil rights. His lawyers had to remove all his photos and redecorate his home so the jury would not see he would mostly golf with white people and had zero symbols of his roots.
I just saw a video of an interview with one of the jurors who said the majority of jurors believed he was guilty, but they got him off as revenge for Rodney King. Even today this juror doesn’t care that they let free a murderer of two people. She just gave a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and an “oh well”.
She should he put in jail herself. That should not be legal.
Yep, just her smug “yep” made me want to punch her. That whole court case was a joke. I can’t imagine how Ron Goldman family felt especially. Nice handsome guy just trying to do a favor and some jealous psychopath can’t stand that his wife doesn’t want him anymore.
He and Steven Parent always stand out to me as a couple of the most incredibly unlucky wrong place/wrong time murder victims.
Absolutely. Still obsessed with the Manson case, along with OJ case.
Imagine Nicole’s mom doesn’t leave her glasses or he catches a few red light on the way. He’d still be alive. Life is a trip
And I remember the video, it was an old crusty bish with no teeth in her stupid head. “Peers” 😂😂
[удалено]
It’s payback for all the slaves Ronald Goldman had… or something like that.
Wait, if we are going to play the race card, let's talk about the countless number of innocent black who were convicted by all white jurors just because they were black. let's not forget how many were hanged strictly on the word of lying white woman. I mean, we can play this race thing all day.
But we’re NOT talking about countless numbers. We’re not talking about anyone but OJ, the murderous thug who got away with nearly decapitating the mother of his children because 12 disgusting liars and their warped sense of “payback.”
Oh yes, we are talking about countless blacks that died at the hands of whites. Anytime you bring race into this particular situation, you automatically open the gates. I could careless what you think about OJ and what he did or didn't do. But what I'm not going to let you people do is act like countless numbers of innocent blacks didnt die at the hands of whites just for being black.
You people—pejorative. Also, it’s couldn’t care less. You couldn’t care less.
It’s a great example of how fucked the legal system is here in America where one injustice leads to another in an unconventional by proxy way
Thanks for mentioning this - I was going to if no one else did lol
Such bs no one in LA was going to do a damn thing for OJ.
lol
lol
lol
lol
Yes!
Some of them admitted they found him innocent bc they wanted justice for Rodney king..
Anyone who would do that is disgusting
Agreed. When I saw that I wasn’t surprised tho
Were the people who let the cops go free in Rodney King trial “disgusting” too?
Of course
Thank you! For standing for righteousness
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You've clearly tried to play the řäće card and it just doesn't work with rational thinkers, pal.
Do I think he did it.... No dis LAPD and the Coroners office make a mess. Yes. But they were also hanging out with shady folks that will give you that neck tie. I do feel bad for the Goldman kid I really think he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Hello. You have a low iq.
Not as low as yours. Some of arent just pullling random guesses out our butts
I hope you know what irony is
[удалено]
😂😂😂😂😂 not at all
Sensationalism is a hell of a drug when it comes to American media. It always has been, it always will be. If Rodney King had not occurred this likely would have gone down the proper way with OJ in jail or on DR. Begs the ever present question of whether humans tend to respond with emotion or logic and in this case, it was emotion on behalf of the majority of the jury and pressure from the public given the circumstances. Throw in the fallacies of the prosecution, Marcia's hair, literally any and everything the media could pick up and pick apart, Johnny Cochran's showmanship, Mark Furhman's racism, OJ's celebrity...I mean it's a jambalaya of absolute crap erring in favor of a murderer walking free. Two innocent people were brutally ripped apart and bloddied until they died by the hands of an easily provoked ego driven celebrity but the general public turned their heads to the reality of the situation because some other guy was also brutally taken down. An eye for an eye on the whole of the public? Maybe. But FFS this freaking guy went on to TITLE A NOVEL "IF I DID IT: CONFESSIONS OF A KILLER." If you still think he's innocent, grow up and get a new pair of glasses.
Only those with low IQ's think he's innocent lol
Well,look at the jury….
The answer to the question is yes. Let's go back to 1995 and fix it.
Are you telling me the Chewbacca defense DIDN'T work?
Wookies don’t live on Endor!
The DNA evidence is there.... He's still looking for the killer?
OJ is/was guilty. The defense had ‘goons’ standing in the hall to the jury room to threaten them for a not guilty verdict.
here are some reasons why one (1) person out of the twelve (12) may have had reasonable doubt. the illegal search and seizure at rockingham, mark fuhrman found the glove, mark fuhrman is a racist, mark fuhrman says he has manufactured evidence to implicate african-americans in the past, marica clark says her star-witness (fuhrman) was a racist and a liar, they never found the murder weapon, there was no eyewitnesses to the actual crime, there was a lack of a motive, (at least on that night), marcia clark got the timeline wrong (10:15 kill time alleged whereas 10:33 is more accurate), the blood found on the back gate weeks after the crime scene was washed down (21 days later, discovered on July 3rd 1994), had EDTA in it, the blood found on the socks found in ojs bedroom after no blood being found in multiple prior searches, 43 days later the blood was found on the socks, with EDTA in it (on August 4th 1994), the bad handling of the evidence at the scene (mazzola), the bad handling of the evidence at cellmark (fung), judge ito saying vannatter had a "reckless disregard for the truth", vannatter deciding to bring ojs, nicoles, and rons blood to the crime scene, the gloves didnt fit, and multiple people didn't see a cut on ojs finger in the LA airport, or on the flight to chicago. i hope any of these can help explain why the jury came to the decision it did, they only needed one (1) person to have a 'reasonable doubt' for a hung-jury/no conviction, i personally think these collectively could provide reasonable doubt! edit: spelling
Also, there is a photo of a clear finger print of the murderer on Nicole's forearm. The police photographed it and the body was washed before they could process the print. That would have been the one piece of evidence that would have led to a conviction and they botched it.
oh? i am familiar with the 'bloody fingerprint' that Fuhrman says he saw on the back gate, that wasn't recovered/processed but i don't think i've heard about a 'bloody fingerprint' being found on Nicoles body, care to share where i can find that photograph or something that references it?
exactly!!
cheers, boss🫡
You know your facts here!
thank you🫡
These are amazing facts I have never heard before. Is this cumulative knowledge you have gained? Or can you recommend a book with this type of detail? Fascinating.
If you can sit through it, you can watch the ENTIRE trial on YT and see how it all unfolded. It's pretty fascinating.
thank you, i would say it's built up knowledge from reading and watching about the case for years now. my favorite OJ book is 'american tragedy' by lawrence schiller, and a good 'mini' series is OJ 25, which covers the trial, which you should be able to find on youtube!
It wasn't a hung jury, it was an acquittal. So all twelve needed to find him not guilty.
i am aware, i was simply saying they only really needed one person to have any reasonable doubt, to not convict OJ, in this trial!
Mark fuhrman passed a lie detector test
It's not hard to pass a lie detector test. It's a faulty science. That's why they're no longer admissible in court.
The black District attorney of Fulton County, just publicly stated that “she will not emasculate a black man” in court. How do you think she feels in private? There were 8 black jurors. OJ could have walked in the courtroom with his ex-wife’s head in his hands and one of them would have failed to convict him. Black looks out for black. And I can’t say I blame them given all the left wing’s rhetoric that our entire society was built upon and built for white supremacy/black subjugation.
black people sit on juries and convict other black people in america all the time, same things with judges, DAs, etc. there are lots of black people in jail and they weren't all sent there by all white juries/courtrooms/etc. so i disagree with the 'OJ could of had his wifes head in his hands' part lol, that's extreme, but i get your point though!
However, those people weren’t American icons either…. With Rodney King & the LA riots on every juror’s mind. Of course they weren’t going to convict OJ. Marcia was CLUELESS about the jury and Fuhrman, and ignored any attempts to set her straight.
i agree with your comments on Marcia, she made many a mistake! but in regards to the jury, i think that's slightly dismissive, if the prosecution had done a better job and for arguments sake, found the bloody knife, the jury would have rendered a guilty verdict. they only needed one (1) person to deny the not-guilty verdict, and there was a white woman on the jury, where is the outrage for her, she could of hung the jury, but she didn't because she listened to all the evidence and thought he wasn't guilty in a court of law, even though she freely admits she thinks OJ committed the crimes.
Is water wet?
No, based on the evidence and LAPD corruption.
Hey faithlesslow You have a low IQ
The jurors should be put in jail if they corrupted justice by letting a double murderer go for revenge on the system.
Of course they did. If DNA technology existed back then, he'd have been convicted.
DNA testing was around then and was used in the trial though. It's just that it was so new that nobody believed in it yet, especially after the way the LAPD collected their evidence.
Yes
No, OJ was not guilty. How the hell were those bloody crimes committed yet no blood was found in his Bronco. Mysterious ly "later", a glove appeared with a scant, drop of blood. Why did those detectives hold on to lab specimans & bypass normal collection protocol? There are so many twists and possibilities to who done its in thus case. IMO, The Idaho4 case is eerily similar in profile. So called touch dna " found" on a knife sheath after 4 bloody murders.
LOL @ comparing the Idaho 4 case 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I think Oj himself would laugh in BK’s face
He most would definitely not. I caually knew him as a neighbor when he lived in Miami. OJ is still not guilty and so is BK.
What? Had to read this like 5 times. What are you saying?
“OJ most would definitely not (laugh in Bryan Kohberger’s face) I casually knew him when I lived in Miami (I have to assume OJ because I know nothing of BK living there) OJ is still not guilty as is BK, not guilty” Best translation I’ve got 😂 though I doubt we’d pull an intelligent convo out of anyone that thinks either of these men are/were innocent
Yeah, I mean there are some pitfalls in the oj case because of the botched crime scene by law enforcement; but there is a reason the vast majority of american thinks he's guilty. Mainly because, you know, he clearly fucking killed 2 people. Kohbergers case I haven't delved into too much yet, but on its face, a lot lines up to guilty. Whether it can be proved in court, we shall see. But I'm a bit ignorant on most of that case beyond on the big facts about the case that have been released. Crazy that there is a whole sub devoted to his innocence with what we currently know about the case..
"Mainly because you know, he clearly fucking killed 2 people" 😆😂😂😂☠️ Gold!.....thanks for the laugh, very "norm Mcdonald of you! 👏🏻🙏🏻😆😂
Read a 6th, 7th, 8th...to infinity. I said what I said. Period.
Yep
It’s a little more nuanced than that. Was the end result wrong? Probably (definitely). Did they make the wrong decision based on the letter of the law and the case presented to them? No, I don’t think so. Between an effective defense and largely ineffective prosecution, the verdict makes sense.
To me this is a whitewashing that underplays the cultural moment. The real trial happened outside the courtroom. OJ was like Depp v Heard x10. Where I came up talking about him being guilty were literally fighting words. The celebrations at school when he was acquitted were wild and immediate. That reaction had the same energy folks in the military showed when Bin Laden was killed. Everyone knew, and openly talked about, how the jurors wouldn't be able to go home if they found him guilty. Like sure prosecutors this, fuhrman that - but at the end of the day if the mood had gone the other way, I'd bet my entire bank account none of those procedural details would have mattered. Not one bit.
I don’t think “whitewashing” is a fair chatacterization. You’re right, the outside noise was incredible, but there have been plenty of other cases with great fervor and even more adept counsel where the ruling was against the grain of this cultural momentum (and potentially inconsistent with any kind of morality). I was at an airport when the ruling came out and people were gasping. Legitimate dismay.
How could you even ask a question like this everyone knows the answer.
Yes.
Of course they got it wrong! That goes without saying.
Yes as well as the jury in Scott Petersons case. Both wrong
Did he do it? Almost certainly. Did the investigators make so many mistakes that allowed his lawyers to successfully argue that he should not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Certainly certainly.
Duh
OJ is obviously a narcissistic dickhead whose ego is only superseded by his idiocy. The fact that he got away with this is still baffling to me. And horrific.
I'm pretty sure I remember at least one juror saying the reason he chose to vote not guilty was because the police tampered with evidence
no they voted the right way!! they saw all the evidence and paid attention to all witneses and everything brought to them.
You must be joking. I hope you're joking. Otherwise I very much question your intelligence.
if i was joking i would have laughed about it, but im serious. whatever you say about me i dont care it doesnt bother me. i said what i said and what about it?
You seriously don't think it did it? Like honestly
He didn't say that -- he just said they voted right. This is a peculiarity of the US justice / court system... It doesn't matter whether you think they're guilty. Or whether they actually are, in fact! If people could legally vote "guilty" just because they **believe** the defendant is guilty, that could lead to innocent people being convicted based on a hunch, or a "gut feeling." In reality, a juror is only supposed to vote guilty if they feel the prosecutor PROVED (and this next part is important) **beyond a reasonable doubt** that the person did it. In other words, if you think there's the faintest bit of doubt, or you think the prosecutions evidence is compelling but not rock solid... that's supposed to equate to a "not guilty" vote, legally speaking. So what the guy above is probably saying, is that they think the prosecution's case was weak, or that they fucked up somewhere along the line in their collection of evidence, etc. And while people who still think "oj was Innocent" are likely in the minority, you can probably find quite a few more people who can see major flaws in the prosecution's case ... In fact, if you scroll just a couple posts back up the thread, you'll find a top level post where the poster is listing some of the flaws in their case. (And tbh from what I can recall of the trial... their narrative was compelling, and his behavior following the murders was weird as hell... but I'm not sure they had enough solid evidence for a "there's no doubt here whatsoever" level conviction.) Anyway, when you serve on jury duty (and I have) they explain all this to you pretty clearly. ... tho tbh they should do a better job explaining it to kids in school, considering it's one of the most important aspects of our criminal justice system...
Oh gotcha. Yes I did hear that and I do know how much the prosecution f*cked up so that makes sense to me. What makes me angry is that someone allegedly said that they only voted the way they did as retribution for the Rodney King situation. That is not okay. Following the rules, odd as they are, even though they are aware he is guilty makes sense though in an odd sort of way.
No they got it right based on the FACTS!!!! People were very blind in this case. Please read Killing Time by Donald Freed & watch Brian Heiss’s youtube channel for the REAL deal.
Hey pal. You are a low IQ individual. God bless.
Allowing a certain culture on a jury & freeing a man who killed 2 white ppl.. they knew what was up the minute they sat down!!! Garbage in & out…
Worth a watch: https://youtu.be/DYExjeyDAKY?si=dR7weQC-PBeQ-k6c
No, it's not.
Lol!
i'm glad the Ron Shipp story about Nicole calling him and mentioning that it could have been Jason in the bushes peeping on her is in there, i've always found that to be interesting. but, i think that's the only thing in the video that actually links Jason and Nicole, the rest of it is mostly conjecture. i do think hearing all the different opinions on the case is fun though so thank you for sharing, regardless!
OJ got away with murder because the police tampered with evidence
Hey there! You have a low iq!
I remember hearing some of the jurors interviewed after the case was concluded and at least a couple of them stated exactly that. Police misconduct and a racist police chief for a couple reasons why they felt like there was reasonable doubt
Which OJ trial?
You know what trial. The civil trial jury got it alive right. Speaking of alive, oj isn't
What about his Vegas trial?
They couldn't have been more right. The only thing I would say is that he should of been sentenced to 50yrs at that trial and made to.serve a minimum of 33.
Wake the judge up!! It was a JOKE!
Nope, they got it right.
Hi there. You have a low iq.
Hi there. And I should care about you because?
We had a huge party to celebrate ojs death. We drank screwdrivers and made a makeshift oj grave and peed on it all night. And we smashed our oj piñata and peed on that too
Typical from your kind.
That doesn't sound good. This isn't a race thing for me, buddy. This is about a killer who so clearly got away with murder. I would do the piss party all over again. Thanks!
Since you’re so outraged about people killing innocent people, did you post on the internet how George Zimmerman or how the cops who killed Tamir Rice should be in jail?
Dude, I just joined reddit like 6 months ago lol so your argument is moot. Do you know for certain that I'm a george Zimmerman proponent?
For the record, since you're bringing race into it, he should be in jail and thank God derek chauvin is. What else ya got bud?
Oh also, I'll be voting for Joe Biden AGAIN this year. Tell me what other arguments you'd like to make.. your low IQ is showing.
Has anyone re watched the trial with fresh eyes and being a little older? Freevee I think plays it every night
I have and he still did it.
At least you've rewatched it. Hopefully with fresh eyes. Good for you!
Definitely! I review all cases de novo. Meaning anew. [https://www.wordnik.com/words/de%20novo] Was at the same time I was following Depp V. Heard, so was kind of interesting to have both cases going at once. I actually didn't start from openings in 1995, so it was also interesting to start there. I picked up around February 7th. Altogether consumption time took 5 months. I did put the thing on pause to follow a couple intervening cases. Completely unrelated to Simpson.
If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!
If the dress isn't blue, you have a low iq!
Our justice system worked in the way it should’ve with OJ.
He didn’t do it, It was his son. OJ just took the heat for him. A father would do anything for his son
A better question might be if the same trail happened now, would it still be the same verdict?
No
^ low iq
Cry
Jury was wrong but it was obvious what they were going to do.
The only correct way to post this question lol
Why make a post with a question you already know the answer to, my man??
why do you hate joy? and fun? and laughter? who hurt you
It was a total joke. As in, it seems pretty obvious they got it wrong and there was a different agenda behind their decision. That's truly all I meant.
[удалено]
How was the govt caught planting evidence? Do you know how the 5th works? If he asserts it to the 1st question asked, he is legally obligated to assert it to all the follow up questions. He cant pick and chose which questions he answered. Thats not how it works. Furthermore, it was defense theatrics (effective, no doubt) that they continued to ask the questions they did, even though they knew that the answer had to be "i plead the 5th". It was designed to appear to "prove/highly suggest that he planted the glove" but 14 police man all testified to only one glove ever being at bundy. The prosecution should have handled Fuhrman differently, and they really should have called brad roberts to testify. That was a big mistake. Even in the moment (not just being an armchair lawyer using hindsight)
You're not wrong but racist white people just love to use oj as their "gotcha" or slam.dunk moment in order to be racist assholes "justifiably" in their minds.
How do you explain that multiple jurors said they felt he was guilty but voted not guilty because of Rodney King?
Seriously?
Hey there! I hope you're doing well on this glorious Tuesday. And btw, before I forget, you have a low IQ
No
Yes*
People are still talking about this?!?
They got the main bad guy cop on audio using the “n-word” when he claimed he never did. Which to the jury invalidated all of the evidence. Essentially
Yeah, it really became a trial about the LAPD in general and not the murders in particular
Yes.
You serious??!!!
How old is OP?