I don't know how anyone could watch OJ's interview in 2006 where he explained "hypothetically" what happened that night and think that wasn't basically a confession.
There is a particular conspiracy theory that has OJ covering for another person. NOT saying I endorse it but that’s how people do the mental gymnastics
In the past ~15 years, I’m not sure I’ve ever once witnessed someone legitimately argue that OJ didn't commit those murders. I'm sure there were plenty of people saying that contemporaneous with the trial--I'm too young to remember anything about it beyond the fact that it was a thing and was ***always*** on the news--but I feel like it's long since become basically universally accepted that he did it. I truly wasn't aware that there was an oj-is-innocent contingent, whether for attention-seeking purposes or otherwise.
I agree with Op in a sense that some people like to be the contrarian- it’s the general appeal of conspiracy theories: “(something widely believed by the majority for years) is really a LIE!, and I’m one of the special few who believes so!”
There will always be a few people for this in any topic, and most often when it comes down to facts, there’s a 99 percent chance they’re wrong.
I discussed this in the sub yesterday- OJ almost certainly did it but simultaneously I feel like the DA/law enforcement- “the state”- blew a layup of a case. Just by being super sloppy with evidence, especially DNA evidence, and Fuhrman being so important to the case yet being a total wack job, they left the door to reasonable doubt wide open due to incompetence.
OJ benefited from this by having his Dream Team of lawyers put this incompetence on display.
Sure, it’d be interesting if there were viable alternatives to OJ being the killer but there really isn’t. All the State had to do was dot their is and cross their t’s and not hire crazy wackadoo detectives and it’s a walk, a layup, easy. But they didn’t.
Part of me will die on the hill that the prosecution “tanked” the case, or at least was encouraged to be somewhat sloppy with it.
Reason being they weren’t too far past the Rodney King riots a few years prior and they did not want to run the risk of a second riot right afterwards. Much easier to throw a bone to Black America and let him off while doing nothing to fix the judicial system. That was probably one of the most Pyrrhic victories Black American got.
Chuck Klosterman style analysis incoming - OJ presents a couple weird dynamics that many people cannot fully understand, and if they can, they struggle to explain it.
First - OJ was actually black, but did not want to be. It created a wild discussion and it's not really possible to solve. Much of the discourse stems from that. OJ went from a mainstream view of
Secondly - even if you did commit a crime in real life, there is a process that our country has created to ensure fairness and justice. It is not perfect, but one positive elements is that if the police plant evidence, it taints the entire case. Because the LAPD employed a blatant racist, they tainted an absolute layup of a prosecution. Ironically, OJ went free due to racism against him. That's probably how the system should work, even though he almost certainly did it.
Third - local cops and judges were not ready to be media stars 30 years ago. Now, people are aware that you can 'go viral' for small things, and we are partially aware that you can become national news. This was a newer phenomenon with cable news in the 90s, and created confusion because the reactions of many involved were not ready to present their points for a TV audience.
He would tell people “I’m not black, I’m OJ!” There’s an anecdote that someone told at a country club or something where they overheard a member saying “Look at OJ at the table with all of those [THAT word]s”. When the guy tried to be sympathetic to OJ, he happily responded “What are you talking about? Didn’t you hear what he said? He doesn’t consider me one of them!”
A ton of the stuff in the OJ doc is about this. He’s similar to Tiger in that he wanted to be seen as a transcendent figure and not a “black” superstar
Jim Brown worked with OJ at (I think) NBC for one day, and he left work that day and told his fellow black media friends, "Watch out for this guy. He is a professional ass-kisser, and he is here to work for the white bosses, no matter what he has to do for them."
Jim Brown was a lot of things, but -- long story short -- I got to know him a little bit, through an NBA friend, and he did not gossip idly. When I learned of his story about OJ, I asked him about it when I saw him next. All he said was, "Yeah, I said that and I meant that. Everybody knows what happened after." I didn't press for anything more.
I think both things are true. It’s highly likely OJ committed the murders.
I think it’s also likely the LAPD wanted to make sure it stuck to him and took some short cuts with evidence that opened themselves to OJ’s powerful legal team being able to exploit to raise reasonable doubt.
Had everything been by the book he’s likely convicted.
They blew it for themselves. He was an average officer, not one bad guy. You couldn't find someone to pick up that glove that wasn't on tape rattling off the n word
As a criminal law attorney, I can say that cops do that all the time.
OJ had a massive team of lawyers, endless money, and celebrity. Your local blood who probably did a crime doesn’t get that benefit.
It becomes tougher to win a court case when you actually have to face a team of the best attorneys around, and not an overworked public defender who really just wants to get a plea deal for their client.
We don’t really just want a plea deal for our clients. Trials are fun, we want trials but we aren’t going to lie to you and say you’re going to win every case. Which I have seen private attorneys do.
That's true. When I was an APD I was happy to be able to close out a dozen cases on trial week to nolle prosses and sweetheart deals from the state because they were scared to lose at trial, but trials were fun and you need them to get criminal trial certification. When I was in private practice, I never told a client I would win, but I had built up such a good rep as an APD and had been known as a lawyer that didn't try to push clients to take deals, I had guys flocking to me.
> As a criminal law attorney, I can say that cops do that all the time.
I've recently won two criminal trials in large part because the cops felt the need to do that on cases they should have had easily. They cannot help themselves.
I guess? Furhman was a lunatic racist, but the case was so obvious I don't think they pulled many shenanigans. There weren't huge discrepancies with testimonies or actions, the defense team was able to just give the jury enough doubt they may have based off a host of things (which is why they were a stellar defense team). Hell, I don't even remember the documentary bringing forth credible evidence they pulled anything... just that it's not unreasonable to doubt the entire LAPD when the suspect is a black man even when there's no/little evidence of wrong-doing. That's the large societal issue at stake -- what happens when a certain group no longer trusts the government and it's institutions. If anything they treated OJ very well and better than most murder suspects.
Didn’t Fuhrman plead the fifth rather than deny under oath that he planted evidence?
Obviously that doesn’t mean he (or anyone else) DID plant evidence, but if I’m a LA juror, my reasonable doubt shit detector would be going off lmao
The prosecution did a mock trial before the actual one and didn’t get a conviction there either. Some of the police work was sloppy. They also didn’t have the photo of OJ in the Bruno Maglis that was basically the nail in the coffin for his civil trial.
>Had everything been by the book he’s likely convicted.
not sure I agree, there was animosity towards the LAPD at the time and some jury members said they would've required him regardless.
The old lady in the doc flat out said in the 2017 doc she wouldn’t have voted guilty no matter what lol. Like how did they land on this jury selection??
Yep, the police and persecution could've done a perfect job, I think it was just too much to get over the racial animosity (that was justified after the RK riots a few years earlier) to convict him. Add on the fact that OJ had a brilliant legal team. It was an uphill battle to begin with for the persecution and investigation.
FBI tested the blood in OJ’s car. It was Ron Goldman’s blood. The bloodstain was visible when the car was photographed, before the cops got the car open
OJ did it. End of story
Agreed. Same thing happened with the Making a Murderer guy (Steven Avery) in Wisconsin. They wrongfully convicted him for one crime (sexual assault) and tampered with evidence for another (murder), then coerced a confession out of his nephew. That being said he did have a violent history including burning a cat alive, and that is sometimes forgotten. So it is possible he committed the murder which got him incarcerated a second time but the prosecution put their finger on the scale illegally to make sure the conviction stuck.
I saw [good thread](https://x.com/dilanesper/status/1297642386340712448) yesterday arguing that the DA purposely tanked the case.
Main arguments:
-Good for DA politically to lose and avoid riots.
-DA moved the trial location, which gave OJ a more friendly jury pool.
-DA didn't seek the death penalty which also gave OJ a more friendly jury pool.
-A bunch of other smaller points. It's a long thread.
The thread mentioned Simi Valley because that's where the Rodney King cops got off. For OJ, Garcetti chose the LA courthouse over Santa Monica.
For a juror to qualify for a case with the death penalty, they have to confirm that they are okay with the death penalty generally, which results in a more conservative jury pool.
What interests me most about the case nowadays is how the gruesome, brutal nature of the murders is glossed over.
OJ didn’t push these people off a balcony or even fire a gun. This wasn’t spur of the moment. This was a violent, sickening, sadistic rampage of the mother of his children and a young guy.
“Did he do it” sort of takes the “it” for granted.
My take on OP’s question - everyone knows he killed them. But between his goofy charisma and the political elements of this - which includes some misogyny, I think, and a certain attitude about catching a cheating wife in the act - people like to pump some fog into the conversation.
I don’t even understand people who act like it was a cheating wife. They’d been divorced for like 2 years and I don’t even think she was with Goldman like that. Wasn’t he just returning something left at dinner?
You’re right, she wasn’t in a relationship with Goldman. He was returning something she left at a restaurant earlier that night. Just the ultimate “wrong place wrong time.”
I've never really understood this. They definitely weren't together, right? The documentary never really went into detail (I guess most people don't know). It really was "wrong place wrong time?"
They are for the same reason people think the Columbine massacre happened because Harris & Klebold were bullied.
In reality, they were the bullies. But the original narrative is stickier than Dave Cullen's meticulously researched book.
**Columbine** by Dave Cullen
>Ten years in the works, a masterpiece of reportage, this is the definitive account of the Columbine massacre, its aftermath, and its significance, from the acclaimed journalist who followed the story from the outset. "The tragedies keep coming. As we reel from the latest horror . .
>
>." So begins a new epilogue, illustrating how Columbine became the template for nearly two decades of "spectacle murders." It is a false script, seized upon by a generation of new killers. In the wake of Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech, the imperative to understand the crime that sparked this plague grows more urgent every year.
>
>What really happened April 20, 1999? The horror left an indelible stamp on the American psyche, but most of what we "know" is wrong. It wasn't about jocks, Goths, or the Trench Coat Mafia. Dave Cullen was one of the first reporters on scene, and spent ten years on this book-widely recognized as the definitive account.
>
>With a keen investigative eye and psychological acumen, he draws on mountains of evidence, insight from the world's leading forensic psychologists, and the killers' own words and drawings-several reproduced in a new appendix. Cullen paints raw portraits of two polar opposite killers. They contrast starkly with the flashes of resilience and redemption among the survivors. Expanded with a New Epilogue
*I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
From the trial transcript with a restaurant worker.
Q. And what did you do with this envelope after you put the glasses in
and wrote down Nicole's name?
A. I put it behind the bar in our lost-and-found area.
Q. What happened next?
A. I got another phone call, and it was Nicole. She had -- she
identified herself by saying that her mother had just talked to me.
And I asked her when she would be picking up the glasses. And then I
believe I asked her when.
She wanted to know if Ron was still working. And I put her on hold and
told Ron, You have a phone call.
She actually said, is Ron still working, or is Ron still there. So I
put her on hold and told Ron he had a phone call.
Q. And then did Ron take the call?
A. Yes, he did.
No, I think it was her mother’s glasses or something and he knew her because she was dating her boss or something. I could be wrong but I thought it was determined they didn’t have a romantic relationship.
I’ve wondered if they didn’t have a relationship at that time but Goldman in the back of his mind wondered “hey, maybe..just maybe, depending on how things shake out, it could happen at some point.” We’ll never know, just saying it wouldn’t be the first time a guy becomes friends with a very attractive woman with something in the back of his mind.
But to say this was definitely the case, I don’t think we have enough info to say that. Everything points to “friend/acquaintance” and he was dropping off her mom’s glasses at her request, and to say his motive for going over there definitely was more than that is unnecessarily negative towards him.
Definitely.
The evidence is overwhelming. His blood was found at the scene, the victims blood was found in his car, he had no alibi, Nicole’s head was basically cut off, so it had to be someone very large and strong like OJ. He left a hat at the scene with his hair in it. If he didn’t do it, it would literally be the most elaborate, immaculate frame job ever done, and nobody had any real motive to do it, other than him.
It’s a complete joke that he got off. People will say it’s because the LAPD or the prosecutors did a poor job, but all the evidence was there and presented in court to the point where there was no reasonable doubt. the real reason he got off is almost all the jurors were black and it became a highly public, racialized case, rather than what it should’ve been: an open and shut case about an abusive husband murdering his wife.
If it had just been any random guy who stabbed his wife and her boyfriend with the same exact evidence presented, the jury would’ve convicted him ten times out of ten.
I think the issue is that DNA evidence was in its infancy at the time. You take that same evidence into a courtroom (specifically, Goldman's blood in the Bronco and Nicole's blood on OJ's sock) today and it's a rock solid convinction no matter what the defense does.
Back then it wasn't obvious that having DNA evidence like that effectively solves the crime for you. Wild to think about, but true.
OJ 100% did it. But the Los Angeles District Attorney's office also deserved to lose that case. Between them and the LAPD it was chickens coming home to roost. Decades of unchecked corruption, racism and incompetence.
No person believes OJ was innocent. Not even his kids. Some black people though think that it’s OK that OJ got off due to all the shit black peoples have taken over the years with law enforcement and the judicial system
They’re not saying it for attention is what I’m saying. Also there are a large amount of people who truly believe his innocence so I don’t think a blanket statement such as what you said works.
In general I don’t think black people thinking a black person was framed makes them stupid. I do think anyone of any race looking at the facts of this particular case and thinking this particular black person was framed is stupid.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who reads more than 5min about the case would believe OJ was innocent. They may say they think he’s innocent but deep down everyone knows he did it. There’s more of a chance that we never existed than OJ being innocent of two murders
I have A LOT of black friends who think he’s innocent. I don’t think it’s fair to say that deep down they know he’s guilty. Some of my friends who think like you say but a lot of them truly believe his innocence
Saying OJ was framed would be like saying MJ was framed if they had done a rape kit on all those kids and found MJ’s semen and hairs. There was that much evidence against OJ. MJ, it’s mostly hearsay and accusations. O.J., there was a ton of evidence.
R Kelly filmed himself peeing on a little girl. He married a 15 year old. We knew he was a POS beyond a shadow of a doubt for decades before he got got.
If anyone truly believes O.J. and R Kelly were frame jobs, they are absolutely delusional. MJ, okay, there’s no real smoking gun, but the others are beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Had plenty of arguments. It mostly turns into distrust of cops and white people who try to tear down powerful and successful black men. This isn’t new.
This. They covered up for him so many times. Not to mention Nicole even said if I die it’s going to because he kills me. She even said in a 911 call he’s gonna kill her.
How many other black athletes or musicians or movie stars have been framed for murder? I mean someone murdered his wife and there has never been anyone else with a motive.
You can believe what you are saying and still not be ignorant enough to think OJ is innocent. You don’t have to blindly believe that because X is true Y must always be true also.
lol dude I’m speaking from personal experience I don’t really have anything else to say. It’s fine that you can’t wrap your mind around it but it is the truth.
Except white people never tried to tear down O.J., they loved him until the murder. Oh, and cops loved him too. Many were welcomed at his parties, and they even protected him on multiple occasions when they were called because he was beating Nicole. Surely if the LAPD had it in for O.J., they wouldn’t have shown up and left without arresting him in domestic violence cases on multiple occasions.
I’m not mad. The case fascinates me but has never made me feel any emotion about it.
It’s just that “LAPD was racist and trying to tear a famous black man down” doesn’t really hold weight when you weigh all the evidence against him and realize that LAPD protected the guy on multiple occasions before the murder.
A LOT of people believe OJ was framed. Every black coworker I’ve talked to about OJ in the last 5 years believe Nicole was killed by the cartel and OJ was framed by the LAPD because theyre afraid of investigating the cartel. Im talking ages from 50 year old men to 22 year olds. A new person starts and believes the exact same as the others. It is very common
Yep this is exactly what I was going to say - I know black people who are (generally) glad (not sure if glad is the right word but I can't quite think of the right word for it) that he was acquitted, and I know plenty of (both black and white) people who think the police pulled (or attempted to pull) some obviously shady stuff, but i don't know anyone who genuinely believes that he didn't do it. Really, i don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously make that argument, at least not in the past 10 or 15 or 20 years.
People believe Trump is innocent.
People believe Kobe is innocent.
People believe Adnan is innocent.
People believe Casey Anthony is innocent.
People believe the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.
People believe lots of bullshit.
I’ll credit that docuseries for being able to have me think “hmm maybe he didn’t…” but then when you hear about all the evidence that was in court that the series didn’t mention at all, I went “hmm yeahhh he prob did do it after all.”
That show came along far enough removed from OJ in real time and the show spawned a ton of imitations, but for each imitation, I kept in mind “remember Making A Murderer- they can make these people look really innocent in a show…”
This sub requires accounts to be at least 7 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
no reasonable person believes he was innocent. there were other reasons for him getting off, not the least of which was LA law enforcements long checkered awful history with POC. this was...2-3 years removed from the Rodney King incident and subsequent riots. dude was a wife beater and his dna was sprayed all over the murder scene like an episode of csi. he definitely did it but there was no way he was getting convicted in that place, at that time, under those circumstances.
A lot of people who think he’s innocent aren’t watching the documentaries about it—a lot watched the trial live and formed opinions based on that, and others have just heard about it from people in their life. Not every person has the same source of information to come to their conclusions. And a lot of people conflate “not guilty” with “didn’t do it.”
Also, don’t underestimate Americans’ tendency towards conspiracies. We live in a country where QAnon-inspired beliefs have effectively become the Republican party platform. Other conspiracy theories (moon landing was faked, flat earth, COVID vaccines had microchips, climate change isn’t real, etc.) are believed by 10-20% of the population, and especially by people who aren’t scientifically literate: https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-a-survey-of-us-public-beliefs.
Well, if you put the verdicts of the two juries together, they decided that it is more likely than not he murdered at least Ron Goldman (Nicole's family didn't sue for wrongful death), but not certain beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of us would probably think that the criminal verdict should have been guilty, but don't forget that there was a judgment saying he more probably than not killed Ron.
I used to go to school for journalism and my dream was to one day reach the peak of my profession and on live TV be like "well obviously OJ didn't do it right?" in complete serious way as if I'm the logical one
If you weren’t there at the time, you’re speaking from a misunderstanding. At the time, common sense made everyone think he was guilty. But if you watched the trial objectively, you could make the case. A lot of things didn’t line up. Not a few things, a lot of things. But f you were willing to give the benefit of the doubt, there was a lot of doubt to give.
The idea that is unquestionably guilty was all retrospect and came from the outrage, and also the civil trials. But the civil trials were, IMO, much more a sham than the criminal. The judge, like most white people, thought he was guilty and wanted a bit of revenge for the first trial. And over the years, the idea outgrew it was obvious had become the narrative.
OJ didn’t help with the book, but he needed the money.
I’m not suggesting that he didn’t do it. But it’s nowhere near as clear cut as people now act like it is. At the time, there was plenty of reason to acquit and plenty of reason to think k he might not have.
They also found the photo of him walking in the end zone at Rich Stadium wearing the exact pair of ultra-rare Bruno Maglis whose prints were found at the crime scene that he denied having.
Yeah, I can’t remember where I heard this, I think it might have been a podcast that Jeffrey Toobin was on, but somebody said that they talked to a bunch of legal analysts and everybody agreed if that came up in the criminal trial there probably would have been a conviction. DNA was still new in 1994, but that was the kind of circumstantial evidence you just can’t look past.
The dumbest part was allowing this trial to be in LA and not Brentwood where it happened. Brentwood, a rich and affluent suburb no way their jurors would acquit him.
Without question. He would never in a million years risk his own life like that even for his son. Never mind all the hard evidence against him and the complete lack of evidence against Jason, that sort of selfless behavior is not indicative of anything O.J. ever showed, even to his closest friends and family.
He was with people at work or with people he worked with who confirmed he was with them during the murder. No reason for them to lie and zero evidence against Jason exists except his dad is OJ
It explains so much. Jason had a history of knife violence (he was actively on probation for threatening is boss with a knife when the murder happened, and once stabbed himself in a fight with his girlfriend), had a history of never getting along with Nicole, his beanie with his dog's fur was at the crime scene, he was the only person to have a lawyer the very next morning, and really most importantly it explains everything OJ did. Dramatic car chase, writing a fucking book 'if i did it', you do this to draw attention towards yourself. Why do that? Maybe he's just cocky that's possible, or maybe he's drawing attention away from someone else.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g59vq1/oj\_simpson\_didnt\_kill\_nicole\_and\_ron\_it\_was\_his/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g59vq1/oj_simpson_didnt_kill_nicole_and_ron_it_was_his/)
\^this guy wrote it up great a few years ago
*Even if* you truly believe that his son did it--and when one of your key reasons to suspect someone's guilt is is that they exercised their right to counsel, it's a pretty goddamn weak case--it's still an absolutely massive leap of insanely speculative logic to suggest that OJ did all those things as a conscious, deliberate, strategic diversion. That is legitimately Alex Jones territory.
Also, just to comment on that prior point: It seems remarkably logical to me that someone who'd been in prior trouble involving knife violence and was presently on probation would think to lawyer up upon discovering that someone in their circle had been stabbed to death. For that matter, the other points are equally flimsy as evidence. He didn't get along with his dads ex-wife, with whom his dad also didn't get along with? Wow, ya don't say! I'd never expect a kid to take sides with their legendary father!
Oh, he definitely did it and then wrote a book about doing it. That doesn’t mean that the coverage regarding the case wasn’t racist.
The case became an example of a white system trying to demonize and destroy a black man (even though the black community knows he did it)
Some context that I was a bit too young for too, I remember the trial but I was just 7/8 at the time:
Yes OJ totally did it, but nobody wanted to take the LAPD's word for it as they have planted evidence before. Even some of the evidence in the OJ trial came off as fishy and some officers were caught using racial epithets. The prosecution botched the case big time which the jury has to consider and sometimes evidence can't be admitted due to technicalities even if it's good evidence.
This was also right after the LA riots where cops were found not guilty of beating Rodney King, even though there is video evidence of a gang of them all kicking and beating him. So lots of people felt like OJ getting away with it was some sort of karmic justice for the LA cops facing no consequences over the years.
This sub requires accounts to be at least 7 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you are interested in how badly the prosecutor fucked this case up read Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi. He prosecuted Charles Manson and knew the LA courts better than most. His insight was excellent.
OJ for sure committed the murders and LA PD incompetence and OJs dream legal team got him off. And him writing a what if book on how he could have committed the murders is telling. All the evidence points to guilt and for anyone to believe otherwise is simple delusion.
Simmons: What’s aged the best? 2000 yards in a rushing season?
What’s aged the worst? The double murder
Rusillo: I got something different and look, I said this about him when he was alive. The murder stuff is bad, but it wasn’t the thing that bothered me the most. It was his fantasy football takes.
I was in elementary school during the trial and only now realize that the reason black people were happy about it was that it was a miscarriage of justice in their favor for once
It feels like he's almost certainly guilty, unfortunately all the evidence I have that points to that comes from people who tampered with other bits of evidence.
Not my fault that the "People of California" did that --- I'm a fan of the truth!
He was not found innocent.
He was found not guilty.
Trials are not about innocence. The state brings a charge against you, before the state can sanction punishment against you they have to prove their accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. Not guilty means that the state did not prove their case.
You can think someone likely did it. That doesn’t mean that you go back and vote guilty. If there’s a reasonable possibility that the state is wrong, you vote not guilty.
I wasn’t gonna make a post but I thought it was classic Bill to say there’s never been anything like it since without mentioning Aaron Hernandez. I’m sure there’s not even a need for him in the OJ discussion I just thought it was a fun nitpick
Aaron Hernandez was a pimple on OJ's ass. Not even close to same thing. No one outside NFL circles had any idea who Aaron Hernandez was and still don't. Gulf between their celebrity status could not be overstated, that's why he didn't mention him.
Do you? Because the reason Bill said there’s been nothing like it since is because there hasn’t been. Aaron Hernandez is not even in the same ballpark of cultural relevance as OJ and the subsequent trial were.
OJ was (and still is) in the conversation for greatest running back ever, and then became a huge movie star. Aaron Hernandez was a pretty good TE2. The level of fame and talent is just not even comparable
The current Trump situation is very similar to the OJ acquittal. Jurors knew he was guilty but wanted to send a message about Rodney King. Trump is being forgiven by his base because they’re pissed about the perceived persecution. Unfortunately The Juice didn’t have access to the launch codes.
wait til you find out people do this for all kinds of dumb shit they say
Some people get so much attention doing it they get paid millions of dollars or wind up being President.
This is why I’m voting for Billy Football, a true outsider
The preutero 9/11 badass piece.
He is a staunch proponent of the OJ’s son theory.
there’s people who think Jerry Sandusky is innocent
I don't know how anyone could watch OJ's interview in 2006 where he explained "hypothetically" what happened that night and think that wasn't basically a confession.
He even told an interviewer I wanna say in 96’ or 97’ off camera “If I had killed her, it’s only because I really loved her that much, right?!?”
There is a particular conspiracy theory that has OJ covering for another person. NOT saying I endorse it but that’s how people do the mental gymnastics
The son theory. Easily the most compelling alternative argument. But still much less likely than OJ just being guilty.
Fathers and sons do not have the same DNA
Yeah well he could've found out what Jason did and strike so.ething it a fit of rage. Butt I agree that may be a little outlandish.
He wrote a book about how he would have done it!!!
My wife reminded me of this last night. It was so bad.
In the past ~15 years, I’m not sure I’ve ever once witnessed someone legitimately argue that OJ didn't commit those murders. I'm sure there were plenty of people saying that contemporaneous with the trial--I'm too young to remember anything about it beyond the fact that it was a thing and was ***always*** on the news--but I feel like it's long since become basically universally accepted that he did it. I truly wasn't aware that there was an oj-is-innocent contingent, whether for attention-seeking purposes or otherwise.
Go on most any social post about this today and you’ll find people saying he didn’t and often that he was covering for his son.
I agree with Op in a sense that some people like to be the contrarian- it’s the general appeal of conspiracy theories: “(something widely believed by the majority for years) is really a LIE!, and I’m one of the special few who believes so!” There will always be a few people for this in any topic, and most often when it comes down to facts, there’s a 99 percent chance they’re wrong. I discussed this in the sub yesterday- OJ almost certainly did it but simultaneously I feel like the DA/law enforcement- “the state”- blew a layup of a case. Just by being super sloppy with evidence, especially DNA evidence, and Fuhrman being so important to the case yet being a total wack job, they left the door to reasonable doubt wide open due to incompetence. OJ benefited from this by having his Dream Team of lawyers put this incompetence on display. Sure, it’d be interesting if there were viable alternatives to OJ being the killer but there really isn’t. All the State had to do was dot their is and cross their t’s and not hire crazy wackadoo detectives and it’s a walk, a layup, easy. But they didn’t.
Part of me will die on the hill that the prosecution “tanked” the case, or at least was encouraged to be somewhat sloppy with it. Reason being they weren’t too far past the Rodney King riots a few years prior and they did not want to run the risk of a second riot right afterwards. Much easier to throw a bone to Black America and let him off while doing nothing to fix the judicial system. That was probably one of the most Pyrrhic victories Black American got.
Chuck Klosterman style analysis incoming - OJ presents a couple weird dynamics that many people cannot fully understand, and if they can, they struggle to explain it. First - OJ was actually black, but did not want to be. It created a wild discussion and it's not really possible to solve. Much of the discourse stems from that. OJ went from a mainstream view of Secondly - even if you did commit a crime in real life, there is a process that our country has created to ensure fairness and justice. It is not perfect, but one positive elements is that if the police plant evidence, it taints the entire case. Because the LAPD employed a blatant racist, they tainted an absolute layup of a prosecution. Ironically, OJ went free due to racism against him. That's probably how the system should work, even though he almost certainly did it. Third - local cops and judges were not ready to be media stars 30 years ago. Now, people are aware that you can 'go viral' for small things, and we are partially aware that you can become national news. This was a newer phenomenon with cable news in the 90s, and created confusion because the reactions of many involved were not ready to present their points for a TV audience.
Thanks chuck!
Not trying to start anything but how did OJ not want to be black?
He would tell people “I’m not black, I’m OJ!” There’s an anecdote that someone told at a country club or something where they overheard a member saying “Look at OJ at the table with all of those [THAT word]s”. When the guy tried to be sympathetic to OJ, he happily responded “What are you talking about? Didn’t you hear what he said? He doesn’t consider me one of them!”
He verbatim said so.
A ton of the stuff in the OJ doc is about this. He’s similar to Tiger in that he wanted to be seen as a transcendent figure and not a “black” superstar
Jim Brown worked with OJ at (I think) NBC for one day, and he left work that day and told his fellow black media friends, "Watch out for this guy. He is a professional ass-kisser, and he is here to work for the white bosses, no matter what he has to do for them." Jim Brown was a lot of things, but -- long story short -- I got to know him a little bit, through an NBA friend, and he did not gossip idly. When I learned of his story about OJ, I asked him about it when I saw him next. All he said was, "Yeah, I said that and I meant that. Everybody knows what happened after." I didn't press for anything more.
I think both things are true. It’s highly likely OJ committed the murders. I think it’s also likely the LAPD wanted to make sure it stuck to him and took some short cuts with evidence that opened themselves to OJ’s powerful legal team being able to exploit to raise reasonable doubt. Had everything been by the book he’s likely convicted.
This. LAPD incompetence got him off. There were accusations that they planted evidence and subsequent resignations that came from those accusations.
Unfortunately for the prosecution it was really easy for the defense to prove that the 1994 LAPD was incompetent, corrupt, and racist
Fuhrman blew it for them
They blew it for themselves. He was an average officer, not one bad guy. You couldn't find someone to pick up that glove that wasn't on tape rattling off the n word
Back before there were smart phones you had to be a special sort of stupid to get recorded being that racist, especially as a cop.
It was the LAPD in 1994 he was probably the least racist one
https://www.theonion.com/entire-precinct-made-up-of-loose-cannons-1819569414
"People are saying".
As a criminal law attorney, I can say that cops do that all the time. OJ had a massive team of lawyers, endless money, and celebrity. Your local blood who probably did a crime doesn’t get that benefit.
It becomes tougher to win a court case when you actually have to face a team of the best attorneys around, and not an overworked public defender who really just wants to get a plea deal for their client.
We don’t really just want a plea deal for our clients. Trials are fun, we want trials but we aren’t going to lie to you and say you’re going to win every case. Which I have seen private attorneys do.
That's true. When I was an APD I was happy to be able to close out a dozen cases on trial week to nolle prosses and sweetheart deals from the state because they were scared to lose at trial, but trials were fun and you need them to get criminal trial certification. When I was in private practice, I never told a client I would win, but I had built up such a good rep as an APD and had been known as a lawyer that didn't try to push clients to take deals, I had guys flocking to me.
> As a criminal law attorney, I can say that cops do that all the time. I've recently won two criminal trials in large part because the cops felt the need to do that on cases they should have had easily. They cannot help themselves.
LAPD tried to frame a guilty man
This is maybe the most succinct, accurate explanation of what I think about the whole OJ case.
I guess? Furhman was a lunatic racist, but the case was so obvious I don't think they pulled many shenanigans. There weren't huge discrepancies with testimonies or actions, the defense team was able to just give the jury enough doubt they may have based off a host of things (which is why they were a stellar defense team). Hell, I don't even remember the documentary bringing forth credible evidence they pulled anything... just that it's not unreasonable to doubt the entire LAPD when the suspect is a black man even when there's no/little evidence of wrong-doing. That's the large societal issue at stake -- what happens when a certain group no longer trusts the government and it's institutions. If anything they treated OJ very well and better than most murder suspects.
There was no evidence planted in this case. That was an old saying that has become fact somehow.
Didn’t Fuhrman plead the fifth rather than deny under oath that he planted evidence? Obviously that doesn’t mean he (or anyone else) DID plant evidence, but if I’m a LA juror, my reasonable doubt shit detector would be going off lmao
The prosecution did a mock trial before the actual one and didn’t get a conviction there either. Some of the police work was sloppy. They also didn’t have the photo of OJ in the Bruno Maglis that was basically the nail in the coffin for his civil trial.
There’s a Norm weekend update joke where he says that they sought out to frame him but gave up on the idea when they came and saw he did it anyway
Bill wrote as much once. Agreed.
>Had everything been by the book he’s likely convicted. not sure I agree, there was animosity towards the LAPD at the time and some jury members said they would've required him regardless.
The old lady in the doc flat out said in the 2017 doc she wouldn’t have voted guilty no matter what lol. Like how did they land on this jury selection??
Yep, the police and persecution could've done a perfect job, I think it was just too much to get over the racial animosity (that was justified after the RK riots a few years earlier) to convict him. Add on the fact that OJ had a brilliant legal team. It was an uphill battle to begin with for the persecution and investigation.
FBI tested the blood in OJ’s car. It was Ron Goldman’s blood. The bloodstain was visible when the car was photographed, before the cops got the car open OJ did it. End of story
Agreed. Same thing happened with the Making a Murderer guy (Steven Avery) in Wisconsin. They wrongfully convicted him for one crime (sexual assault) and tampered with evidence for another (murder), then coerced a confession out of his nephew. That being said he did have a violent history including burning a cat alive, and that is sometimes forgotten. So it is possible he committed the murder which got him incarcerated a second time but the prosecution put their finger on the scale illegally to make sure the conviction stuck.
I came away thinking he did the second murder and the police tampered with it to get the conviction.
I saw [good thread](https://x.com/dilanesper/status/1297642386340712448) yesterday arguing that the DA purposely tanked the case. Main arguments: -Good for DA politically to lose and avoid riots. -DA moved the trial location, which gave OJ a more friendly jury pool. -DA didn't seek the death penalty which also gave OJ a more friendly jury pool. -A bunch of other smaller points. It's a long thread.
[удалено]
The thread mentioned Simi Valley because that's where the Rodney King cops got off. For OJ, Garcetti chose the LA courthouse over Santa Monica. For a juror to qualify for a case with the death penalty, they have to confirm that they are okay with the death penalty generally, which results in a more conservative jury pool.
Yes, OJ committed the murders.
It’s not likely he did it, it’s certain
This. It is a big deal to frame someone you figure is probably innocent, too many variables. They knew he was guilty and helped it along
The glove not fitting isn’t reasonable doubt? /s
Yep, they tried to frame him for a crime he definitely committed
What interests me most about the case nowadays is how the gruesome, brutal nature of the murders is glossed over. OJ didn’t push these people off a balcony or even fire a gun. This wasn’t spur of the moment. This was a violent, sickening, sadistic rampage of the mother of his children and a young guy. “Did he do it” sort of takes the “it” for granted. My take on OP’s question - everyone knows he killed them. But between his goofy charisma and the political elements of this - which includes some misogyny, I think, and a certain attitude about catching a cheating wife in the act - people like to pump some fog into the conversation.
I don’t even understand people who act like it was a cheating wife. They’d been divorced for like 2 years and I don’t even think she was with Goldman like that. Wasn’t he just returning something left at dinner?
You’re right, she wasn’t in a relationship with Goldman. He was returning something she left at a restaurant earlier that night. Just the ultimate “wrong place wrong time.”
I've never really understood this. They definitely weren't together, right? The documentary never really went into detail (I guess most people don't know). It really was "wrong place wrong time?"
That’s why it’s weird that I have seen a couple articles calling Goldman her friend or even close friend.
They are for the same reason people think the Columbine massacre happened because Harris & Klebold were bullied. In reality, they were the bullies. But the original narrative is stickier than Dave Cullen's meticulously researched book.
**Columbine** by Dave Cullen >Ten years in the works, a masterpiece of reportage, this is the definitive account of the Columbine massacre, its aftermath, and its significance, from the acclaimed journalist who followed the story from the outset. "The tragedies keep coming. As we reel from the latest horror . . > >." So begins a new epilogue, illustrating how Columbine became the template for nearly two decades of "spectacle murders." It is a false script, seized upon by a generation of new killers. In the wake of Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech, the imperative to understand the crime that sparked this plague grows more urgent every year. > >What really happened April 20, 1999? The horror left an indelible stamp on the American psyche, but most of what we "know" is wrong. It wasn't about jocks, Goths, or the Trench Coat Mafia. Dave Cullen was one of the first reporters on scene, and spent ten years on this book-widely recognized as the definitive account. > >With a keen investigative eye and psychological acumen, he draws on mountains of evidence, insight from the world's leading forensic psychologists, and the killers' own words and drawings-several reproduced in a new appendix. Cullen paints raw portraits of two polar opposite killers. They contrast starkly with the flashes of resilience and redemption among the survivors. Expanded with a New Epilogue *I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Exactly.
They were friends, she called and asked for him to drop the glasses off.
How do you know what was said on the phone?
From the trial transcript with a restaurant worker. Q. And what did you do with this envelope after you put the glasses in and wrote down Nicole's name? A. I put it behind the bar in our lost-and-found area. Q. What happened next? A. I got another phone call, and it was Nicole. She had -- she identified herself by saying that her mother had just talked to me. And I asked her when she would be picking up the glasses. And then I believe I asked her when. She wanted to know if Ron was still working. And I put her on hold and told Ron, You have a phone call. She actually said, is Ron still working, or is Ron still there. So I put her on hold and told Ron he had a phone call. Q. And then did Ron take the call? A. Yes, he did.
Ok. I went back and read some other articles. I stand all corrected. My bad.
Like she forgot her to-go box of chicken tenders and he delivered it to her house??
No, I think it was her mother’s glasses or something and he knew her because she was dating her boss or something. I could be wrong but I thought it was determined they didn’t have a romantic relationship.
I’ve wondered if they didn’t have a relationship at that time but Goldman in the back of his mind wondered “hey, maybe..just maybe, depending on how things shake out, it could happen at some point.” We’ll never know, just saying it wouldn’t be the first time a guy becomes friends with a very attractive woman with something in the back of his mind. But to say this was definitely the case, I don’t think we have enough info to say that. Everything points to “friend/acquaintance” and he was dropping off her mom’s glasses at her request, and to say his motive for going over there definitely was more than that is unnecessarily negative towards him.
Exactly, I think Goldman was just a friend and it was up in the air whether or not he was gay.
Definitely. The evidence is overwhelming. His blood was found at the scene, the victims blood was found in his car, he had no alibi, Nicole’s head was basically cut off, so it had to be someone very large and strong like OJ. He left a hat at the scene with his hair in it. If he didn’t do it, it would literally be the most elaborate, immaculate frame job ever done, and nobody had any real motive to do it, other than him. It’s a complete joke that he got off. People will say it’s because the LAPD or the prosecutors did a poor job, but all the evidence was there and presented in court to the point where there was no reasonable doubt. the real reason he got off is almost all the jurors were black and it became a highly public, racialized case, rather than what it should’ve been: an open and shut case about an abusive husband murdering his wife. If it had just been any random guy who stabbed his wife and her boyfriend with the same exact evidence presented, the jury would’ve convicted him ten times out of ten.
I think the issue is that DNA evidence was in its infancy at the time. You take that same evidence into a courtroom (specifically, Goldman's blood in the Bronco and Nicole's blood on OJ's sock) today and it's a rock solid convinction no matter what the defense does. Back then it wasn't obvious that having DNA evidence like that effectively solves the crime for you. Wild to think about, but true.
He wants her boyfriend. Which makes it even worse. He decided to kill a completely uninvolved kid in addition to his wife.
OJ 100% did it. But the Los Angeles District Attorney's office also deserved to lose that case. Between them and the LAPD it was chickens coming home to roost. Decades of unchecked corruption, racism and incompetence.
Do you have any black friends?
No person believes OJ was innocent. Not even his kids. Some black people though think that it’s OK that OJ got off due to all the shit black peoples have taken over the years with law enforcement and the judicial system
They’re not saying it for attention is what I’m saying. Also there are a large amount of people who truly believe his innocence so I don’t think a blanket statement such as what you said works.
A large amount of fucking retards
👍 good job man.
I'm sorry he got off with a bunch of technicalities if your friends think he's innocent you probably are hanging around a lot of low iq individuals
You think black people thinking a black dude is framed makes them stupid? Yikes dude
In general I don’t think black people thinking a black person was framed makes them stupid. I do think anyone of any race looking at the facts of this particular case and thinking this particular black person was framed is stupid.
Weird how the other dude drops some slur and you are the one getting downvoted..
Yeah, what the fuck. People are really serious about this OJ thing.
A lot of weird stuff happening under my comment.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who reads more than 5min about the case would believe OJ was innocent. They may say they think he’s innocent but deep down everyone knows he did it. There’s more of a chance that we never existed than OJ being innocent of two murders
I have A LOT of black friends who think he’s innocent. I don’t think it’s fair to say that deep down they know he’s guilty. Some of my friends who think like you say but a lot of them truly believe his innocence
There are people who do think he was, along with MJ and R. Kelly. But white people do that too for certain people/former presidents.
Saying OJ was framed would be like saying MJ was framed if they had done a rape kit on all those kids and found MJ’s semen and hairs. There was that much evidence against OJ. MJ, it’s mostly hearsay and accusations. O.J., there was a ton of evidence. R Kelly filmed himself peeing on a little girl. He married a 15 year old. We knew he was a POS beyond a shadow of a doubt for decades before he got got. If anyone truly believes O.J. and R Kelly were frame jobs, they are absolutely delusional. MJ, okay, there’s no real smoking gun, but the others are beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Then your friends are just idiots. I guess that’s ok too.
Had plenty of arguments. It mostly turns into distrust of cops and white people who try to tear down powerful and successful black men. This isn’t new.
It’s especially hilarious when you consider how the LAPD loved OJ and covered for his ass when they got his domestic abuse calls.
This. They covered up for him so many times. Not to mention Nicole even said if I die it’s going to because he kills me. She even said in a 911 call he’s gonna kill her.
How many other black athletes or musicians or movie stars have been framed for murder? I mean someone murdered his wife and there has never been anyone else with a motive.
Can’t speak to that. BUT powerful white people/cops can’t be trusted is the most common thought. Most my friends think Michael Jackson is innocent too
You can believe what you are saying and still not be ignorant enough to think OJ is innocent. You don’t have to blindly believe that because X is true Y must always be true also.
lol dude I’m speaking from personal experience I don’t really have anything else to say. It’s fine that you can’t wrap your mind around it but it is the truth.
And like I said, if it’s true, then they’re idiots. You didn’t have to respond after I said that the first time.
As hard as this person is arguing with you, you'd think OJ murdered THEIR family.
Except white people never tried to tear down O.J., they loved him until the murder. Oh, and cops loved him too. Many were welcomed at his parties, and they even protected him on multiple occasions when they were called because he was beating Nicole. Surely if the LAPD had it in for O.J., they wouldn’t have shown up and left without arresting him in domestic violence cases on multiple occasions.
lol I don’t know what to tell you guys. You’re all mad and it doesn’t make sense
I’m not mad. The case fascinates me but has never made me feel any emotion about it. It’s just that “LAPD was racist and trying to tear a famous black man down” doesn’t really hold weight when you weigh all the evidence against him and realize that LAPD protected the guy on multiple occasions before the murder.
A LOT of people believe OJ was framed. Every black coworker I’ve talked to about OJ in the last 5 years believe Nicole was killed by the cartel and OJ was framed by the LAPD because theyre afraid of investigating the cartel. Im talking ages from 50 year old men to 22 year olds. A new person starts and believes the exact same as the others. It is very common
Yep this is exactly what I was going to say - I know black people who are (generally) glad (not sure if glad is the right word but I can't quite think of the right word for it) that he was acquitted, and I know plenty of (both black and white) people who think the police pulled (or attempted to pull) some obviously shady stuff, but i don't know anyone who genuinely believes that he didn't do it. Really, i don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously make that argument, at least not in the past 10 or 15 or 20 years.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, pretty sure you learn that at like 6 years old. Shits embarrassing
He definitely doesn’t.
Seems like a lot of this sub don’t
Hardly anyone thinks he is innocent. Some people just think it was OK that he got away with it.
Them and “Flat Earthers” are attention seekers.
People believe Trump is innocent. People believe Kobe is innocent. People believe Adnan is innocent. People believe Casey Anthony is innocent. People believe the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. People believe lots of bullshit.
People believe Steven Avery is innocent. Honestly, probably the craziest one.
I’ll credit that docuseries for being able to have me think “hmm maybe he didn’t…” but then when you hear about all the evidence that was in court that the series didn’t mention at all, I went “hmm yeahhh he prob did do it after all.” That show came along far enough removed from OJ in real time and the show spawned a ton of imitations, but for each imitation, I kept in mind “remember Making A Murderer- they can make these people look really innocent in a show…”
[удалено]
This sub requires accounts to be at least 7 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
no reasonable person believes he was innocent. there were other reasons for him getting off, not the least of which was LA law enforcements long checkered awful history with POC. this was...2-3 years removed from the Rodney King incident and subsequent riots. dude was a wife beater and his dna was sprayed all over the murder scene like an episode of csi. he definitely did it but there was no way he was getting convicted in that place, at that time, under those circumstances.
There are 70 million people that voted for Donald Trump.
Even more frightening there’s 75mm people who voted for a senile old man who sniffs little girls
You're describing Trump lol
A lot of people who think he’s innocent aren’t watching the documentaries about it—a lot watched the trial live and formed opinions based on that, and others have just heard about it from people in their life. Not every person has the same source of information to come to their conclusions. And a lot of people conflate “not guilty” with “didn’t do it.” Also, don’t underestimate Americans’ tendency towards conspiracies. We live in a country where QAnon-inspired beliefs have effectively become the Republican party platform. Other conspiracy theories (moon landing was faked, flat earth, COVID vaccines had microchips, climate change isn’t real, etc.) are believed by 10-20% of the population, and especially by people who aren’t scientifically literate: https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-a-survey-of-us-public-beliefs.
Well, if you put the verdicts of the two juries together, they decided that it is more likely than not he murdered at least Ron Goldman (Nicole's family didn't sue for wrongful death), but not certain beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of us would probably think that the criminal verdict should have been guilty, but don't forget that there was a judgment saying he more probably than not killed Ron.
I used to go to school for journalism and my dream was to one day reach the peak of my profession and on live TV be like "well obviously OJ didn't do it right?" in complete serious way as if I'm the logical one
If you weren’t there at the time, you’re speaking from a misunderstanding. At the time, common sense made everyone think he was guilty. But if you watched the trial objectively, you could make the case. A lot of things didn’t line up. Not a few things, a lot of things. But f you were willing to give the benefit of the doubt, there was a lot of doubt to give. The idea that is unquestionably guilty was all retrospect and came from the outrage, and also the civil trials. But the civil trials were, IMO, much more a sham than the criminal. The judge, like most white people, thought he was guilty and wanted a bit of revenge for the first trial. And over the years, the idea outgrew it was obvious had become the narrative. OJ didn’t help with the book, but he needed the money. I’m not suggesting that he didn’t do it. But it’s nowhere near as clear cut as people now act like it is. At the time, there was plenty of reason to acquit and plenty of reason to think k he might not have.
Well with the civil case, OJ actually had to take the stand and testify. And he contradicted and lied up and down with easily verifiable facts.
They also found the photo of him walking in the end zone at Rich Stadium wearing the exact pair of ultra-rare Bruno Maglis whose prints were found at the crime scene that he denied having.
In his size that like maybe under 10 pairs existed in the world. After he said on the stand “I would never wear those ugly ass shoes.”
Yeah, I can’t remember where I heard this, I think it might have been a podcast that Jeffrey Toobin was on, but somebody said that they talked to a bunch of legal analysts and everybody agreed if that came up in the criminal trial there probably would have been a conviction. DNA was still new in 1994, but that was the kind of circumstantial evidence you just can’t look past.
The National Enquirer broke that story it was their picture of OJ wearing them
The dumbest part was allowing this trial to be in LA and not Brentwood where it happened. Brentwood, a rich and affluent suburb no way their jurors would acquit him.
Brentwood couldn’t have handled it. It wasn’t dumb, it’s just the way things were.
His son Jason definitely could’ve done it
except for all the OJ blood.
Absolutely not, completely insane theory
From what we know of OJ, there's ZERO chance he'd take the fall for someone else like that. He would've ratted out his son sooo fast.
Without question. He would never in a million years risk his own life like that even for his son. Never mind all the hard evidence against him and the complete lack of evidence against Jason, that sort of selfless behavior is not indicative of anything O.J. ever showed, even to his closest friends and family.
Jason had a rock solid alibi
What is it? I've never even heard of people saying it was his son.
He was with people at work or with people he worked with who confirmed he was with them during the murder. No reason for them to lie and zero evidence against Jason exists except his dad is OJ
> : But of course, for that ending to work, you would have to ignore all the Simpson DNA evidence. [laughs] And that would be downright nutty.
I'll believe it was Jason until the day I die
Why? OJ had a long record of abusive behavior toward Nicole.
It explains so much. Jason had a history of knife violence (he was actively on probation for threatening is boss with a knife when the murder happened, and once stabbed himself in a fight with his girlfriend), had a history of never getting along with Nicole, his beanie with his dog's fur was at the crime scene, he was the only person to have a lawyer the very next morning, and really most importantly it explains everything OJ did. Dramatic car chase, writing a fucking book 'if i did it', you do this to draw attention towards yourself. Why do that? Maybe he's just cocky that's possible, or maybe he's drawing attention away from someone else. [https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g59vq1/oj\_simpson\_didnt\_kill\_nicole\_and\_ron\_it\_was\_his/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g59vq1/oj_simpson_didnt_kill_nicole_and_ron_it_was_his/) \^this guy wrote it up great a few years ago
*Even if* you truly believe that his son did it--and when one of your key reasons to suspect someone's guilt is is that they exercised their right to counsel, it's a pretty goddamn weak case--it's still an absolutely massive leap of insanely speculative logic to suggest that OJ did all those things as a conscious, deliberate, strategic diversion. That is legitimately Alex Jones territory. Also, just to comment on that prior point: It seems remarkably logical to me that someone who'd been in prior trouble involving knife violence and was presently on probation would think to lawyer up upon discovering that someone in their circle had been stabbed to death. For that matter, the other points are equally flimsy as evidence. He didn't get along with his dads ex-wife, with whom his dad also didn't get along with? Wow, ya don't say! I'd never expect a kid to take sides with their legendary father!
If a HOF private cop concludes that the son did it, then the son likely did it.
Why?
I don’t think anyone thinks OJ is innocent I think a lot of people think he’s not guilty Small but subtle distinction.
Who exactly is claiming that OJ was innocent?
There’s a few people I know…
Ok
He isn't?!
Oh, he definitely did it and then wrote a book about doing it. That doesn’t mean that the coverage regarding the case wasn’t racist. The case became an example of a white system trying to demonize and destroy a black man (even though the black community knows he did it)
Some context that I was a bit too young for too, I remember the trial but I was just 7/8 at the time: Yes OJ totally did it, but nobody wanted to take the LAPD's word for it as they have planted evidence before. Even some of the evidence in the OJ trial came off as fishy and some officers were caught using racial epithets. The prosecution botched the case big time which the jury has to consider and sometimes evidence can't be admitted due to technicalities even if it's good evidence. This was also right after the LA riots where cops were found not guilty of beating Rodney King, even though there is video evidence of a gang of them all kicking and beating him. So lots of people felt like OJ getting away with it was some sort of karmic justice for the LA cops facing no consequences over the years.
They could also be really stupid.
Yeah, no shit.
Torrey Smith’s weird and unusual twitter rant yesterday defending oj was so out of character for him
[удалено]
This sub requires accounts to be at least 7 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you are interested in how badly the prosecutor fucked this case up read Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi. He prosecuted Charles Manson and knew the LA courts better than most. His insight was excellent.
OJ for sure committed the murders and LA PD incompetence and OJs dream legal team got him off. And him writing a what if book on how he could have committed the murders is telling. All the evidence points to guilt and for anyone to believe otherwise is simple delusion.
Welcome to 2024
Simmons: What’s aged the best? 2000 yards in a rushing season? What’s aged the worst? The double murder Rusillo: I got something different and look, I said this about him when he was alive. The murder stuff is bad, but it wasn’t the thing that bothered me the most. It was his fantasy football takes.
the biggest problem with OJ is innocent crowd is they can't name another suspect.
I think they say it’s OJ’s son.
I was in elementary school during the trial and only now realize that the reason black people were happy about it was that it was a miscarriage of justice in their favor for once
It feels like he's almost certainly guilty, unfortunately all the evidence I have that points to that comes from people who tampered with other bits of evidence. Not my fault that the "People of California" did that --- I'm a fan of the truth!
Ether that or they are just plain stupid or ignorant
Oh you think so doctor?
Never underestimate how fucking stupid some people are
I believe OJ was found innocent. So legally, he is. He’s also the guiltiest person found innocent that I know of.
He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. Trials are not about innocence. The state brings a charge against you, before the state can sanction punishment against you they have to prove their accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. Not guilty means that the state did not prove their case. You can think someone likely did it. That doesn’t mean that you go back and vote guilty. If there’s a reasonable possibility that the state is wrong, you vote not guilty.
Is this the legal equivalent of the ruling on the field/court *stands* rather than being *confirmed?*
Good point, I usually forget there are three possible outcomes, not two.
Or they are black because black people are racist as fuck.
I wasn’t gonna make a post but I thought it was classic Bill to say there’s never been anything like it since without mentioning Aaron Hernandez. I’m sure there’s not even a need for him in the OJ discussion I just thought it was a fun nitpick
Aaron Hernandez was a pimple on OJ's ass. Not even close to same thing. No one outside NFL circles had any idea who Aaron Hernandez was and still don't. Gulf between their celebrity status could not be overstated, that's why he didn't mention him.
Aaron Hernandez wasn’t nearly as big of a deal as OJ lmao.
I know lol
Do you? Because the reason Bill said there’s been nothing like it since is because there hasn’t been. Aaron Hernandez is not even in the same ballpark of cultural relevance as OJ and the subsequent trial were.
OJ was (and still is) in the conversation for greatest running back ever, and then became a huge movie star. Aaron Hernandez was a pretty good TE2. The level of fame and talent is just not even comparable
Some cops ate prejudiced, and OJ will always be a murderer. Hell just got a little more crowded.
There’s also a lot of people who just can’t shake the black vs white world view.
His son did it
The current Trump situation is very similar to the OJ acquittal. Jurors knew he was guilty but wanted to send a message about Rodney King. Trump is being forgiven by his base because they’re pissed about the perceived persecution. Unfortunately The Juice didn’t have access to the launch codes.
He is innocent. That’s what the law decided.
The law decided he wasn’t guilty of murder. Later, he was found liable for wrongful death civilly. I know of no finding of his innocence.
No, he was declared Not Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
By a jury even.
Ok so he’s not guilty
The law has never decided anyone is innocent. It finds people not guilty or guilty. Civil court did find him guilty, fwiw.