Do you guys think O.J. Simpson was guilty of double homicide in June of 1994? If you think he's guilty do you think he acted alone? Do you think maybe O.J. hired someone to do it for him? If you think O.J. is innocent what do you think the motive and background of the killer or killers would be?

ESPN produced a nearly 8-hour documentary called O.J.: made in America in 2016.
It went on to win an Oscar for Best Documentary and currently holds a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

There is little doubt that Simpson gruesomely murdered his ex-wife and innocent bystander Ron Goldman. He basically confessed in an interview in 2006 on FOX.

I recommend the documentary, as well as watching the documentary LA '92 beforehand. The LA riots were the single largest event of civil disobedience in U.S. history. He got off on technicalities, early DNA hysteria, police corruption, and the sheer fear that it would spark another LA riots.

Yes.

Brian Pillman-A mark is a guy that believes that O.J. didn't do it.

He is 100% guilty. The physical evidence says it all.

Definitely.

I teach a college class about famous crimes. We discussed the Simpson case this week. Every semester I have my students write a paper about the case they learned about in the class that they viewed as the biggest miscarriage of justice. Last semester some guy wrote about Simpson and argued he thought OJ was innocent because he was a celebrity and therefore had too many people watching him and wouldn’t do such a thing.

ESPN produced a nearly 8-hour documentary called O.J.: made in America in 2016.
It went on to win an Oscar for Best Documentary and currently holds a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

There is little doubt that Simpson gruesomely murdered his ex-wife and innocent bystander Ron Goldman. He basically confessed in an interview in 2006 on FOX.

I recommend the documentary, as well as watching the documentary LA '92 beforehand. The LA riots were the single largest event of civil disobedience in U.S. history. He got off on technicalities, early DNA hysteria, police corruption, and the sheer fear that it would spark another LA riots.

I automatically assumed George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson would be voted guilty for this very reason.

ESPN produced a nearly 8-hour documentary called O.J.: made in America in 2016.
It went on to win an Oscar for Best Documentary and currently holds a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

There is little doubt that Simpson gruesomely murdered his ex-wife and innocent bystander Ron Goldman. He basically confessed in an interview in 2006 on FOX.

I recommend the documentary, as well as watching the documentary LA '92 beforehand. The LA riots were the single largest event of civil disobedience in U.S. history. He got off on technicalities, early DNA hysteria, police corruption, and the sheer fear that it would spark another LA riots.

Totally agree! I live / lived in LA at the time and that is EXACTLY what happened!! ;)

ESPN produced a nearly 8-hour documentary called O.J.: made in America in 2016.
It went on to win an Oscar for Best Documentary and currently holds a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

One of the best true crime documentaries ever produced - it deserves all the accolades it’s received. Basically it’s a must-watch.

One of the best true crime documentaries ever produced - it deserves all the accolades it’s received. Basically it’s a must-watch.

Yes! That was a fantastic documentery, not just on OJ’s involvement in the crime but also on his history, seeing his place in the black community, and the state of race relations in Los Angeles at the time.

When you hear his closest friends say “It was at that moment, I knew he was guilty” that pretty much sums it up. OJ’s activities in the years after the murders just cement what a narcissistic psycho he is.

If you want a really messed up read, go pick up a copy of the book “If I Did It.” The Goldman family had it published to prevent OJ from making money and to show how crazy he was. OJ all but confesses in the book, and he continues to deny that he abused Nicole even though there is absolute proof that he did.

HELL YES!

If O.J. didn't commit the murders, then who did? He also never seemed too concerned in finding the culprit.

If you want a really messed up read, go pick up a copy of the book “If I Did It.” The Goldman family had it published to prevent OJ from making money and to show how crazy he was. OJ all but confesses in the book, and he continues to deny that he abused Nicole even though there is absolute proof that he did.

And if you a really good read, read Vincent Bugliosi book "The 5 reasons OJ Simpson got away with murder."

And if you a really good read, read Vincent Bugliosi book "The 5 reasons OJ Simpson got away with mutder."

Bugliosi also had a great (and long) documentary about it, too.

ESPN produced a nearly 8-hour documentary called O.J.: made in America in 2016.
It went on to win an Oscar for Best Documentary and currently holds a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

There is little doubt that Simpson gruesomely murdered his ex-wife and innocent bystander Ron Goldman. He basically confessed in an interview in 2006 on FOX.

I recommend the documentary, as well as watching the documentary LA '92 beforehand. The LA riots were the single largest event of civil disobedience in U.S. history. He got off on technicalities, early DNA hysteria, police corruption, and the sheer fear that it would spark another LA riots.

So blacks would riot for a black man who ONLY dated white women & had ZERO black guests living in his house??

Even a police officer said all the pics in his house were all white women. LOL..so the black community should really destroy LA for this guy!

DUH for $100 please Alex.

So blacks would riot for a black man who ONLY dated white women & had ZERO black guests living in his house??

Even a police officer said all the pics in his house were all white women. LOL..so the black community should really destroy LA for this guy!

The scene in the documentary where the prosecution explains their shock when visiting Rockingham with the jury and seeing those photos replaced by more “desirable” ones by the defense is particularly telling. Carl Douglas fully admits they had to do it because in it’s original state, the optics looked really bad.

The scene in the documentary where the prosecution explains their shock when visiting Rockingham with the jury and seeing those photos replaced by more “desirable” ones by the defense is particularly telling. Carl Douglas fully admits they had to do it because in it’s original state, the optics looked really bad.

And the mostly non-white jury would've been less likely to convict. Even 1 or 2 holdouts would've resulted in a hung jury & a mistrial which would've led to a 2nd trial!

Guilty

He did it.

Some of my thoughts...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSCJtuyfUY

One of the best true crime documentaries ever produced - it deserves all the accolades it’s received. Basically it’s a must-watch.

I agree completely.

It detailed ALL the layers within and around the case, which are absolutely essential for understanding why and how it unfolded the way it ultimately did, and what the implications of it are today. It centers on race and racism, wealth and privilege. Without understanding all these things, you can't truly understand the Simpson case at all.

It's so well-done. It's not especially artistic a la 'The Thin Blue Line', nor is it sensational murder porn clogging most of the programming on ID nowadays. It's fair, incredibly thorough without being tedious, exceptionally produced, and extremely captivating. Easily in the top five crime documentaries I've ever seen.

Also, yes, to answer the original question: I think he's guilty.

I actually don’t think he did it but I do believe he hired someone to do it.

Some people believe that OJ's son,Jason, was responsible for Nicole's and Ron's deaths.

If O.J. didn't commit the murders, then who did? He also never seemed too concerned in finding the culprit.
If did do any looking, I’m sure it was all done at the golf course.

He’s 100% guilty.

Yes, I still think he's guilty. Although I haven't seen that documentary and I think I may have to look it up.

I can still remember sitting in math class, sophomore year of high school. Our teacher finished the lecture early and he turned on his portable radio so we could all listen to the verdict live. Even us obnoxious teenagers were talking about it the rest of the day.

Let's put all racial turmoil, media portrayals and any other personal intuitions aside.

After reading William Dear's book 'OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It', I am not convinced he is guilty. I'm not saying he had nothing to do with it or wasn't there after the crime, but reading this book definitely gave me reasonable doubts. Based on the serious mishandling of the crime scene by the MEs, the crime scene unit, the HARD evidence as a whole and even many stones left unturned by the investigators, it definitely raises some questions. I'd hate to say it, but the LAPD does have a notorious reputation for being one of the more incompetent large-city LE agencies in the country, if not the world.

I highly suggest anybody regardless of whether they think OJ did it or not, to read Mr. Dear's book. In a nutshell, much of it is centered around the distinct (and significant, if you look at the evidence and his history of psychological issues, including friction between him and Nicole) that OJ's son Jason Lamar was the culprit. If OJ is guilty of anything, I'd say he might be at the most, guilty of accessory AFTER the fact, if he was willing to take the fall for somebody he was supposed to care for but never truly did. Truth be told, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. Had the detectives on the case had more competence and been more objective, then the case never would have turned into a fiasco.

When it comes to forming my stance on any issue, be it political or social, my back bone principle is to regard TRUTH as authority, not authority as truth. It is an all-too-common occurrence of people automatically assuming that if a defendant is brought to trial, he must be guilty by default because supposedly, the prosecution is never wrong, or are they? There has been a multitude of cases throughout history in which investigators and/or prosecutors have falsified, compromised, mishandled, ignored evidence or even withheld exculpatory evidence in order to win their cases; a prosecutor who loses some cases won't be prosecuting for long. That's also why I used to support capital punishment but after learning of many instances of it being administered unjustly and the wrong suspect being put to death, it is better if we refrain from doing it, in addition to so many other political and economic reasons.

So blacks would riot for a black man who ONLY dated white women & had ZERO black guests living in his house??

Even a police officer said all the pics in his house were all white women. LOL..so the black community should really destroy LA for this guy!

EVERYBODY rioted. Dr. Dre wrote a song about it from his perspective, but so did Sublime. It was THE largest event of civil disobedience in U.S. history. LA '92 did a good job of pointing out race relations (especially between black folks and Korean folks) where it was important to do so. OJ:MIA also painted the picture that you have about OJ cozying up to rich white folks.

This is one of those moments in history that can't be distilled down to a sixty-second sound bite. Speaking of that, the media had a large role to play in the mass hysteria.

I invite you to watch Season 4 of In Living Color with a 21st century mind. Your jaw will drop to the floor, at least mine did.

If did do any looking, I’m sure it was all done at the golf course.

He’s 100% guilty.

That reminds me of that great SNL Weekend Update clip when Norm MacDonald was doing it. He quoted OJ after the verdict as saying "I will not rest until Nicole's killer is brought to justice", then they cut to a photo taken days later of OJ golfing and Norm says "And the search continues!"

I loved how much Norm would rail OJ back in those days... :lol:

That reminds me of that great SNL Weekend Update clip when Norm MacDonald was doing it. He quoted OJ after the verdict as saying "I will not rest until Nicole's killer is brought to justice", then they cut to a photo taken days later of OJ golfing and Norm says "And the search continues!"

I loved how much Norm would rail OJ back in those days... :lol:

I've heard tell of Norm MacDonald's jokes before he got fired by Old Donald Ohlmeyer. That guy was a real jerk!

I automatically assumed George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson would be voted guilty for this very reason.

Just because someone is acquitted by a stupid jury doesn't mean that they are innocent.
Casey Anthony was acquitted after she murdered her innocent two year old daughter.

I've heard tell of Norm MacDonald's jokes before he got fired by Old Donald Ohlmeyer. That guy was a real jerk!

Norm? Or Ohlmeyer? Ohlmeyer hated Norm even before the OJ and MJ stuff...haha. If you like SNL history, check out the book "Live from New York." Great read.

Norm? Or Ohlmeyer? Ohlmeyer hated Norm even before the OJ and MJ stuff...haha. If you like SNL history, check out the book "Live from New York." Great read.

Ohlmeyer. I love Norm, he's a national treasure. Even if that nation is Canada.

Ohlmeyer. I love Norm, he's a national treasure. Even if that nation is Canada.

:lol::lol:

There is no doubt in my mind that OJ Simpson killed Nicole and Ron. The evidence against him is overwhelming. And I reject the theory that OJ hired someone to kill them, because if the murders were the work of a hired killer, they would have been committed more efficiently. More physical violence was inflicted on the victims than what was necessary to end their lives, which meant the murders were personal.

The late Vincent Bugliosi went into great detail about the case and why the case was lost. He criticized the OJ prosecutors for transferring the case to Los Angeles, as he knew the jury was going to be biased in OJ's favor. He also noted crucial pieces of evidence that were omitted from the trial, such as the Bronco chase, the so-called suicide note, and the police interrogation recording in which OJ made incriminating statements.

He pretty much confessed to it in the book, "If I Did It".

There is no doubt in my mind that OJ Simpson killed Nicole and Ron. The evidence against him is overwhelming. And I reject the theory that OJ hired someone to kill them, because if the murders were the work of a hired killer, they would have been committed more efficiently. More physical violence was inflicted on the victims than what was necessary to end their lives, which meant the murders were personal.

The late Vincent Bugliosi went into great detail about the case and why the case was lost. He criticized the OJ prosecutors for transferring the case to Los Angeles, as he knew the jury was going to be biased in OJ's favor. He also noted crucial pieces of evidence that were omitted from the trial, such as the Bronco chase, the so-called suicide note, and the police interrogation recording in which OJ made incriminating statements.

If you haven't seen Bugliosi's video about the prosecution's failures, I highly recommend it. It's long, like five or six hours, but it's worth every second. He comprehensively covers the case start to finish, and does a hypothetical presentation and summation.

So blacks would riot for a black man who ONLY dated white women & had ZERO black guests living in his house??

Even a police officer said all the pics in his house were all white women. LOL..so the black community should really destroy LA for this guy!

Most of the black community didn't really think he was innocent. The rioting was going to be due to the perceived (And perhaps real) view of a different standard for whites vs blacks in the justice system in LA at the time.

The Rodney King case, where the cops were acquitted. the black community had this feeling that if there was justice it was for OJ to get away with it.

At the time, most of the black community said they felt he was innocent, I don't believe because they thought he was, but because they wanted him acquitted in order to feel that there weren't two sets of justice.. White justice and black justice.

Polls today.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/25/black-and-white-americans-can-now-agree-o-j-was-guilty/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.21bacac0ea37

That's a few years ago, but 83% white and 57% black say guilty.

Let's put all racial turmoil, media portrayals and any other personal intuitions aside.

After reading William Dear's book 'OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It', I am not convinced he is guilty. I'm not saying he had nothing to do with it or wasn't there after the crime, but reading this book definitely gave me reasonable doubts. Based on the serious mishandling of the crime scene by the MEs, the crime scene unit, the HARD evidence as a whole and even many stones left unturned by the investigators, it definitely raises some questions. I'd hate to say it, but the LAPD does have a notorious reputation for being one of the more incompetent large-city LE agencies in the country, if not the world.

I highly suggest anybody regardless of whether they think OJ did it or not, to read Mr. Dear's book. In a nutshell, much of it is centered around the distinct (and significant, if you look at the evidence and his history of psychological issues, including friction between him and Nicole) that OJ's son Jason Lamar was the culprit. If OJ is guilty of anything, I'd say he might be at the most, guilty of accessory AFTER the fact, if he was willing to take the fall for somebody he was supposed to care for but never truly did. Truth be told, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. Had the detectives on the case had more competence and been more objective, then the case never would have turned into a fiasco.

When it comes to forming my stance on any issue, be it political or social, my back bone principle is to regard TRUTH as authority, not authority as truth. It is an all-too-common occurrence of people automatically assuming that if a defendant is brought to trial, he must be guilty by default because supposedly, the prosecution is never wrong, or are they? There has been a multitude of cases throughout history in which investigators and/or prosecutors have falsified, compromised, mishandled, ignored evidence or even withheld exculpatory evidence in order to win their cases; a prosecutor who loses some cases won't be prosecuting for long. That's also why I used to support capital punishment but after learning of many instances of it being administered unjustly and the wrong suspect being put to death, it is better if we refrain from doing it, in addition to so many other political and economic reasons.

There were tremendous mistakes in the investigation. Was any of it racially motivated? No, I don't think so. Did it rise to the level of an acquittal? Well, obviously in the real world, yes.. Should it have? Quite possibly.

The important thing to remember, there's a huge difference between innocent and not guilty. I can accept and at times even agree that he should have been found not guilty. I do not for a minute believe he is innocent. He killed them. Did the prosecution make the case beyond a reasonable doubt? It's awful, awful close. Somedays I lean yes, somedays no.

The rioting was going to be due to the perceived (And perhaps real) view of a different standard for whites vs blacks in the justice system in LA at the time.

That's the romanticized version. The harsher version was reported on at the time, but has since been glossed over. You can read about it here (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/1993/05/23/the-untold-story-of-the-la-riot).

That's the romanticized version. The harsher version was reported on at the time, but has since been glossed over. You can read about it here (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/1993/05/23/the-untold-story-of-the-la-riot).

They should have used special effects make up (like Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder) for riot gear in the aftermath.

That's the romanticized version. The harsher version was reported on at the time, but has since been glossed over. You can read about it here (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/1993/05/23/the-untold-story-of-the-la-riot).

That part(or even a majority) of the rioters were in no way protesting race but were just doing it for fun/to steal/etc?

That's kinda like saying the sky is blue. That's true in any riot. My opinion, any riot type situation, all you have to do is get the good people ticked off enough to demonstrate and that leaves the opening for the dark underbelly to riot.

Kinda similar to that old saying about getting good people to do nothing. I'd say that the vast majority or rioters are in it for themselves. But it takes getting the good people in the area to not care anymore to set it off.

Sort of like when a plane crashes. Very rarely do you have one single action that brings down a plane. You have a system of failures which all come together that ends with a plane crashing. You can point the finger at "Guy with a bomb".. But, you do have to look back at screening failures that allowed him to get on the plane with the bomb..

Yes - 100% guilty. It is better to be rich and guilty rather than poor and innocent in this country.

Yes - 100% guilty. It is better to be rich and guilty rather than poor and innocent in this country.

At least they got lots of money out of it. OJ ended up going to jail later on anyways.

At least they got lots of money out of it. OJ ended up going to jail later on anyways.

Not quite. The Goldman family won a civil judgement against OJ but they haven’t seen a dime of the money and they probably never will.

OJ went to jail in Nevada for armed robbery (which he claimed was just a big misunderstanding about him trying to get his memorabilia back). As happy as some people were to see him go to jail, that wasn’t justice for the murders he committed. He is back playing golf today.

Funny, when his murder trial went down he said he was going to search for the real killers. I wonder how that is going... :rolleyes:

Funny, when his murder trial went down he said he was going to search for the real killers. I wonder how that is going... :rolleyes:

I'd say it's going swimmingly. He find the real killer in his mirror every morning.

Yes, but I've always thought the defense did its job in creating at least some reasonable doubt thanks to the LAPD's bungling of evidence. For that reason, I was not surprised when he was found "not guilty." I'd have been more shocked if he was found guilty.

I'd say it's going swimmingly. He find the real killer in his mirror every morning.

Hahaha... BOOM!

Yes, but I've always thought the defense did its job in creating at least some reasonable doubt thanks to the LAPD's bungling of evidence. For that reason, I was not surprised when he was found "not guilty." I'd have been more shocked if he was found guilty.

I agree. DNA was still new enough, and they did a great job of confusing the jury (or at least creating significant doubt in their minds). Also, the prosecutors made some huge errors, the biggest of which was Christopher Darden having OJ try on the bloody gloves. They were tight to begin with, he was wearing latex gloves underneath, and OJ and the defense team did things to make his hands swell intentionally. If they did fit, it wouldn't have significantly helped the prosecutions case, but when they didn't fit, it was a huge bomb for them and it gave Johnnie Cochrane the ingredients for his famous line during closing arguments.

Let's put all racial turmoil, media portrayals and any other personal intuitions aside.

After reading William Dear's book 'OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It', I am not convinced he is guilty. I'm not saying he had nothing to do with it or wasn't there after the crime, but reading this book definitely gave me reasonable doubts. Based on the serious mishandling of the crime scene by the MEs, the crime scene unit, the HARD evidence as a whole and even many stones left unturned by the investigators, it definitely raises some questions. I'd hate to say it, but the LAPD does have a notorious reputation for being one of the more incompetent large-city LE agencies in the country, if not the world.

I highly suggest anybody regardless of whether they think OJ did it or not, to read Mr. Dear's book. In a nutshell, much of it is centered around the distinct (and significant, if you look at the evidence and his history of psychological issues, including friction between him and Nicole) that OJ's son Jason Lamar was the culprit.

This was an excellent post.

I work in the entertainment industry and have heard scuttlebutt from older African-American celebrities who had been around the scene since the 1980s that there was MUCH, MUCH more to the situation than what was presented to the press.

Black comedian Paul Mooney (Richard Pryor's co-writer for decades) has said publicly and privately that the Simpson/Goldman murders were connected to a drug ring that OJ's son was a part of and OJ himself turned a blind eye to.

The rumor is that OJ's son murdered them for money and OJ arrived to cover it up and things went to hell.

That's what I've heard repeatedly but of course I have no proof - it's all anecdotal.

Looking at the evidence as presented, it would be difficult to find OJ innocent but when it comes to celebrity, race, racism, LA's politics and the unbalanced legal system - anything can happen.

CBW

Not quite. The Goldman family won a civil judgement against OJ but they haven’t seen a dime of the money and they probably never will.

OJ went to jail in Nevada for armed robbery (which he claimed was just a big misunderstanding about him trying to get his memorabilia back). As happy as some people were to see him go to jail, that wasn’t justice for the murders he committed. He is back playing golf today.

Funny, when his murder trial went down he said he was going to search for the real killers. I wonder how that is going... :rolleyes:

Yep, and Marcia Clark sent people away on a drop of blood the size of a dime. The amount of OJ's blood mixed and spread EVERYWHERE was hard to ignore but twelve people did just that! Plus motive.......plus his timeline.....plus the chauffer's testimony on OJ being late to be picked up.....it is just all there. At least to me.

Black comedian Paul Mooney (Richard Pryor's co-writer for decades) has said publicly and privately that the Simpson/Goldman murders were connected to a drug ring that OJ's son was a part of and OJ himself turned a blind eye to.

Paul Mooney is the same guy who thinks the Boston marathon bombings were an inside job orchestrated by the police and that as long as no black people were hurt in the attack, "it was okay". He's a racist idiot. Doesn't surprise me that he would entertain the idea that OJ is innocent.

Paul Mooney is the same guy who thinks the Boston marathon bombings were an inside job orchestrated by the police and that as long as no black people were hurt in the attack, "it was okay". He's a racist idiot. Doesn't surprise me that he would entertain the idea that OJ is innocent.

Agreed and what motive would Jason have? Not showing up to his restaurant?

Jason murdering them for money (has there ever been a money trail?) and OJ coming to help cover it is a thin argument. OJ have never struck me as the kinda guy who will (or has) stuck his neck out for anyone, even his son. Only one set of footprints were found at the scene and they belonged to Mr. Simpson.

I can't imagine anyone looking at the evidence and not believing 100% that OJ is guilty. It's mind boggling.

Very simple:

1) The limo driver testified that when he arrived at OJ's house he saw the house number written on the curb. He had never been there before and that's how he found which house it was. He then drove around to the front gate to wait for OJ. When the police showed up the Bronco was parked in front of the house number written on the curb proving that OJ and the Bronco weren't there when the limo driver showed up.

2) Kato Kaelin testified that he was watching TV is his bungalow when he heard a tremendous thump and the walls shook. That was OJ sneaking in the back way when he saw the limo driver at the front gate and crashed into Kaelin's air conditioner as he ran past his bungalow on the property.

3) Nicole Simpson's blood was found in OJ's car. I repeat, OJ Simpson's blood was found in OJ's car. If OJ's son did it, how did Nicole Simpson's blood get in his car when OJ was supposedly on his way to Chicago?

4) OJ Simpson had 11 cuts and bruises on his left hand, zero cuts and bruises on his right hand. OJ's left glove was found at the murder scene, proving his left glove came off and that's how his hand was cut. If the police planted the glove at the scene, how did they know which glove to plant?

5) The victims' blood was found in OJ's shower drain. How did it get there?

That's only 5. I could go on and on.

I can't imagine anyone looking at the evidence and not believing 100% that OJ is guilty. It's mind boggling.


The question would be.. If you were on the jury.. Would it meet the reasonable doubt threshold?


3) Nicole Simpson's blood was found in OJ's car. I repeat, OJ Simpson's blood was found in OJ's car. If OJ's son did it, how did Nicole Simpson's blood get in his car when OJ was supposedly on his way to Chicago?



Things like this.. Is part of the reason.. I realize you just mistyped there, but that sounds EXACTLY like something the prosecution would have done. Tried to emphasize something to make a point and totally bungle it.


The good news, if there is any in all this.. That mustache of Goldman's dad has to pop up in OJ's nightmares.

The question would be.. If you were on the jury.. Would it meet the reasonable doubt threshold?

Reasonable doubt would be a threshold for a reasonable jury. This jury wanted revenge for Rodney King, so they acquitted him. They were never going to convict him.

Things like this.. Is part of the reason.. I realize you just mistyped there, but that sounds EXACTLY like something the prosecution would have done. Tried to emphasize something to make a point and totally bungle it.


I typed it carefully and correctly. if you didn't understand it then it's much more like the OJ jury not being able to see their own hand in front of their own face in broad daylight.

I typed it carefully and correctly. if you didn't understand it then it's much more like the OJ jury not being able to see their own hand in front of their own face in broad daylight.

Here's what you said.


Nicole Simpson's blood was found in OJ's car. I repeat, OJ Simpson's blood was found in OJ's car.


Assuming you were attempting to make the point that it was OJ's blood in his car and not his son.. If you were repeating.. Shouldn't you have said it before? Saying something that you have not said before is not repeating it.

And the fact that OJ's blood was found in his own vehicle, which you seem to be attempting to emphasize by repeating it when you haven't said it before.. is certainly nothing suspicious.. Pending on the quantity. That's like saying one of my hairs was found in my car..

I presume you were attempting to repeat that Nicole's blood was found in OJ's car.. Which.. Does deserve being repeated, because there's no real logical explanation for it.

Slightly OT, but I'm a huge In the Heat of the Night fan and have been binging since the first three seasons are now on Prime. Totally forgot O.J. made a guest appearance as a congressman in a second season episode. Ironically, his character is murdered in it.

Pretty eerie to watch someone you're confident committed two murders in real life and got away with it, though.

Reasonable doubt would be a threshold for a reasonable jury. This jury wanted revenge for Rodney King, so they acquitted him. They were never going to convict him.


Perhaps - although its worth remembering that DNA evidence was still pretty new and unfamiliar in 1995. I can completely see how a lay jury would be suckered in by OJ's farcical demonstration and Cochran's simple, memorable "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" nonsense over days and days of complex, monotonous testimony by pathologists regarding something none of them would have had any knowledge or experience with. Fuhrman's ...erm... "problematic" recordings didn't help much either TBH.

I recall a documentary about this a couple of years back wherein the interviewer asked a bunch of older black men in a barbershop what they thought happened in the OJ case and the LAPD handling of it. The guys all seemed to agree that "the cops framed a guilty man" - I think that's the correct take.

The guys all seemed to agree that "the cops framed a guilty man" - I think that's the correct take.

The cops got both OJ and Nicole's blood and planted it in his vehicle and his shower drain? Why? OJ Simpson himself, in his first interview with police, stated that the blood in his car and his shower was from a cut he had...so if he acknowledged the existence of said blood, doesn't this undermine his entire defense theory about the blood being planted?

Perhaps - although its worth remembering that DNA evidence was still pretty new and unfamiliar in 1995. I can completely see how a lay jury would be suckered in by OJ's farcical demonstration and Cochran's simple, memorable "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" nonsense over days and days of complex, monotonous testimony by pathologists regarding something none of them would have had any knowledge or experience with. Fuhrman's ...erm... "problematic" recordings didn't help much either TBH.

I recall a documentary about this a couple of years back wherein the interviewer asked a bunch of older black men in a barbershop what they thought happened in the OJ case and the LAPD handling of it. The guys all seemed to agree that "the cops framed a guilty man" - I think that's the correct take.

I agree with most of this here.

OJ may have been a murderer, but the LAPD's reputation--especially throughout the '80s and '90s--precedes them.

The cops got both OJ and Nicole's blood and planted it in his vehicle and his shower drain?

The allegations of "planting" weren't related to that, they were related to the bloody glove - there, I think there is a strong argument the cops massaged the evidence.

You don't have to convince me OJ's guilty BTW, I'm old enough to remember it all (right down to the Bronco chase live on TV) - I have never been less than 100% convinced of his guilt.

The allegations of "planting" weren't related to that, they were related to the bloody glove - there, I think there is a strong argument the cops massaged the evidence.

So Fuhrman, the first detective on the scene, before even knowing whether or not OJ had an alibi for that night, decides to grab OJ's gloves (again, without knowledge that no one other than OJ had owned such a rare pair) and then plant them at the crime scene and get incredibly lucky on both counts? Fuhrman was a scumbag, but there is no evidence that he was involved in planting anything. What would have happened if OJ had an alibi?

So Fuhrman, the first detective on the scene, before even knowing whether or not OJ had an alibi for that night, decides to grab OJ's gloves (again, without knowledge that no one other than OJ had owned such a rare pair) and then plant them at the crime scene and get incredibly lucky on both counts? Fuhrman was a scumbag, but there is no evidence that he was involved in planting anything. What would have happened if OJ had an alibi?

OJ:MIA made an interesting point about the allegations against Fuhrman. The audio tapes where Fuhrman is using racial epithets was to be used in the creation of a screenplay. LAPD later investigated the tapes and concluded that at least 17 incidences on the tapes were exaggerated. The admission of the tapes were solely designed to assassinate his character, and it worked. Was he a misogynist and a racist? Most likely. Did he plant evidence and frame people? Probably not.

The allegations of "planting" weren't related to that, they were related to the bloody glove - there, I think there is a strong argument the cops massaged the evidence.



There's a strong argument that they BUNGLED the evidence. Mismanged the evidence. I do not believe for a second that they manipulated the evidence to show that he was guilty. I don't think what they did caused any cross contamination.. But.. It was POSSIBLE that it could have.. And, even I agree, the possibility goes to the defendant.

Cops screw up the evidence.. That's reasonable doubt right there. Now, if they have 500 OTHER pieces of evidence, that other evidence can outweigh the corrupted DNA evidence.

But, in this case.. 90% of the evidence was corrupted in one way or another.

I honestly don't blame the jury. I think they probably came to the right conclusion in the eyes of the law.

Who was the moron who picked up the bloody glove and then rode around with it in his car for a couple of days? Did everything but put it on and eat a freaking jelly donut with it. What kind of idiot? I mean, even before DNA evidence, that was not acceptable. You want to blame someone? That's the guy, IMO.

Here's what you said.

Assuming you were attempting to make the point that it was OJ's blood in his car and not his son.. If you were repeating.. Shouldn't you have said it before? Saying something that you have not said before is not repeating it.

And the fact that OJ's blood was found in his own vehicle, which you seem to be attempting to emphasize by repeating it when you haven't said it before.. is certainly nothing suspicious.. Pending on the quantity. That's like saying one of my hairs was found in my car..

I presume you were attempting to repeat that Nicole's blood was found in OJ's car.. Which.. Does deserve being repeated, because there's no real logical explanation for it.


Yes, I typed it correctly but copied and pasted it incorrectly.

So Fuhrman, the first detective on the scene, before even knowing whether or not OJ had an alibi for that night, decides to grab OJ's gloves (again, without knowledge that no one other than OJ had owned such a rare pair) and then plant them at the crime scene and get incredibly lucky on both counts? Fuhrman was a scumbag, but there is no evidence that he was involved in planting anything. What would have happened if OJ had an alibi?


And as I wrote earlier, OJ had only cut up and bruised hand which happened when the glove came off at the scene. How did Fuhrman know which glove to plant before he had ever seen OJ and his damaged hand?


There's a strong argument that they BUNGLED the evidence. Mismanged the evidence. I do not believe for a second that they manipulated the evidence to show that he was guilty. I don't think what they did caused any cross contamination.. But.. It was POSSIBLE that it could have.. And, even I agree, the possibility goes to the defendant.

Completely untrue, and the proof is that all the blood evidence matched OJ, Nicole, or Ron Goldman.

The cops got both OJ and Nicole's blood and planted it in his vehicle and his shower drain? Why? OJ Simpson himself, in his first interview with police, stated that the blood in his car and his shower was from a cut he had...so if he acknowledged the existence of said blood, doesn't this undermine his entire defense theory about the blood being planted?

It certainly does. And it's too bad the prosecution didn't introduce the police interrogation recording to the jury. OJ made incriminating statements in that interview, which was conducted several hours before blood was drawn from him. What was the likelihood of OJ getting such a deep cut on himself around the time Nicole and Ron were being stabbed to death? During a post-verdict interview on Geraldo's now-defunct CNBC talk show in 1995, Vincent Bugliosi, who faulted the prosecution for excluding the tape from the trial, stated that it was "powerful circumstantial evidence of guilt." Also, Bugliosi was on record saying that even if the police were going to frame a black man, OJ Simpson was one of the last black men they would frame.

Also, Bugliosi was on record saying that even if the police were going to frame a black man, OJ Simpson was one of the last black men they would frame.

It's always amused me that people honestly thought that the LAPD would frame OJ Simpson of all people. These same people celebrated when he was found not guilty while also forgetting that OJ himself said he wasn't black...he was OJ.

Good thread. The OJ case from the mid-'90's is definitely one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in this country - and possibly the world. It's incredible that he was not proven guilty in this crime, but at the same time it kind of makes sense why things happened the way they did - when you take everything into account.

I know some of this has been gone over before, but here are some points:

- Re: the gloves: OJ wore latex gloves when he tried the leather gloves on - so, of course the leather gloves didn't fit! Just wearing the latex gloves would keep the leather gloves from fitting properly. And, it should be common knowledge that leather tends to shrink when it's moistened - as these gloves were. Also, it was extremely foolish for the prosecution to have had OJ try the gloves on - but more on that later.

-If OJ didn't commit these heinous crimes, how the hell did his blood/DNA end up at the murder scene?! And, how did the blood/DNA/hair of Nicole & Ron end up all over his car, his house, etc.?! Going along with this, IIRC he had cut(s) on his hands when he was caught. His guilt seems straightforward to me.

-I don't believe Mark F. - or anyone else - planted any evidence. Not because I don't believe the authorities aren't capable of it - or that they wouldn't do it if it served their purposes....but because there was so much blood/DNA/hair evidence already there. Yes, Mark F. was dishonest by not coming clean on his racist statements - however, that doesn't mean that he would have been stupid enough to plant evidence on a case where the prosecution should already have had more than enough to begin with.

Plus, when would this evidence have been planted?! The crime scene was not discovered by LE - it was discovered by a neighbor walking his dog who alerted them. This type of crime was very unusual for that upscale part of L.A. - so obviously the authorities wouldn't have been cruising that neighborhood.

Also, the LAPD definitely did not "have it in" for OJ before this crime took place - he had already been given more than one pass by them when they were previously called (more than once, apparently) re: his domestic abuse against Nicole.

-Re: the outcome of the trial: it's interesting that back in '95, based on the jurors' decision - most of the jurors in the trial obviously didn't believe OJ was guilty....nor did all of the people who cheered when the innocent verdict was reached. However, these days, if you talk to most people they'll say they believe OJ was guilty.

So, why did OJ get a not guilty verdict? I think there were five main reasons for this:

-Judge Ito stupidly allowing the trial to be televised. Obviously Ito wanted to make a name for himself. As a result, public opinion had a lot to do with the outcome here, when it shouldn't have.

-The decision by the prosecution to call Mark F. to the stand - incredibly foolish.

- The decision by the prosecution to have OJ try on the gloves - also incredibly foolish.

-It's obvious that DNA testing hadn't been around that long back in 1994/1995, when the crime & later trial took place. A lot of people at that time didn't really have a clue on how accurate this was in establishing someone's identity.

And probably most importantly - what I've bolded in the post below:

ESPN produced a nearly 8-hour documentary called O.J.: made in America in 2016. It went on to win an Oscar for Best Documentary....

I recommend the documentary, as well as watching the documentary LA '92 beforehand. The LA riots were the single largest event of civil disobedience in U.S. history. He got off on technicalities, early DNA hysteria, police corruption, and the sheer fear that it would spark another LA riots.

Yes, the doc. OJ: Made in America is superb. I've seen this twice in the past several years. Highly recommended to anyone interested in not only this case, but the events leading up to the case - that influenced the outcome.

I can't imagine anyone looking at the evidence and not believing 100% that OJ is guilty. It's mind boggling.

Very simple:

1) The limo driver testified that when he arrived at OJ's house he saw the house number written on the curb. He had never been there before and that's how he found which house it was. He then drove around to the front gate to wait for OJ. When the police showed up the Bronco was parked in front of the house number written on the curb proving that OJ and the Bronco weren't there when the limo driver showed up.

2) Kato Kaelin testified that he was watching TV is his bungalow when he heard a tremendous thump and the walls shook. That was OJ sneaking in the back way when he saw the limo driver at the front gate and crashed into Kaelin's air conditioner as he ran past his bungalow on the property.

3) Nicole Simpson's blood was found in OJ's car. I repeat, OJ Simpson's blood was found in OJ's car. If OJ's son did it, how did Nicole Simpson's blood get in his car when OJ was supposedly on his way to Chicago?

4) OJ Simpson had 11 cuts and bruises on his left hand, zero cuts and bruises on his right hand. OJ's left glove was found at the murder scene, proving his left glove came off and that's how his hand was cut. If the police planted the glove at the scene, how did they know which glove to plant?

5) The victims' blood was found in OJ's shower drain. How did it get there?

That's only 5. I could go on and on.

All great points. And, even only taking 3-5 into account, the evidence here is damning.

Jason murdering them for money (has there ever been a money trail?) and OJ coming to help cover it is a thin argument. OJ have never struck me as the kinda guy who will (or has) stuck his neck out for anyone, even his son. Only one set of footprints were found at the scene and they belonged to Mr. Simpson.

Agreed. Over the years, I've heard the theory that Simpson's adult son committed the crime - but I don't buy this at all; it makes 0 sense. And, the point re: one set of footprints is very telling.

Paul Mooney is the same guy who thinks the Boston marathon bombings were an inside job orchestrated by the police and that as long as no black people were hurt in the attack, "it was okay". He's a racist idiot. Doesn't surprise me that he would entertain the idea that OJ is innocent.

What a scum-bag. Anyone even entertaining such a thing re: this horrific tragedy is not only a piece of garbage, but is also a traitor - especially given that it was extremely obvious who the perps were here. I wouldn't believe anything someone like this states - or even just implies. AFAIC, he has 0 credibility.

While I respect those who hold a differing opinion, I've always believed OJ Simpson is 100% guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. My opinion has only been further cemented over the years by Simpson's classless participation in If I Did It and his later adventures with armed robbery. And as much as I wish I could console myself with the idea that Simpson at least served some prison time, I just can't help but feel that nine years for armed robbery (not to mention a violent double murder) is getting off cheap. At least IMO.

Yes.

He got away with it because of a unique set of circumstances, but the ultimate reason was...

Fame.

OJ the bus driver would be serving a life without parole sentence even now.

While I respect those who hold a differing opinion, I've always believed OJ Simpson is 100% guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. My opinion has only been further cemented over the years by Simpson's classless participation in If I Did It and his later adventures with armed robbery. And as much as I wish I could console myself with the idea that Simpson at least served some prison time, I just can't help but feel that nine years for armed robbery (not to mention a violent double murder) is getting off cheap. At least IMO.

Blue - I agree with you. In my heart I always thought he did it. O.J.’s arrogance in thinking he could get away with armed robbery only made me sure he did it without reasonable doubt. I was thinking at the time he got arrested for the robbery what a absolute dumb mother f#$-er.

Yes.

He got away with it because of a unique set of circumstances, but the ultimate reason was...

Fame.

OJ the bus driver would be serving a life without parole sentence even now.
I think it was Chris Rock who pointed out that if he was just Orenthal the bus driver Simpson his ass would have gotten the death penalty.

If O.J. didn't commit the murders, then who did? He also never seemed too concerned in finding the culprit.

He finds the culprit every time he looks in the mirror!

OJ had fame and the fact that the L.A. Coroners did such an abysmal job at the crime scene.

I think it was Chris Rock who pointed out that if he was just Orenthal the bus driver Simpson his ass would have gotten the death penalty.

https://youtu.be/J8TqhBIEbWA

“Now, I’m not saying he should have killed her... but I understand.” :lol:

I'd like to add that I think the LAPD failed the Brown and Goldman families by flatly refusing to even attempt to investigate whether there could have been any other possible perpetrators of the double murders after Mr. Simpson's acquittal. Hence, instead of it being merely probable that someone got away with murder, they ensured that it was a certainty!

I think it's terrible that they were killed no matter who did it but I'm just glad that whole thing is over with.

I think Gil Garcetti, who was the Los Angeles District Attorney at the time, wanted Simpson acquitted because he feared riots would happen if he was convicted. So he told his attorneys to sabotage their case.

The Juice is loose. Now he can continue his search unfettered.

https://fox8.com/news/oj-simpson-a-completely-free-man-parole-ends-in-nevada/

The Juice is loose. Now he can continue his search unfettered.

I'm sure the "real killers" he's looking for are somewhere out on a Las Vegas golf course.

This is on a UM forum...why?

This is on a UM forum...why?

Because it's technically "unsolved" & a double murder.

I think Gil Garcetti, who was the Los Angeles District Attorney at the time, wanted Simpson acquitted because he feared riots would happen if he was convicted. So he told his attorneys to sabotage their case.

I doubt that because Garcetti said on national TV that if there was a mistrial they would DEFINITELY retry OJ.

So he badly wanted a conviction!

Every time this scumbag tweets from a golf course or drinking a beer I become enraged.

Because it's technically "unsolved" & a double murder.

Okay, but there are lots of unsolved cases not profiled on Unsolved Mysteries the series that don't have threads here. Shouldn't this one be moved? It's simply not a UM case.

Okay, but there are lots of unsolved cases not profiled on Unsolved Mysteries the series that don't have threads here. Shouldn't this one be moved? It's simply not a UM case.

They actually did a segment on the November 22, 1996 episode. It's not in the streaming episodes.

reports on theories of a police frame-up in the O.J. Simpson case

Mystery: Qi Gong. Wanted: Whitey Bulger and Catherine Greig. Missing: Le-Zhan Williams. Mystery: O. J. Simpson. Special Bulletin: Wanted: Samuel Glover and Marshall Kirkpatrick. Special Bulletin: Wanted: Robert Trenholm

yacmj3U0tkg

Every time this scumbag tweets from a golf course or drinking a beer I become enraged.

Seriously TC?? Isn't there even a small part of you that feels like he's paid his debt(s) to society? ;-)

All joking aside, I'm right there with you TC. And if this is infuriating to us, I can't even begin to imagine how awful this must be for the Goldman and Brown families respectively.

Personally, I think the prosecutors did a poor job by going for too aggressive a conviction.

They tried to present this as a premeditated act, and I just don't think he went over there that day with intent to kill anyone.

I believe he went over there that day with the intent to raise some heII with the ex...and things escalated...turned into a heat of the moment thing.

Did he kill them? I believe he did. But did he go over there PLANNING on killing anyone? I don't believe he did.

So, the prosecution screwed up by having too big a balls, if they would have gone after a conviction more in line with those circumstances, then I think the jury would have rewarded them with a conviction.

Personally, I think the prosecutors did a poor job by going for too aggressive a conviction.

They tried to present this as a premeditated act, and I just don't think he went over there that day with intent to kill anyone.

I believe he went over there that day with the intent to raise some heII with the ex...and things escalated...turned into a heat of the moment thing.

Did he kill them? I believe he did. But did he go over there PLANNING on killing anyone? I don't believe he did.

So, the prosecution screwed up by having too big a balls, if they would have gone after a conviction more in line with those circumstances, then I think the jury would have rewarded them with a conviction.

You don't go to someone's house with a hunting knife, ski mask and gloves in LA with good intentions.

Would they have had a better chance of getting him for Murder 2 vs Murder 1? I doubt it. While the prosecution was certainly highly flawed... There were a whole lot of other variables that came into play. the LA Riots, the circus atmosphere.. Those things, along with others, were played beautifully by the defense and awfully by the prosecution.

I just don't know if they had crystal clear video of him committing the murders that they would have gotten a conviction.

honestly, the trial should have had a change of venue out of the LA area.. But.. Let's be honest, could they have gone anywhere and found people who hadn't heard of the case?

You don't go to someone's house with a hunting knife, ski mask and gloves in LA with good intentions.

Would they have had a better chance of getting him for Murder 2 vs Murder 1? I doubt it. While the prosecution was certainly highly flawed... There were a whole lot of other variables that came into play. the LA Riots, the circus atmosphere.. Those things, along with others, were played beautifully by the defense and awfully by the prosecution.

I just don't know if they had crystal clear video of him committing the murders that they would have gotten a conviction.

honestly, the trial should have had a change of venue out of the LA area.. But.. Let's be honest, could they have gone anywhere and found people who hadn't heard of the case?

I absolutely agree with you on this one Labonte. Though I believe Jim could very well be correct in his assessment up thread of how the crime occurred, ultimately I just can't help feeling that in the end it makes little difference. The verdict was never about Simpson's guilt or innocence IMO, but instead it was about all those variables you cited in your post. The jury had a point to make IMO, and they drove it home clear as a bell.

I absolutely agree with you on this one Labonte. Though I believe Jim could very well be correct in his assessment up thread of how the crime occurred, ultimately I just can't help feeling that in the end it makes little difference. The verdict was never about Simpson's guilt or innocence IMO, but instead it was about all those variables you cited in your post. The jury had a point to make IMO, and they drove it home clear as a bell.

Let me be clear about this.. I don't blame the jury for a not guilty verdict. The case was so piss-poorly done by the prosecution.. Even though looking at it from the outside, we all know he was guilty.. They were restricted to considering what they heard in court. And based on THAT.. They did reach the right verdict.

now.. Would their verdict have changed if they saw everything everyone else did? Can't say for sure. Gut tells me.. Probably not. That yes, you are right, there was going to be a statement made. But, based on what happened in the court and not what we THINK would have happened.. They.. Sadly got it right.

Let me be clear about this.. I don't blame the jury for a not guilty verdict. The case was so piss-poorly done by the prosecution.. Even though looking at it from the outside, we all know he was guilty.. They were restricted to considering what they heard in court. And based on THAT.. They did reach the right verdict.

now.. Would their verdict have changed if they saw everything everyone else did? Can't say for sure. Gut tells me.. Probably not. That yes, you are right, there was going to be a statement made. But, based on what happened in the court and not what we THINK would have happened.. They.. Sadly got it right.

You make a good point Labonte about juries being restricted to only that evidence which is presented during trial. While I understand that in some cases this can cause complications for the prosecution, I never really believed it to be an issue in the Simpson case to be honest.

I guess I always thought that Simpson and his "dream team" put on a show for the jury and the viewing public which was consumed voraciously. Of course it certainly didn't help matters that the prosecution stepped right into the numerous piles of @#$& laid down by the defense, the glove moment being chief among them IMO. I actually felt that the state had a pretty good case against Simpson, but the timing just wasn't right. For example, DNA was still a fairly new concept in the justice system at the time IIRC, and it made up some of the state's best pieces of evidence. Also problematic for the prosecution IMO was the fact that the crime occurred right on the heels of the Rodney King beating, the subsequent acquittal of the police officers involved, and the race riots which occurred as a result. And because of the aforementioned events, it was also the very worst time for the prosecution to be saddled with someone like Detective Mark Fuhrman as their star witness.

Of course this is just my impression of the situation. I'm certainly not any kind of legal scholar or expert on jury trials...just someone who has an opinion on just about everything, lol!

You make a good point Labonte about juries being restricted to only that evidence which is presented during trial. While I understand that in some cases this can cause complications for the prosecution, I never really believed it to be an issue in the Simpson case to be honest.

I guess I always thought that Simpson and his "dream team" put on a show for the jury and the viewing public which was consumed voraciously. Of course it certainly didn't help matters that the prosecution stepped right into the numerous piles of @#$& laid down by the defense, the glove moment being chief among them IMO. I actually felt that the state had a pretty good case against Simpson, but the timing just wasn't right. For example, DNA was still a fairly new concept in the justice system at the time IIRC, and it made up some of the state's best pieces of evidence. Also problematic for the prosecution IMO was the fact that the crime occurred right on the heels of the Rodney King beating, the subsequent acquittal of the police officers involved, and the race riots which occurred as a result. And because of the aforementioned events, it was also the very worst time for the prosecution to be saddled with someone like Detective Mark Fuhrman as their star witness.

Of course this is just my impression of the situation. I'm certainly not any kind of legal scholar or expert on jury trials...just someone who has an opinion on just about everything, lol!

The case itself wasn't bad. The presentation sucked. And, there were things that.. Fuhrman.. They couldn't NOT put him on the stand. But, putting him on the stand was a case killer as well. That was just.. out of their control.

So, while the prosecution was pretty bad. In some ways, they weren't to blame, either. The LAPD didn't do them any damn favors, that's for sure.

DNA evidence was kinda new as well at the time. This case taught prosecutors quite a bit about how to rebut the doubts that a defense could put into a jurors mind.

I really don't understand the "prosecution did a horrible job" argument. This was a slam dunk case. They had his and theirs DNA everywhere and they showed that.

This case was lost because:

A) racial tensions

B) the defense exposed what had been up to that point a poor method of collecting and processing DNA

Now I don't think they framed OJ or racism had an affect on their investigation...but a combination of "this is how we always did things" and perhaps a misunderstanding of DNA in the early days of using it in prosecutions definitely had an affect and the defense used that to the fullest.

Never Say Never

After reading William Dear's book OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It, I am more than convinced that there is more than reasonable doubt about his apparent guilt. Main reason is because of so many stones left unturned by the LAPD, combined with their obvious mishandling of the crime scene and the entire investigation. As much as I hate to say it, of all the LE agencies in the country with a history of incompetence or ineptness, LAPD is at or near the top of the list. Dear's book also lists a suspect that the police never considered, and somebody who based on their psychological profile, seems much more likely to have committed the murders: Jason Lamar Simpson.

I would say based on the little evidence that was properly handled, OJ may be guilty of accessory after the fact. Unfortunately we will never know because of this high profile case being mishandled by the detectives and DAs who were looking to bolster their records from this case.

You don't go to someone's house with a hunting knife, ski mask and gloves in LA with good intentions.


Yeah, I know...everybody likes to heap as much blame as possible on the wrong doers. I don't necessarily buy the "you went there with malice, therefore you will be prosecuted to the highest degree possible" frame of reference.

Just like if you are helping 2 guys rob a bank, you are sitting out in the get away car, and the guys who go inside end up shooting somebody, the law permits them to prosecute you for murder just as if you pulled the trigger.

I really disagree with that. It's wrong, IMO to contrive guilt in that matter. It might make a good deterrent, but to me that is "malicious prosecution". The guy may have premeditated robbing a bank, but that doesn't mean he planned to kill.

And that's what they tried to do with OJ, and that's why I think it blew up in their faces. the prosecutors had too bigga balls for their own good, the facts would not support the accusations.

I'm not "pro crime", but at the same time I'm not one of those people who just "bend over" for law and order.
There has got to be a material link between the crime committed and the charges prosecuted.

I was living in LA at the time of the crime and the trial. The moment was tense, but I think the danger (threatened riots) was exaggerated

Yeah, I know...everybody likes to heap as much blame as possible on the wrong doers. I don't necessarily buy the "you went there with malice, therefore you will be prosecuted to the highest degree possible" frame of reference.

Just like if you are helping 2 guys rob a bank, you are sitting out in the get away car, and the guys who go inside end up shooting somebody, the law permits them to prosecute you for murder just as if you pulled the trigger.

I really disagree with that. It's wrong, IMO to contrive guilt in that matter. It might make a good deterrent, but to me that is "malicious prosecution". The guy may have premeditated robbing a bank, but that doesn't mean he planned to kill.

And that's what they tried to do with OJ, and that's why I think it blew up in their faces. the prosecutors had too bigga balls for their own good, the facts would not support the accusations.

I'm not "pro crime", but at the same time I'm not one of those people who just "bend over" for law and order.
There has got to be a material link between the crime committed and the charges prosecuted.

I was living in LA at the time of the crime and the trial. The moment was tense, but I think the danger (threatened riots) was exaggerated

While I definitely understand your point GJ, I guess I just don't see this situation the same way. OJ wasn't just the poor dope who was outside keeping the car running while an accomplice was inside murdering his ex-wife IMO...he was the abusive SOB who invaded her home uninvited, began to physically assault her (yet again), and became so uncontrollably violent that he literally almost cut her head off. And when he was finished murdering his ex-wife, OJ went to work on the poor waiter who was only there because he was returning a pair of reading glasses that Nicole Brown left behind at the restaurant he worked for (again strictly IMO).
Regardless of his intentions (whatever those may have been), and regardless of how one might feel about the felony murder doctrine, there's just no getting away from the fact that OJ Simpson committed two cold blooded murders, and deserved the highest charges the state could possibly throw his way. But again, that's all just my opinion.

Dear's book also lists a suspect that the police never considered, and somebody who based on their psychological profile, seems much more likely to have committed the murders: Jason Lamar Simpson.


Why do I get the feeling you feel that Burke Ramsey killed JonBenet as well?

Yeah, I know...everybody likes to heap as much blame as possible on the wrong doers. I don't necessarily buy the "you went there with malice, therefore you will be prosecuted to the highest degree possible" frame of reference.

Just like if you are helping 2 guys rob a bank, you are sitting out in the get away car, and the guys who go inside end up shooting somebody, the law permits them to prosecute you for murder just as if you pulled the trigger.

I really disagree with that. It's wrong, IMO to contrive guilt in that matter. It might make a good deterrent, but to me that is "malicious prosecution". The guy may have premeditated robbing a bank, but that doesn't mean he planned to kill.

And that's what they tried to do with OJ, and that's why I think it blew up in their faces. the prosecutors had too bigga balls for their own good, the facts would not support the accusations.

I'm not "pro crime", but at the same time I'm not one of those people who just "bend over" for law and order.
There has got to be a material link between the crime committed and the charges prosecuted.

I was living in LA at the time of the crime and the trial. The moment was tense, but I think the danger (threatened riots) was exaggerated

In ways you're right. I have problems with a few things as well. They talked about nailing Hinkley with murder charges after James Brady died a few years back. Some 30+ years after he was shot.

That crap isn't right.

But. There is something to be said for enhancements for certain aspects of crimes. I don't buy into 'hate crimes', but just like robbing a bank with a note gets you less time than robbing a bank with a gun.. There are times it makes sense.

I will agree, however, that just because you were involved in one aspect of a crime doesn't mean you're guilty of all aspects of it. That being said, if your actions lead to or enable a crime.. Fair game. If your getaway driver is driving the car that someone leans out the window and shoots a cop during the getaway and kills him. Yes, you're just as guilty as he is.

Yes he's guilty. No doubt.

So many things play into it here. And yes I love the "Made in America" documentary about O.J. It tells the story just about how you would want to hear it, and how it happened too.

This should have been a slam dunk case, he led the police on a car chase and that alone should have sealed it. Even in the documentary you see O.J.'s defense team - Carl Douglas - openly admit that when the jury came to O.J.'s house to tour around that they put up a bunch of black art and such around his home. He states that if it wasn't a black jury but a Mexican jury he'd have done the same thing but with Mexican memorabilia. These guys have no conscience. Johnny Cochrane, F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, Robert Shapiro, etc. Robert Kardashian I personally believe since he was good friends with O.J. may have thought he was innocent in the beginning but obviously came to the realization he wasn't eventually.

Just look at the reaction of Kardashian when the verdict is read. That alone should show you O.J.'s guilt. When the "not guilty" verdict is read you can see this "Oh NO.................." look on Kardashian's face as if he said "What did we do?" I personally think he stayed on the case assuming OJ would be guilty and when he was he could at least fall back on the whole "Everyone needs a defense team" argument. But when he got off...............yeah, that was bad. It backfired.

Knowing the tactics they tried even with the glove. That was not the prosecution's idea, it was the defense's idea. OJ didn't take his arthritis medication for two weeks and it had his hands swell up. That and the fact he clearly wasn't even trying to put the glove on his hand.

The blood in his Bronco, the testimonies against him, etc. It all should have been a lock, even with the prosecution making some mistakes. It doesn't make me like Marcia Clark very much, but I am not sure if I blame her. OJ was getting off from the beginning. They played the 911 calls Nicole made to the police when she was being abused and there was zero reaction from the jury. Clark knew she was in trouble then.

Even in the documentary one of the jurors admitted this was revenge for Rodney King. So if there was any error, it was the location of the trial. Probably should have been in Santa Monica just like the Civil trial was in which OJ got ripped to shreds. But I guess they didn't want to stack the deck, so they kept it downtown. Bad idea. There was a lot of hate for the LAPD on that jury, and it showed.

OJ is a very fortunate man.

OJ murdered Nicole, IMHO. Everything points to him being guilty. I still believe, to this day, the trail was such a circus that OJ was going to get off, since the prosecution did such a poor job, combined with possible political ramifications (LA Riots happened 3 years prior, and the city was worried about more riots if OJ was found guilty).


His behaviour after the trail makes me 100% certain he murdered Nicole.

First off, he never made any kind of effort to prove his innocence, or hire private investigators to find more evidence pointing away from him. An innocent man would be shouting at the top of rooftops to clear his name, and the money OJ had would ahve made this very easy.

The book OJ wrote "If I did it." This alone is what makes me absolutely certain that he did it. If he was truly innocent, why would he write a book detailing how the murders went down, even in a hypothetical way.

Finally, the history of domestic violence, cuts to his hand, etc. all point to him as the killer. His 2008 conviction for false imprisonment, robbery, etc. did not help matters.

I saw an article about polls released around the time of the trial, then compared them to the same polls asking the American public whether OJ was guilty or innocent at different points, up until 2015.

In 1995, there was a clear racial divide, as most White Americans believed OJ to be guilty. Most Black Americans believed him to be innocent. However, that began to change as time passed. The percentage of White people who thought of OJ guilty increased slightly, while the number of Black Americans who believe OJ to be guilty more than doubled as of 2015, and now most Black people also believe OJ to be guilty. I assume if they asked the question again today, even more people would say OJ was guilty.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/bialik-oj-11.png?w=575

since the prosecution did such a poor job

This is an often repeated explanation for as to why OJ was acquitted for the murders. Multiple jurors have said they were going to acquit him regardless of anything for revenge for Rodney King. He was never getting convicted by that jury.

I saw an article about polls released around the time of the trial, then compared them to the same polls asking the American public whether OJ was guilty or innocent at different points, up until 2015.

In 1995, there was a clear racial divide, as most White Americans believed OJ to be guilty. Most Black Americans believed him to be innocent. However, that began to change as time passed. The percentage of White people who thought of OJ guilty increased slightly, while the number of Black Americans who believe OJ to be guilty more than doubled as of 2015, and now most Black people also believe OJ to be guilty. I assume if they asked the question again today, even more people would say OJ was guilty.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/bialik-oj-11.png?w=575

Johnny Cochran knew this was his only hope for OJ. Turn it into a race war. Even if you lose, you can still martyr OJ. For Johnny it was a win-win. This is why they went to great lengths to smear Mark Fuhrman. That was the key, they needed to tap into the emotional side of the jury or else they had nothing and they knew it. It worked. Sadly, it worked.

This is an often repeated explanation for as to why OJ was acquitted for the murders. Multiple jurors have said they were going to acquit him regardless of anything for revenge for Rodney King. He was never getting convicted by that jury.

Exactly. It was the older juror interviewed in "OJ Made in America" that literally says this and then just shrugs her shoulders when she is asked if she thinks it was right. The younger juror they interview had more common sense, she felt he likely did it, but did they present enough evidence. I think they still did, but she still said not guilty. Both were black. But the younger one didn't have the "This is revenge for Rodney King" mindset. It seems she actually thought about it.

Johnny Cochran knew this was his only hope for OJ. Turn it into a race war. Even if you lose, you can still martyr OJ. For Johnny it was a win-win. This is why they went to great lengths to smear Mark Fuhrman. That was the key, they needed to tap into the emotional side of the jury or else they had nothing and they knew it. It worked. Sadly, it worked.


They didn't have to go far.

Do I think Fuhrman was completely and totally racist? No. But, even back in the day.. You couldn't say the things he did in his position and NOT have it bite you in the ass.

Do you guys think O.J. Simpson was guilty of double homicide in June of 1994? If you think he's guilty do you think he acted alone?I think he knows who did it if he didnt do it himself but YES I think he is guilty...........

I never believed it was a black or white case.

Ok and I know I'll hear that I'm a quack etc,,,BUT I have been using a pendulum for probably 20 yrs or so and I trust it and I don't....I never checked in with it on the OJ verfict but I just did...

And when I asked it, I got a minute or so of a quivering of the chain and then it went to a definite NO, he is not guilty.

So there is still NO definite answer but more stuff to think on. I don't spend time on this issue of OJ but I did for a while.

Brian Pillman-A mark is a guy that believes that O.J. didn't do it.

I don't know who Pillman is but I have doubts on the TRUTH...only the killer knows....

They didn't have to go far.

Do I think Fuhrman was completely and totally racist? No. But, even back in the day.. You couldn't say the things he did in his position and NOT have it bite you in the ass.

There would have had to have been some digging to find that old screenplay where he is reading racist comments from police officers. They really didn't have a case in defending OJ other than that. Their sole case rested on whether or not they could use the emotion of the jury to get a not guilty verdict. It worked. Because they didn't have much else to go on or hope for. I mean, I can't stand the "Dream Team" OJ had, but if I had a lot of money and was trying to get away with something I would use them in a heartbeat.

I never believed it was a black or white case.

Ok and I know I'll hear that I'm a quack etc,,,BUT I have been using a pendulum for probably 20 yrs or so and I trust it and I don't....I never checked in with it on the OJ verfict but I just did...

And when I asked it, I got a minute or so of a quivering of the chain and then it went to a definite NO, he is not guilty.

So there is still NO definite answer but more stuff to think on. I don't spend time on this issue of OJ but I did for a while.

I don't know if a pendulum is a reliable thing to be using in deciding someone's guilt

There would have had to have been some digging to find that old screenplay where he is reading racist comments from police officers. They really didn't have a case in defending OJ other than that. Their sole case rested on whether or not they could use the emotion of the jury to get a not guilty verdict. It worked. Because they didn't have much else to go on or hope for. I mean, I can't stand the "Dream Team" OJ had, but if I had a lot of money and was trying to get away with something I would use them in a heartbeat.



I don't know if a pendulum is a reliable thing to be using in deciding someone's guilt

They weren't even murder defendant lawyers, surprisingly enough. Some had tried criminal cases in the past, but never murder cases. Cochrane was a civil rights attorney. The racial argument was probably the only one he knew how to make.

I never believed it was a black or white case.

Ok and I know I'll hear that I'm a quack etc,,,BUT I have been using a pendulum for probably 20 yrs or so and I trust it and I don't....I never checked in with it on the OJ verfict but I just did...

And when I asked it, I got a minute or so of a quivering of the chain and then it went to a definite NO, he is not guilty.

So there is still NO definite answer but more stuff to think on. I don't spend time on this issue of OJ but I did for a while.

I certainly won't call you a "quack" Caroline, or anything else for that matter. You have just as much right to your beliefs and opinions as anyone else IMO. If for whatever reason you believe Simpson is not guilty, then that's your right and your prerogative...I don't feel it's my place to sit in judgement of that, just as I would hope that my own opinion of his guilt would be respected in turn.

It's true that I don't know for sure that Simpson murdered his ex-wife and Goldman...I, thankfully, wasn't there. Based on what I feel is overwhelming evidence however, I've always believed that he is indeed the guilty party. And as I've already stated, his later participation in the "If I Did It" fiasco and his commission of armed robbery only further cemented my opinion. (And yes, I'm still BEYOND irritated that he was granted parole, lol). The silver lining here I suppose, is now that Simpson is out, he can finally get back to his strenuous and no doubt exhaustive search for the "real killer". I don't know about the rest of y'all, but just knowing that OJ is on the case, totally sets my mind at ease!

I never believed it was a black or white case.

Ok and I know I'll hear that I'm a quack etc,,,BUT I have been using a pendulum for probably 20 yrs or so and I trust it and I don't....I never checked in with it on the OJ verfict but I just did...

And when I asked it, I got a minute or so of a quivering of the chain and then it went to a definite NO, he is not guilty.

So there is still NO definite answer but more stuff to think on. I don't spend time on this issue of OJ but I did for a while.

With all due respect...

I am not comprehending what you are saying. Can you elaborate?

They weren't even murder defendant lawyers, surprisingly enough. Some had tried criminal cases in the past, but never murder cases. Cochrane was a civil rights attorney. The racial argument was probably the only one he knew how to make.

F. Lee Bailey I guess you could say was someone who defended someone convicted of murder. On appeals Sam Sheppard got off in the 1960s thanks to Bailey. He also defended Albert DeSalvo - the Boston Strangler - but not for that case.

Kardashian, Shapiro and obviously Cochran were not experienced in murder cases. Which makes it more unlikely. It is like a team winning the Super Bowl with their back up QB.

F. Lee Bailey I guess you could say was someone who defended someone convicted of murder. On appeals Sam Sheppard got off in the 1960s thanks to Bailey. He also defended Albert DeSalvo - the Boston Strangler - but not for that case.

Kardashian, Shapiro and obviously Cochran were not experienced in murder cases. Which makes it more unlikely. It is like a team winning the Super Bowl with their back up QB.

Philadelphia Eagles, Super Bowl 52. Nick Foles won the game, Carson Wentz was starter until injured late in the year.

New England Patriots, Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady was the backup to Drew Bledsoe.

Baltimore Ravens, Super Bowl 35.. Trent Dilfer was the backup, took over after week 9 due to Tony Banks being ineffective.

St Louis Rams, Super Bowl 34 (Three in a row!).. Kurt Warner was the backup. Starter Trent Green was knocked out in the preseason for the year.

New York Giants. Super Bowl 25. Phil Simms was lost for the year in week 15. Jeff Hostetler led them to the Super Bowl victory.

Washington Redskins. Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams was the backup, he replaced Jay Schroeder off and on throughout the year. This.. Almost could be considered a 'co-starters' situation.

Los Angeles Raiders, Super Bowl 18.. This one's a little cheap as well. Plunkett was benched for Marc Wilson, who then broke his shoulder.. Putting Plunkett back in.

Honestly.. That's as far back as I can remember.

If you were trying to say it was unlikely.. Poor analogy choice.

Philadelphia Eagles, Super Bowl 52. Nick Foles won the game, Carson Wentz was starter until injured late in the year.

New England Patriots, Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady was the backup to Drew Bledsoe.

Baltimore Ravens, Super Bowl 35.. Trent Dilfer was the backup, took over after week 9 due to Tony Banks being ineffective.

St Louis Rams, Super Bowl 34 (Three in a row!).. Kurt Warner was the backup. Starter Trent Green was knocked out in the preseason for the year.

New York Giants. Super Bowl 25. Phil Simms was lost for the year in week 15. Jeff Hostetler led them to the Super Bowl victory.

Washington Redskins. Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams was the backup, he replaced Jay Schroeder off and on throughout the year. This.. Almost could be considered a 'co-starters' situation.

Los Angeles Raiders, Super Bowl 18.. This one's a little cheap as well. Plunkett was benched for Marc Wilson, who then broke his shoulder.. Putting Plunkett back in.

Honestly.. That's as far back as I can remember.

If you were trying to say it was unlikely.. Poor analogy choice.

Allow me to respectfully add one more Super Bowl to the list: the Miami Dolphins won Super Bowl VII (and by doing so, completed the only undefeated season in NFL history) with backup quarterback Earl Morrall (starting QB Bob Griese was hurt earlier in the season).

Philadelphia Eagles, Super Bowl 52. Nick Foles won the game, Carson Wentz was starter until injured late in the year.

New England Patriots, Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady was the backup to Drew Bledsoe.

Baltimore Ravens, Super Bowl 35.. Trent Dilfer was the backup, took over after week 9 due to Tony Banks being ineffective.

St Louis Rams, Super Bowl 34 (Three in a row!).. Kurt Warner was the backup. Starter Trent Green was knocked out in the preseason for the year.

New York Giants. Super Bowl 25. Phil Simms was lost for the year in week 15. Jeff Hostetler led them to the Super Bowl victory.

Washington Redskins. Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams was the backup, he replaced Jay Schroeder off and on throughout the year. This.. Almost could be considered a 'co-starters' situation.

Los Angeles Raiders, Super Bowl 18.. This one's a little cheap as well. Plunkett was benched for Marc Wilson, who then broke his shoulder.. Putting Plunkett back in.

Honestly.. That's as far back as I can remember.

If you were trying to say it was unlikely.. Poor analogy choice.

None of these examples were backup QB's when the playoffs started. Foles and Hostetler may be the closest example to a backup QB on that list. The idea that Tom Brady or Kurt Warner were "backup Quarterbacks" are especially ridiculous, considering they played nearly every single game of that season as the starting QB, and it was clear they were much better than their injured QB counterpart, and by the time Bledsoe and Green were healthy, they were demoted to backup themselves.

Allow me to respectfully add one more Super Bowl to the list: the Miami Dolphins won Super Bowl VII (and by doing so, completed the only undefeated season in NFL history) with backup quarterback Earl Morrall (starting QB Bob Griese was hurt earlier in the season).

As I said, get before '82.. Things get a little sketchy for me. But, good catch regardless. All I can remember from that game is the Garo "pass". And no, I'm not going to try to spell his last name!

None of these examples were backup QB's when the playoffs started. Foles and Hostetler may be the closest example to a backup QB on that list. The idea that Tom Brady or Kurt Warner were "backup Quarterbacks" are especially ridiculous, considering they played nearly every single game of that season as the starting QB, and it was clear they were much better than their injured QB counterpart, and by the time Bledsoe and Green were healthy, they were demoted to backup themselves.

Brady and Warner were backups. They wouldn't have seen the field if the starter wasn't hurt. Because Bledsoe and Trent Green were embedded as starters. Trent Green was a hell of a player who had concussion issues.. But, Warner was bagging groceries at the local HyVee a couple of months before the season! If that isn't a backup, I don't know what is. Win a Super Bowl with the guy you pick up a the corner supermarket.

However.. Even after moving the goalposts by saying "Backup in the playoffs"....

In 1987, Jay Schroeder started the final game of the season against the Vikings. the Redskins won in OT.. Gibbs made the change to start Doug Williams in the playoffs. Schroeder was actually hurt in the first game of the season.. Williams completed the game and started the next one. At which time then Ed Rubbert started the next three games before being hurt and replaced with Tony Robinson, who was let out of prison to play.. I swear.. I couldn't make this crap up. This was the basis for the Keanu movie "The Replacements"

Schroeder came back after the strike and started the next four games, at which time Tony Robinson had returned to prison was benched for ineffectiveness and replaced by Williams, before Williams was again benched and Schroeder started the rest of the season.. Before being replaced for the playoffs by Doug Williams. Schroeder actually came in and played.. as I recall, 1 down in the Super Bowl after Doug Williams hyperextended his knee in the first quarter. Williams came back in and had a quarter for the ages.

And, just to try and keep this SLIGHTLY in line here.. For 30 years.. The Unsolved Mystery was where the Super Bowl rings for Ed and Tony were. Because they never got one. Until 2018 when the entire replacement player roster received rings. Which may be the ONE good thing the current ownership has ever done.

Just for fun here.. The first replacement game was Washington vs St Louis (Cardinals!) and I actually went to that game at the old RFK. Only Redskins game I've ever been to, because when I lived in the area (up until '91).. You couldn't get tickets. Now, they give them away.. But back then.. that waiting list was real. Anthony Allen set the franchise receiving yards mark in that game. A record that still stands. 255 yards.

+double post+

Brady and Warner were backups. They wouldn't have seen the field if the starter wasn't hurt. Because Bledsoe and Trent Green were embedded as starters. Trent Green was a hell of a player who had concussion issues.. But, Warner was bagging groceries at the local HyVee a couple of months before the season! If that isn't a backup, I don't know what is. Win a Super Bowl with the guy you pick up a the corner supermarket.



You seem to think that starting Quarterbacks are just assigned at the beginning of the season, for the entire duration of the season. The only time I have ever seen an owner hell bent on starting his chosen QB, was the Rob Johnson/Doug Flutie fiasco in Buffalo. Otherwise it is "best man for the job." There is no question Brady would have surpassed Bledsoe eventually in 2001, and stole the starting QB role. Brady had been doing this his entire life, and went from 5th string QB to starter in both college and the NFL.

That is how the NFL works. Nobody has ever said "well Brady is the GOAT, but he would have never become that way if Bledsoe was healthy throughout his career!" Brady was better and took over the starting job. The same thing happened in St.Louis with Warner and the Rams. Better QB's got their chance and became the starting QB.

Have you ever even played sports...lol. It has always been very competitive, and the best man for the job prevails, not who the starter was on game 1 of the season.

The only time I have ever seen an owner hell bent on starting his chosen QB, was the Rob Johnson/Doug Flutie fiasco in Buffalo.

https://i.insider.com/4ce5506eccd1d5b824050000?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp

Allow me to respectfully add one more Super Bowl to the list: the Miami Dolphins won Super Bowl VII (and by doing so, completed the only undefeated season in NFL history) with backup quarterback Earl Morrall (starting QB Bob Griese was hurt earlier in the season).

Griese was hurt a big chunk of the year but played in the final two games of the year, including the Super Bowl. But give Morrall credit, he was there from the 5th game of the season and up until part of the playoffs.

Griese was hurt a big chunk of the year but played in the final two games of the year, including the Super Bowl. But give Morrall credit, he was there from the 5th game of the season and up until part of the playoffs.

I stand corrected. Thanks for setting the record straight :)

Several years before he ded, Rodney King went to a Dodgers baseball game. But he ran away in terror when he saw emerging several white guys holding bats.

https://i.insider.com/4ce5506eccd1d5b824050000?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp

I got people asking me what's wrong when that came up and I started cussing and screaming at my monitor after seeing that.

Aren't there rules about posting obscene images here? :D

Not to mention.. The number of times he's done it. RG3 is the most well known.. But he did it with the guy who recently died.. Oh, Ohio State guy.. Drawing a blank.. Haskins.. That's it.

Also.. It started right as he took ownership.. Benching and getting rid of Brad Johnson for Jeff George.

+double post+That happens to me alot on many sites!

Absolutely 100% guilty.

Yeah he did it.

None of these examples were backup QB's when the playoffs started. Foles and Hostetler may be the closest example to a backup QB on that list. The idea that Tom Brady or Kurt Warner were "backup Quarterbacks" are especially ridiculous, considering they played nearly every single game of that season as the starting QB, and it was clear they were much better than their injured QB counterpart, and by the time Bledsoe and Green were healthy, they were demoted to backup themselves.

Has a backup qb ever stepped in for a starter in the super bowl and won? I remember frank reich replacing Jim Kelly when he got injured in super bowl 27. Buffalo had 9 turnovers in that game.

Has a backup qb ever stepped in for a starter in the super bowl and won? I remember frank reich replacing Jim Kelly when he got injured in super bowl 27. Buffalo had 9 turnovers in that game.

I can't remember why Reich came in. I know Kelly was hurt a lot those playoffs. Reich was the guy in the big comeback game against Houston. But the reason he came in had to be some sort of injury if I recall. Either way, it doesn't matter, Dallas won that game 52-17 and it would have been 59-17 if Leon Lett didn't hot dog at the goal line.

Jeff Hostetler is the most well known QB to do this, although it wasn't in the Super Bowl. Phil Simms - who is close to being a Hall of Famer in my mind - got hurt in a game before Christmas time against Buffalo. Hostetler comes in and they lose that game, but he finishes the season, plays in every playoff game and ironically he plays in the Super Bowl where they beat Buffalo.

But yeah, no one filled in during the game and won that I recall.

Johnny Cochran knew this was his only hope for OJ. Turn it into a race war. Even if you lose, you can still martyr OJ. For Johnny it was a win-win. This is why they went to great lengths to smear Mark Fuhrman. That was the key, they needed to tap into the emotional side of the jury or else they had nothing and they knew it. It worked. Sadly, it worked.



Exactly. It was the older juror interviewed in "OJ Made in America" that literally says this and then just shrugs her shoulders when she is asked if she thinks it was right. The younger juror they interview had more common sense, she felt he likely did it, but did they present enough evidence. I think they still did, but she still said not guilty. Both were black. But the younger one didn't have the "This is revenge for Rodney King" mindset. It seems she actually thought about it.
I don't get how they can say "there wasn't enough evidence" They have fried people on far less than they had on OJ, and these were guilty people too. There were several pieces of evidence, the foot prints, the glove the blood that could have convicted him alone.

I don't get how they can say "there wasn't enough evidence" They have fried people on far less than they had on OJ, and these were guilty people too. There were several pieces of evidence, the foot prints, the glove the blood that could have convicted him alone.

Nailed it.

In the years since, no other evidence (like a motive) implicating any other suspect has ever popped up/been mentioned. Everyone knows he did it and the lengths his defense team went to, to smear Mark Furhman only underscore that fact.

Nailed it.

In the years since, no other evidence (like a motive) implicating any other suspect has ever popped up/been mentioned. Everyone knows he did it and the lengths his defense team went to, to smear Mark Furhman only underscore that fact.

Outside of Nicole and Ron and their families the biggest victim of this whole thing was easily Mark Fuhrman. The fact there were tapes of him using racist language in which he was doing for someone's fictional screenplay is probably the biggest thing that got OJ off the hook. Fuhrman's mistake is that he used the "Fifth Amendment" during his cross examination. I can understand looking back, as it was turning into a circus and turning into more of a trial and an attack on him, and not OJ, so I am sure he didn't want to say anything that would get twisted around. However, in hindsight it was not a good idea.

There were black co-workers that have come to Fuhrman's defense saying he is not a racist over the years. None of that mattered, the defense played on the emotions of the mostly black jury and even just planting a thought in their heads that he could have framed OJ was enough. Even though they probably were going to acquit OJ anyway. The problem is, there was no way Fuhrman could have pulled off tampering with evidence. He simply just didn't have enough time to do it even if he had wanted to. And one last thing he did not know, he did not know if OJ had an alibi. Imagine going to the trouble to plant something making it look like OJ had done it only to find out OJ was with several people a couple of hours away all night.

I always found it funny that they think the LAPD would frame OJ. This is a guy who got away with spousal abuse for years and managed to talk himself out of his own wife calling 911 on him. Fuhrman was one of the cops over the years who responded to a domestic violence call from Nicole. For a guy who apparently was "framed" by the cops, they sure as heck let him off the hook over and over.

I can't remember why Reich came in. I know Kelly was hurt a lot those playoffs. Reich was the guy in the big comeback game against Houston. But the reason he came in had to be some sort of injury if I recall. Either way, it doesn't matter, Dallas won that game 52-17 and it would have been 59-17 if Leon Lett didn't hot dog at the goal line.

Jeff Hostetler is the most well known QB to do this, although it wasn't in the Super Bowl. Phil Simms - who is close to being a Hall of Famer in my mind - got hurt in a game before Christmas time against Buffalo. Hostetler comes in and they lose that game, but he finishes the season, plays in every playoff game and ironically he plays in the Super Bowl where they beat Buffalo.

But yeah, no one filled in during the game and won that I recall.
Of all the backup fairytales I’ve seen I think hostetler is the most remarkable, yet it’s a classic case where a great defense and coaching job carried them, not unlike the 2001 Patriots. Hostetler was not that good and did not have much time to adapt. A lot of credit goes to parcels and bellichek for basically controlling the game clock to keep the scoring down. Even then hostetler shouldn’t have won the Super Bowl, Buffalo more or less lost it in my opinion. That was their one chance to get a ring. I thought Buffalo were the better team.

Yeah reich came in vs. Dallas in 92-93 because Kelly perhaps re-injured his knee on a play where he was sacked by ken Norton Jr. Of corse Kelly probably had enough by that point. That game was one of the most relentless defensive performances I’ve ever seen in a super bowl, it’s overshadowed to some degree because Dallas’ star players were all on offense.

As you said, that was the same year that reich started a wild card game against Houston and led Buffalo to that ridiculous comeback including a Bills TD that would not have counted in today’s replay era. Houston had beaten Buffalo the week before 27-3 in a game that Kelly left injured. The result forced a rematch with frank reich at QB instead of Kelly. Houston always had good teams that found new ways to lose in the playoffs.

Outside of Nicole and Ron and their families the biggest victim of this whole thing was easily Mark Fuhrman. The fact there were tapes of him using racist language in which he was doing for someone's fictional screenplay is probably the biggest thing that got OJ off the hook. Fuhrman's mistake is that he used the "Fifth Amendment" during his cross examination. I can understand looking back, as it was turning into a circus and turning into more of a trial and an attack on him, and not OJ, so I am sure he didn't want to say anything that would get twisted around. However, in hindsight it was not a good idea.

There were black co-workers that have come to Fuhrman's defense saying he is not a racist over the years. None of that mattered, the defense played on the emotions of the mostly black jury and even just planting a thought in their heads that he could have framed OJ was enough. Even though they probably were going to acquit OJ anyway. The problem is, there was no way Fuhrman could have pulled off tampering with evidence. He simply just didn't have enough time to do it even if he had wanted to. And one last thing he did not know, he did not know if OJ had an alibi. Imagine going to the trouble to plant something making it look like OJ had done it only to find out OJ was with several people a couple of hours away all night.

I always found it funny that they think the LAPD would frame OJ. This is a guy who got away with spousal abuse for years and managed to talk himself out of his own wife calling 911 on him. Fuhrman was one of the cops over the years who responded to a domestic violence call from Nicole. For a guy who apparently was "framed" by the cops, they sure as heck let him off the hook over and over.
Furhman def became a side show which is exactly what OJ’s legal team needed. For me this was a theatre and is a case where trial by jury was front and center. If you create enough doubt and make the jury feel sorry for the defendant then you can win a case, even if the prosecution has good evidence. It wasn’t only the allegations of racism, for me the biggest memory I have is Christopher Darden making OJ put on the glove. To me that was more damning than anything mark furhman did and that was self induced by Darden. Of corse the prosecution could have done a lot better to clinch the conviction.

There have been many cases opposite where there are innocent that are convicted with less evidence and in retrospect we are left wondering how the state managed to do it. We’ve seen it in many cases that were actually featured on UM, as it was one of the main themes of the show to revisit high profile circumstance convictions.

LA county circa 1990’s (and long before then) there were often minorities or poor who did not receive justice because the system was tilted heavily in the favor of law enforcement and access to good legal counsel was hard to come by. It still could be a systemic issue today in that county, but I don’t know. The jurors knew this and right or wrong they are human and have both conscious and subconscious emotional bias. The irony of this case is that OJ’s local and National celebrity status first and foremost gave him a chance at a fair trial and subsequently got him acquitted even though he should have been convicted. The state had to really work and earn this one and they couldn’t get the job done. Unfortunately for Nicole and Ron, they did not receive justice.

Furhman def became a side show which is exactly what OJ’s legal team needed. For me this was a theatre and is a case where trial by jury was front and center. If you create enough doubt and make the jury feel sorry for the defendant then you can win a case, even if the prosecution has good evidence. It wasn’t only the allegations of racism, for me the biggest memory I have is Christopher Darden making OJ put on the glove. To me that was more damning than anything mark furhman did and that was self induced by Darden. Of corse the prosecution could have done a lot better to clinch the conviction.

There have been many cases opposite where there are innocent that are convicted with less evidence and in retrospect we are left wondering how the state managed to do it. We’ve seen it in many cases that were actually featured on UM, as it was one of the main themes of the show to revisit high profile circumstance convictions.

LA county circa 1990’s (and long before then) there were often minorities or poor who did not receive justice because the system was tilted heavily in the favor of law enforcement and access to good legal counsel was hard to come by. It still could be a systemic issue today in that county, but I don’t know. The jurors knew this and right or wrong they are human and have both conscious and subconscious emotional bias. The irony of this case is that OJ’s local and National celebrity status first and foremost gave him a chance at a fair trial and subsequently got him acquitted even though he should have been convicted. The state had to really work and earn this one and they couldn’t get the job done. Unfortunately for Nicole and Ron, they did not receive justice.

I guess in all fairness to Darden, the defense was going to get OJ to put on the glove one way or another. They just convinced the prosecution to have it be their idea rather than the defense's. It was actually pretty clever. But they had prepared for this too. OJ did not take his arthritis medication for a couple of weeks and it caused his hands to swell up a bit. Not to mention, he's an actor, he knew how to work the cameras, he knew how to make it seem like the glove couldn't "fit". I mean, even with that other rubber glove underneath (which didn't help make it fit) you could still tell OJ wasn't trying to pull the glove on properly.

I agree, despite everything else, everyone can see a glove not fitting on a suspect's hand. That was probably the key.

Of all the backup fairytales I’ve seen I think hostetler is the most remarkable, yet it’s a classic case where a great defense and coaching job carried them, not unlike the 2001 Patriots. Hostetler was not that good and did not have much time to adapt. A lot of credit goes to parcels and bellichek for basically controlling the game clock to keep the scoring down. Even then hostetler shouldn’t have won the Super Bowl, Buffalo more or less lost it in my opinion. That was their one chance to get a ring. I thought Buffalo were the better team.

Yeah reich came in vs. Dallas in 92-93 because Kelly perhaps re-injured his knee on a play where he was sacked by ken Norton Jr. Of corse Kelly probably had enough by that point. That game was one of the most relentless defensive performances I’ve ever seen in a super bowl, it’s overshadowed to some degree because Dallas’ star players were all on offense.

As you said, that was the same year that reich started a wild card game against Houston and led Buffalo to that ridiculous comeback including a Bills TD that would not have counted in today’s replay era. Houston had beaten Buffalo the week before 27-3 in a game that Kelly left injured. The result forced a rematch with frank reich at QB instead of Kelly. Houston always had good teams that found new ways to lose in the playoffs.

Yes, the Beebe touchdown. They still may have gotten a touchdown anyway even if Beebe didn't step out of bonds. That only made it 35-10. There is still no way on heaven and earth that Houston should have lost that game. They had some horrible, horrible clock management throughout that 3rd and 4th quarter. They should have just ran the ball on every play to keep the clock moving. Maybe get a drive out of it, maybe some points. This was just textbook awful.

I guess in all fairness to Darden, the defense was going to get OJ to put on the glove one way or another. They just convinced the prosecution to have it be their idea rather than the defense's. It was actually pretty clever. But they had prepared for this too. OJ did not take his arthritis medication for a couple of weeks and it caused his hands to swell up a bit. Not to mention, he's an actor, he knew how to work the cameras, he knew how to make it seem like the glove couldn't "fit". I mean, even with that other rubber glove underneath (which didn't help make it fit) you could still tell OJ wasn't trying to pull the glove on properly.

I agree, despite everything else, everyone can see a glove not fitting on a suspect's hand. That was probably the key.



Yes, the Beebe touchdown. They still may have gotten a touchdown anyway even if Beebe didn't step out of bonds. That only made it 35-10. There is still no way on heaven and earth that Houston should have lost that game. They had some horrible, horrible clock management throughout that 3rd and 4th quarter. They should have just ran the ball on every play to keep the clock moving. Maybe get a drive out of it, maybe some points. This was just textbook awful.

The key is that the beebe TD was a quick strike. So that would have lent to more time being taken off the clock if the rule was enforced, with that said that’s a small observation. And as you pointed out about Houston not running the ball, absolutely it was their undoing. That’s why Buddy Ryan punched the offensive coach the next season. There’s a good documentary out there about the 1993 oilers. I think it’s from the football life series.

As far as OJ, I was put off by it all in real time. I did see the oj made in America documentary and it was really good. I also enjoyed the 30/30 episode that showcased the night that OJ ran from the police. I remember that night well. I was very upset they went away from the nba finals.

Of all the backup fairytales I’ve seen I think hostetler is the most remarkable, yet it’s a classic case where a great defense and coaching job carried them, not unlike the 2001 Patriots. Hostetler was not that good and did not have much time to adapt. A lot of credit goes to parcels and bellichek for basically controlling the game clock to keep the scoring down. Even then hostetler shouldn’t have won the Super Bowl, Buffalo more or less lost it in my opinion. That was their one chance to get a ring. I thought Buffalo were the better team.

Yeah reich came in vs. Dallas in 92-93 because Kelly perhaps re-injured his knee on a play where he was sacked by ken Norton Jr. Of corse Kelly probably had enough by that point. That game was one of the most relentless defensive performances I’ve ever seen in a super bowl, it’s overshadowed to some degree because Dallas’ star players were all on offense.

As you said, that was the same year that reich started a wild card game against Houston and led Buffalo to that ridiculous comeback including a Bills TD that would not have counted in today’s replay era. Houston had beaten Buffalo the week before 27-3 in a game that Kelly left injured. The result forced a rematch with frank reich at QB instead of Kelly. Houston always had good teams that found new ways to lose in the playoffs.

I'll just pop in to give a little love to Hostetler. Being a Washington fan, he played his last (and worst) year for us, and his 'best' was as an NFC East rival, so.. Hey.. If I have some respect for the guy, it's earned.

He certainly wasn't a superstar.. But for the era.. He was solid. Consistent. Always a positive TD to INT. QBR around mid 80's. Nothing spectacular, but never bad. Always wins about 2 of every 3 games.

His problem, he didn't become a starter until his age 32 season with the Raiders (Not withstanding the two years he started a majority of games in NY due to Simms' injuries).. He was kinda screwed over by the free agency situation in the NFL at the time.

So, I'd call him.. Probably better than you remember.

To your point about the Oilers finding ways to lose. How about the Chiefs of the same era? The Schottenheimer years.

I.. Might just put Marty up there as the greatest NFL coach to never win a Super Bowl. and that's a pretty crowded field, too. Dan Reeves, Marv Levy.. Jerry Glanville. Sorry.. I just like bringing Jerry up. Anyone leaving tickets for Elvis at Will-Call..



And.. as far as the on-topic part of this.. Someone mentioned a while back that in the ~30 years since this, there hasn't been another suspect IDed.. Well.. Someone mentioned the mob a bit back. There's plenty of theories.. It's just.. They're all mostly just complete BS.

OJ could have had Lionel Hutz as his attorney and the jury still would not have convicted him.

He's 100% guilty and did it himself. There were 108 exhibits of DNA evidence against him.

OJ could have had Lionel Hutz as his attorney and the jury still would not have convicted him.

Why do you think that is?

Growing up as a kid in the 90s OJ was seen as a sell-out to black people.

I think the Rodney King situation helped him a lot in his case personally.

OJ was not beloved by black people and he still isn't. I think OJ benefited because the case became bigger than him. The case became about a black man being wrongfully accused of killing a white woman (and man). His counsel was able to use this to their advantage.

I'm black and I 1000% believe OJ got away with murder. I remember my grandparents watching the case on CNN when I was a kid. Everyone had an opinion.

OJ got away because the police were incompetent in their investigation and America was fed up with injustice and LAPD had a horrible reputation for racism.

Why do you think that is?

Growing up as a kid in the 90s OJ was seen as a sell-out to black people.

I think the Rodney King situation helped him a lot in his case personally.

OJ was not beloved by black people and he still isn't. I think OJ benefited because the case became bigger than him. The case became about a black man being wrongfully accused of killing a white woman (and man). His counsel was able to use this to their advantage.

I'm black and I 1000% believe OJ got away with murder. I remember my grandparents watching the case on CNN when I was a kid. Everyone had an opinion.

OJ got away because the police were incompetent in their investigation and America was fed up with injustice and LAPD had a horrible reputation for racism.

I think what happened is that there was an opportunity. One of the jurors herself said it in "Made in America" the documentary. This was about revenge for Rodney King. She on camera openly made no bones about it, and even just shrugged when the interviewer asked if it was right to think that way.

So while OJ was not exactly what you would want to call a Civil Rights hero, I think he all of the sudden became that guy to use for something like this. Even begrudgingly. They may not have liked OJ initially, but I think the idea of Nicole being married to him at one point angered many in the black community - and the jury - even more. At least that is the idea that Marcia Clark felt. She introduced the audio calls from Nicole calling 911 detailing the abuse from OJ and she noticed that the jury didn't bat an eyelash, not even the women, when they heard her pain. She knew then they were in trouble and it would be an uphill battle to convict him. They still screwed up to some degree with the prosecution, but it still wasn't enough to lose.

George Stinney Jr. comes to mind as someone who got a raw deal 50 years earlier, and was wrongly executed likely based on his skin colour. I don't know how much stuff like that stuck in the jury's mind, or if it was more just Rodney King for being more recent. Either way, I hope OJ in some way thanked King.

Motherf***er

https://www.wyff4.com/article/oj-simpson-reaction-alex-murdaugh/43176542

Motherf***er

https://www.wyff4.com/article/oj-simpson-reaction-alex-murdaugh/43176542

I am going to hate myself for saying this, but why is OJ so..................likeable? Okay, I said it. I mean, part of me just wants to shoot the breeze and talk football with him. Yeah, yeah, I know, go ahead and say it. I get it. Hammer away at me.........:lol:

Yes I think OJ was guilty too.

I am going to hate myself for saying this, but why is OJ so..................likeable? Okay, I said it. I mean, part of me just wants to shoot the breeze and talk football with him. Yeah, yeah, I know, go ahead and say it. I get it. Hammer away at me.........:lol:

Yes I think OJ was guilty too.

I won't crucify you for it.. But.. I will say that I certainly hope 'likable' isn't the FIRST thing that comes to mind.

Where i'll back you up on it.. any of us old enough to remember him from the 60's to 80's.. He WAS very likable. We saw him playing football, being an announcer, acting in some.. Good movies (Towering Inferno and the first Naked Gun).. He was in all those Hertz commercials.. Some with his mother, who seemed to be an astoundingly sweet woman as well.

He was.. very likable at the time. If you were alive at the time and remember that. I won't fault you for remembering how you felt about him then.

but.. Taking the act of the murders out of the equation.. What he's done.. Hiding money from the Goldmans.. Pirating TV.. "If I Did It".. The Vegas robbery.. Him daring to comment on the Murdauigh case.

I stand by my gut, original, single word description above.. Which was the first thing *I* thought when I read that and watched his video.

I won't crucify you for it.. But.. I will say that I certainly hope 'likable' isn't the FIRST thing that comes to mind.

Where i'll back you up on it.. any of us old enough to remember him from the 60's to 80's.. He WAS very likable. We saw him playing football, being an announcer, acting in some.. Good movies (Towering Inferno and the first Naked Gun).. He was in all those Hertz commercials.. Some with his mother, who seemed to be an astoundingly sweet woman as well.

He was.. very likable at the time. If you were alive at the time and remember that. I won't fault you for remembering how you felt about him then.

but.. Taking the act of the murders out of the equation.. What he's done.. Hiding money from the Goldmans.. Pirating TV.. "If I Did It".. The Vegas robbery.. Him daring to comment on the Murdauigh case.

I stand by my gut, original, single word description above.. Which was the first thing *I* thought when I read that and watched his video.

Oh I agree. It is the old sentimental stuff that gets me. The Naked Gun movies for sure, the 3rd one came out the year of the murders. The great career as a running back, the jovial personality of him, all of that shines memories on the pre-1994 OJ. Perhaps there is a part of me that wishes that's all there was to him.

It is strange hearing him talk about a murder court case.

The Towering Inferno is a good movie? Down is up!

The Towering Inferno is a good movie? Down is up!

Good.. Not great. It's got a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes.. Steve McQueen, Paul Newman.. Highest grossing film of 1974.

I'd say you'd be the outlier in not liking it.

I mean, it's no Baseketball, but.. It'll kill a couple of hours on a rainy Saturday.

Don’t feel guilty about being charmed by O.J. at all. He’s a very charismatic guy with a quick wit and a great sense of humor. If not for him being an obvious murderer, he’d be an extremely likable guy. His Twitter is full of videos about his opinion on modern day football and he is quite knowledgeable about that particular subject so it makes his videos very entertaining to watch. I just have to remind myself that he’s a killer at the end of them. I’m just sayin’.

Don’t feel guilty about being charmed by O.J. at all. He’s a very charismatic guy with a quick wit and a great sense of humor. If not for him being an obvious murderer, he’d be an extremely likable guy. His Twitter is full of videos about his opinion on modern day football and he is quite knowledgeable about that particular subject so it makes his videos very entertaining to watch. I just have to remind myself that he’s a killer at the end of them. I’m just sayin’.

Yes I have seen him talk a lot about Football. He knows the game for sure. Which is up my alley. Murder though........not so much up my alley

OJ was thought to be a likeable guy. There even a rumor that he was suggested for the role of the Terminator, but was not selected because people couldn't see him as a killer. Not sure if that's really true.

Good.. Not great. It's got a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes.. Steve McQueen, Paul Newman.. Highest grossing film of 1974.

I'd say you'd be the outlier in not liking it.

I mean, it's no Baseketball, but.. It'll kill a couple of hours on a rainy Saturday.

It's a decent comedy: "Hmm...let's see, who will fry next?"

I don't follow RT scores unless I read a critic's blurb.

It's a decent comedy: "Hmm...let's see, who will fry next?"

I don't follow RT scores unless I read a critic's blurb.

Standard Irwin Allen disaster movie fair. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Poseidon Adventure.. You get an all star cast together and kill them off, one by one.

Exactly! But the formula doesn't make a good film. It's junk. All I'll say is that it's better than Airport, which in its bones thinks it has Something To Say about marriage, courage, etc.

OJ was thought to be a likeable guy. There even a rumor that he was suggested for the role of the Terminator, but was not selected because people couldn't see him as a killer. Not sure if that's really true.

Have heard that multiple times before, so yes I think it is true.

Well, lots of things that get repeated a lot are false, like Marilyn Manson being Paul from the Wonder Years or killing people with pennies dropped from a tall building.

Well, lots of things that get repeated a lot are false, like Marilyn Manson being Paul from the Wonder Years or killing people with pennies dropped from a tall building.

The idea was shot down rather quickly, by James Cameron himself according to this article. But yes there was a studio exec that pitched the idea to Cameron about OJ being the Terminator. It never gained traction or anything, but it was brought up initially.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/james-cameron-rejected-oj-simpson-terminator-casting-1235483652/

No, can't see it.