Do you think OJ Simpson might have been innocent?

[The Arizonan]

Today, I remembered a conversation I had at work about how OJ Simpson could have been innocent because not every piece of evidence presented at the trial pointed to him.

What is your opinion on this matter?

[Orwell]

The glove don't fit

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Irrespective of whether O.J. Simpson killed Ron and Nicole, he has said that the killers are "out there somewhere" and has vowed to track them down until they are discovered.

Very admirable thing to pledge after a prestigious career in football and in acting. OJ Simpson is someone we should all aspire to be.

[Dr. MB]

There's a strong case that his son did it and OJ covered for him. I think the acquittal was the right move but we're probably never going to know the full story.

[NewYorkExpress]

He probably was guilty, but given Mark Fuhrman's credibility issues (to put it mildly), the acquittal was the right move.

If I were Judge Ito, I would have dismissed Simpson's case after Fuhrman took the stand, assuming the the Defense made such a motion.

[Samof94]

Today, I remembered a conversation I had at work about how OJ Simpson could have been innocent because not every piece of evidence presented at the trial pointed to him.

What is your opinion on this matter?

He was obviously guilty given he beat his wife beforehand.

[Crumpets]

There's a strong case that his son did it and OJ covered for him. I think the acquittal was the right move but we're probably never going to know the full story.

Yeah, I think he probably did it, but if he didn't, this is the explanation. Only way to explain why he so obviously wants everyone to think he did it by doing things like writing a book called "If I Did It"

[Alben Barkley]

He OBVIOUSLY did it and the son thing is just as ridiculous as any other “alternative” explanation. First of all, the motive makes no sense compared to OJ’s very strong and obvious motive that fit well with his pattern of abuse. Second of all, OJ is a textbook narcissist; he has too big an ego to take the fall for anyone else, even his son. Third of all, the forensic evidence OVERWHELMINGLY points to OJ, and OJ alone. So much so it should have been an open and shut case.

Forget Fuhrman, forget the glove; the trail of blood alone should have been enough to convict. OJ’s DNA all over the scene and his victims’ DNA all over his car and house, I mean COME ON. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to see it clearly, at least once you cut through all the BS about race and conspiracy theories about the cops the defense were forced to make the case about because they knew the evidence was completely against them.

To their credit, they did a hell of a job at that smoke and mirrors routine, and the prosecution made several critical errors in what, again, should have been a very open and shut case. But still, that doesn’t make it the “right” verdict. Jurors since have openly admitted they knew OJ did it but basically nullified the verdict as payback for Rodney King. One gave OJ the black power sign when the verdict was read for Christ’s sake!

The cold hard reality is that if you just look at the facts of this case, it is beyond obvious OJ did it, but once it moved beyond that and became a referendum on the LAPD and racism, it became a more complex and polarizing social phenomenon rather than the straightforward murder case it should have been.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The glove don't fit

They found the boot in the Civil Trial that had OJ DNA

[7,052,770]

>99.99% guilty. Had this trial occurred in the 00s or 10s, the DNA would have made it an open-and-shut case, but in 1994 people (as in the jury, the news media, the general public) just didn't grasp how rock-solid and damning that evidence was.

[LBJer]

Someone who studied the case in depth said that they came to two conclusions:

1.  OJ definitely did it

2.  The jury was nevertheless right to acquit him given what they were presented with

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Do you people citing the evidence of OJ's DNA not realize that his son would also be a match for that?

[7,052,770]

Do you people citing the evidence of OJ's DNA not realize that his son would also be a match for that?

His son is not his identical twin...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They found his boot with his blood on it in the Civil Trial game over he did it

Also, they had his blood DNA samples, blood doesn't lie, if you ever give blood your DNA isn't like anyone else's
.that's why he was easily convicted for Prison, and he said on the tape he would kill his wife and beat Nicole on 911 tapes, mercifully

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Do you people citing the evidence of OJ's DNA not realize that his son would also be a match for that?

His son is not his identical twin...

Also OJ not his son beat his wife mercifully not just beat her but bloodied her, like when you were a child, if you ever was bullied you get  beat up and bloodied

The reason why you don't see any scares, they heal faster than adult

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, I don't think so.

[brucejoel99]

No, of course not. He literally confessed (hYpOtHeTiCaLlY, but c'mon, the lost interview saw him literally lapse out of 3rd-person & into 1st-person as he described a clear, 1st-person account of the murders). I'd also guess that "Charlie" was Jason, given the pretty rock-solid theories pertaining to him.

There's a strong case that his son did it and OJ covered for him. I think the acquittal was the right move but we're probably never going to know the full story.

Yeah, I think he probably did it, but if he didn't, this is the explanation. Only way to explain why he so obviously wants everyone to think he did it by doing things like writing a book called "If I Did It"

To be fair on that matter, O.J.'s original first release cover merely just showed a photo of him with the words "I Did It" in red & the word "If" in white, all in adjacent large-type. After the Goldmans were awarded the rights to the book in order to partially satisfy the civil judgment, however, their new cover design printed the word "If" in a super tiny font within the word "I" so that, unless one looked at it very closely, the title of the book would read "I Did It: Confessions of the Killer."

He OBVIOUSLY did it and the son thing is just as ridiculous as any other “alternative” explanation. First of all, the motive makes no sense compared to OJ’s very strong and obvious motive that fit well with his pattern of abuse. Second of all, OJ is a textbook narcissist; he has too big an ego to take the fall for anyone else, even his son. Third of all, the forensic evidence OVERWHELMINGLY points to OJ, and OJ alone. So much so it should have been an open and shut case.

Forget Fuhrman, forget the glove; the trail of blood alone should have been enough to convict. OJ’s DNA all over the scene and his victims’ DNA all over his car and house, I mean COME ON. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to see it clearly, at least once you cut through all the BS about race and conspiracy theories about the cops the defense were forced to make the case about because they knew the evidence was completely against them.

To their credit, they did a hell of a job at that smoke and mirrors routine, and the prosecution made several critical errors in what, again, should have been a very open and shut case. But still, that doesn’t make it the “right” verdict. Jurors since have openly admitted they knew OJ did it but basically nullified the verdict as payback for Rodney King. One gave OJ the black power sign when the verdict was read for Christ’s sake!

The cold hard reality is that if you just look at the facts of this case, it is beyond obvious OJ did it, but once it moved beyond that and became a referendum on the LAPD and racism, it became a more complex and polarizing social phenomenon rather than the straightforward murder case it should have been.

IIRC, only one juror has said that they voted to acquit as payback for Rodney King, while a few of the others said that their vote to acquit was just based on the judge's instructions to base their verdict only on the prosecution's case, believing that the prosecution had really bungled its presentation & argumentation of its side, thereby rendering some reasonable doubts.

[West_Midlander]

I don't think so.