The jury deliberated for only a few hours which is really short for a trial like this. A juror was interviewed on that dateline story last week and said after being sequestered for 8 months they basically had enough and just wanted to go home.

People would be perfectly happy with the time if it came back guilty. Not guilty doesn't get you home any quicker. I think it was 10-2 not guilty and one person that thought he did it knew she couldn't sway the others and knew they'd be in there longer if she held out. This is reasonable doubt. I had to live with my parents at the time and my mother watched this every day. We are white females. I was 21. I thought single drops of blood were suspicious. And my mom didn't think they could prove he did it either. We were able to watch all the analysis afterwards too. The jury didn't have that opportunity.

OJ needing to receive a call and go over there to meet his son or whatever tightens the timeline up.

OJ did it, and however crazy his son may be, its become increasingly clear that OJ is also nuts and more eratic as he ages too. I'm sure he has CTE.

Yeah, these alternate theories are stupid. Sounds like some people wanted to make money by selling lots of books. Just more conspiracy BS

A quick google search shows there was a staggering amount of evidence against OJ. But no amount of evidence was going to get him convicted because it became a trial about race, and he's the Juice.

Which is fine. Fred Goldman got his justice.

What does that mean? Because he got paid? (Did he actually get paid? I know there was a judgment, but did money actually change hands?)

The Goldman civil suit put OJ in a position to sell his memorabilia to support his lifestyle - NFL pension alone wasn't cutting it (his only source of income protected from the suit), and that memorabilia situation led to the Vegas hotel incident that got him busted.

Maybe that all would have happened anyway without the Goldman's, but Fred Goldman has made it known that he felt the financial pressure they put OJ under directly led to the incident and was responsible for him being in jail now. So he feels like he got some justice.

Fred Goldman was not about the money or the fame. He wanted OJ Simpson BADLY. Here is a stretch but it is something I believe. Fred Goldman set that thing up in Vegas.

Ok, gotcha.

What is OJ's sentence for the memorabilia heist? Hasn't he been in since 2008?

33 years I believe. He is eligible for parole next year.

Potential release next year in 2017.

A shame the case wasn't handled better and he got what he deserved right away instead looking for the real killer on golf courses for years before he snapped yet again. At least he's got his haram now.

I loved it when Fred Goldman said he was going to melt Simpson's Heisman trophy.

He was a road rager (allegedly), cable thief, and apparently hated manatees also.

In February 2001, Simpson was arrested in Miami-Dade County, Florida for simple battery and burglary of an occupied conveyance for yanking the glasses off another motorist during a traffic dispute three months earlier. If convicted, Simpson could have faced up to sixteen years in prison, but he was put on trial and quickly acquitted on both charges in October 2001.

In March 2004, satellite television network DirecTV, Inc. accused Simpson in a Miami federal court of using illegal electronic devices to pirate its broadcast signals. The company later won a $25,000 judgment, and Simpson was ordered to pay an additional $33,678 in attorney's fees and costs.

On July 4, 2002, Simpson was arrested in Miami-Dade County, Florida for speeding through a manatee protection zone and failing to comply with proper boating regulations. The misdemeanor boating regulation charge was dropped and Simpson was fined for the speeding infraction.


Seems he was a busy little boy in Florida.

quote:

---

Yeah, these alternate theories are stupid. Sounds like some people wanted to make money by selling lots of books. Just more conspiracy BS

A quick google search shows there was a staggering amount of evidence against OJ. But no amount of evidence was going to get him convicted because it became a trial about race, and he's the Juice.

---

Why are alternate theories stupid?
http://www.amazon.com/O-J-Innocent-Can-Prove-It/dp/1616086203

" "O.J. is Innocent and I can Prove It provides a wealth of additional details and background information that help to establish potential motive, means and opportunity all of which is supported by medical reports, personal interviews, deposition transcripts and physical evidence.

O.J. is Innocent and I Can Prove It, then, is an important book for several reasons. First, it dares to raise questions that will not sit well with those whose only interest is in upholding the status quo, regardless of whether or not justice was served. (What if O.J. Simpson was at the crime scene but only after the murders occurred?) Second, it publicly calls out the authoritative bodies that have seen the evidence but continue to ignore it. And third, and perhaps most importantly, it challenges readers to open their minds and entertain the notion of, what if? If we dismiss this book without giving it the consideration it warrants, then we are every bit as guilty of the kind of rush to judgment that its author rails against." (John Valeri, Hartford Books Examiner)"

Was there video tape of OJ killing these people, or him at the crime scene? A murder weapon with his prints on it?
An Eye witness that saw OJ with the victims just prior to their murder? Did he confess to doing it?
Since none of these things exist....we have no clue of really knowing what happened.

In the real world these are what are used to convict murder suspects. If a prosecutor does not have these things he will typically plea bargain with the defendant.

The defendant does not get life or the Death penalty in exchange for something 25 years...which is most likely 12 years with good behavior.
99% of the murder suspects will not have an attorney of Johhny Cochrans skill or resources and will take the deal. Especially if they know that they did it.

If any of you all that think the alternate theory is "stupid" should read the book. The Dallas detective has done a tremendous amount of research on this subject. More than any of us that are commenting on this thread.

Im not saying the guy is right or wrong, but his book is a fantastic read.
-Jason Simpson was a college football player big and strong enough to kill two people with his hands
-He worked with knives
-He had a prior history of attacking someone with a knife

One of the detectives points is that if OJ killed two people he should theoretically been covered with blood. There should be a ton of blood in the Bronco. If he cleaned himself up before getting in the car......where is the evidence of these blood rags or clothes?

I think this is fascinating but OJ loved his image more than anything else. He was not close to his kids with his first wife. After the glove and blood evidence at trial, which is what convinced his white friends he did it, I think he would have given up his son. Maybe the book has an explanation for that too.

This thread has completely jumped the shark. It almost belongs on the politics board now.

There WAS a witness who saw OJ leaving the crime scene. Clark decided not to use because she'd sold her story. Doesn't make that witness not happen.

OJ's girlfriend broke up with him that day. She refused to help the prosecution in the criminal trial - but she did testify at the civil trial. Gives some more insight into his state of mind that day, combined with Nicole allegedly ignoring him at Sydney's recital that day.

Totally agree that OJ would not have defended his son to the extent of going on trial for murder once his reputation was destroyed. His body language and comments through the trial were always most animated when he felt his reputation was being attached - the fights with Nicole, previous incidents, etc.

Pretty plausible that He goes to scare Nicole that night and sees a sexy dress, candles, and hears a guy is coming over with his kids upstairs (as they were when he spied on her giving the guy a BJ) and snap.

None of the alternate theories can explain the blood, the glove, the motive, the bronco chase, the lack of an alibi, the history of DV etc.

OJ Simpson's own lawyers thought he was guilty.

quote:

---

Was there video tape of OJ killing these people, or him at the crime scene? A murder weapon with his prints on it?
An Eye witness that saw OJ with the victims just prior to their murder? Did he confess to doing it?
Since none of these things exist....we have no clue of really knowing what happened.

---

I read the rest of your post but I do want to respond to this.

Those questions really aren't a good argument either way. That's why we have trials. When someone commits murder, they oftentimes try to destroy the evidence, hence no murder weapon. And of course OJ didn't confess.

But there is blood evidence, evidence of a motive, evidence of shady behavior after the murder, the car chase...

quote:

---

OJ Simpson's own lawyers thought he was guilty.

---

Yup. Re-watch the video of the jury reading the verdict and just look at Robert Kardashian's reaction. He is stunned. Not saying he really thought OJ was guilty, but I'd reckon he wasn't convinced of his innocence. But he was his best friend... can't turn against him.

My family and I were at Disneyland the day the verdict came in and the way we found out was we hopped on the Jungle Ride cruise and as the boat pushed off from the dock the Disney tour guide said, "We're off, just like OJ."

quote:

---

OJ needing to receive a call and go over there to meet his son or whatever tightens the timeline up.

OJ did it, and however crazy his son may be, its become increasingly clear that OJ is also nuts and more eratic as he ages too. I'm sure he has CTE.

---

would not phone records to/from his home be looked at back in 1994 on the night of the murders? I would think that would show if he did or did not receive a phone call from his son or someone else.

I believe they had OJ's car phone record which placed him in his car at around 10pm- I THINK that call was to Paula.

Kardashian told Barbara Walters later that he was "troubled" by the blood evidence. It's also pretty suspicious that he was seen carrying suitcases out of OJ's house after the murder, and he reinstated his law license at that time. I suspect that's so he couldn't be called as a material witness and instead was covered under privilege.

if his son called him it would have been from Nicole's house after he'd already stabbed them. That would have left blood in her house and not just outside. Also a phone record from her house to OJ cell or home.

If his son did it and there was no phone record then OJ would have had to stumble upon the crime as it was happening and he suddenly decides to cover it up for his son...and also happens to have some gloves on him that his former wife gave him.

Would they not have also found his son's blood somewhere?

good rundown on the the contaminated evidence and the jason theory (Only watched 45m so far but they are focusing in on Jason part way thru.

OJ Doc

Anyone heard more about this?

This thread should focus on the show. Not the Oj mania or legal disparities.

This show is really well done and I like that the interviews with Marcia Clark indicate the show is true to the story. It's not a documentary but certainly true to the feel of the time.

quote:

---

This thread should focus on the show. Not the Oj mania or legal disparities.

---

Pretty difficult to separate the two. I like the thread.

Well at least we've gotten away from kardashian talk...

I can't understand why any of the evidence was allowed? I know dna was very new at the time but so much was let in that should not have been. I've finished toobin's book. He leaves out a lot that's pro oj and states numerous times, of course oj did it. But I think the guy wrote the slanted book out of guilt because he eagerly published the New Yorker article about the case being about race before it started. Ito was an idiot for sure.

I was thinking, if Bobby K never excepted the table at the Chinese restaurant, waited his turn, and showed his family that taking handouts is not acceptable. Would we not have the popularity of the Kardashian family?

We just caught up, and wow -- I'm feeling a lot of empathy for Marcia Clark.

Perhaps she mishandled a slam-dunk case, but the personal attacks she endured was totally uncalled for.