I know, I know. There are, at last count, 17 people in the world who think that OJ Simpson is innocent of murdering his ex-wife and Ron Goldman back in the ’90’s. There was a trail of blood droplets. There was a wound on his finger. He had opportunity and possible motive. And he was likely only acquitted because of a predominant African-American presence on the jury. It didn’t help that Mark Fuhrman was a racist perjurer.
But what if OJ really was innocent? It’s not impossible you know. There have been many cases of convicts on death row being released because of DNA evidence that recently exonerated them. I’m sure all those innocent men were reviled and hated unjustly by the victims’ families. I’m sure the evidence presented in all their cases painted a picture of a guilty man before the jury. I’m sure all the juries involved went through hours of heart felt deliberation after days or weeks of testimony before rendering their guilty verdicts, and also their decision to enforce the death penalty.
Yet in all of their cases, they were wrong. The guilty person was still on the loose and an innocent person was rotting behind bars–being disowned, reviled, harassed, separated from loved ones, treated like an animal, attacked, possibly raped, forced to stare their own impending death in the eyes and having little or no hope that any human being will ever be convinced that they weren’t the sub-human dog they were portrayed as.
So, you can see, it’s not always how it appears at first.
There are many who would say that my pointing out that juries can get it wrong is supported by the verdict in the Simpson criminal case: they said ‘not guilty’ when he was actually ‘guilty’. And that may very well be true. The jury in the civil case against Simpson certainly disagreed with the ‘not guilty’ finding. They said he was responsible for the wrongful deaths of Nicole and Ron Goldman and awarded millions to the families.
But I noticed one thing very early in the coverage on the case: while saying that they were not casting judgment, the media were convicting Simpson in the public’s mind already. I was watching Larry King a few nights after the murders, and he talked about how it was important to not rush to judgment. Yet, after hearing a guest speak about Simpson’s past spousal abuse, King asked the question–”How did we not see this coming?”
See what coming Larry? The fact that he was going to commit these murders? Well, forgive me for my stupidity, but that seems like a rush to judgment to me. Maybe, just maybe, we couldn’t see it coming in Simpson because it never came. Maybe he didn’t commit the murders, Larry. Maybe you could have looked at it more methodically if you hadn’t had guests on to talk about the case that only had an axe to grind–like Cindy Garvey.
Baseball player Steve Garvey, once though of as The Golden Boy, had been friends with O.J. The Garvey’s had a bitter divorce, so the former Mrs. Garvey came on and spewed about how her ex was a sociopath, and all his friends were sociopaths, including Simpson, and everybody better get used to the fact that Simpson had committed these murders. Of course, she didn’t have a clue what she was talking about. I’m sure she had reason to be bitter against Garvey, but she was painting with an awfully wide brush. And as far as her and Steve, we were only hearing one side of the story–a story that had nothing to do with the murders at Bundy Drive.
Then there was the fact that Simpson bought the Dream Team of defense attorneys to plead his case. I see nothing wrong with this. If you have a side in a disputed situation you need to be able to present that side as thoroughly as possible. It’s not their fault that the prosecution isn’t as good as they are, is it?
Anyway, have you ever considered the fact that O.J. Simpson did not murder Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman? You really should. Why?
Because the real evidence says he didn’t. It points to a very specific someone, and their name is not Orenthal James Simpson.
John Fogarty said
September 13 2008 @ 3:53 am
I watched the trial in depth and I couldn’t agree more … OJ didn’t commit the murders.
The evidence of the City of L.A. videographer and Dr. Henry Lee are what convinced me.
At first I thought OJ was guilty because of the “Bronco chase”. After seeing the videographer testify and viewing the tape of a pristine bedroom just before the police found all of their evidence, I could see where Simpson thought he was being framed and couldn’t understand why.
To this day, I wonder what the motive was to plant the evidence in his bedroom.
You say the evidence points to a specific someone that committed the murders, who could this someone be?
Stephen Ernest Smith said
December 5 2008 @ 8:27 pm
O.J. Simpson was framed in the murder case. Was he, therefore, innocent of the crime? Not necessarily. The waters have been incredibly muddied in this case but a jury of 12 people found him innocent of the criminal charges.
That being said, was he RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of Nicole and Ron Goldman? My guess is probably. O.J.’s involvement with the mob (leading rich businessman into high-stakes gambling parties), Nicole’s penchant for telling secrets that can get you killed all over L.A. and the mob’s reaction (to get rid of her) probably led to her death.
The blood evidence seems incontrovertible. Yet, the Bronco sat unlocked–and broken into–for months before criminalists closely analyzed blood samples. Why? Fuhrman’s taking the 5th when asked if he had lied about “substantive facts” in the murder trial, the invisibility of Fuhrman’s partner–who was with him that night and the taking of blood evidence TO the crime/arrest scene — (which Detective Van Natter claimed he had never seen done even once in his long career) cast it all in doubt.
I don’t know who the specific someone was that committed the murders. If Simpson did it, he could NOT have done it in the way it was described by the prosecution. It simply doesn’t add up.
Som if not him, who. Perhaps a killer hired by the mob to shut Nicole up? And who was eating that ice cream–that was only slightly melted when the cops got there? And why did the cops make a call from Nicole’s home phone — which made it then impossible to find to whom she had spoken last?
If I were O.J. and I knew something, I would start talking. 15 years in the pen is a long time for a man his age.
Bercana said
December 14 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Oh my god you people are idiots. How much direct evidence, means, motive, opportunity, etc. do you need? Wow. I can’t believe people are even still debating this.
Lawrence Pivec said
February 17 2009 @ 11:24 pm
I do agree with the information here. I to was quite skeptical to pin OJ as guilty, but his past book that he wrote very clearly tells me his verdict was false. In the end of the book (very much like a confession) he strongly implies that he did in fact do the deed. One other point to make the jury might as well have been first graders. I say this because on hearing of the DNA found on the sight the jury member said quote ” but a lot of people have the same blood type” OMG are you kidding me!!!!!