by Clarence Walker

Thursday, June 12th, marks the 20th anniversary of the brutal slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. On that day in 1994, Los Angeles police found the bodies of the slaughtered victims outside Nicole’s Brentwood condominium. The savage murders of this young couple triggered one of the highest profile and most controversial criminal investigations in U.S. history when Hall of Fame football star, O.J. Simpson, was charged with the twin murders. When Simpson went on trial in L.A. Superior Court in 1995, the entire nation was mesmerized and every twist and turn of the sensational trial was watched by millions, causing it to be dubbed the “Trial of The Century.”

fur19fur6Who can forget the slow-speed police pursuit of Simpson’s white Ford Bronco, with his driver, A.C. Cowling, at the wheel, while an emotional Simpson hunkered down in the vehicle threatening to kill himself? Fast forward to the trial and another stunning moment when O.J. attempted to try on the “infamous killer gloves”, famously remarking, “They are too small.” O.J.’s high-powered defense attorney, Johnnie Cochran, seized on this moment during his closing statements when he argued, “If it don’t fit, you must acquit.”

The case had endless compelling elements to captivate the public including sex, race, money, power, and a wealthy black man hiring a Dream Team to defend him against the charges he murdered two attractive white people, which led to allegations that a racist police detective had attempted to frame Simpson with questionable blood evidence.

fur9In a recent news article, Los Angeles forensics professor, Don Johnson, said the evidence against Simpson was overwhelming and conviction should have been a “slam dunk”. Johnson said, however, that the jury primarily focused on the possibility that the evidence was planted by the police, specifically Detective Mark Furman, and that Detective Phillip Vanatter had compromised the prosecution’s position when he foolishly transported a vial of Simpson’s blood to a criminalist already at the crime scene sifting through the evidence.

fur3If Buccal swabbing had been available in 1994, like it is now 20 years later, all Vanatter would have had to do was take oral swabs from Simpson’s mouth by using a cotton tip. This procedure would have eliminated the need for Vanatter to use the blood vial. At the trial, Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie Cochran, accused the police and prosecutors of “rushing to judgment” to convict Simpson at any cost, and claimed that the LAPD lab that tested the forensic evidence was sloppy and unreliable and thus failed to maintain any reasonable degree of integrity. In short, the lab’s findings could not be trusted.

The jury bought it hook, line and sinker, and acquitted Simpson on October 3, 1995, without even asking to review the DNA evidence.

Many experts believe that Simpson’s acquittal, and the resulting frustration on the part of those who firmly believe that he was guilty, was an initial step in forever changing how forensic scientists and criminal investigators deal with DNA testing.

fur20What if Simpson was tried today in this era of advanced forensic testing? People today are far more knowledgeable about DNA testing, thanks to the Simpson trial and the slew of forensic crime shows that later materialized. Jurors these days usually expect DNA to be a part of the evidence, and sometimes they will complain in no DNA evidence is presented.

Of course, very little is foolproof:

“People think they understand forensics more than they actually do,” says Los Angeles State University Professor Lisa Graziano.

“DNA was so complex and complicated that nobody really understood it,” famed Fox anchor reporter Van Susteren said in a Washington Post article.

fur24Or as President Harry S. Truman once said, “If you can’t convince them, confuse them.”

fur2The Simpson trial began on January 24, 1995. Both the prosecutors and O.J. Simpson’s Dream Team acknowledged the importance of thoroughly educating the jury about DNA testing as it related to Simpson’s blood which the prosecution claimed was found at the crime scene at 870 South Bundy Drive. Simpson’s jury consisted mostly of laymen completely unfamiliar with forensic science and the scientific testing of evidence

Therefore, both the defense and the prosecutors had to tutor the jury in order to help them understand from a scientific standpoint how a suspect’s DNA profile is developed from a crime scene sample, a sample that, after testing, proved with high probability that it matched Simpson’s blood at the time to “one in 170 millions” among men of the American population.

fur25Advances in DNA testing today of blood samples will match to “one in trillions” of the population worldwide. It took over a month for prosecutor Marcia Clark to put on the DNA evidence linking Simpson to the double murders, and the numerous scientific terms confused the jury. One elderly juror later told a news reporter that she had never heard of DNA, and didn’t fully understand what it was all about.

Another uphill battle for the prosecutors was the improper handling of some of the blood evidence — which gave the defense leeway to argue the blood evidence was either planted by Homicide Detectives or contaminated by shoddy lab work.


The State of DNA Testing in 2014:

fur21With today’s advances in DNA testing, anyone who follows news events and watches real-life forensic crime dramas is fully aware that properly applied DNA evidence is so powerful and compelling that it can either exonerate a previously convicted individual, or conversely, lead to ironclad convictions. According to New York-based Innocence Project, since 1989, 316 people have been exonerated by DNA testing in 36 states. 18 of the 316 had been on Death Row.

For most jurors in criminal cases today, DNA evidence is readily accepted as constituting undisputed proof.


June 12, 1994: Crime Scene Evidence at 870 South Bundy Drive:

When CSU technicians recover blood from a crime scene, this evidence can positively identify a suspect and possibly solve the case. As any scientist knows, it is mandatory to correctly document, collect, and preserve this type of evidence. Proper chain of custody is the key to effectively processing and maintaining control over and maintaining the integrity of the evidence. If blood evidence is handled improperly, it can critically undermine the prosecution’s case, particularly in a homicide case.

fur16Once O.J. Simpson became a prime suspect, the homicide detectives first questioned him about a noticeable cut on his finger. Simpson initially said the cut was the result of him carelessly handling either a golf bag or some luggage. Sensing the detectives didn’t believe him, Simpson quickly changed his story and said he’d cut his finger on a glass he’d broken in a Chicago hotel after hearing his ex-wife had been murdered. Detective Phillip Vanatter extracted a vial of blood from Simpson’s arm to have a criminalist develop his DNA profile. This is called a reference sample. What happened next with Simpson’s blood triggered allegations that Detectives planted Simpson’s blood at the murder scene. Detective Vanatter, perhaps innocently, broke a cardinal rule when — instead of checking Simpson’s blood sample into the forensic lab — he handed it off to a criminalist who was already collecting blood evidence at Simpson’s Rockingham estate.

fur18Simpson’s attorneys also emphasized another critical problem to Judge Lance Ito. It turned out that the reference blood sample stored in the vial allegedly belonging to Simpson contained approximately 1.5 milligrams less blood when the lab finally received it compared to when it was collected. Attorneys Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck argued that the blood from the crime scene (which purportedly came from the “real killer”) was cross-contaminated with Simpson’s actual blood. Trial testimony showed that the “cotton swabs” containing blood drops recovered from the murder scene were left out to dry on June 13th, and sat for a day prior to being placed in the evidence bag for storage on June 14th. Attorney Cochran effectively explained in great detail how the original “blood-soaked swabs”, which belonged to the actual killer, had been either switched or mixed with Simpson’s blood in a nefarious attempt to convict him of the murders.


2014 Buccal Swab Testing:

fur12In today’s world of more sophisticated forensic testing, reference DNA can be collected by utilizing Buccal swabs. Buccal swabbing involves a suspect who voluntarily agrees to allow an investigator to place a cotton tip into his or her mouth to collect oral saliva and skin cells mixed with saliva. The difference between Buccal swabbing and depositing a blood sample into a vial is that a Buccal swab collection kit is sealed and signed in the presence of a suspect or defendant. Buccal swabbing provides the following key benefit: If a kit is somehow opened and the swab removed, there is still no way for a corrupt officer or criminalist to extract skin cells from the Bucccal swab and plant them at a crime scene.

Investigators these days regularly perform Buccal swabbing due to its efficiency and reliability in order to maintain control of the evidence for subsequent DNA testing. If O.J. Simpson’s reference DNA had been collected on a Buccal swab, his defense team would have been unable to raise suspicion that evidence had been planted, or that the blood samples had been switched or contaminated.


The State of DNA Expert Trial Testimony in 1995:

fur22At the Simpson trial, mixed profiles of DNA confused the jury. Terminology used by the DNA experts on the stand such as “cannot be excluded” were used frequently to describe the difference between a reference DNA sample and a mixture of two or more DNA profiles. The words, “cannot be excluded”, actually meant that there was enough information present from a developed profile to possibly be the same profile as the reference sample. But any DNA expert then would attest to the fact that one could not be “one hundred percent certain” that a profile actually belonged to a particular person.


The Testing Of Mixed Blood in 2014:

Advanced testing today now allows for the mixtures of profiles to be much easier to decipher. For example, experts say that a “YSTR” DNA typing of the Y Chromosome can be tested to determine a male donor and isolate the male genetic code on the Y Chromosome when the blood is mixed with a female’s DNA profile. A DNA expert can then re-type the male’s DNA reference sample using the “YSTR”, which can result in a gold mine of information for the prosecutor or the defense because it will distinguish between male and female DNA.


Recovered Hair Samples in June of 1994:

fur8Strands of hair recovered off the shirt of victim Ron Goldman, and hairs found in a knit cap recovered at the homicide scene, were microscopically identical to Simpson’s head hair. However, in that era, microscopic comparisons of hair could not conclusively match an identified hair with another sample recovered from a crime scene.


2014 Mitochondria DNA Testing (MTDNA):

fur15In today’s world of advanced forensic testing, if the hair samples found on Goldman’s shirt, including the hair samples found in the knit cap, still had a root or roots attached, advanced Mitochondria DNA testing would have the capability of positively determining whether the hairs belonged to Simpson, rather than suggesting that the hairs were “microsopically similar” to Simpson’s. Mitochondria DNA testing is highly valuable for extracting DNA from bones, hair, and other biologically degraded evidence. In today’s world, Simpson’s Dream Team would have a tough time trying to convince a jury that Mitochondria DNA matching Simpson’s found on a dead body did not actually belong to Simpson.



O.J. Simpson Seeks Retrial In Las Vegas Court - Day 1We will never know with certainty that if O.J. Simpson went on trial today for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, that he would be found guilty by a jury more familiar with DNA testing and the general testing of forensic evidence. Yet we must admit that if a jury is more knowledgeable about evidence, and if the evidence proves guilt, then the jury is more likely to convict.

California State University Professor Lisa Graziano said in a news article that the CSI effect has changed the public so much that if the Simpson case took place today, “the science evidence could outweigh the mistrust and perceived racism of the LAPD.”

fur17The cold-bloodied murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were tragedies of the first order. It is conceivable that the jury failed to convict O.J. Simpson because they put little stock in the DNA evidence introduced at trial, in part because of the “primitive” nature of DNA testing in that era, particularly when compared to today’s far more sophisticated techniques. Was the jury swayed by the claims of racism skillfully introduced by Simpson’s Dream Team? It is certainly possible. But what we know for certain is that the acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the two brutal murders stands as a line of demarcation that clearly revealed the need for more sophisticated forensic techniques, particularly with respect to DNA testing.

What is ironic is that in today’s world, advanced DNA techniques serve to not only convict guilty parties, but also have proved to be an incredibly powerful tool to exonerate wrongfully convicted defendants, as the work of the Innocence Project has so conclusively demonstrated.


Clarence Walker is a veteran news writer and freelance investigative journalist for online internet news publishers and offline hard copy publishers. He has written previously for New York-based True Crime Magazines, National Law Journal, Houston Chronicle, and Houston Forward Times Weekly Community Newspaper. He has also appeared in John Walsh’s America’s Most Wanted Crime Magazine & TV Show. Mr. Walker has served as a crime historian for Houston, Texas-based Channel 11 TV’s Cold Case Murder Series, hosted by reporter Jeff Mcshan. Mr. Walker currently divides his time between Houston and Southeast Arkansas, and is working on a series of crime books and as a story research producer for cable TV true crime drama shows.



71 Responses to O.J. Simpson Trial 20 Years Later: Advanced Forensic Science Might Leave Little Doubt as to Simpson’s Guilt

  1. Lon Spector says:

    The case had nothing to do with forensic science. It was about racebased
    jury nullification all the way. The same jury consultant, Richard Gaberial that helped
    with Casey Anthony, and my namesake Phil Spector got O.J. off. What’s her name
    Jo Ellen Demertious also was invovled in picking the jury.
    One of O.J.’s attorneys (The one who’s son later died of a drug overdose) said:
    “We played the race card from the bottom of the deck.”
    O.J. was in no way tried before a jury of his peers. The trial should NOT have been held
    in downtown L.A. It should have been held closer were the actual crime took place.
    The jury took a tour of O.J.’s house. All the photographs of O.J.’s white friends were
    removed from the home, and a portrait of Dr. Martain Luther King was placed on the wall.

    • Rick says:

      Great comment, Lon! I agree with your view that the jury used nullification to acquit O.J., in light of the “mountain” of evidence presented by the prosecution (probably too much evidence and an overly lengthy trial for a jury of regular folks; although the defense played a large role in prolonging the proceedings). I believe that the verdict also represented “payback” by the jurors for the Rodney King verdict a few years earlier and the LAPD’s long history of targeting and abusing African-Americans. Ironically, before the murders, O.J. had largely distanced himself from the black community, since he lived in Brentwood and socialized with rich an d famous white folks on LA’s Westside and not with “his people” in South LA. Yet, the black community ended up championing OJ as one of its own which, coupled with the riots, created a gulf between blacks and whites in LA for about a decade.

  2. liselasalle says:

    Very interesting article. If the trial would not have been held at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, all this could have made a difference but it was a slam dunk even at the time.
    In his most recent book, Mark Geragos talks about trying cases in downtown L.A. You could never lose because the jurors despised the police and loved the Juice.
    His civil case was tried in Santa Monica and he was found guilty.

    At the time, the jurors said they had ‘doubts’ about the DNA. Vincent Bugliosi qualified them as being part of a ‘mental poverty program.’

    The prosecution was faulty but nothing could have brought down the Juice in L.A.

    • Rick says:

      Lise – In my opinion, the DA effectively lost the OJ case when it decided to move his trial from Santa Monica to downtown LA because of the vastly different jury pools in those two areas (the former area is largely white whereas jury pools in downtown LA are much more diverse and are drawn from areas including South LA). That decision ostensibly was made to allow for greater media access to the trial. And we saw how well the media saturation coverage worked out for the parties and the attorneys. . . ; plus, the presiding Judge (Lance Ito) was in love with the courtroom camera.

      • liselasalle says:

        Yes Rick I almost forgot about Judge Ito. Letting in the ridiculous N word testimony and basking in the limelight.

        You’re a walking encyclopedia.

        • PatrickHMoore says:

          Rick is a walking encyclopedia. I had no idea the first time we did a case together but I quickly caught on…

        • Rick says:

          Thanks, Lise. There are just some things that one can’t forget . . . like the “Dancing Itos” segment on the Tonight Show during the Simpson murder trial.

          • PatrickHMoore says:

            Ha ha ha!

          • Rick says:

            The Dancing Itos was quite a schmaltzy skit. I always preferred Letterman’s edge to Leno’s mild, G-rated humor.

          • PatrickHMoore says:

            Well they’re both funny in different ways. Because I never have much time to watch much TV, I’m hardly the expert on either of them. Are they both off the air now?

            I did watch the great San Antone thumping of Lebron and the boys yesterday afternoon. That young man, Mr. Leonard, is really something. Quiet, fearless, lethal… My new NBA hero!

          • Rick says:

            Hey Patrick – Leno is gone (recently replaced by Jimmy Kimmel) and Letterman has announced his plan to retire next year (he’ll be replaced by Stephen Colbert).

            The Spurs really turned it up on the Heat yesterday and made the Big 3 look very pedestrian. Was Leonard named MVP of the series? (My tape of the game ran out just before presentation of the awards).

          • PatrickHMoore says:

            Leonard, my new hero, is indeed MVP. And to think he’s from Riverside and attended San Diego State. I guess Popovich knew what he was doing when he stated during Leonard’s rookie year that he was “the future of the franchise”.

            Did you know “Pop’s” first coaching job was at Cal Poly and in his first season he went 2 and 22? Wow!

          • Rick says:

            Leonard definitely deserved to win the MVP award. He really shut down LeBron in the second half. Popovich is clearly the best coach in the NBA right now; he did the most without having a true superstar and coaches an old-time team game. The Spurs’ passing was absolutely spectacular and their ball movement made the Heat look really slow.

          • PatrickHMoore says:

            It was a thing of beauty to behold — reminds me of the group effort we engage in in our endless attempt to help our clients. Of course, what we do is not nearly as exciting as the manner in which the Spurs demolished the Heat. I never thought I would be a Spurs fan which proves the old adage, ‘Never say never.’

      • Jeannie says:

        I couldn’t agree more. The perfect storm against the prosecution: the jury, the angry climate at the time; everything that could possibly work against them was present.
        I just cannot understand how BLACK AND WHITE EVIDENCE…….fool proof DNA scientific evidence could be denied. So sad….my heart breaks for Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and those that loved them.

        • GregB says:

          Simple–DNA evidence can be denied because it is not “fool proof”. No evidence is. As any DNA expert will tell you, crime scene blood can have resulted from prior visits, contamination during processing, or planting.

          What I personally think is more relevant to some of the blood is the fact that forensic DNA tests cannot make conclusive determinations between close family members. In fact, they can’t make them about anyone, but the problem is much greater the closer you get relationwise to the targeted suspect. This is because they do not come anywhere close to sequencing that person’s entire genome. They just look at a very limited number of sites which happen to have a certain, known number of patterns and establish that those patterns are there. Usually several people are potential matches for what they find, as was the case for the OJ blood.

          As for the rest, like the hair in the cap, that field has since be revealed to be mostly junk science. In fact the National Academy of Science has strongly criticised most fields of forensics for their complete lack of scientific backing. Overblown statements from hair analysts have lead to people being incarcerated for years or even executed. In the Simpson case, what was claimed to be a “match” simply meant that the hair was probably from an African-American, nt that it was OJs.

          This, plus the fact that the prosectuion presented so many obviously bad (lying, incompetent etc.) witnesses is why the verdict came back not guilty, not some mysterious payback assumed by people who seem to think they can read the minds of jurors (some of them whom were white).

          • Rick says:

            Greg – I lived and worked in downtown LA during the Simpson trial and I can categorically say that the jury verdict WAS payback for the Rodney King beating and the LAPD’s history of police brutality toward blacks. At the time the Simpson jury was being selected, I was in a jury assembly room in the Criminal Courts Building where OJ was ultimately tried and acquitted. I distinctly remember the circus-like atmosphere outside of the court building. The Simpson jury engaged in nullification both to “get even” with the “man” (i.e., the LAPD) and because racial tensions were still extremely high in LA in the mid-1990s; no one wanted a race riot which could have been triggered by a “guilty” verdict. As one of the protagonists (Chris Darden?) stated in the last episode of the FX miniseries, People v. O.J. Simpson: “OJ is the first man in history to be found not guilty BECAUSE he was black.”

          • GregB says:

            I am supposed to accept your “categorical” insistence about the reason for the verdict because you worked at the CCB? Are you kidding me? I have lived in LA all my life and very near the heart of black LA, and I can assure YOU that there was no contemplation of rioting etc. There was the fear of various cops etc., perhaps out of deserved guilt, that people would want “payback” for the acquittal of Koon etc., but that is not proof of rampaging black folks, chomping at the bit to avenge Mr. Nice Guy.

            Amazing how so many people seem to believe (along with “karma”) in ESP, since I have no idea why you think you are entitled to ignore what the jurors themselves said, and assess that honestly. They were presented with a clearly lying Vannatter, a Denise Brown who was caught on tape having tried to deceive them about the post-recital behavior of OJ, a coroner who has to take the unprecedented step of subbing for the guy who actually did the work (they were afraid of how badly he’d be chopped up by defense lawyers exposing his work), a cop who tried to distort Simpson’s reaction to the news of his wife’s death (and was forced to back down on cross), a DNA “expert” who seems to be unable to do simple math, another expert (from the FBI) who didn’t know the value of “PI”, and so on.

            Do I really need to mention Mark Fuhrman and his tapes? Interestingly, Ito killed the parts where he is describing his love of planting evidence and hatred of minorities, plainly stated in the parts where Laura McKinney is asking him his person attitudes.

            No, as is clear, there are tons and tons of reasons to doubt the horrible case presented. It only has legs from naïve sorts who believe fairy tales about police behavior in the real world, and further don’t take close looks at the evidence.

          • Billy Bob says:

            Well said I was saying to myself I never heard them say the hair matched OJs not to mention finding his hair on Ron Goldman’s body whoever found those hairs have microscopic eyes. If you know anything about black peoples hair and if that is the case that there was hair from the attacker on Ron Goldman’s body that means Ron would have put up a fight because it’s not that easy to pull black peoples hair out. one of the autopsies also states thatit appears that Ron was stabbed with two different knives

        • Rick says:

          While OJ got away with double murder, 13 years later, karma took its revenge on him, when he was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 33 years in prison for attempting to “repossess” his sports memorabilia. Hubris finally led to OJ’s downfall. Although he’s eligible for parole next year, I doubt that a man so demonstrably dangerous to the public will be released so early. What happened in Vegas didn’t stay there, as concerns OJ.

          • GregB says:

            Or alternately, he was setup in order to unfairly punish him (no one sane things 33 years for the alleged crimes is reasonable) for a crime he didn’t commit–the double murder in Brentwood on June 12, 1994.

          • Rick says:

            I don’t buy for a minute the defense theory that O.J. was somehow setup by a massive police conspiracy, in which the police planted blood evidence and gloves at numerous locations. Unless Mark Furhman was omnipresent or he had co-conspirator(s), there’s no way that he could have strategically deposited the blood and glove evidence in numerous locations simultaneously. See

            At the time of the Simpson trial and ever since then, I’ve believed that O.J.’s defense was entirely based on race and was “smoke and mirrors.” I would rate the odds of O.J.’s actual innocence as equivalent to the “possibility” that lizard people or aliens are secretly operating the governments of the U.S. and other nations around the world.

            Also, karmic justice was served on two of the main protagonists on the Simpson defense team — Johnnie Cochran died at a young age from brain cancer in 2005, and Robert Kardashian died too young from stomach cancer in 2003. When people spew such toxic and harmful garbage as did Messrs. Cochran and Kardashian (the latter to a much lesser extent), which they couldn’t possibly have believed was true, some of that crap invariably backs up and infects their physical health. Karma is definitely a bitch.

          • GregB says:

            There are at least three Ricks in this thread.

            Two seem to disagree with you.

            I’ve noticed, when discussing the case with people who are “100% convinced” about some matter they had little person involvement with, that a kind of cognitive dissonance kicks in very quickly. They simply do not process information challenging their views properly, or at all.

            I was not commenting about “planning evidence” in the OJ case. I was talking about how obviously the resolution if not origination of that case was actually “karma” as performed via vigilanti justice in the Nevade court system.

            Also, I had no idea the US had so many closet Buddhists, believing in this “law of karma”. Anybody thinking more than two minutes about *that* suggestion would have to wonder what monstrous things both Nicole and Ron Goldman did in their short lives, to end up being horribly slaughtered like that. Or does that law, like the laws against being railroaded (ala the Nevada Simpson trial) or the right to have ones’ case decently investigated (breached horribly in the Simpson criminal trial) just come and go according to the wishes of the commenter?

            As you might learn from other posts in this thread, it is not necessary to posit some vast conspiracy in order to think OJ did not do the crime. And if you think the “case was based on race” you must have slept through all the instances when prosecution witnesses were impeached as liars, or incompetents, or both. Cochran plainly said there was a “rush to judgment”, and he was right. Had they done a decent job, they’d have learned about how OJ’s son Jason should have been considered a major person of interest from the very start. But they didn’t. Like you, like the McMartin Preschool investigators, like the Central Park Five cops and so many others in American, they “knew” they had the right man from the start, and damn it all to contrary facts or common sense.

  3. […] lie, you didn’t know what DNA evidence was prior to the OJ Trial.  One juror at the time admitted the science of DNA went over their […]

  4. GregB says:

    I have a question…would these so-called “modern techniques” be able to
    distiguish between OJ and a close relative (and to what resolution)?

  5. GregB says:

    I guess two questions…what is a reasonable explanation for the obsevation, apparently confirmed by all, that the blood on the socks was not “smeared” but
    rather dropped while not being worn (they stain ended up on opposing sides of the sock,which is impossible if a foot is inside unless).

  6. Larry Naheu says:

    I’m sure if DNA was used today, Simpson would be found guilty.
    Also, what really put me off is Simpson was allowed to try the gloves on over rubber gloves. Regardless, they still were put on.
    He faked a struggle. Poor man, he didn’t want his hands to be contaminated. By what? Blood evidence? Marsha Clark didn’t even speak up against it. Judge ITO allowed it. The jury didn’t consider it. Celebrities can get away with murder. In the meantime, justice is denied the victims, and all those who loved them. Nicole Simpson went after a married man, and she sure paid a fatal price from it. Ron Goldman saved the life of someone else who was going to bring Nicole’s sunglasses to her.

    • GregB says:

      There’s excellent evidence pointing in another direction, so my thought was along the same idea as yours…modern DNA analysis is way better than the crap they had 20 years ago.

      The difference between us is, one of OJ’s relatives would also be a match for that blood but for some reason the No-Js simply want to ignore that fact. When you look closer at the case, lots of interesting things rise up about his son (like a falsified alibi and much, much more).

      Have you?

  7. OneOfTheSmartOnes says:

    Why do people ignore all evidence? I don’t know whether the general population is incompetent or just plan racist. To say that modern technology would have convicted OJ is plain stupid for the simple fact that FBI agents as well as the defense’s special witness both agreed and testified that the DNA was planted because of the presence of EDAT found in test tube vials. The so-called evidence was planted on the sock which traces of EDAT was present, planted on the back gate. A crime scene photo the was taken of the gate the day of investigation June 13, 1994. 3 weeks later LAPD criminalist found traces of Nicole’s blood on the socks and also blood on the gate as well. FBI agents as well as 3 LAPD criminalist did not find traces of blood on separate occasions but all of a sudden it appears 3 weeks later. The significant thing about this new evidence was the blood had not been degraded which is a term used when to refer to the sample as old, and non reliable. Sooooooooooooo, why doesn’t anyone consider that? Is it because you feel as though OJ is arrogant and pompous? Do you consider him as uppity? As far as OJ not being around many BLACKS is laughable. His best best friends were black. [I emphasized best on purpose] OJ is a millionaire. Why would he want to go to South Central LA and possibly have people beg him for money. All his friends are within a close proximity of him. I find it repulsing that whites feel as though because he is black he as to hang out in black areas. Again we are moving to the ideal of segregation. If a white person attends university where they are considered a minority, does the student have to separate from their fellow classmate and search for other whites? Some of you guys’ thought process or thinking is backwards. Many of OJ’s rich BLACK friends supported him. Not just blacks in urban communities. Even though OJ did not travel out there many blacks supported him because they looked up to him. Many lower class did not personally know OJ because of his status he is a celebrity; therefore, he mainly would have celebrity friends. Does Donald Trump hang out with whites lower class whites?? This is sad and annoying that someone has to give a different out look on life in the black community. If many of you would stop being racist maybe this could have been a great discussion where someone may refute my opinions with logic and fact. Last but not least DNA is not hard to comprehend. They teach DNA to children its other things that may not be easy to comprehend. To exclude a relative is also easy as well. If they would have tested Oj’s son, that assuming his son was not at the crime scene, the test would show maybe a small % that OJ and Son share but the analysis would have to show Oj’s son would have to have more % common with the DNA. Hard for me to explain but other sites could give a better knowledge.

    • GregB says:

      It’s hard to understand your last few sentences.

      OJ’s and his sons’ (he has two, though only one would be of interest at the time of the crime) DNA would be easy to tell apart, but only if compared side by side. For the type of test they did at the crime scenes back in ’94, they could not exclude the sons even if they had tried (and they didn’t).

      It is perfectly possible some of the blood in evidence was OJ’s older son’s, based on their analysis. That becomes a great deal more interesting when you look at other details about his life (which again they did not do, instead zeroing in completely on OJ from the start).

      For example, he apparently falsified his time card at the exact day and time of the murders…

    • Jim says:

      This is not correct about the blood. What they said was that all blood has traces of EDAT but that all the blood at the scene matched OJs.

      DNA tests have all but proved that the blood on the sock was Mrs. Simpson’s, and that the blood smeared on the gate matched Mr. Simpson’s. But Mr. Martz said there was no proof that the chemical on the two exhibits was EDTA and even if it were, that it was NOT of the concentration found in preserved blood.

      “Everyone is saying that I found EDTA, but I am not saying that,” said Mr. Martz, chief of the F.B.I.’s chemistry toxicology unit, with a hint of frustration. “I was asked to determine whether those blood stains came from preserved blood. Those blood stains did not come from preserved blood.”

      • GregB says:

        Unfortunately, Mr. Martz apparent biases, veracity and basic competence have all been called into serious question–along with the FBI crime labs generally. I’d suggest getting a hold of “Tainted Evidence” by John Kelly and Phillp Wearne for the horrible details. I think anyone interested in the topic of American criminal justice should read their very revealing look at the true state of forensic “science” (and I put the quotes for a reason–it is no such thing, as the National Academy of Science concluded in its 2009 report damning the field for a host of un-evidence practices.

        Martz–he of the infamous ignorance of the value of Pi while on the stand–is one of the star players in the book, and that’s not a happy thing to be…

        As for “all but proven”, I would say no, that is not true. First, a partial 9 allele match would be, for a close relative, less that definitive. Second, it is more broadly (among academics at least–the general public, no way the situation is worse) that errors and confirmation biases can easily creep into a technician’s analysis, along with equipment problems and other difficulties. Amazingly, it was some time before even Barry Scheck recognized this as a significant problem (as opposed to the junky work done by the criminalists on-scene). So that 9 match might be an 8, or a 7, or even exculpatory when looked at properly.

        And all this is before you look at the relative other information between OJ and Jason, which is heavily weighted pretty clearly against the latter.

  8. tracey says:

    Nicole had blood under her fingernails. OJ’s DNA is on file with the prison system they should retest. He can still be so convicted or exhonorated in the court of public opinion.

    • hm says:

      It’s a given they still have that blood that was under her fingernails. It’s a matter of retesting and we’d know. I don’t know anything about law, but is it possible to “re-open” a case like this?

      • GregB says:

        Supposedly the blood under her fingernails was hers. But didn’t they also find skin?

        What I would like to see is a mitochondrial DNA analysis of the hairs found on the dark cap. That can show for sure whether or not he was the wearer (I don’t think he was).

      • Rick Stack says:

        At this point in time, there’s no reason for the authorities to recheck the DNA found under Nicole’s fingernails because OJ was found not guilty of murder and the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars further prosecution for that crime. For that reason, it’s quite likely that the authorities have destroyed the forensic evidence in the OJ case and closed it, unless of course, they are still looking for “real killer(s)” :) of Nicole and Ron Goldman.

        • GregB says:

          That would only be true if the goal were to retry OJ Simpson. If the DNA there or on any other piece of crime scene evidence pointed to another suspect, this would be an entirely different matter.

          • Rick Stack says:

            Greg — Do you really think that someone else killed Ron and Nicole? Jason Simpson?

            If it was Jason, how do you explain the brutal, close-up manner in which the murders were committed, which are strongly suggestive of rage against the victims by someone who had a close, personal relationship with one or both of them? I submit that OJ is the only person who fits that bill.

          • GregB says:

            Actually I do. It is not generally appreciated just how disturbed OJ’s son was. Within a span of a couple of years before the murders, Jason had physically attacked 3 people (one his boss from behind with a knife, for which he was on probation during OJ’s trial; one his girlfriend, shearing her hair almost to the scalp; and one another girlfriend by nearly strangling her to death before witnesses pulled him off after a jealous rage), had tried to commit suicide at least three times in the past (twice with sharp objects), was very experienced with a knife as a trained chef with his own set, had been under psychiatric observation in the past and committed to a 72-hour-hold, suffered from bipolar disorder for which he was given prescription drugs (which he abused with alcohol and cocaine and other illegal substances that are not to be taken with medication), had stopped taking that medication not long before the murders and reported to an ER he was going to “rage”. And there is a good deal more information suggesting he is of great interest.

            On the other hand, the evidence against Simpson is really rather weak if you look closely at it. There was certainly no good reason to think he was a serial abuser, and even Nicole testified under oath he had never touched her after a disputed incident over 5 years before the killings, when they were drunk on New Year’s Eve. Nor did the so-called motive or timeline make sense, nor even eyewitness testimony about Simpson’s demeanor and physical state (no cuts on his hand) right after the murders took place, when Simpson went on a long-planned trip to Chicago.

            It is not popular to say it, but there are very big reasons to doubt he did it.

          • Rick Stack says:

            Greg – Thanks for your thoughtful comment. It’s obvious that you’ve devoted much time to studying this case (my knowledge is based on my recollection of the trial proceedings almost 20 years ago). Interestingly, an IRS agent used the “mountains of evidence” argument against my client in a recent administrative meeting/hearing. I even pointed that out to the agent.

            As a practical matter, unless the forensic evidence of those murders has been preserved and a party with legal standing moves to reopen the criminal investigation, that evidence will never be re-tested. There’s no way that the Brown and Goldman families will ever seek to reopen the investigation to have the Los Angeles County D.A. charge a new defendant because that would jeopardize their multi-million dollar wrongful death judgment against Simpson. Plus, the members of those families seem to truly believe that OJ committed both murders.

            The D.A. also would seem to be loathe to reopen its murder investigation, absent a corroborated confession from the “real killer(s),” because OJ has already been convicted in the proverbial “court of public opinion” and it would have an exceedingly difficult time persuading a new jury otherwise. Finally, the D.A.’s office would have egg on its face and could face significant civil liability from OJ if it reopened the investigation and charged a new defendant, since it would effectively be admitting that it wrongfully prosecuted OJ.

            It would thus appear that whether the untested DNA under Nicole’s fingernails belonged to OJ will remain an academic debate.

          • PatrickHMoore says:

            What has happened to Jason Simpson in recent years?

            Is there any evidence that he may have been at the crime scene?



          • Rick Stack says:

            Hey Patrick! It looks like Greg B. is the ATCB resident expert on the OJ case.

          • PatrickHMoore says:

            Yes, I think OJ was probably guilty but I am curious about this Jason fellow. He sounds like a refugee from a horror movie.

          • GregB says:

            Rick I agree with your assessment as to the strong reasons to doubt the case will be re-examined, whatever the evidence may suggest. I do hold slim hope that either a new generation of people in the DAs office may eventually reconsider things (there are several who were involved in his prosecution who still work in that office), or a proper look at the DNA perhaps from an outside entity may bring up data that would force the issue.

            This whole OJ business is a bit of an odd experience for me. I was never much of a true crime buff and thought he probably did it (though the cops may have done a couple of dirty deeds). And to me OJ was just a notable entertainment figure and not some “hero”.

            Then, around the time of the 20th anniversary of the slayings in May of ’14, I stumbled upon a web article that mentioned some theory about OJ’s eldest son, Jason. Unlike the usual junk you read, this guy’s theory, presented the book “OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It” seemed both plausible and intriguing. I couldn’t resist the idea that I and so many others may have been so wrong, so I bought it–and was amazed at what this private eye, Bill Dear, had uncovered.

            Since then I’ve gone on to read about 3 dozen case-related books along with transcripts and web pages and so forth. It really is a wonderfully complex matter with so many twists and angles, far more than the classical Big Questions such as “who shot JFK?” (for me it’s pretty clearly Oswald, acting alone). To this day OJ’s name is taken as a shortcut for domestic violence claims, getting away with crimes scott-free, and the power of wealth and privilege. And emotions still run high as to whether or not “he did it”, though his support seems to have waned a bit over the years due to some further incidents and a media who can’t get enough in hating, and covering, him. Not to mention, the case itself is very weird, with no reasonable (to me) way demonstrated OJ could have committed the crime in the time and manner claimed.

            Bill Dear wrote an earlier book where he first brought out his theory, but it seems to have drawn little notice (possibly because it came out right at 9/11/01). It was successful to the extent that subsequent new evidence came to light as a result, as people with further info about Jason approached him.

            My current feeling is that Dear is 100% correct that a “major suspect” was inappropriately ignored, and remains so. I do disagree with a further component of his theory.

          • Rick Stack says:

            This Jason did not star in Friday the 13th but rather is OJ Simpson’s son from a prior marriage. A Los Angeles PI named Michael Martin came forward about 1 1/2 years ago, claiming that he was on a different stakeout on the night of that fateful double murder not far from Nicole’s condo. Mr. Martin claims that he saw a car pull up outside of the condo and saw Jason and OJ get out of the car. 10 minutes later, both men came back to the car, with OJ carrying a bunch of clothes under his left arm. Martin claims that he now regrets that he didn’t come forward as a witness 20+ years ago. His failure to come forward earlier seriously weakens his credibility and makes him now look like a publicity hound. On the other hand, Jason had been hospitalized for a psychiatric rage-related disorder several months before the murders and had a past history of violence against women and a former boss, who he attacked with a knife. So who knows?

            Here are a few links to this story from fairly respectable media outlets. Thus, Jason’s possible involvement in the double murders is not some bizarre internet-based conspiracy theory bereft of any merit:;; and

  9. GregB says:


    So far as I know Jason now lives in either Florida or Atlanta, working as a chef. Attempts were made by various news organizations when Dear’s 2nd book came out in 2012, but were unsuccessful (his phone was “disconnected”). It would not be hard to find him via spokeo etc. these days. I believe he is 44 or 45 yo.

    As for physical evidence, it is important first to understand that as OJ’s son, Jason’s DNA profile would likely be a very close match (a bad, unscientific word but one used by Marcia to prejudice the jury). The calculations made at trial alleging billions to one-against there being anyone but OJ involved were totally bogus and against known DNA profile principles, which should have made it plain that others and in particular a close relative such as a son or brother could also have been a “match”. So, those who think the blood left at the scene was “100% OJ’s” are simply wrong, as no test can say this and definitely not using that technology, or when considering a relative.

    Next, there is the issue of that odd dark cap left at the scene. It was testified by an FBI agent that some of the hair found on the cap was “microscopically similar” to OJ’s. Note, “microscopically” may sound impressive, as in “sciency”, but it really only means “according to me looking at this, it is similar to”. And in reality a few years later the FBI was forced to admit this was yet another bit of bogus forensics which had no real scientific backing. From a report on the issue after an internal audit:

    In one case, a prosecutor told the jury that there was a one in 10 million chance that the hair sample that implicated the defendant in the crime was from another individual, reports the New York Times. Subsequent DNA testing found that “none of the hair samples matched the defendant, and that one was from a dog.”

    And so, the hair found in the cap could have easily been any african-american, and is not directly traceable to OJ in any way.

    Further, OJ Simpson was never known to have worn such a hat aside from years’ ago ski trips and possibly in his recently filmed movie, “Frogman” (details of which lead a red herring of their own but I will leave aside for now). His head is famously rather large, and his wearing such a cap for concealment as was alleged makes zero sense.

    On the other hand, one of the pieces of evidence discovered by Dear and shown in his newest book was a photograph of Jason wearing an exact duplicate of the cap in question, dated before the murders. He is found in other photos taken after wearing the same style hat, but with a different color. Apparently he wore them all the time.

    Jason is fully compatible with all the relevant crime evidence and had access to all relevant locations, and is a close physiological match.

    One other thing (not mentioned in Dear’s book)–OJ Simpson was pigeon-toed, but a trail of footprints at the major crime scene shows no such inward orientation but rather are of a normal man walking.

    Lol, “There is more…”

    • Rick Stack says:

      Greg B. – You’re really on top of this story!

      Another thing about the DNA testing in the mid-1990’s is that the science was in its infancy and the methods were quite crude compared to current methods. As you’ve written, the then stated probabilities of DNA “matches” in that era were greatly exaggerated and not scientifically or statistically sound.

    • PatrickHMoore says:

      The pigeon-toed evidence seems pretty solid. THX, Jason

    • rick says:

      OJ,s barber testified that OJ had dandruff.There was no traces of dandruff found in the hat

      • GregB says:

        Yep, plus it was way too small. OJ’s head is about the size of those flying ships in the movie “Zardoz’. lol

        He simply didn’t wear such a thing, and it does nothing for him except make people wonder why he is dressed up like a commando at his ex-wife’s house in the middle of Brentewood.

  10. Brian says:

    I get a kick out of people who bend themselves into a pretzel trying to proclaim O.J.’s innocence. ‘Not Guilty’ and ‘Innocent’ are two very different things. I think Occam’s Razor still holds true: “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”

    Several years ago I found a story online about a college (?) math professor who had his class work up a formula for gauging Simpson’s guilt. They weighted and quantified the major pieces of evidence, drawing conclusions as to the probability of Simpson’s guilt or innocence. For example, they created an equation for the odds of two people being murdered (by a knife), the killer walking away dripping blood from the left side of his/her body, and then the next day Simpson having a cut on his left hand. Each time they did an equation, they would then mix it with another equation, which eventually made the odds of Simpson NOT committing the murders astronomical. It was really interesting.

    • GregB says:

      Glad you are amused but I hope you will explain this “pretzel” business. I am well familiar with Sir William of Occam and his mental cutlery, so I’ll offer this:

      You have an aging, physically damaged man with no history of using a weapon against anyone, who has a great deal to lose from any scandal, is wealthy enough to handle his problems in any number of ways that don’t involve personal violence, and has been found by three mental health professionals to not be the sort of violent person alleged and believed by the public in general (we will leave aside the implausible aspects of the timeline etc.)

      On the other hand, you have a physically powerful, deeply disturbed young man who is highly expert with knives, owns a large collection which he carries with him, uses them every working day rending flesh, was combat trained in their use, had in the course of his young life attacked three people at least 4 times (twice with knives), tried to commit suicide three times including twice with sharp objects, was being given mediation he used to control “rages” and his long-standing epilepsy (a condition in which some forms produce violent, unprovoked attacks on nearby loved ones), was taking cocaine, ecstasy and hard booze in contraindication of both his condition and his medications, and had stopped taking those meds just two months before the murder.

      Oh, and the young man is on probation at the time of the crime after assaulting his boss with a knife. And we will ignore the lied about alibi and the falsified time card.

      Now, what’s that about not bringing a knife, or a razor, to a gunfight???

  11. Brian says:

    I need to clarify part of my above statement:

    “Each time they did an equation, they would then mix it with another equation, which eventually made the odds of Simpson NOT committing the murders astronomical.”

    That should say “…which eventually made the odds of anyone, other than Simpson committing the murders, astronomical.”

    In other words, they came to the conclusion that Simpson committed the murders. Sorry for any confusion!

    • GregB says:

      Yes, but you know the old saying…”garbage in, garbage out”? Well, if you feed garbage into any equation, you will find more of the same. Numerous people said they saw no cut on Simpson that night, though they were easily close enough to tell (asking autographs, taking luggage, handing him plane tickets etc.). So no cut, no OJ the Murderer.

      Now I invite you to look at that actual so-called “bloody trail” with drops supposedly on the left of the footprints. If you examine the prosecution’s exhibit, you’ll find something rather odd–as in, there IS no such trail. There is but one drop that can be plausibly considered as falling from a bleeding left hand–until, as was testified by the anti-Simpson FBI witness–you learn that there in fact two trips taken by the killer that night along that same path. So it is just as plausible that the murder bled from the RIGHT hand, or while holding a knife or glove in EITHER hand, or in his mouth, or even it fell from his arm (RIGHT or LEFT) and so forth.

      No, this was just one of many instances where a “rush to judgment”, poor critical thinking, and confirmation bias lead to silly conclusions like that of your college prof. The cops learn OJ has a cut while coming back from Chicago? Well hey, that can only mean one thing–this is a bloody trail from a man wounded on his left hand!

      But it ain’t necessarily so…

  12. ChuckB says:

    This is a very interesting thread and remarkably clear of the vitriol found in most discussions of this case.

    I have always maintained that it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if, at his acquittal, OJ stood up and stated that he killed them both and not got away with it. That being said, it was never proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many, many things that just don’t add up. Mainly, not the presence of blood, but the lack of it. We were told that the killer left bloody footprints at the scene, yet there were none in the Bronco, not even a trace of blood (or sand/dirt from the scene) on the floorboards or pedals. Secondly, from what I understand and I may be in error, but the total amount of blood found in the Bronco was less than one drop of blood and it was found in locations that were either impossible or implausible for the killer to have left it. Thirdly, there was no blood found in OJ’s house (save for the several drops in the foyer), i.e., no blood on the carpets, no blood on the walls, light switches, door knobs, drains, shower, nowhere. Also, the magical appearance of blood where none was reported previously and the presence of EDTA in that blood.
    Finally, the timeline has always bothered me and the fact that the prosecution asked the jury to believe that this man committed this murder and was able to brilliantly dispose of bloody clothes and a murder weapon without them ever being found. While at the same time was inept enough to leave a hat and glove at the scene and a glove and the socks he wore to commit the crime, in plain sight at his home. Yes, there is evidence that points to his guilt, all circumstantial, but, and this is where his critics seem blind, there are plenty of pieces of evidence that point away from him or simply are too incredible to lend any credence to.

  13. rick says:

    The thing that gets me is this.The prosecution claims OJ went to a McDonalds with Kato dressed in a jogging suit,sweat socks and running shoes.They arrived back home at 9:45.Then OJ changed into dress socks and expensive Italian dress shoes,kept his jogging suit on,put on a hat and gloves to kill his wife.Then got into a 5 to 15 minute vicious fight with Ron without getting a mark on him,drove home with 1 glove on and 1 glove off,parked without the limo driver hearing him pull up(the limo driver said it was a quite night and the Bronco had a loud engine),then jumped the wall and dropped the glove,never bothered to pick it up,went into the house and changed back into jeans and running shoes again.Doesn,t make much sense.Surprised no one talks about that.

    • Brian says:

      Well, murder is an ugly business. I fully believe Mr. Simpson committed these murders and I’m sure he was in shock in the immediate aftermath. Losing a hat and glove could easily happen. Oh, and there’s no way the murder of Ron Goldman took 5-15 minutes. It was over almost as soon as the first fatal stab wound was inflicted. He was bleeding heavily and wouldn’t have been able to last long.

      Answer me this: what do you think the odds are that the killer would walk away from the crime scene, dripping blood from the left side of his body, and the next day Mr. Simpson has a cut on his left hand that he can’t fully explain? Just wondering.

      • GregB says:

        “Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own facts.” — Daniel Moynihan.

        I’m wonder if you got the point Rick was making. In fact, I’m being polite–I’m SURE you didn’t get it. It is utterly absurd to assume OJ would actively decide to put on loafers and dress socks and TAKE OFF sneakers and sweat socks in the course of preparing for a murder, actions that make it marginally harder to carry it out and vastly easier to pin upon him. The only context in which the murder clothes makes sense is one where the killer has most of the pieces with him as a matter of routine, and the murder a spontaneous act. That puny hat, those worn gloves, and the “ugly-ass shoes” did not fit OJ in that circumstance.

        Dr. Michal Baden went over his thoughts about how long Goldman survived, and pegged the time at 5 minutes or so. It is impossible to know exactly, but there is too much disruption around the crime scene to think he was dropped quickly like you suggest. There was blood sprayed on plants 6 feet above the ground, churned up dirt everywhere, and footprints to match along with scattered keys, pager and envelope. Now, if the killer is struck hard with Goldman’s fist (as the evidence suggests), and if Goldman is also able to grab the killer’s body and yank off a tight glove off his arm and hat off his head, why are there no bruises on OJ at all? No scratches on his arm, head, etc? Nothing but this one cut on his knuckle…

        As for your question–well, I don’t have to wonder. Clearly you didn’t read the earlier post I made on this subject.

        So, to spell it out, let’s play a game. You take a gun and shoot it, in any direction you like. Then I’ll take a pen and draw a circle around where it strikes. Then we’ll agree that you’ve hit the bullseye. You will never miss that way. And that’s what the cops and the pros did, shoehorning crime scene evidence with the early knowledge that Simpson was cut on his hand (which he DID explain, a cut in his hotel room in Chicago).

        The fact is (again) there is no such bloody trail–the blood drops fit a wound from either side of the body, or even no particular side.

        Go look at the exhibit if you don’t believe me.

  14. GregB says:

    Oh, some of us have been talking about it all right. 😉 But you are correct, those who insist OJ is guilty DEFINITELY do not want to think too closely about ANY of those exact things you mention, because when you do you start to see how the mountain of evidence is really a mound of gravel.

    It’s simply nuts to think he would switch into clothing that are both less suitable for combat AND far more likely to be tied to him. It’s nuts to think he would take a souvenir along which can and ultimately will be used against him, the 2nd glove, instead of ditching it with all the other gory stuff. Alan Park never once saw a Bronco parked at that home, either before arriving nor upon exiting the Rockingham gate on the way to LAX–and he was very much on the lookout for any sign of his famous ride. How can OJ decide, upon leaving Rockingham, to rev up that boisterous car and zip over for a little bit of wifey-murder when at any moment any number of friends or acquaintances might show up to visit, or Kato might up and go out for a date, or a snack, or a stroll, or a neighbor pull out the driveway etc. and notice the missing car, see it driving on the way back, or hear it upon arrival?

  15. D Drongesen says:

    I was in LA the weekend this happened and I want to know how OJ could have done it if the ice cream on the banister was still frozen when the bodies were discovered it was over 100 degrees that day!!!! How about looking at AC Cowlings and Kato! With all that blood whoever killed them had to be covered in it too so OJ’s car would have had more blood in it!

    • OneOfTheSmartOnes says:

      It’s like the old saying, “you only see what you want to see,” and selective hearing applies to this as well. There were a lot of evidence that was presented and did not make sense, but because people presumed OJ was guilty they went with it even if it was incogitable, such as the blood stains on the sock. The pattern of splatter is beyond belief yet it was entered into evidence and people believed that one can have blood spatter on a sock match the opposite side in-between a leg. But no one is quick to really debate this and all the anti-OJ haters will ignore that face and bring up that OJ lawyers made their case about race. Does this make any sense? There is evidence that would exonerated OJ was not entered into evidence steamed rolled by the prosecution. If anti-OJ haters are so right that he’s guilty why not debate the things that are logical??? Such as OJ having no bruising? Or what about the many state’s witnesses that lied under oath? Yet, the OJ haters will only talk about jurors being so incompetent. There were so many things wrong with this trial. And it is very disgusting.

      • GregB says:

        Yeah, you see that everywhere, people who are 100% convinced he is guilty, and so just like Vincent Bugliosi they just declare their belief and wave off any real discussion of the case. You see it in this thread from the two most recent anti-OJ posters. It’s as if their brains would explode if that 100% were somehow reduced! lol

  16. smdh says:

    On o.j.i dont really feel like race shoudnt play a role i dont think he killed her i think he hiden something much more something that he is will to take the blame for

  17. Joseph Pedulla says:

    Greg B: Let’s play another game. Let’s say that what O.J. told Lange and Vannatter was never said. Let’s pretend that O.J. did not tell Lange and Vannatter that he cut himself on the night of the murders BEFORE he ever left for Chicago! Read the interrogation again. He cut himself BEFORE he left for Chicago. And as no one saw any cut on him when he left the recital–and we have video that pretty clearly shows there was no bandage on his finger then–we can assume with certainty that he cut that finger that night. Tell me something: what are the odds of someone’s cutting his finger as he did on the very same night his wife is killed? Not just the very same night, but the very same hour? The odds are astronomically against such a thing’s happening.

    • Rick says:

      Joseph – The defenders of OJ (like Republicans) don’t live in a fact-based world. I would venture to say that the jurors would have found OJ not guilty even if OJ had been filmed in HD stabbing and killing Ron and Nicole.

  18. Joseph Pedulla says:

    O.J.’s having no bruising? Have you ever fought someone with a knife? Have you ever tried not to get stabbed to death? Consult your own instinct for a second: would you fight offensively or defensively? Be honest. It’s defensively, of course. You would be backing away. But what if there was no place to back away to? You would get stabbed to death. And there would be no bruises on your assailant, either. Remember, he’s the one with the knife. You are the one trying not to get cut. You will say, of course, that Goldman was a black belt. First, not all black belts are killing machines, despite what Hollywood shows us. Even black belts are afraid of a knife. I am a black belt, and I can tell you this honestly. The only was Goldman could have survived that fight was if he had fought from the ground. If I am attacked with a knife, I immediately go to the ground, because from there I can kick and break the assailant’s shins, and my life would then be saved. It is very difficult not to get stabbed when one is backed into a corner and there is no place to go. I am in no way surprised that O.J. was unbruised. But let’s be honest. Most O.J. supporters would not have been convinced by bruising, either. After all, they are not the least swayed by the fact that his finger is cut on the exact same night–and perhaps same hour!!!–as his wife is murdered. You don’t get cuts like that chipping golf balls in your back yard. Or sleeping. I’m not sure O.J. quite got his story straight on that. I have tried chipping golf balls when asleep, but it didn’t work out for me too well.

  19. Joseph Pedulla says:

    Here we go again with the “less than one drop of blood in the Bronco” myth. Are we all aware that there were over twenty drops of blood in the Bronco and that Fung stopped his collection when he had gathered what he thought was a representative sampling? There were many more drops he could have collected but did not need to. This myth about one drop of blood was something concocted by Scheck and Cochran. There was no truth to it. It was not the only thing the defense lied to the jury about.

  20. Joseph Pedulla says:

    Most, if not all of the injuries to Goldman’s hands are beneath the first and biggest knuckles. They are cuts and abrasions below those knuckles. Look at the photos and see. Those are not the sort of bruises one gets from punching. The most damage is sustained by the primary knuckles, the large knuckles that are closes to the main body of the hand. By comparison, the injuries to those knuckles of Goldman’s hands were slight.

  21. Kyle E Amidon says:

    Rick you’re amazing! Can you add me on Facebook or…email me or something.

    • Rick says:

      So you like my comment about the “defenders of OJ”? I notice that there’s yet another documentary on OJ that just started on ABC: “OJ: Made in America.” We’ll have to see if this latest series is as compelling as the recent dramatic series, “People v. O.J. Simpsaon: An American Crime Story.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.